Category Archives: Press Fraud

If a mainstream reporter told the truth

If a mainstream reporter told the truth

the pillars of reality would crumble

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2015

“Imagine this. The public is told a new disease is sweeping the world, threatening the global population with suffering and death. Millions and millions of words are spewed, detailing and reinforcing the threat. Every day, official reports are issued, blaring the new numbers of cases. Researchers are rushing to develop an effective vaccine. And then, suddenly, someone discovers there is no epidemic. It doesn’t exist. What would happen?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Telling the truth, of course, must lead to publishing the truth.

And then follow-up investigations would be done to flesh out the story further; to prompt people with inside knowledge to emerge from their closets and confess their complicity.

I’m talking about a certain kind of truth, whereby a sacred cow is destroyed; the kind of cow everyone immediately believes is self-evident, universal, and vital, representing the best motives and impulses of people in power.

That kind of sacred cow.

A cow holding up the world, so to speak.

Destroyed.

There are many important lies that don’t quite rate that status. If they were exposed to the light of day, people would say, “Yes, it’s shocking, but we always had doubts.”

And life would go on.

A monumental sacred cow has the quality of being believed in the same way people believe the sun will come up in the morning.

Therefore, when it falls, the shock is volcanic.

However, I need to add this disclaimer. Most minds and eyeballs simply don’t notice the sacred cow falling and shattering like porcelain. It happens, but it doesn’t draw attention because people will do anything they can to maintain their grip on illusion.

It would take something on the order of Kansas disappearing off the map overnight to arouse the population—and even then, large numbers of people would claim it didn’t happen, because it couldn’t happen.

So now I’ll describe an example.

In the summer of 2009, the world was agog as a sweeping pandemic called Swine Flu invaded their lives. The virus said to be responsible for this catastrophe was H1N1.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), whose job was to report numbers of cases, claimed there were roughly ten thousand Swine Flu victims in America.

Understand: getting the numbers right was the CDC’s prime task. In the absence of doing that, they had no reason to exist as an agency tracking an epidemic.

In the fall of 2009, a CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, discovered something quite strange. She hit the motherlode of a scandal:

Back in July, the CDC had stopped counting Swine Flu cases.

The agency didn’t make this public. It didn’t put out the story to reporters. But Attkisson found out the truth.

She went further. She uncovered the reason the CDC stopped counting.

Here is what Attkisson wrote, on October 21, 2009, in an article posted on the CBS News website, titled, “Swine Flu Cases Overestimated?”:

“If you’ve been diagnosed ‘probable’ or ‘presumed’ 2009 H1N1 or ‘swine flu’ in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn’t have H1N1 [Swine] flu. In fact, you probably didn’t have flu at all.”

“That’s according to state-by-state test results obtained in a three-month-long CBS News investigation.”

“In late July, the CDC abruptly advised states to stop testing for H1N1 [Swine] flu, and stopped counting individual cases. The rationale given for the CDC guidance to forego testing and tracking individual cases was: why waste resources testing for H1N1 flu when the government has already confirmed there’s an epidemic?”

“…we [CBS News] asked all 50 states for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 [Swine Flu cases] prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July. The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico.”

And the staggering capper on this tale? Roughly three weeks after Attkisson’s Swine Flu revelations appeared in print, the CDC, obviously in great distress over the exposure, decided to double down. The best lie to tell would be a huge lie.

Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon)

I interviewed Sharyl Attkisson. She told me the following:

“…we discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was ‘the most original story’ he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others [at CBS] pushed to stop it and, in the end, no [CBS television news] broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It [Attkisson’s investigation] was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.”

In other words, the whole Swine Flu episode was a dud. A hoax.

It was exposed on the CBS News website. Beyond that, it never became a big story at CBS or any other major mainstream outlet in the world. It was squashed.

To receive the full force of this hoax, you need to understand that so-called epidemics are very big business. Vaccine business. Pharma business. Government business.

When those governments announce an epidemic, the public believes. The belief is on the order of religious faith. It is also scientific faith. Once announced, there is no going back. These “epidemics” are, like major banks, too big to fail.

But Swine Flu did fail. Right out in the open. On the CBS News website. It was exposed as a grand hoax.

Realizing what they had just let happen, CBS dropped the curtain. There would be no follow-up. The story wouldn’t make it on to the national evening television broadcast.

And most of the people who read the story on the CBS website would blink and move on. Their minds wouldn’t register the implications. Kansas had just disappeared, but for them it was still there.

That’s how consensus reality operates. It’s there even when it isn’t. It’s there even after it’s been axed, sawed, dissolved.

It’s the proverbial bad penny that keeps coming back. It keeps showing up.

the matrix revealed

The public is married to the whole idea of viruses. Viruses are embraced as basic seeds of medical reality. From those seeds bloom all sorts of unshakable facts about illness. Virus does this, virus causes that, prevent virus from taking hold with a shot—news about viruses is as commonplace and familiar as pots and pans are in kitchens. “Everybody knows about viruses.”

Of course, everybody doesn’t know about viruses, but they think they do.

And here is a case, Swine Flu, where what everybody knew as a fundamental fact of reality was wrong.

The virus wasn’t there.

As a researcher once wrote me, “Pepsi, Coke, McDonald’s, ice cream, viruses. They’re the pillars, the foundation stones. But you’d be surprised how often we’re guessing about viruses. We say they’re there, causing a disease. We give a name to the disease, and the public salutes. We’re taking a stab in the dark. If we admitted it, our whole operation would crash…”

You can doubt what the President is saying. You can doubt the Congress, the FBI, the CIA, and the IRS. You can doubt all the mega-corporations. You can doubt Mickey Mouse and the Pope. But when you doubt viruses, you’re committing heresy, because medical science is a super-religion. Its basic tenets are “self-evident.” They must be. They have to be.

Especially when they aren’t.

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.

Joe Biden: wackadoodle now “serious candidate”

Biden: wackadoodle now serious presidential candidate

by Jon Rappoport

September 8, 2015

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

A few years back, the press was lampooning Joe Biden at every turn. They loved to quote his gaffes:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” (about Barack Obama, January 31, 2007)

“You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent…. I’m not joking.” (2006)

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’” (2008)

There was no commercial television when the market crashed in 1929, and Roosevelt wasn’t president then.

A few years ago, Biden was considered an inept clown. The fact that he was a heartbeat away from the presidency was something people didn’t want to think about at all. As commander-in-chief, he might punch in the codes for a nuclear attack while thinking he was calling his wife about dinner.

And now…Biden is a serious candidate for the Oval Office.

I mention all this for one reason. The mainstream press was on the same page then (inept clown), and is on the same page now (serious candidate).

How interesting. One might infer all the networks and the major papers are working from the same script.

They’re pushing Biden because he could take Primary votes away from Bernie Sanders and thus leave a clear trail for Hillary to the nomination? Perhaps.

Whatever the reason, the press operates in unison. And not just in this case.

On most major stories, CBS, NBC, and ABC come to the same conclusions. Viewers are so used to it they don’t think it’s odd. But it is very odd. Unanimous consensus should be the exception, not the rule.

However, if the big three networks routinely disagreed on major stories, the effect would be catastrophic for the advancement of mind control. Viewers would be forced to think, compare, contrast, consider.

That is a no-no.

The mainstream game is the manufacture of seeming difference—“well, we have three separate major television networks”— when in fact there is one network.

What about FOX? It appears to represent the anti-Democrat point of view. But in forwarding a Republican agenda, it fosters its own illusion of difference. Why? Because on key issues (e.g., big government, Globalism, militarized police forces, the primacy of the medical cartel), the two major Parties are not different; they are on the same page.

The Biden story proves the networks can simultaneously change their minds (from “idiot” to “capable”) without even blinking, without even a moment of embarrassment.

“Look, Bob, just a year ago we were saying Biden was deranged. Now we want to make him a statesman? Isn’t that a risk? I mean, don’t we look like fools?”

“Don’t worry, Chet. People don’t remember what they had for breakfast yesterday. It’s not a problem. And we can always double back and call him an idiot again if we want to.”

power outside the matrix

But isn’t it obvious we’re pushing Biden so he can take Primary votes away from Bernie Sanders and hand Hillary the nomination?”

“It might be obvious to you, but you’re a reporter, and you know how to keep your mouth shut. Let’s just say, as far as Biden is concerned, the situation is fluid. We can make him into anything we want to. Clown, statesman, Obama’s choice, foreign policy expert, idiot, Party hack, Senator with a long and distinguished record, wackadoodle.”

“My wife doesn’t like him. He came up behind her at a party, put his arms around her and kissed her on the neck.”

“Yeah. If need be, we can find women who’ll call him a serial sexual harasser. It all depends.”

“Depends on what?”

“Our marching orders.”

“From whom?”

“Just kidding. Let’s get a drink.”

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

September 2, 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)

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. 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.

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 and authentic 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 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 free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Elections in Australia, Canada, England, Germany, Netherlands

by Jon Rappoport

September 1, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

“National election campaigns are media events. Media run them. Media pump ratings. They produce the soap opera. They construct the illusion. Many people hate hearing this, because they prefer to believe the few candidates who can actually win are real. No one with that much face time on national television is real.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

I’ve just completed a flurry of articles on how elections work as media events in the US (archived here, under “elections”). But why leave out other countries, where the process is essentially the same?

You have to look at these major election seasons as television series produced by the major networks.

Then it begins to make sense.

The casting of characters tends to follow the same pattern, over and over. You have two major candidates (for president, premier, prime minister). Writing their parts is a bit of a challenge, because any intelligent person can see there is really not much to choose between them.

That’s a ratings killer. The networks need opposition and sharp differences. So while both of these “leaders,” behind the scenes, are Globalists and favor huge corporations and huge government bureaucracies, “free trade,” sending jobs overseas where workers will toil for virtually no pay in execrable conditions, etc., the networks will find issues on which they disagree.

Then you have a cast of minor characters running for the top office in the land. A couple of them are fiery and feisty, more “radical” or “radically conservative” in their views. They’ll never make it, but hope springs eternal, and a significant proportion of the population is drawn to them—for a while.

The television networks, as usual, adopt the horse race mode of reporting. Because, when all is said and done, that’s the main theme: who is going to win? Who really cares about exploring the issues in depth? There’s no juice or excitement there.

But watching two creatures gallop along a track toward the finish line moves the adrenaline.

And the networks, day after day, can point to what the candidates are doing or wearing or saying that is affecting their position in the race.

Did candidate A just utter a possibly politically incorrect phrase? Let’s interview three experts and find out.

Did candidate B once have dinner with a financier who cheated investors out of their life savings? No? It was lunch? A brief breakfast? Hmm. A professor of statistics explains how long a brief breakfast averages out to be.

Why has candidate A shifted from wearing blue to red?

To bolster all this, we have the polls, which seem to be taking place three times a day. Numbers to report. Breakdowns of the numbers in key voter areas of the country.

Meanwhile, the networks keep searching out differences between candidates A and B. A’s wet dream is wholescale bombing missions. B prefers thousands of drone strikes. Of course, this difference isn’t presented that way. B is a “peace candidate.” A is a “hawk.”

A wants the “free market.” B wants government to create millions of new jobs. On closer inspection, they’re both pushing the dominance of mega-corporations. But there is no closer inspection in the television series called Election.

At the root of all this insanity is the fact that television networks produce the series. As long as the viewing audience tunes in, as long as the ratings are respectable, the illusion continues.

The viewer, the voter, projects his hopes and dreams on to the television image of a candidate. It never occurs to him that a) he is now a fan of a soap opera and b) his adored candidate is part of an immense political system in which only minor deviations from the norm are permitted.

Entering that system and participating in it is like walking into a tailor’s shop where, by magic, the customer (participant, candidate) automatically shrinks to half his former size in an instant. And from there it only gets worse.

Television is there to obscure the actual size of the political system and its culture. The soap opera highlights the two major characters (candidates), as if they alone can work great changes in the direction the oil tanker called Politics takes.

Television relies on the fact that a majority of the population favors watching competition— rather than learning about the collaboration, behind the scenes, between characters who seem to be on opposing sides.

The election IS television.

Why is that not understood?

Perhaps for the same reason people can sit in a dark movie theater and look up at a large screen and forget, for a few moments, that they are sitting in a movie theater.

They are captured by the story and the images and the characters. And they want to be captured and taken away.

They want to believe, in the case of elections, that they are participating in something important simply by watching television.

You might say election campaigns are the original reality-shows. They’re soap opera, but the main characters are not actors. (Of course, they are actors.)

Perhaps you remember the 1972 American film, The Candidate, starring Robert Redford. The key moment occurs as Redford, who is running for a seat in the US Senate, watches a commercial he claims to favor, one that expresses his real convictions. Within moments he realizes it’s a dud. He comes across as a stammering lightweight. No, from now on, he’ll have to accept ads in which he appears authoritative (but vague), on top of his game, and handsome. The die is cast. He is now an artifact of television.

And then there is the best film ever made about television: Network (1976), written by Paddy Chayefsky. The embittered, half-mad, disintegrating news anchor, Howard Beale, assaults his viewing audience:

“We deal in illusions, man…We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. In God’s name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion.”

Unfortunately, the television audience is insulted if someone tells them the characters they’re watching are synthetic and artificial.

Something strange is happening here. It’s more than the flicker of the images or the frequency or the brain wave-states television induces. It’s a counterpart to what people dream when they’re asleep.

The story lines of dreams, the vividness, the intimate proximity to characters.

At the extreme edge, it’s what makes people who watch candidates on television write them adoring fan letters (just as they write letters to convicted killers in prison). It’s what makes people dress up at night to sit in front of their sets and watch late-night talk-show hosts—as if the hosts could see them in their living rooms.

Truth may be stranger than fiction, but fiction is more compelling.

The whole television exhibition called Election is, in every moment, a living rolling artifice of melodrama. Staged from end to end.

Consider this exchange, in the 1997 film, Wag the Dog, between movie producer, Stanley Motss, and the shadowy White House agent, Conrad Brean:

Motss: What do you think about lining the President up for the Peace Prize?

Brean: Our job’s over come election day.

Motss: Yeah, but c’mon…

Brean: What, just for the symmetry of the thing? [Motss nods] Well, if Kissinger can win the Peace Prize, I wouldn’t be surprised if I woke up and found I’d won the Preakness.

Motss: Yeah, but our guy did bring peace.

Brean: There was never a war.

Motss: All the greater accomplishment.

The believable political face of the candidate is turned toward the camera, and television records it and sends it out to the millions. The other face, the secret face, is never shown on television; or if it is, the audience misses it, because they are trained to think only good political intentions are displayed on the screen. And they believe these intentions are the substance of election campaigns; the things worth voting for; the things the winners will try to bring into being in the world.

The audience believes television is democratic. Therefore, how could it deceive? Democracy is the only fair system ever devised.

Such illusions pile up and up.

When one fades, another takes its place.

power outside the matrix

Most citizens prefer to fight out elections inside the system ruled by television. They prefer to attack and defend the images on the screen.

And they prefer to imagine that the entire political landscape will make room for their hero, this one time, after which he will transform it.

Midway through my 1994 campaign for a seat in the US Congress, I woke up from my hallucination and realized that, if I won, my job ought to be exposing the corrupt system in the best way I could.

My job wouldn’t be battling for better legislation or more money for my constituents. It would solely consist of:

Renting large trucks we would drive slowly through the traffic-crowded streets of Washington DC, every day. Those trucks would sport huge posters on their sides:

“Corrupt Congressman of the Week” would be the headline, underneath which a photo of the man in question would float; and then: a list of bills he had voted on, and the money he’d received from the special interests to vote that way.

Every week, more trucks, new posters, new revelations, in the streets of the capital.

Biting the hand that feeds, biting the hand that takes.

Making it personal. Not abstract.

The television series called Election is dedicated to making candidates appear forward-looking. “Yes, mistakes have been made, but now things will be better.”

That delusion needs to be shattered. The system is so corrupt that attacking it and exposing it to extreme embarrassment is the only reasonable strategy.

It’s possible to get on television with that message, but only after forcing television to take notice and after staging a different kind of show.

Hence, the trucks. For starters.

Crack the delusion. Crack the egg.

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.

Is Trump a stage prop to hand Hillary the election?

Is Trump a stage prop to hand Hillary the election?

by Jon Rappoport

September 1, 2015

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

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

Like it or not, accept it or not, there is a code you have to crack, in order to understand big elections.

They’re fixed. And in this piece, I’m not talking about rigged voting machines. On psychological, mental, and spiritual levels, the fix is in, because of one overriding factor:

The voters are oh so sincere.

And they shouldn’t be. It’s killing them.

Yes, that’s right.

The media presentation called The Election is a straight con from the get-go. Anyone who is sucked into it is a rube, a yokel, a hick.

So the question about whether Donald Trump is running to suck votes away from other Republican candidates or win the nomination himself, in order to deliver the presidency to Hillary? That’s a non-starter.

Who cares? What are we talking about here?

What’s the alternative if Trump isn’t running? Jeb vs. Hillary in November? The Bush crime family versus the Clinton crime family? That would be the “good” election?

How many more of these hideous campaigns do we have to endure before people wake up to the con? A hundred? A thousand?

“This fall, it looks like Lizardi Venom and Scorpion Ooze are the two parties’ choices. It promises to be a tightly contested race. Mr. Venom, of course, is for a utopian social-justice meter installed in the brain of every citizen, while his opponent, Ms. Ooze, promises to place four million dollars in a special account for every person who claims he or she has been ‘injured, defamed, or insulted by the system’. Both candidates agree that sincere voters who care about the future of this great nation must come out to the polls on Election Day and make their voices heard…”

“But wait. Some billionaire cowboy with a very spotty past has entered the lists. He’s reckless. He’s all over the place. He’s insulting the sacred media stars. He’s ruining The Show. He’s making a mockery out of it. He’s torpedoing everybody. He’s scamming the scammers. He’s upsetting The Sincere Voters who believe in the system like babies believe in Mommy and Daddy. And some claim that—wait for it—the cowboy is there to deliver the election to Ms. Ooze instead of Mr. Venom. This is shocking, I tell you. Shocking. And there’s more. This cowboy has been charged with making promises he doesn’t intend to keep. My God. Has any candidate in recent memory done that? A revered critic for the New York Times, Calder A Hogsniffer, takes it a step further. Higsniffer proposes that the cowboy is, in fact, raising several legitimate issues, but by lending his name to them he is degrading those issues and postponing the day when they’ll be taken seriously by the electorate. Certainly, no presidential candidate has ever tried that before. Heavens no. This cowboy is, well, crashing the party and spoiling it for everybody.”

Yes, he is. It was serious and sober and on-track and oh-so-sincere before he came through the wall with his hair and his shit-eating grin and his guns blazing.

Before he showed up, we could attack Hillary and Jeb and argue about whether Rand (who’ll never make it) really has the right ideas, and we could argue about the niceties of Bernie’s version of socialism…and we could watch the whole election, as usual, go right down the toilet.

Then we would have fulfilled our duty to The Process and we could sit back and nod wisely. Yes.

But this slug Trump gets on television (which is of course the holy medium through which we understand the sacred sincere election process); Trump gets on television and seems to be assaulting television itself. And that’s going too far. That’s out of bounds. That’s putting an unharmonious disruption in The Field.

I mean, who knows? If he ever made it to the religious hush of the final debates, he might turn around and start lobbing grenades at the moderators, the high priests—Scott (“I’m doing brain surgery on you without anesthetic because I really want to”) Pelley; Lester (“I’ve been in a state of deep hypnosis since the early days of MKULTRA”) Holt; Wolf (“I made my reputation during the first war in the Persian Gulf because my name meshes nicely with the US bombing runs”) Blitzer.

Voters’ sincerity in this whole election story is a plague.

The voters believe in the media show. They believe in the major candidates. They believe campaign statements and promises and policy positions. They believe that stage magic is real and three-card monte on a streetcorner is an honest game.

power outside the matrix

The solution, of course, if it could be engineered, would be: stay home on Election Day.

That’s the sane course.

If, by some miracle, only 19% of eligible voters showed up at the polls, that would constitute a national vote of no-confidence. That would say: we don’t believe in this media-election-cartoon. We woke up. We saw the con and the shuck and the jive.

Washington DC would experience a psychotic break. It would unhinge.

The television networks would undergo collective cardiac arrest. Their produced series, called Election, bombed. It was a ratings disaster.

The plague of misplaced, puerile, glazed-over, low-IQ, idiots-delight sincerity would begin to cure itself.

But the likelihood of 80% of the voters staying home is 100000000000000 to 1. It’s too real an answer. It’s too effective. And it requires a depth of perception that bypasses thousands of propaganda terminals.

Major media in general, and television in particular, are set up to substitute for the eyes and ears and brains and minds of the populace. To the degree that Donald Trump can turn the game around and run for president against the media, he’s providing a public service, and I don’t care how many blanks he’s shooting when he says he stands for this and that.

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 about Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul?

What about Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul?

by Jon Rappoport

August 31, 2015

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

“If you discovered a major institution of society absolutely devoted to reducing humans down to androids, would you say that was a significant problem? Would you admit that institution could radically alter life and send it careening in the wrong direction?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

This article isn’t about campaign issues or policy issues or who is qualified to lead. It’s about the presidential election season and who runs that show:

Big media.

Get used to it. Every few years in the US (and other countries), the television production teams swing into gear with their wall-to-wall series called:

“Let’s have our robots talk to the robot candidates.”

This is what is delivered, and this is what the audience expects, in the same way you expect to be served bad food every time you go to the same bad restaurant.

And in case you haven’t noticed, huge numbers of people keep going to bad restaurants.

Now, the robot presidential candidates may not have started out that way. Perhaps a few of them were genuinely passionate about this or that. But the show called “Let’s have our robots…” will fix that. By the time the actual debates are broadcast, the debates that count, all the candidates are blown dry and coiffed and powdered and reduced to a few minutes of spouting ghoulish empty generalities.

There’s no juice left. Brains have been shifted into neutral. Castrations have been performed. Any idiosyncrasy or sign of an actual individual present on stage in front of the lights has been rubbed away. You in your home, sitting in front of the box, could feel more life staring at a roll of toilet paper.

This, mind you, is all by design. The candidate’s advisors, the pollsters, the party hacks, the donors all contribute to the outcome. But the television networks, who devise the formats, bring on the moderators, arrange the podiums, light the stage, place the cameras, and construct a rolling image of “what the American people need” from their candidates are the producers. They synthesize and fabricate. They execute their android manipulations.

The media don’t just bury the truth inside of information. They obscure humans by making them over into psychological, mental, and spiritual eunuchs (like the elite television anchor is).

That’s why this whole set up needs to be punctured like an old colostomy bag.

So let’s start with Rand Paul. What are the chances, if he somehow arrives at the final debates, that he can wreak havoc and disrupt the whole show?

Close to zero. He’s talking like a politician. Forget his ideas for the moment. He’s unwilling or unable to express how he really feels in a way that causes sudden and irreversible impact. He still seems to believe in the process. He may be on the wrong train with right ticket, but he won’t get off the train.

He can show up with a buzz saw and cut through the IRS tome of regulations, and he can say he’ll close down a huge NSA facility if elected, but in boxing terms, he’s not mixing it up with his opponent. He’s not bringing the crowd to their feet.

Bernie Sanders is a slightly more elusive case. He is attracting larger and larger crowds, and he is getting them up out of their seats. But Bernie is still committed to Washington DC because he’s been there for 150 years, and if you listen to him talk you can hear the ding-dong of programmatic politics.

Bernie has a fiery edge, but he’s a kind of a rebel Commissar. If he makes it to the final Primary debates, he’ll come across on television like a little walrus on a modest dose of meth.

He won’t tear the grotesque media format to tatters.

Understand this distinction. A candidate can make himself look like an exception to the rule, while still following the rules. Or he can torpedo the whole show and reveal it for the vicious farce it is.

Like it or not, the latter is what we need.

Think of it this way. The television networks erect a funnel. At the wide end, anybody with half an idea can get in. But as the funnel narrows and the process moves along to major coverage and the major debates, the survivors are scrubbed and sanitized and de-balled and shortened in terms of how much time they’re allotted and which execrable drone is interviewing them and moderating them—until at the end they’re a slice of Wonder Bread with a thin coat of mayo.

Busting a real move in this situation takes—and this may sound odd—indifference to the whole show. Serene indifference. That coupled with authentic passion. Then you can be in the moment. Then you can look around and expose the charade itself. Then you can let the audience know what, underneath it all, they already know. They’re watching a hideous cartoon.

They’re watching a police chief standing outside City Hall saying, “The vehicle was entered and controlled substances were recovered by officers. At this juncture, this is all we can report, because the investigation is ongoing.”

They’re watching a corporate spokesman standing in an office miles from the chemical explosion that killed 100 people saying, “We’re cooperating fully with authorities in the investigation. We are confident our tests of the product were correct and the product is safe for home use.”

Destroying the cartoon isn’t something Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders will do. They’ll fail. They’ll stay in the cartoon.

“Oh, but who cares about the media. I’m voting for the candidate who’ll being us positive change. That’s all that counts.”

How has that been working out?

exit from the matrix

I don’t care how many bankers and CEOs and war hawks and CFR big shots and so on have been pulling candidates’ strings behind the scenes. The media show covers up the possibility of finding out what cheaters and liars and deceivers and lunatics these presidential politicians actually are.

Taking down that façade with a crash would shed some light on the scene—and the best people to do that are the candidates themselves; the candidates who can, who are able to.

Bernie? Rand? No.

Whether you love them or hate them, they don’t have what it takes.

For that, you need a candidate who runs against the media and knows how to create his own compelling and riveting show. And not just a tempest in a teacup, but a storm that reaches down into the repressed cesspool where millions of people live every day.

This presidential election isn’t itself going to produce a major change in American life. But exposing the television series that is the election campaign is a place to start.

Android television produces the show called Election, and then android voters vote for android candidates.

That’s what’s happening.

Breaking that pattern and formula is job one.

The old “who’s the best candidate” and “who is running to suck votes away from another candidate” are outmoded.

The one candidate—and there is only one—is NBC/CBS/CNN/FOX/ABC. That’s who needs to lose.

Jon Rappoport

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

The Donald Trump phenomenon: hidden meanings

by Jon Rappoport

August 30, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

“You could take the five major news networks and filter Jesus Christ, Buddha, Hitler, Stalin, Attila, Gandhi, and Lawrence Welk through them, and eventually you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference among them. They’d all come across in the same way. That, in fact, is the purpose of television.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

I have nothing against hope, but the brand of naïve hope that surfaces during every presidential election season is truly ridiculous.

Candidate after candidate lies through his teeth, and the people buy in.

Now some are saying The Donald is running to form a third party and thus hand the election to Hillary. Whereas the preferred alternative would be what? Prince Jeb? There’s a difference between Hillary and Jeb? Who’s kidding who?

Or they say The Donald is running to provide a safety valve, so the American people can blow off steam, but ultimately wind up with nothing to show for it.

If that were true, so what? Public despondency will set in? What grotesque political swamp-soup are we wading in now?

I approach this from a different angle.

Trump is unpredictable. He’s the only unpredictable presidential candidate in recent memory. That’s a major plus, because the press can’t do anything with him. They attack him on point A, and he responds with his own attack, or he replies with a non-sequitur, or he just changes the subject because he’s bored with the reporters.

He’s mentioning taboo subjects. Bring back tariffs on US imports. Get rid of inner city gangs.

He says something culturally and politically incorrect, and the press jackals go after him with flashing teeth and claws, fully expecting a take-down, demanding a grovel—and he shrugs—and his approval ratings go up.

Putting the press into the wall—this alone is a feat worth celebrating. Reporters want Trump to be one defined thing they can identify, and then they want to assault that…but he keeps shifting ground and juking and putting on new moves and faces. He drives them crazy.

And the crowds at his speeches are building. Maybe he’ll fill a football stadium one of these days.

What brings the people out? They sense he hasn’t got a script. They love that. They think he’s a different breed from Politician 1-A Normal. They love that, too.

The press hates that.

Right now, The Donald is all throwaway lines—and that’s good. If he resorts to analysis, the press will bring on an army of experts to refute him “on the facts.”

Megyn Kelly thought she’d make a bigger name for herself by trumping the Trump, and instead helped power his new numbers-busting popularity. Another defeat for the press.

When it comes to election campaigns, you have to understand that the job of the media is to grind down every candidate to a small series of meaningless truisms.

The press wants empty generalities. They want android candidates in the debates. They want to make a possible something into nothing.

This is a form of intended political correctness that goes largely unnoticed.

Trump has broken the mold. Therefore, he must pay. But…it’s not working. Not so far. Something in the machinery has gone wrong.

Trump has triggered a response in an audience who feels they’ve been bottled up and straitjacketed for far too long. They’ve been seething and straining. They can’t say this, they can’t say that. And they can’t look to presidents for solutions. Presidents spout rhetorical bullshit.

And then a man shows up who seems to feel the same way they do and isn’t afraid to say so.

The press doesn’t know what to do. Every line they feed Trump, in an effort to slam him, becomes the occasion for one of his comebacks that carries the day.

Trump doesn’t use filler. He improvises. He doesn’t play fast and loose behind the scenes; he does it right out in the open.

Worst of all, the media, for decades, built up the image of Trump. He was great copy. His hair, his marriages, his business deals, his scandals, his greedy eagerness for self-promotion.

Now here he is, and he can’t be cast off like an old suit. He’s front and center.

Presidential campaigns ARE the press. That’s the way it’s been for decades. Campaigns are media events manufactured out of slime you’d sue the city for if it bubbled up in your back yard.

The press takes the slime and lies and packages them into neat little products and puts them in front of television viewers. The press runs the campaigns and wins every election.

But right now…a monster has showed up.

Making a joke out of him doesn’t help, either. People laugh, but the laughs are becoming with-Trump rather than at-him. So what if he’s a self-serving cartoon? Isn’t all presidential politics a cartoon?

You can be sure the foul stench-ridden execs at the major networks are trying to figure out how to torpedo Trump. They’re in a dither. This is supposed to be their presidential campaign, not his. They own the franchise. But he’s ripping huge chunks out of their hides.

Is it possible they could unearth some horrendous cheating scandal from Trump’s past, expose it to the sky, and then watch Trump nod and say, “Yeah, I screwed up, so what?”—and his ratings would jump another ten points? Yes, it’s possible.

Regardless of the issues coming to the fore in this presidential season, the real issue, as always, is the press itself. That’s not supposed to be noticed, but more and more people are noticing it. And because they instinctively hate the powdered and coiffed anchors with their presumptive attitudes, every time Trump hits a home run against one of these smug bloodless motherfuckers, it’s an occasion for great glee.

Trump is doing much more than gaining ground on the other candidates; he’s attacking the whole framework of the Show.

He’s sawing off the pillars of the studio sets. He’s slapping the faces of the news hosts. And as the ultimate insult, he’s lifting their ratings.

An interview with Trump isn’t an interview. It’s a circus. He’s essentially saying, with every breath he takes, “See, audience, see this whole charade, it’s ridiculous, isn’t it? Why should I agree to their terms? Why should I consider these doofus Demo-Repub media mouthpieces are any better than I am or you are? Watch me crack the illusion of television. It’s fun. Let’s kick some high-priced ass together…”

On the media front, it’s looking like Trump is too big to fail. The only thing the networks can do is try to shut him out. I’m not sure that’s going to work. He’s cranked up too much visibility jizz.

On the Disney spectrum of personality, Trump is Scrooge McDuck with some Goofy thrown in, plus a slice or two of Mickey Mouse’s good will. But then there is also a piece of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a clump of Ralph Nader (Nader would hate to admit it), a splash of Salvador Dali, and a passable imitation of Ronald Reagan.

Let the press try to reduce that down to a mainstream presidential candidate.

The television medium, in particular, sets itself up to accommodate the lies candidates tell. It builds studios and lights them for those lies and empty promises. It provides camera angles to feature those lies. It hires hosts and moderators who will facilitate the candidates who lie.

But even all this is not enough. The networks set themselves up to offer a style of lying. Candidates are expected to deploy all sorts of hollow, sanitized, and familiar phrases. They’re expected to affect a fake sense of passion. They’re prompted to offer some fake “new beginning,” as if no other candidate has ever tried that before.

Through these mechanisms, the viewing public is conditioned to expect predigested soulless corporate PR and accept it.

This, as much as anything else, is the death of modern politics. It’s bright grinning groomed zombie android death.

Any man or woman who can come along and punch a gaping hole in that illusion is a threat to the Big Sleep.

Trump is warming to the job.

Could he win the election? It’s hard to fathom it. But again, consider his crooked business past against the crimes of the Bush and Clinton families. In those terms, Trump is a mere piker.

But right now, he’s providing another service. He’s cracking the media egg. And any presidential candidate who even mentions laying on protective tariffs and getting rid of gangs is outdistancing Queen Hillary or Prince Jeb.

Trump is trying to roll crazy sevens and elevens. Hillary/Jeb roll snake eyes every time.

Exit From the Matrix

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

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.

Black budget ops

Black budget ops, Hillary emails, meta-crimes

by Jon Rappoport

August 26, 2015

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

Suppose masters of surveillance know exactly what emails have been scrubbed from Hillary Clinton’s private server? Suppose they’ve had a complete collection of all her emails all along?

Suppose masters of surveillance have an enormous database of emails and phone calls from every current presidential candidate and his/her staff?

Suppose the actual details of Benghazi, Fast&Furious, the IRS-Tea Party scandal, and numerous other events are in the hands of these surveillance masters?

Suppose the secret negotiations surrounding several trade treaties, including the TPP, are known, in great detail, by the masters of surveillance?

Suppose this is not science fiction.

Suppose some of this information can (or has been) turned into blackmail operations; or conversely, has been concealed to protect the guilty?

Suppose, for example, the hundreds of millions of emails and phone calls generated within the European Union bureaucracy are in the hands of these surveillance masters.

The old saw, “Information is power,” takes on new meaning.

So does, “We’re not in Kansas anymore.”

It’s an open secret that propaganda ops contain the component of analyzing the reactions of the population to the propaganda messages. That has been true for a very long time. But now, the ability to judge and parse those reactions is increased a thousand-fold, because of surveillance.

This is a new age.

The Surveillance State has created an apparatus whose implications are staggering. It’s a different world now. And sometimes it takes a writer of fiction to flesh out the larger landscape.

Brad Thor’s novel, Black List (twitter), posits the existence of a monster corporation, ATS, that stands along side the NSA in collecting information on every move we make. ATS’ intelligence-gathering capability is unmatched anywhere in the world.

On pages 117-118 of Black List, Thor makes a stunning inference that, on reflection, is as obvious as the fingers on your hand:

“For years ATS had been using its technological superiority to conduct massive insider trading. Since the early 1980s, the company had spied on anyone and everyone in the financial world. They listened in on phone calls, intercepted faxes, and evolved right along with the technology, hacking internal computer networks and e-mail accounts. They created mountains of ‘black dollars’ for themselves, which they washed through various programs they were running under secret contract, far from the prying eyes of financial regulators.

“Those black dollars were invested into hard assets around the world, as well as in the stock market, through sham, offshore corporations. They also funneled the money into reams of promising R&D projects, which eventually would be turned around and sold to the Pentagon or the CIA.

“In short, ATS had created its own license to print money and had assured itself a place beyond examination or reproach.”

In real life, whether the prime criminal source is one monster corporation or a consortium of companies, or elite banks, or the NSA itself, the outcome would be the same.

It would be as Thor describes it.

We think about total surveillance as being directed at private citizens, but the capability has unlimited payoffs when it targets financial markets and the people who have intimate knowledge of them.

“Total security awareness” programs of surveillance are ideal spying ops in the financial arena, designed to suck up millions of bits of inside information, then utilizing them to make investments and suck up billions (trillions?) of dollars.

It gives new meaning to “the rich get richer.”

Taking the overall scheme to another level, consider this: those same heavy hitters who have unfettered access to financial information can also choose, at opportune moments, to expose certain scandals and crimes (not their own, of course).

In this way, they can, at their whim, cripple governments, banks, and corporations. They can cripple investment houses, insurance companies, and hedge funds. Or, alternatively, they can merely blackmail these organizations.

We think we know how scandals are exposed by the press, but actually we don’t. Tips are given to people who give them to other people. Usually, the first clue that starts the ball rolling comes from a source who remains in the shadows.

What we are talking about here is the creation and managing of realities on all sides, including the choice of when and where and how to provide a glimpse of a crime or scandal.

It’s likely that the probe Ron Paul had been pushing—audit the Federal Reserve—has already been done by those who control unlimited global surveillance. They already know far more than any Congressional investigation will uncover. If they know the deepest truths, they can use them to blackmail, manipulate, and control the Fed itself.

The information matrix can be tapped into and plumbed, and it can also be used to dispense choice clusters of data that end up constituting the media reality of painted pictures which, every day, tell billions of people “what’s news.”

In this global-surveillance world, we need to ask new questions and think along different lines now.

For example, how long before the mortgage-derivative crisis hit did the Masters of Surveillance know, from spying on bank records, that insupportable debt was accumulating at a lethal pace? What did they do with that information?

When did they know that at least a trillion dollars was missing from Pentagon accounting books (as Donald Rumsfeld eventually publicly admitted on September 10, 2001), and what did they do with that information?

Did they discover where billions of dollars, in cash, shipped to post-war Iraq, disappeared to?

When did they know the details of the Libor rate-fixing scandal? Press reports indicate that Barclays was trying to rig interest rates as early as January 2005.

Have they tracked, in detail, the men responsible for recruiting hired mercenaries and terrorists, who eventually wound up in Syria pretending to be an authentic rebel force?

Have they discovered the truth about how close or how far away Iran is from producing a nuclear weapon?

Have they collected detailed accounts of the most private plans of Bilderberg, CFR, and Trilateral Commission leaders?

power outside the matrix

For global surveillance kings, what we think of as the future is, in many respects the present and the past.

It’s a new world. These overseers of universal information-detection can enter and probe the most secret caches of data, collect, collate, cross reference, and assemble them into vital bottom-lines. By comparison, an operation like Wikileaks is an old Model-T Ford puttering down a country road, and Julian Assange, reviled as a terrorist, is a mere piker.

Previously, we thought we needed to look over the shoulders of the men who were committing major crimes out of public view. But now, if we want to be up to date, we also have to factor in the men who are spying on those criminals, who are gathering up those secrets and using them to commit their own brand of meta-crime.

And in the financial arena, that means we think of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan as perpetrators, yes, but we also think about the men who already know everything about GS and Morgan, and are using this knowledge to steal sums that might make GS and Morgan blush with envy.

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.

To science bloggers living with mommy

by Jon Rappoport

August 25, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

These conventional science bloggers are really something. They’ve never met a published study extolling mainstream science they haven’t loved. I don’t know, maybe the studies somehow remind them of mommy and her warm basement where they still live at age 40 and do their important work.

A study praising a new drug? A study claiming a vaccine was “well tolerated?” A study claiming GMOs are perfectly safe? A study reporting the dire effects of manmade warming? They kiss it and try to make it better.

So here are a few statements they can chew on like week-old delivery pizza.

Warning: what follows could forever alter your view of published science.

We begin with quotes from two editors of prestigious science journals. These people have read, pawed over, analyzed, and dissected more science studies than 1000 bloggers taken together ever will.

One: Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”

Two: Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, in the NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

Three: John PA Ioannidis, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece, and Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Department of Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, in PLoS Medicine, August 30, 2005, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”:

“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings [in all scientific fields] are false… a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller…when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias…There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.”

Four: Back to Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet. In the same editorial quoted above, Horton makes reference to a recent symposium he attended at the Wellcome Trust in London. The subject of the meeting was the reliability of published biomedical research. His following quote carries additional force because he and other attendees were told to obey Chatham House rules—meaning no one would reveal who made any given comment during the conference.

Horton: “‘A lot of what is published is incorrect.’ I’m not allowed to say who made this remark [at the conference] because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in ‘purdah’—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations [biomedical science]”.

Conventional science bloggers, take notice. You’re working in a field where studies supporting the general consensus are tainted and stained.

Starting sentences with “the FDA approves” or “the CDC confirms” or “a study published in The New England Journal established” isn’t a ticket to the truth. Far from it.

You’re wading in a stench-ridden swamp, and you don’t know it; or you do know it and you don’t care, because you want to be part of the club; or someone is paying you to make absurd assertions. One way or another, you’re doomed if you follow the party line.

This is a much different landscape than you think it is. It’s a wholesale fabrication of what looks, sounds, smells, tastes, and feels like truth. But it isn’t. It’s a lying cartoon. It has vicious consequences.

power outside the matrix

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

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.

US media blackout: France oppose vaccines

US media blackout: France oppose vaccines

by Jon Rappoport

August 23, 2015

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

Get used to it. We live in an Orwellian landscape. When there is a really serious story that needs to be censored, it is. It gets little or no play. It’s buried.

And vaccines is one of those stories.

Here, from thevaccinereaction.org, is a shocker: “The French National Debate on Vaccines,” by Marco Caceres, August 19:

“Between 2005 and 2010, the proportion of French people in favour or very in favour of vaccination dropped from 90% to 60% (2013 INPES Peretti-Watel health barometer). The percentage of French people between the ages of 18 and 75 who are anti-vaccination increased from 8.5% in 2005 to 38.2% in 2010. In 2005, 58% of doctors questioned the usefulness of vaccines administered to children while 31% of doctors were expressing doubts about vaccine safety. These figures must surely have increased since then.”

France has punched a gaping hole in the fake consensus about vaccines.

In the US and other countries, people are taught there is an overwhelming positive attitude about vaccines. Allowing this story about France to leak and bleed into major media would refute that lie in a second.

Not only is consensus built through relentless propaganda, but when the consensus doesn’t exist because the propaganda fails, that fact is blacked out.

To put it another way, major media exist to invent consensus, and when they can’t, they hide the fact.

American medical reporters for mainstream outlets are among the worst journalists in the world. Over the years, I’ve spoken to some of them. They try to radiate scientific authority, but behind that front they’re a) brainwashed morons or b) sold-out pharmaceutical shills.

The shills hype medical drugs, vaccines, and just-over-the horizon research breakthroughs with the phony conviction of late-night infomercial spokespeople.

power outside the matrix

One reason a high percentage of the French oppose vaccines is: out in the countryside, they still know what good clean food is. Based on several conversations I’ve had with people who live there, the fresh local produce makes American food, by comparison, taste like cardboard. The French understand that real nutrition is a key to preserving health.

That’s why pharmaceutical giants are rooting hard for GMOs and pesticides, and are, in some cases, producing them. The more GMOs and chemical poisons on the land, the lower the level of general health, and the easier it is to peddle vaccines and drugs as a necessary answer.

That’s how the game is played.

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.