Category Archives: Press Fraud

“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.

Media Matrix: an ancient Tibetan perspective on the evening network news

by Jon Rappoport

November 6, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

“A long time ago, teachers and students in Tibet considered themselves artists of reality. They practiced inventing it. And then, separating themselves from every other spiritual system, they practiced destroying what they created. Back and forth, back and forth, with the goal of achieving an intimate knowledge of their own existence.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Television news is about giving the viewer a dose of mind control, but what’s the underlying principle?

Answer: Something is better than nothing.

Corollary: A lot of something is better than even a little bit of nothing.

Imagine this: an elite television news anchor just sits there in front of the camera for a half-hour. Silently.

People watching this would start to get very antsy. They would feel anger and rage building up inside them.

Why?

What’s wrong with nothing? Why is it so maligned?

“And now, tonight, we have no news to report. Nothing happened today.”

What??

“He’s crazy. He’s a lunatic. Get him off the air. He’s making me feel…”

Making the viewer feel what? And why?

For the early Tibetan adepts, the Void was a vital concept.

Stripped of its metaphysical baggage and embroidery, Void was the place where creating stopped. The constant “noise of existence” went away.

The ongoing parade of inner thoughts, sentiments, propensities—vanished.

For as long as a person wanted to stay there. And experience the greatest “vacation” he’d ever known. If he could handle it.

But humans felt a great need to avoid the Void. They demanded activity, flow, information.

They eventually sank to the level of passivity…and then they simply wanted input, more input, and still more input.

From an authoritative unimpeachable external source.

Hence, from the earliest societies onward, there was a thing called: the news.

It was updated. It was ongoing. It was forever.

Priests delivered it. Kings delivered it. Their minions delivered it.

If the news stopped, people felt anxiety, which, at bottom, was a fear of Void.

There is much more to say about the Tibetans and their understanding of Void and its twin, ongoing Creation, but I’ll save that for another time.

Now, in these times, the global population has television news.

The imitations of life called anchors are the arbiters. How they speak, how they look, how they themselves experience emotion—all this is planted deep in the minds of the viewers.

Much of the world can’t imagine the evening news could look and sound any other way.

That’s how solid the long-term brainwashing is.

The elite anchors, from John Daly, in the early days of television, all the way to Lester Holt and Scott Pelley, have set the style. They define the genre.

The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience’s psyche that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect. (In the Void, of course, cause and effect dissolve.)

The network anchor is the wizard of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable truth.

Ultimately, he is paving over Void.

On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.

This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.

All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion. These days, it was, until his downfall, Brian Williams.

The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor great. Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow. Huntley was a just a touch too masculine, so they teamed him up with David Brinkley, a medium-boiled egg. Brinkley supplied twinkles of comic relief.

There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”

Television news is really all segue all the time. That’s what it comes down to.

The word “segue,” pronounced “segway,” refers to a transition from one thing to another, a blend.

Ed McMahon once referred to Johnny Carson as the prince of blends, because Carson could tell a clunker of a joke, step on it three times, and still move to the next joke without losing his audience.

Television news is very serious business. A reporter who can’t handle segues is dead in the water. He’s a gross liability.

The good anchors can take two stories that have no connection whatsoever and create a sense of smooth transition.

Brian Williams could say, “The planes were recalled later in the afternoon…And a man was cut in two in a horrific accident in Idaho today…And in Seattle (smile), three people reported seeing turtles falling from the sky.”

And it works. The segue works. The blends from one story to another seem reasonable somehow.

The networks basically have, on a daily basis, radically fragmented stories, and they need an anchor who can do the blends, the segues, and get away with it, to promote the sense of one continuous flow. So the audience doesn’t say, “This is just an odd collection of surreal moments, this is Salvador Dali on my television screen.”

The news is all segue all the time.

Not just nationally. On the local level, too. The pounding lead-in music at the top of the show prepares the audience. A) Music. B) “Tonight, our top story: a man ate a hot dog and died …”

The voice of the anchor is the non-stop blending machine that ties all news stories together. That’s why the elite network stars earn their paychecks.

Good segue people are stage magicians. They can move the viewer’s attention from item A to item B without a tremor or a doubt.

The segue, the blend not only connects wildly disparate pieces, it keeps the viewer from brushing up against the Void. The blend is the primary mechanism for creating an endless river of “information” linoleum with no cracks.

It’s often been said of certain actors, “He could read from the phone book and you’d listen.” Well, an elite anchor can hold the viewer’s mind as he reads a sentence from the phone book, another one from a car-repair manual, a third from a cookbook, and a fourth from a funeral-home brochure. Without stopping.

And afterward, the viewer would have no questions.

The news is surreal because the stories are mostly fool’s gold to begin with; and they’re unrelated. They’re rocks lying around. The anchor picks them up and invents the illusion of One Flowing Stream.

This is what the audience wants. The news feels like a story. It feels like unity. It feels like a stage play or a movie. It feels, when all is said and done, good.

You can’t pull just anyone off the street and have him describe car crashes, murders, storms, threats of war, political squabbles, 300 cats living in a one-room apartment, a new piece of Medicare legislation, genitalia picture tweets, and the dedication of a new library, while keeping the audience in a light trance.

Katie Couric couldn’t do it. People were waiting for her to break out into an attack of Perky and giggle and cross her legs. Diane Sawyer had her bad nights. She seemed to be affecting somber personal grief as her basic segue-thread. Scott Pelley is competent, but he has his off-moments, too, when he’s suddenly sitting like a surgeon ready to signal the anesthesiologist to clamp a mask on your face, before he cuts into your stomach.

Whereas, a true version of the news would go something like this: “Well, folks, just now I moved from a tornado in Kansas to the removal of restrictions on condom sales, and I’m blending directly into penguins in Antarctica. I’m doing Salvador Dali and you’re not noticing a thing.”

The anchor is basically saying to the audience, “I’m a few feet inside your personal landscape, your mind, feeding you all the turns in the river, and I’ll always be here…papering over the Void.”

Exit From the Matrix

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

Elite anchors invent and maintain certain tones of voice, certain rhythms, certain cadences, certain variations of musical pitch, in order to sustain the sense of continuity.

They’re mechanics of voice.

They use their skills to report the false facts handed down to conceal ops and staged events.

They can know they’re actors on television, but they can believe (in direct contradiction) they’re delivering the truth.

“Okay, look,” the producer says to the veteran actor he’s interviewing for the lead, in a billion-dollar production called the news. “This may sound strange, but you’re going to have to do Normal as it’s never been done before. That’s what the audience wants. You’ve got to come across as very, very smart and very, very Normal. Get it? Pretend you’re the brain of every other brain. You’re the conscience of every other conscience. You’re just as walled off from the conspiracy to own every inch of America as Americans are walled off from knowing about it. You know as little as they do. You’re clean, sanitary, loyal as a dog, dumb as fog but very smart. You spew absolute nonsense every second of your time on stage, but it sounds eminently plausible. You constantly change subjects, and the subjects are in no way related to each other, but you make it all Liquid Flow. It’s a joke. But you’re serious. And you’ll get rich.”

And people, with their inordinate and strange fear of dropping down into the gorgeous silence of Void, will watch and listen. They’ll roll up their sleeves and shoot themselves up with the news every night.

Here’s a parting tidbit: The early Tibetans, with their stout, strong, and implacable techniques and exercises, were artists of reality. They were saying, “If you practice inventing reality to the hilt, with great intensity, and then practice not inventing it, you’ll grasp the twin pillars of this existence. You’ll become immune to fear of the Void. You’ll recognize bullshit, on both the daily and cosmic levels, as you’ve never known them before. As a side effect, you’ll be able to analyze information with a keener gaze than you imagined was possible.”

Or you can have the network evening news.

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 OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

“Coming up after the break, more mind control. Stay with us.”

“Coming up after the break, more mind control. Stay with us.”

by Jon Rappoport

November 3, 2015

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

“What is as yet uncreated in the imagination of The Individual is the most potent force in this or any other universe. And to make things even clearer, the failure to understand that fact constitutes the most potent form of mind control in existence.” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

If an elite news anchor delivered the same “vital information” from a cheap motel room, with one camera, no field reporters, no graphics, no music, and if he wore street clothes instead of an expensive suit, who would believe him? Who would believe his information if they didn’t know who he was?

“I swear, I’m the national CBS news anchor. I swear it. I am.”

“Sure, pal. And I’m Cary Grant, after I’ve had a few drinks.”

Television News.

What does the viewer want?

The viewer wants Story. Beginning, middle, end.

It’s such a deep mind program, few people question it. “Why would I want anything else? That’s what a Story is. Beginning, middle, end. What else is there?”

However, it turns out that television news does not cover events in that fashion. Rarely is a story wrapped up. Rarely are things taken to a conclusion.

Rather, it is the news broadcast itself that is the story. It is the show that has a beginning, middle, and end. Six o’clock to 6:30. Eleven to 11:30.

This is quite an accomplishment. Networks make their own broadcasts the central story.

Viewer: “Well, tonight they covered about 10 different things. When I think about it, they left me hanging on at least eight of those. But I do know the news started at six and it ended at 6:30. That’s good. I got my daily fill.”

Every night: the illusion of beginning, middle, and end.

The role of the anchor is to impart the impression that everything he’s talking about is important. It doesn’t matter whether it is. It doesn’t matter whether a particular story is covered to a conclusion. It doesn’t matter in what order the little stories are presented. It doesn’t matter how many lies are embedded in the broadcast.

It only matters that the anchor can deliver the impression of importance.

Viewer: “I watched the news tonight. It was important.”

An interesting thing happened during the most recent Republican Presidential debate: the candidates turned against the network moderators (“anchors”). The candidates assailed the moderators for asking ridiculous questions. They broke the spell.

This was not supposed to happen.

Or was it?

The overall impression of the debate was chaos, as if the event were nothing more than a cheap argument in a bar.

The cheesy display was promoted by moderator questions. Absurd questions. “Tell us your biggest weakness, in thirty seconds.” That was the first question of the night. Apparently, the moderators were trying to revive encounter groups of the 1970s, or were fronting for Chinese-style self-criticism campaigns.

And then the candidates were asked to discuss problems connected with burgeoning fantasy football betting sites. I’m surprised nothing came up about deflated footballs or who favored the Broncos over the Packers.

It was either a major display of idiocy and incompetence, or an effort by the CNBC people to cast all the Republican candidates in a decidedly unfavorable light.

Something else is happening, as well. With the rise of alt. news sites on the Web, enormous bottom-up pressure is building, and mainstream news is feeling the effects. Their con game isn’t working so well anymore. So they’re grasping at straws, any straws, trying to hold on to their audience. Their financial bottom lines are sinking. They’re decades-long hypnosis program is falling apart.

For example, untold millions of people now know that the upcoming climate summit in Paris is going to be the occasion for forcing global energy cutbacks—but of course the major media aren’t covering this with any vigor. Neither are they covering exactly how Obama intends to eliminate Congress’ role in approving such an international agreement.

The television viewer is expected to sit still for the mind programming of the news. But that egg is showing cracks.

However, the viewer still has a vested interest in fake network news. It allows him to do: nothing. In other words, if he knew how absurd and insane the news really was, he would feel an unbidden urge to take action—and then he would really feel lost.

Why? Because he would see himself as just one person up against the gigantic machine, system, establishment.

What I’ve pointing out in one fashion or another for the last several years is: THIS IS A FALSE CONSTRUCT.

It’s not “one person up against the whole system.”

It’s one person who has yet to deploy his imagination.

What?

That’s right.

This is something to ponder deeply. A human being has no idea what he is capable of as long as he is cut off from his own imagination. And, being cut off from his own (unlimited) imagination is THE DEEPEST FORM OF MIND CONTROL ON THE PLANET.

I repeat: a single human being has no idea what he is capable of, when he is cut off from his own imagination. He has no idea what he is capable of creating.

He will, instead, see himself, like a tiny cipher, arrayed against the power of The State and its allies.

He will not be able to see things any other way.

Thus, he will prefer to accept whatever lies the news dispenses, in order to maintain the fantasy that things are basically all right and under control.

This deplorable situation also applies to many people who have seen through lies and false realities and recognize something about how the planet is being run:

They see themselves as very, very small, when it comes to “confronting the powers-that-be.” They too have not connected with their own imaginations; and they too would disparage any attempt to encourage that connection.

So be it.

exit from the matrix

But there are others who conceive of their own creative power far differently. They may not have embarked on that road, but they sense it is without limits. They want whatever that is.

It turns out there are many such people all over the world.

There are thousands and thousands of ways of outflanking the powers-that-be. They exist, in a form of potentiality, in the imaginations of individuals. There is no list. No one can predict what can be imagined and created.

This is the opportunity.

This is the difference between today and tomorrow.

This is the potential of the endless cascade, against which the masters who desire unlimited rule would stand no chance.

Jon Rappoport

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

What you’re supposed to think vs. what you think

What you’re supposed to think vs. what you think

by Jon Rappoport

October 4, 2015

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

I could trace my 30 years of investigative reporting as one long project emanating from what people are supposed to think.

What they’re supposed to think about nuclear weapons, pesticides, medical drugs, vaccines, presidential elections, major media, the CIA, US foreign policy, mega-corporations, brain research, collectivism, surveillance, psychiatry, immigration…

In each case, there are a set of messages broadcast to the population. These messages are projected to replace what people would think on their own, if left to their own devices.

And in many cases, these messages have the same underlying theme: feel unlimited sympathy.

Feel unlimited sympathy or else.

In the area of immigration, for example, people are supposed to welcome endless numbers of refugees to their shores and cities and towns.

If they don’t put out the welcome sign, they’re evil, they’re cold, they’re “capitalists,” they’re unloving, they’re cruel, inhumane.

They’re immune to proper feelings of guilt and shame.

There is also an interesting guilty “we” attached to the issue. “We” invaded other countries, “we” bombed populations, imposed devastating economic sanctions, launched corporate takeovers—and therefore “we” should now open our doors to these refugees.

The government didn’t do these things. The State didn’t do these things. “We” did.

“We” is a very, very popular collectivist concept. It assigns massive guilt, while somehow exonerating the political leaders of the collective.

“We” is a great cheese glob that envelops all of us. “We” is a metaphysical construct that replaces “I.” There is no “I.”

Therefore, what some “deluded individual” might think and decide and determine on his own—which could very well run counter to the “we”—is irrelevant.

When it’s time to undertake wars on a grand scale, there is a George Bush who announces what the “we” wants. And when it’s time for the guilt and the sympathy and the bleeding heart, there is an Obama who announces what the “we” wants.

In general, the “we” is there to convince the individual that he is useless and powerless against the advancing cheese glob. He need not bother thinking what he really thinks, because it would make zero difference. Much better to become part of the “huddled mass,” waiting for instructions on how best to serve humanity.

Logic, rational consideration, the ability to analyze a line of thought and find flaws and gaps and deceptions? An outmoded concept that doesn’t apply to the “we.”

You see, the “we” is something quite different. It proceeds by a) committed aggression or b) endless sympathy, depending on what is called for by our leaders.

It moves like inexorable lava slowly leaking away from a volcano. The glob.

It needs no individual intelligence. Making distinctions is unnecessary.

And, one thinks, perhaps the solution to this wretched state of affairs is finding a different “we” to belong to. That will solve the whole problem.

But the underlying solution, as formidable as it may seem, is: dismantle the whole “we.” Expose it for what it is. And reinstate the individual and what he does think, as opposed to what he should think.

The cheese glob, the lava glob, the advancing fungus is the false construct. It was put there and massaged and stimulated to engage the individual and make him think he was excessively “privileged.” He was an outsider who couldn’t see the need and the joy of “belonging.”

He was behaving like a criminal, even a terrorist. He was detracting from the power and the warmth and the humanity of the collective hearth.

What most people take to be Reality is actually invented for the “we.”

And to take all this a step further, Reality is meant to distract the individual from discovering the depth of his own power, which is to say, creative power.

Every organized religion, every State, every so-called spiritual system and philosophy is built to derail the individual in this way.

exit from the matrix

After all, Reality points to itself. Reality says, “Look at this. Look at me. Understand me. This is what you need to focus on. This is all there is.”

And so it seems the main attribute of the individual is “perceiving what is.” Perceiving Reality.

However, detaching one’s self from that prescription reveals another opportunity, vast in its possibilities:

The ability to analyze the “we” and its many messages and discover what they are and how they are designed—and the capacity to imagine and invent new independent realities without end.

The scope and range of what the individual can do, in this regard, is limited only by: what he can imagine.

The psyop of all psyops seeks to bury this fact.

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.