Network: the last great film about media

Diana the Huntress, Queen of Television News

by Jon Rappoport

June 4, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

“You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it!! Is that clear?!… You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!” (Arthur Jensen, to Howard Beale, “Network,” 1976)

In the brilliant 1976 film, Network, written by Paddy Chayefsky, the programming head of a giant television network, Diana Christensen, shifts the whole news department over to the entertainment division.

Thus emerge new shows with galloping ratings: Howard Beale, Prophet of the Air Waves; The Mao Tse-Tung Hour, in which a guerrilla group films itself carrying out armed bank robberies; and Sybil the Soothsayer, a Tarot reader.

Diana becomes the network’s new executive star.

There is no longer even a pretense of a need for news anchors to appear authoritative, objective, or rational.

Diana Christensen is unstoppable. She sees, with burning clarity, that audiences are bored to the point of exhaustion; they now require, as at the end of the Roman Empire, extreme entertainment. They want more crime, more violence, more insanity, out in the open. On television.

In promoting her kind of news division, she tells network executives:

“Look, we’ve got a bunch of
hobgoblin radicals called the
Ecumenical Liberation Army who
go around taking home movies
of themselves robbing banks.
Maybe they’ll take movies of
themselves kidnapping heiresses,
hijacking 747’s, bombing bridges,
assassinating ambassadors.
We’d open each week’s segment
with that authentic footage,
hire a couple of writers to
write some story behind that
footage, and we’ve got
ourselves a series…

“Did you see the overnights on the
Network News? It has an 8 in New
York and a 9 in L.A. and a 27 share
in both cities. Last night, Howard
Beale went on the air [as a newscaster] and yelled
bullshit for two minutes, and I
can tell you right now that tonight’s
show will get a 30 share at least.
I think we’ve lucked into something…

“I see Howard Beale as a latter-day
prophet, a magnificent messianic
figure, inveighing against the
hypocrisies of our times, a strip
Savonarola, Monday through Friday.
I tell you, Frank, that could just
go through the roof…Do you want to figure out
the revenues of a strip show that
sells for a hundred thousand bucks
a minute? One show like that could
pull this whole network right out
of the hole! Now, Frank, it’s being
handed to us on a plate; let’s not
blow it!”

Television in the “real world” isn’t all the way there yet, but it’s getting there.

In Network, Diana Christensen personifies the news. She is the electric, thrill-seeking, non-stop force that is terrified of silence.

She is walking talking hyperactivity. Sudden shifts. Her affairs with men are brief and inconsequential. She moves on.

She lives and feeds on adrenaline. So does the viewing public. Overnight TV-show ratings reflect that fact.

Nothing else ultimately matters. Ratings are the top line and the bottom line. The individual and his thoughts are completely irrelevant.

Since television is the arch mass-medium, the mass reaction is calculated according to lowest common denominator, and by that standard the most extreme shows are courted.

Shock, violence, crime. Howard Beale, unhinged, a news man screaming about the insanity of the news, is perfectly acceptable, because the audience is simply responding to Beale’s inchoate outrage and their own. Nothing deeper is needed. What could have resulted in a true rebellion is short-circuited. Beale becomes a crazy loon, a novelty item. Yet one more distraction.

When, in a brief interlude of clarity, he begins telling his audience about the takeover of society by mega-corporations, his show droops. Ratings collapse. Diana is no longer interested in him; she wants to sack him.

However, Arthur Jensen, the head of the corporation that owns the television network wants to keep Beale on the air, as a messenger of the “galactic truth” about the beneficial integration of all human activity under the rubric of global money and global power. He converts Beale to his cause.

Diana sees only one way out of this ratings disaster: kill Beale; on air; during his show. And so it is done.


Network also shows us the audience becoming actor, player, participant. The audience is jumping out of its skin to be recognized, courted, adored as a mighty rolling force embodying no particular meaning.

Audience wants to be a star. Audience wants coverage. Audience wants its actions to be shown on television. That establishes its legitimacy. Nothing else is necessary.

Diana knows it, and she is more than willing to accommodate this frantic desire, if only her bosses will let her go all the way. She sees the journey from anonymity to fame can be achieved in a matter of minutes. She can arrange it.

The parallels between Network and the current state of mass/electronic media are numerous. Most importantly, the governments of “advanced” countries realize they can cement their control by dealing with their populations as groups.

Groups who are government-dependent, groups who demand special treatment, groups who insist on being heard, groups who want in on the action as players.

In this sense, governments are media companies. They give coverage. They give access. They grant popularity. They do this with full knowledge that they are staging charades. Authentic power will never be on the table—only the appearance, not the real thing.

This is how mass-media operate. They give fluff and sugar, which soon melt and vanish. It’s a magic trick.

Layers and layers of promise and distraction. Here one minute, gone the next.

The people, momentarily assuaged and victorious, are left holding the bag.

On to the next story, next show, next audience-rating report.

Hooray for Hollywood.

“Poetry and the arts can’t exist in America. Mere exposure to the arts does nothing for a mentality which is incorrigibly dialectical… The young today cannot follow narrative but they are alert to drama. They cannot bear description but they love landscape and action… Ads represent the main channel of intellectual and artistic effort in the modern world… After childhood, the senses specialize via the channels of dominant technologies and social weaponries.” (Marshall McLuhan)


power outside the matrix


Modern media are not only the landscape, they are shaping how reality is perceived. Generations of people are now prepared to believe that all events lead to new chapters of a drama without any conceptual reference whatsoever.

This is why people are more and more determined to get their news from video rather than the written word. They feel they are watching a show. The show will continue. There is no need to stop and consider what the show means.

The show will “explain” itself eventually, as any story does. This is the new meaning of the term “dialectical”: a process by which the story adds detail and more detail and arrives at a payoff.

Viewing the payoff frees the audience from having to remember the whole story. The story is just another experience, heightened by the fact that tensions and conflicts are portrayed and then somehow “resolved.”

Having that experience is also the new meaning of “knowledge.”

“I watch, I absorb, I digest; therefore, I know.”

This is the century of osmosis.

Osmosis is an exchange between programmed entities. In this case, we are talking about an exchange/embrace between the human mind and invented external reality—and that is the starting point of the Matrix.

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 mind-control: case study: Arnold Schwarzenegger

The television Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

June 2, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Break down an event into fine enough particles, and you begin to see new things. You see the event is staged, of course, but you also find new key players, and they’re sometimes the ones you least expect to have an influence. When I say ‘influence’, I mean mind control, projected out like a great wave, rumbling over the populace, taking them to media heaven.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

This article is an example of what you can do when you watch a single television broadcast over and over, a dozen times, and analyze the effects blow by blow.

Over the years, I’ve written a great deal about media manipulation and television mind-control. (For example, see here and here.)

I thought I’d go back in my files and reprint my piece on a specific and egregious case of media brainwashing:

The Arnold Schwarzenegger announcement of his campaign for the governorship of California. That announcement took place (8/6/03) on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

I had watched the episode live, and I knew it was a piece of sheer propaganda, but I had no idea how cleverly integrated it was, until I obtained a tape of the broadcast from NBC and viewed it many times, stopping and starting, copying the dialogue word for word, and analyzing Leno’s key role and the role of his extraordinary studio audience.

First of all, the show had been hyped in advance, to the hilt, as the moment when Arnold would announce whether he was going to run in the recall election against California Governor Gray Davis.

Public anticipation was sky-high. No one seemed concerned that NBC was turning over its news division, for one night, to its entertainment division.

This was precisely the subject of the best movie ever made about television, Paddy Chayefsky’s Network. That fact didn’t register with the national media, either.

Of vital importance: If Arnold decided to run, he wouldn’t be announcing it during some second-rate press conference at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, after a brief introduction from the always-boring LA Mayor Richard Riordan. No, Arnold would obtain a rocket boost from Jay Leno.

Keep in mind that talk shows warm up and prep their audiences to act and respond with amphetamine-like enthusiasm. And then, during the show itself, that audience transmits its glow and howling racket to the wider television audience, thereby exploding an artificially enhanced event across the landscape.

On the night of August 6, 2003, Tonight Show host Jay Leno devoted two six-minute segments to an interview with The Arnold.

Of course, it was more than an interview. Jay had been touting this night as the occasion for a key revelation in the comic play called the California Recall.

Arnold would say yes or Arnold would say no. He would run for the governorship or he would decline.

Bigger than conventional news, Arnold strode out on to Jay’s stage. A Tonight Show camera picked him up from a grossly complimentary low angle, making him appear even larger and more physically imposing than he was. Jay was positioned standing behind him, applauding, lending an affirmative gloss to the entrance. Already, it looked and felt political.

This was not a beginning; the impression was of something already in motion, a train to catch up with.

As the man of the hour sat down next to Jay, he commented that there was a big audience in the house (“Can you believe all these people here?”) and, capping his first gambit, he stated that every one of them was running for governor of California. (The recall ballot was bulging with candidates.) Audience laughter.

Quickly, Jay gets down to business. The business of making the evening extra-special: “Now, I don’t think we’ve ever had this much press at The Tonight Show for any—[let’s see] our press room—normally [the press] sit in the audience.”

Cut to a stark room, shot from above. About 40 reporters doing almost nothing at tables. Obviously, the room was set up for this event. It had never been done before on the show.

Jay cracks a couple of jokes about the press gaggle, lowers his voice and turns his full attention to Arnold: “…it’s been weeks…and people going back and forth…taken you awhile, and you said you would come here tonight and tell us your decision. So what is your decision?”

Arnold replies, “Well, Jay, after thinking for a long time, my decision is…”

Very brief pause, the sound cuts out, and then, pre-planned, the TV screen displays, in black and white, the old PLEASE STAND BY notice. Thick white letters against a background of an ancient station test pattern from the 1950s. There is an accompanying tone that plays for several seconds.

The audience laughs. There is applause, too.

Cut back to Jay and Arnold. Arnold says, “That’s why I decided that way.” Big audience laughter.

Jay shouts, “Right, good, right! I tell you I am shocked! I can’t believe it! I can’t believe it!” More laughter.

Jay then starts out from the bottom again. “[Whether you’re going to run has been] in my monologue…it’s been good for, like, a thousand jokes over the last couple of weeks…”

Once more, Jay gently poses the question. “What are you going to do?” It’s still too early for an answer, and everybody knows it.

Arnold wants another false start. He’s planned it.

“Well, my decision obviously is a very difficult decision to make, you know…it was the [most] difficult decision that I’ve made in my entire life, except the one in 1978 when I decided to get a bikini wax.”

Laughter, applause, whistles.

This may have been the most important few seconds of the interview. The studio audience warms to the fact that Arnold glimpses an absurdity about the whole proceeding.

“He’s our Arnie, laughing the way we laugh. Hell, all we’ve got are laughs in this life, and our boy isn’t going to go stuffed shirt on us.”

An absolutely important confirmation.

Arnold then gives his rehearsed political speech. He reflects that California was a grand land of opportunity when he arrived in 1968. It was the greatest state in the greatest nation.

However, now the atmosphere in California is “disastrous,” he says. There is a “disconnect” (thank you, pop psych 101) between the people and the politicians.

“The politicians are fiddling, fumbling, and failing.” Very big applause for Arnold, “a man of the people.” The audience is doing its job.

Close by, off camera, we hear Jay thumping his own personal hand claps. The host is pumping and egging on his studio crowd with glee, and giving his seal of approval to a remark whose veracity is supposed to be tested by the recall election itself.

It’s clear there is a phalanx of teen-age girls screaming at a very high pitch in the studio. They’re adding a major element of hysterical enthusiasm. Where did they come from? Are they a legitimate Arnold demographic? Were they pulled out of a mall to paper the crowd? Do they migrate from talk show to talk show? From this point forward, they will play a huge role in every audience outburst.

Arnold gathers steam. He tells one and all that the people of California are doing their job.

They’re working hard.

Paying their taxes.

Raising their families.

But the politicians are not doing their job.

Now he executes a decent blend around the far turn: “And the man that is failing the people more than anyone is [Governor] Gray Davis!”
The crowd goes wild. The girls scream at this political denunciation as if they’re at a kiddie rock concert in the magic presence of four sixteen-year-old pretty boys. It’s eerie.

And now the audience is suddenly on an edge.

They can handle the juice.

Arnold senses it.

He lets the audience-hysteria roller coaster die down and then, taking it up to heaven, announces that, yes, he, Arnold is GOING TO RUN FOR GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA.

Boom. Bang. Pow. Zow.

The studio audience cracks the ceiling. Wilder than wild. The girls are shrieking clouds of sound way above high C. Undoubtedly, the show is flashing applause signs.

Jay shakes his head and grins like a pro hypster who’s just witnessed a very, very good variation on bait and switch. As if Arnold was supposed to say no, but now he’s saying yes. (Yet Jay knew if Arnold declined to run, the whole show would have been a dud.)

The Tonight Show band lays down some heavy chords.

Jay shouts, “There you go! There you go! That woke ‘em up! That woke ‘em up!” We cut to the press room, and sure enough, the reporters are now on phones, typing at their keyboards. The story is live and good to go. A global event is underway.

Amid the roar and the music, Jay, smiling broadly and wisely, shakes his finger at Arnold and says to him, “You know something?”

It seems Jay’s about to utter, “That’s the best damn switcheroo I ever saw!” But he doesn’t do it. Instead, as the noise abates, he says it’s a good time to go to a break.

The band plows into a funk riff, under the applause, and the show cuts to commercial.

The sea has parted. The consecration has been performed.

The ax felled the tree in the forest, and everyone heard it.

Marshall McLuhan rolled over in his grave, sat up, grinned, lit a cigar, and sipped a little brandy.


In the next six-minute segment, Jay and Arnold attain a few more highs of audience madness.

High one: Arnold mentions that 1.6 million Californians have signed the recall petition and are saying, “We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore!” Wowee.

No one notices or remembers this line was made massively famous in Network, a bitter satire on news as entertainment.

Is it remotely possible that Arnold recalls the 1976 Paddy Chayefsky film and its wacked-out news anchor, Howard Beale, who survives a ratings dive and firing by delivering a delirious populist message on air and becomes, for a short time, the most revered man in America?

Is it possible Arnold knows the TV network portrayed in the film gives its news division to its entertainment division—precisely what’s transpiring right there, for the moment, on The Tonight Show?

High two: Arnold clarifies his message to all politicians everywhere. “Do your job for the people and do it well, or otherwise you’re out. Hasta la vista, baby!” Zowee.

High three: After reminding the crowd that they all know Gray Davis can run a dirty campaign “better than anyone”—and that Davis has been selling off pieces of California to special interests—Arnold says with conviction and confidence, “I do not have to bow to any special interests; I have plenty of money; no one can pay me off; trust me, no one.” Audience hysteria. They love that he’s rich.

High four: Arnold says of Davis, “Everyone knows this man has to go!” Zow. Huge roar.

High five: Arnold plays a final joke card. “I will pump up Sacramento!” Yet another roar.

The band takes it out with more funk. Jay stands up and goes over and hugs Arnold, in profile, near his desk, and follows him closely toward an exit at stage left. Jay starts to whisper something in Arnold’s ear, but pulls back and smiles and, still on camera, applauds Arnold along with the audience.

It’s show biz in a bottle. Jay, Arnold, the crowd, the band, bouncing off one another and yielding the effect of absolute (synthetic) thrill.

Beyond the fact that Arnold made a political speech on The Tonight Show and announced his candidacy and cuttingly attacked his major opponent, there were the semi-subliminal aspects. The Tonight Show had created its own enormous esteem over decades—and then, out of nowhere, it provided the background for an actor to decide—as if on the spot—to run for office in the same state where the show originates. In the entertainment capital of the world. In front of the clear prime-cut admiration of the host.

And the studio audience, that specialized creature from whose maw instant credibility can be coaxed and birthed in seconds—the audience was very, very ready to go. All along.

The audience is not an isolated force. It distributes waves of simulated feeling to its initiated in-the-fold television viewers, in their apartments and homes and huts at all points of the globe. These waves also flow to every media outlet from Nome to Tierra del Fuego to Cape Town to Hong Kong.

Every nuance of expression on Arnold’s face, on Jay’s face, was registered and absorbed above the feverish in-house cheers and screams and shrieks.

This means something. Something huge.

“I know a guy who can introduce your message to the softest, wildest, water-cooler crowd this side of paradise.”

“Oh yeah? How many people?”

“Only a thousand or two. But they are instantly hooked up to, say, ten million people in the target area. It’s as infectious as Ebola.”

“Come on.”

“And that’s not all. I’ve got a host for that softest, wildest audience, and he has the whole world in the palm of his hand. When he exposes your message—for the first time anywhere—and when his audience goes nuts with glee, nothing will stand in your way. Your opponents will go down like bowling pins.”

“Too good to be true.”

“I know. And let me point out what I’m saving you from. If you tried to launch your campaign kickoff at a shopping center or a press club or a hotel ballroom or construction site or a movie-studio sound stage, you could get laughed right out of town. Really. Because, let’s face it, you do have a pretty vapid message when you boil it down. You need a unique venue, where the joke and the camp and the craziness are all folded into the event itself, and the shock and surprise and hoopla are integrated as well. You need an audience that celebrates bad and good jokes as all good, and the host has the ability to marry up every shred of this bizarre happening and take his crowd to orgasm.”

“And the contagion factor?”

“The audience in the television studio and the viewing audience at home are One. What stuns and delights the former incorporates itself into the living cells of the latter. Right now. The home audience is terrified of being left out of the party. They’ll go along. The host and his in-studio crowd give instant universal legitimacy to the moment. Believe me, it’s irresistible.”

“Like that McLuhan thing. The audience becomes the actor.”

“Precisely.”

That is how it happened. That is how Arnold S obtained his billion-dollar ad on Jay Leno, on August 6, 2003, and that was when he won the recall election. There was no counter-strategy for it.

Gray Davis was left with his putz in his hand.

Arnold’s announcement of his candidacy was the end of the election.

In the aftermath, media pundits did not critique this piece of mind control with any serious heat; nor did they immediately seek a heavy investigation of the ethics of NBC in allowing the Leno-Arnold event to take place.

It’s amusing that another NBC heavy hitter, Rob Lowe, left the liberal West Wing series and joined the Arnold campaign to add a little more sparkle to it.

The overwhelming media play that slammed into gear the day following the Leno-Arnold moment formed a synapse-welding juggernaut. It was, of course, all based on where Arnold made his announcement to run.

The Tonight Show was a perfect killing ground: Arnold, the earnest and powerful and Germanically jolly and occasionally self-deprecating soul, aware of the comic-book component of his success; Jay, the jokester, who can work as a homer and straight man at the drop of a hat; and Jay’s audience, willingly propelled into the late-night nexus of “we’ll laugh so hard at any old damn thing we’ll make a cosmic celebration out of it.”

Something out of nothing.

GE owned NBC at the time. GE: “We bring good things to life.”


power outside the matrix


On August 6, 2003, Reality was passed, hand to hand, mind to mind, adrenal gland to adrenal gland, from a concocted, groomed, cultivated, prepackaged television audience to California and the planet.

When private citizens show up in the studio to see Leno (or any late-night host) in person, they soon get the message. They are not just there as happy onlookers. They are drawn into the process. They are offered a trade-off.

If they become active shills for the show right there in the studio, they will become part of the story. They will attain a new status. Their laughs and squeals and shrieks and rebound guffaws, their revved-up salvational applause at those moments when a guest segment is falling flat—the audience is providing key segues and fillers and affirmations and speed candy for the larger audience at home. It’s a group collaboration.

And it’s overtly political when a fading movie action hero suddenly says he’s going to take over the reins of California.

Then it becomes a whole different twelve minutes. Then the studio-audience overreach of wild hysteria and laughter and clapping hands and standing O’s and the quality of the emotion are Everything.

The movie hero, Arnold S, is suddenly carrying an immense amount of good will to the moon.

He is outlined and underlined and haloed in what they used to call pure jive, but this jive is now viewed by millions of at-home viewers as the real thing. Because on television, very little is the real thing and you have to accept all substitutes. Otherwise, you are doomed and exiled to the dark realms where you will question the authenticity of what everyone else is buying.

Much better to invent an exuberance and roar from the belly and help this Arnold dude go for his coronation. Much better to experience a synthetic facsimile of emotional torque and bust a move that will shower sparks around his head and push him through a porthole into an ozone that just might be the closest thing you’ll ever find to immortality.

The signs are on in the TV studio, the final directions are being given, the musicians are ready, the applause fluffers are gesturing at the audience, the go-signal is given.

The audience has a hero, they know his name, they know what to do. What else do they need?

That’s television.

That’s a slice of programming for America.

The audience; kings and queens in a cartoon matrix. They enable reality to become a cartoon. And therefore, victory is achieved.

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.

Canada: scientists’ right to free speech shut down

Canada: scientists’ right to free speech shut down

Canada catching up to USA re suppression of science

by Jon Rappoport

May 21, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

(To sign up for the FREE NoMoreFakeNews newsletter, click here.)

“’Government science’ has become an oxymoron. A better label would be Manufactured Reality. Does a mega-corporation need the seal of approval for its toxic crimes? There is a government agency on tap to provide it. Need fake science? You’ve got it. Need to pay a fine instead of going to prison? No problem. Whole worlds will be invented to cover up a few devastating facts.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Free speech for government scientists in Canada? The ability to issue warnings about public health and safety to the press and public?

Not anymore.

No. The scientists work for federal agencies, and only the designated spokespeople for those agencies can make public statements.

I’ll have some comments about my own experiences in this area, but first…

Here are shocking quotes about a Canadian survey of federal scientists — “Most Federal Scientists Feel They Can’t Speak Out, Even If Public Health and Safety at Risk, Says New Survey.”

The survey was carried out by a group called PIPSC, which states:

“A major survey of federal government scientists commissioned by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) has found that 90% feel they are not allowed to speak freely to the media about the work they do and that, faced with a departmental decision that could harm public health, safety or the environment, nearly as many (86%) would face censure or retaliation for doing so [for speaking out].”

“The survey, the findings of which are included in a new report titled The Big Chill, is the first extensive effort to gauge the scale and impact of ‘muzzling’ and political interference among federal scientists since the Harper government introduced communications policies requiring them to seek approval before being interviewed by journalists.”

“In particular, the survey also found that nearly one-quarter (24%) of respondents [federal scientists] had been directly asked to exclude or alter information for non-scientific reasons and that over one-third (37%) had been prevented in the past five years from responding to questions from the public and media.”

“According to the survey, nearly half (48%) are aware of actual cases in which their department or agency suppressed [scientific] information, leading to incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading impressions by the public, industry and/or other government officials.”

What sorts of issues are off-limits for Canadian federal scientists? It’s not hard to figure that out: pesticide toxicity; pollution dangers; dangerous medical drugs. You know, areas where the profits of big industry would be threatened.


This destruction of free speech cuts close to home for me, because once upon a time I had considerable access to government (and university) scientists in the US.

In 1987-8, I was writing my first book, “AIDS Inc.: Scandal of the Century.” My first order of business was fleshing out the official scenario about AIDS; what caused the syndrome, and what was being done to treat it.

I had press accounts, of course, but I wanted explanations from the horse’s mouth.

Later on, after I was convinced the official scenario was built on egregious scientific fraud, I wanted to have conversations with the scientists who were either party to the fraud or were irrationally going along with it.

During a six-month period, I was able to speak with several researchers at the US National Institutes of Health, the center of AIDS research.

It was easy. I contacted a press person by phone, said I was writing a book about AIDS, and I was transferred to the office of the researcher I was looking for. The scientist and I spoke, sometimes at length.

Keep in mind that I had no press credential. I was writing the book for a very small start-up publisher. Up to that time, I had worked as a freelance reporter (for five years), writing pieces for papers and magazines in the US and Europe.

During this six-month period, I was also able to speak with an employee at the FDA, who turned around and sent me a crucial piece of information proving the vast unreliability of HIV blood tests.

I spoke with a key researcher at Harvard, who explained that the green-monkey hypothesis of HIV transmission, touted in the press, was overblown.

I spoke a number of times to a press person at the CDC. Depending on my question, he would either pass me along to a CDC researcher or dig up the answer himself and call me back. It became obvious to him, after a time, that I was in the process of debunking the whole notion that HIV caused AIDS. Yet, he continued to talk to me and get answers to my queries.

I had a number of fruitful conversations with Dr. Harvey Bialy, the scientific editor at the journal, Nature/Biotechnology. Harvey didn’t accept the HIV causation model of AIDS, and we clarified many points.

Even when fear was in the air, I was able to obtain statements off the record from scientists. For example, a highly respected virologist at UCLA told me that “many of us know the HIV-causation model of AIDS is riddled with holes, but we’re going to let this one pass. It’s dangerous to speak out…”

I was not alone in my ability to gain access to government/university scientists and editors of journals. Chuck Ortleb, who was publishing a small NY paper, New York Native, spoke with Robert Gallo and directly challenged Gallo on his purported discovery that HIV caused AIDS.

John Lauritsen, an independent reporter, managed to attend several professional AIDS conferences, where he confirmed that the government’s approval of toxic AZT to treat AIDS was based on a fraudulent clinical trial.

How things have changed.

These days, if you’re lucky enough to get through to a knowledgeable press person at a federal agency, you’re fed pap, or stonewalled, or referred to some online source of official information.

No federal scientist would risk his career speaking out of school to a freelance reporter who has a dissenting point of view.

It’s the big chill, the shutdown, the close-out. No comment. We have nothing to say. Look for an official release from our department on this issue. Consult our guidelines. We’ll try to get back to you.

To say official science has become politicized is a vast understatement. Science is politics, when it needs to be, and it needs to be much of the time.

The crimes that chemical/pharmaceutical/genetic-engineering/agriculture corporations defend, in their operations, in their methods, are often defended in the findings of government science.

It’s an embrace of mob brothers.

This is one reason why court cases against such corporations are shunned by many lawyers. The fix is in on the science, and that in itself creates a non-starter.

The government witnesses (researchers) can say, “Corporation X is doing no harm. Our studies show that actions ABCD and products EFGH are safe and pose no risk.”

Behind it all: “Well, Mr. CEO, on your behalf we’ve proved the moon is composed of green cheese, there are mosquitoes on Mars, and Roundup makes a delicious salad dressing. Anything else you need? We, the government, are here to serve you and strengthen our national economy.”


power outside the matrix


If this makes you wonder about the trustworthiness of government science agencies, when it comes to issues such as vaccine safety or GMO-food safety, it should.

Take the case of whistleblower William Thompson. A long-time vaccine researcher at the CDC, Thompson admitted, last August, in a written statement published at his attorney Rick Morgan’s website, that he and his co-authors violated the protocol on an MMR vaccine/autism study in 2004, cooked the data, and thereby concluded the vaccine had no link to autism.

Since that time, Thompson, who still works for the CDC, has refused to talk to the press. Speculation arose that there might be a Congressional hearing where he would testify.

But nothing has happened.

Why the need for a hearing? Why hasn’t the DOJ/FBI simply corralled Thompson and interviewed him extensively? He claims to have evidence of a serious federal crime.

The answer is obvious. CDC science is based on the predetermined premise that vaccines are safe and effective. In other words, it’s not science.

There are vaccine manufacturers to protect. The CDC itself purchases billions of dollars of vaccines.

When storm clouds gather, federal agencies circle the wagons, hunker down, and wait out the threat.

Whistleblower Thompson spoke out of turn. He has been superseded by his agency bosses, who claim there is no problem.

In general, the ladder of power climbs from researcher, to researcher’s government agency, to the corporations that agency is safeguarding.

The dream team.

If you like nightmares.

Jon Rappoport

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

What law says the text of the TPP must remain secret?

What law says the text of the TPP must remain secret?

To the US Congress: reveal the contents of the TPP now

by Jon Rappoport

May 15, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

It seems like a case of mass hypnosis. People claiming they can’t say what’s in the TPP trade agreement. And mainstream media accept this premise.

“That’s right. Congress must stay silent.”

Pop quiz: who says the text of the TPP must remain secret?

Under what authority?

Members of Congress are scuttling around like weasels, claiming they can’t disclose what’s in this far-reaching, 12-nation trade treaty.

They can go into a sealed room and read a draft, but they can’t copy pages, and they can’t tell the public what they just read.

Why not?

If there is a US law forbidding disclosure, name the law.

Can you recall anything in the Constitution that establishes secret treaties?

Is there a prior treaty that states the text of all treaties can be hidden from the people?

I see no authority anywhere that justifies withholding the text of the TPP.

Government legislators in the other 11 nations: why can’t you reveal what’s in the TPP?

Mass silence around the world. “Sorry, we can’t say what’s in the treaty. We’ll vote on it, but you the people have no input. You have to take what we do on faith.”

Who says so? By what authority?

If a US Senator held a press conference today and explained everything he read in that sealed room about the TPP, what exactly would happen to him? Would he be arrested?

Would he be charged with a federal crime?

What crime?

If he used his cell phone to take pictures of pages of the TPP, and came out of the room and sent the pictures to 500 press outlets, what would happen?

Would the DOJ roll a few tanks up to his house and put him in cuffs? Would he be placed on trial?

If so, on what charge?

Would the trial itself be secret?

Or would everyone suddenly look at each other and say, “We never realized it before, but the emperor has no clothes!”

What would happen if a Senator went into the sealed room, picked up the whole TPP text or the laptop on which it’s stored, bulled his way out of the room, passed the text to his security staff, and had them forward every page to a few hundred media outlets around the world?

Would DHS agents shoot these people in broad daylight, just to protect the interests of David Rockefeller and his Globalist heavy hitters?

Why haven’t the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, the BBC and other outlets run major stories that detail under what precise authority the TPP text is being kept secret?

What are we missing here?


power outside the matrix


Is it simply that a bunch of national leaders and corporate big shots and trade representatives nodded and said: “Keep the text a secret”?

Did they arbitrarily give the TPP negotiating process a name, a label, with the word “authority” in it?

I just met with myself and decided to establish The Naked TPP Authority. I gave it primacy over all other negotiating bodies, and by its declaration, the full text of the TPP must be published for the whole world to see, for two years, before any further votes take place.

There. It’s done.

I fully believe my Naked Authority carries more Constitutional justification than the current scheme, which is clearly criminal.

US Congressman: “I’m sorry, my lips are sealed, I’m bound, I can’t reveal what’s in the treaty that will adversely affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people.”

“Wrong. You’re lying. You can reveal secret text. In fact, it’s your duty. Otherwise, you’re guilty of cooperating in a RICO criminal conspiracy. Now, let’s start at the beginning. Who told you that you had to remain silent? What US law did they cite? Take your time. We’ll stay here as long as it takes.”

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states: “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

Nothing there about secret treaties. Nothing there about the President having the discretion to keep the text of treaties secret.

Of course, a President could argue that treaties, if exposed to the light of day prior to a Senate vote, would face so much criticism and cross-talk that they would never pass.

But that’s a practical issue and problem. It’s called “free speech.” It’s also sometimes called “dissent.”

Jon Rappoport

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

The medical cartel: too big to fail, too evil to expose

The medical cartel: too big to fail, too evil to expose

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

There are several reasons why the medical cartel is too big to fail: the enormous amount of money at stake; its aim to control populations.

In this article, I want to examine a related reason.

Suppose it was discovered that thousands of bridges around the US were in imminent danger of collapsing? Not because maintenance and repair were lacking, not because the materials used to build them were cheap and shoddy. But because the original designs were inadequate and broke basic rules of engineering.

Suppose five or six major manufacturers built their automobiles so the vast majority of power derived from the engines was transferred to one wheel?

Suppose the US Dept. of Agriculture recommended that all farmers spray their crops with heavy chlorine instead of water?

In other words, the science itself is fraudulent.

This revelation, above all, is what the medical cartel tries to guard against. Their profession has shoved in all its chips on the propaganda proposition that it does impeccable science.

Science sells. The appearance of it sells. It’s the foundation stone of many industries.

Were that stone to crack and shatter, all bets would be off. A titanic fraud would come to light. The kind of fraud that would both freeze people’s minds and blow them away.

Science is the most powerful rationalization in the modern world. Consensus reality would fail and disperse without it.

As I’ve covered before, the most conservative mainstream estimate of medically caused death in America is 225,000 people per year. Every credential behind that figure is immaculate.

The author of the paper that presented the statistics was the late Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert who worked for many years at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

Her review, “Is US health the best in the world?”, was published on July 26th, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Starfield’s breakdown was as follows: the medical system kills 119,000 people a year in the US as a result of maltreatment in hospitals. The other 106,000 people are killed by FDA-approved medicines.

The FDA must approve every drug as safe and effective before it is released for public use.


It’s the medicines I want to focus on in this article. 106,000 deaths a year translates to an astonishing 1,060,000 deaths per decade.

How are these drugs approved?

Clinical trials are conducted. Reports of those trials are written. The reports, the studies, are published in peer-reviewed medical journals. The studies ARE the science.

If a million people per decade are being killed by the drugs, then a huge number of published studies proclaiming the drugs are safe are sheer fraud. There is no other way to put it.

This statement from Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, echoes the fact:

“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.”

(Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”)

The medical cartel rests on cataclysmic fraud, scientific fraud.

Imagine what would happen if just one major media outlet decided to take on this story and push it for all it’s worth. Not merely an article or two—an ongoing campaign of relentless exposure.

The silence from that quarter speaks volumes about the controlled press and what it stands for.

Over the years, I’ve written much about the the FDA. I thought I’d assemble a small fraction of it in one place, to reveal what this federal agency is really all about and why it should be dismantled, amid a blizzard of prosecutions and convictions for negligent homicide and, yes, murder.

The discovery of a page, on the FDA’s own website, proves the FDA is fully aware that:

(http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/DrugInteractionsLabeling/ucm114848.htm)

the drugs it certifies as safe have been killing Americans, at the rate of 100,000 per year.

The FDA website page is available under the heading, “Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions.” You can search for it using the Startpage.com search engine.

The FDA takes no blame, no responsibility for its own actions, and yet it admits the death statistics are accurate.

Understand this very clearly. No medical drug in America can be released for public use until and unless the FDA states it is safe. The FDA is the agency that makes every such decision on every drug. The buck stops there.

Yes, the FDA has a “special relationship” with the pharmaceutical industry. Yes, the FDA utilizes doctors on their drug-approval panels that have ties to the pharmaceutical industry. But, in the end, it is the FDA official seal that opens the gate and permits a drug to be prescribed by doctors and sold in the US.

In all my research on this medical-drug holocaust, I have never found a case in which any FDA employee was censured, fired, or criminally prosecuted for the killing effects of these drugs.

That is a track record Organized Crime would be proud of, and the comparison is not frivolous.

On this FDA website page, the FDA also readily admits that medical drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in America, ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile fatalities.

The FDA website page also states there are 2 million serious adverse reactions (ADRs) from the ingestion of medical drugs, annually, in the US. That would be 20 million ADRs per decade.

When the FDA says “serious,” they aren’t talking about headaches or slight dizziness or temporary nausea. “Serious” means stroke, heart attack, neurological damage; destruction of that magnitude.

Examining these figures for death and debilitation, can you find any comparable documented crime in the American landscape? This is the kind of story that would make Watergate look like a Sunday-school picnic.

If a paper like the New York Times let loose their hounds to relentlessly explore the horror, I assure you that, in time, doctors and medical bureaucrats and even drug-company employees would come out of the woodwork with confessions, and the resultant explosions and outcries would shake the medical/pharmaceutical foundations of America and the planet.

It would shake and destroy the SCIENCE.

But these major media outlets are an intrinsic part of the Matrix that protects and sustains the crimes and the criminals. It isn’t just drug-advertising profits that keep the leading newspapers and television networks silent. It’s collusion to protect “a revered institution”—the medical system.

Also at stake is Obamacare. The connection is vivid and unmistakable. Millions more Americans, previously uninsured, will be drawn into the system and subjected to the very drugs are killing and maiming people at such a horrific rate.

Where has the US Department of Justice been all these years? Is there any way, under the sun, that a million deaths per decade can be excused? Is there any way the FDA and the drug companies can float safely in the upper atmosphere of privilege, while the concept of justice retains any meaning? Where are criminal prosecutions?

Meanwhile, the FDA pursues an agenda of attacking nutritional supplements, and the latest federal regulations classify these supplements as “potentially dangerous”—despite the fact that supplements have a record of safety that is astonishing.

It is time for the public to realize that 100,000 people dying every year in the US, because they take medical drugs, is the equivalent of 33 airliner crashes into the Twin Towers, every year, year after year.

If you were a medical reporter for a major media outlet in the US, and you knew the above fact, wouldn’t you make it a priority to say something, write something, do something?

I’m talking about people like Sanjay Gupta (CNN, CBS), Gina Kolata (NY Times), Tim Johnson (ABC News), and Thomas Maugh II (LA Times).


The Matrix Revealed


And with that, let’s get to another smoking gun. The citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989), Anticoagulants cause the most serious adverse events, finds US analysis. Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices:

“It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

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

And here is the final 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.


Since the Department of Homeland Security is working its way into every nook and corner of American life, hyper-extending its mandate to protect all of us from everything, maybe DHS should stop tracking every move we make and simply raid and arrest all employees of the FDA as terrorists. The details could be sorted out later.

How many smoking guns do we need before a sitting president shuts down the FDA buildings, fumigates them, and builds a monument to dead Americans the FDA has driven into their graves?

Do we need 100,000 smoking guns? Do we need relatives of the people who’ve all died, in the span of, say, merely a year, from the poisonous effects of FDA-approved medical drugs, to bring their corpses and coffins to the doors of FDA headquarters?

And let me ask another question. If instead of drugs like warfarin, dabigatran, levofloxacin, carboplatin, and lisinopril (the five leading killers in the FDA database), the 100,000 deaths per year were led by gingko, ginseng, vitamin D, niacin, and raw milk, what do you think would happen?

I’ll tell you what would happen. SEALS, Delta Force, DHS-HSI SRT, SWAT teams, snipers, predator drones, tanks, and infantry would be attacking every health-food store in America. The resulting fatalities would be written off as necessary collateral damage in the fight to keep America safe and healthy.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUDGdK29SIE&w=560&h=315]

BTW, who are the video editing specialists that DHS hired to ‘sex up’ this video?


But you see, the routine deaths of 100,000 Americans a year, after the FDA has certified the drugs are SAFE, isn’t a “recognized political issue.”

Such is the power of the medical cartel. All those phony stories in the press, reported dutifully by so-called medical reporters? The stories about maybe-could-be-possible-miracle breakthroughs just over the horizon of state-of-the-art research? Those stories are there to obscure the very, very hard facts of medically-caused death on the ground.

The buck stops at the FDA.


Imagine this. You go to an FBI web page and read the following: “Killings committed by FBI agents are the third leading cause of death in America every year.”

Yet somehow, the FDA gets away with its crimes, its homicides. There are no alarm bells, no arrests, no hearings, no public statements, no press reactions, no shakeups at the Agency.

The power of the medical cartel is gigantic.

When I was running for a Congressional seat from the 29th District of California, in 1994, and during my participation in the Health Freedom movement of that period, I insisted we had to take the attack to the FDA. We had to make their crimes public.

I was told by the people who were leading the charge for Health Freedom that priority had to be given to passing a law that would protect us all from attacks on nutritional supplements. Then, when we had that law, we could think about going after the FDA.

Well, we got the law, which only gave us temporary protection, and afterward there was no “going after the FDA.” It was suddenly a dead issue.

I remember the people who said, “Don’t attack the FDA.” I remember their attitudes, their faces, their words. They were not my friends, and they weren’t your friends. Some of them were yuppies selling “let’s be nice” New Age sentiment. A few were most likely plants who had infiltrated the Health Freedom movement to water it down.

Various liars sell their lies through various strategies.

I assure you, there are doctors out there who know the statistics on medically caused death in the US. They know about the drugs that kill. They know what’s going on. They know the FDA is accountable. They remain silent. They feel no pressure to make a public statement. They’re living under the umbrella of protection provided by the government and the press and the medical system.

These doctors are silent witnesses to ongoing mass murder. Just as the FDA is a silent witness to its own mass-murdering practices. And of course, the doctors write the prescriptions for the drugs.

Obama, Bush, Clinton; none of these men have indicated the slightest awareness of the “problem.” Did they know? Do they know? Just as I predicted, correctly, that the FDA knows, I say these men do know. They prefer to remain silent as well. They don’t want to touch this genocidal crime. They don’t have the character or the courage.

Presidents and deans of medical schools know. Teachers at these schools know. Pharmaceutical executives know. Medical researchers know. The CDC knows. The World Health Organization knows. Editors and reporters at major press outlets know. The DEA knows. The US Dept. of Justice knows.


power outside the matrix


As far as the public is concerned, a matrix of hypnotic effect and cognitive dissonance is the obstacle. People find it extremely difficult to believe that a federal agency, in broad daylight, year after year, countenances and sustains the unnecessary deaths of 100,000 people.

People find it extremely difficult to believe that, were such a story true, they would not have heard about it already.

People want to believe that a crime of this boggling magnitude would already have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

People want to believe the secular religion known as Medicine is devoted to healing in all its forms.

People want to believe that, since doctors can put accident victims back together in one piece and can set broken bones and temporarily reduce inflammation, the practice of medicine must be uniformly successful across the board.

People want to believe in SCIENCE.


In a stunning 2012 interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Cavanagh, exposed the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies.

Cavanagh: “…widespread [FDA] racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation.”

“I was threatened with prison.”

“One [FDA] manager threatened my children…I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”

Cavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency who insisted the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn’t part of the FDA culture, and Cavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.

What was his covert task at the FDA? “Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs.” In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.

Cavanagh’s recalls a meeting where a drug-company representative flat-out stated that his company had paid the FDA for a new-drug approval. Paid for it. As in bribe.

He remarks that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the effects of nerve gas, “actually increased the lethality” of certain nerve agents.

Cavanagh recalls being given records of safety data on a drug—and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.

As I mentioned above, the original study-review on medically caused death in America was written by Dr. Barbara Starfield and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Three years ago, shortly before her death, I interviewed Dr. Starfield. I asked her whether any government agency had ever contacted her about her findings, in the nine years since publication

“No,” she said.

I asked her whether she was aware of any federal agency undertaking action to remedy the horrific killing effects of the US medical system.

“No,” she said.

Try this image: you are a gatekeeper. Your job, on the first day of every year, is to unlock the gate and leave it open, so people can pass through. But you know that, when you open the gate, 100,000 people who pass through will die in the following year. Yet, every January 1, you keep opening the gate.

That’s what the FDA is. That particular gatekeeper.

But of course, the people at the FDA are just like us. They wouldn’t do THAT, they wouldn’t do THAT, they wouldn’t do that…

But they did. They do. They continue to do 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

75 plane crashes into Twin Towers every year

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

3000 people killed on September 11, 2001.

What would happen if there were 75 attacks of that magnitude every year? Not just one year, every year.

Roughly one attack every five days.

Mad uncontrollable chaos. That’s what would happen.

Military dictatorship right out in the open; absolute and official gutting of the Bill of Rights; mass arrests and disappearances on the slightest of pretexts, huge riots, global war…

And still, the attacks would continue to take place. No measure, no amount of force would stop them.

The news would cover nothing else. Every day, all day, television and print news would yell, shout, scream, wail.

Well, consider these figures, which I have published many times—

Author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, John Hopkins School of Public Health, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”:

Every year, in the US, the medical system kills 225,000 people. 106,000 die as a direct result of ingesting medical drugs. 119,000 die as a result of mistreatment and medical errors in hospitals.

Do the math.

225,000 deaths a year caused by the US medical system. Imagine 75 September 11th attacks, each with a death toll of 3000, and you have 225,000 annual deaths.

Here’s another citation.Author, Jeanne Lenzer. British Medical Journal, June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989), 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.”


The Matrix Revealed


I’m fully aware that independent analyses have pegged the death toll racked up by the US medical system at far higher levels. But I’m using mainstream sources and citations, to show that, even within the hallowed halls of the medical complex, the knowledge of medically caused death is widespread.

In the US, we have the equivalent of 75 September 11th attacks every year, and the ongoing response of the mainstream press is:

Nothing.

Silence.

That takes a stunning degree of control, in order to suppress the truth. Stunning.

It takes an extraordinary degree of collaboration, to keep this information from the people.

This would be like concealing the fact that the US has been fighting a war in Europe for the past 15 years, and 225,000 US soldiers have died each and every year.

And this is the medical system that purports to tell Americans everything they need to know about drugs and vaccines and disease-diagnosis… the authoritarian system that knows what’s best for Americans.

This is a federal government that is doing nothing to change the medical system it backs and funds.

You know, the federal government that really cares about you.

Jon Rappoport

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

Why I keep writing about Monsanto vs. Maui

Why I keep writing about Maui vs. Monsanto

Tearing away the curtain

by Jon Rappoport

April 16, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

First, an important development in the case I’ve just become aware of. There has been virtually no discovery process.

Meaning: The people of Maui want to know specific details of Monsanto’s years of experiments with unapproved pesticides and GMOs in their county. They want records, files, internal communications; the whole nine yards.

They’re getting nothing.

Monsanto’s history of unbridled human experimentation is still obscured in a cloud of mystery. And danger.

And this is five months after the people of Maui voted in favor of putting a temporary ban on all such experimentation.

That vote has been suspended in a void, while Monsanto and its allies have been suing Maui.

I keep writing about this case because, for one, the people of Maui voted for something far stronger than labeling GMOs. They voted to ban Monsanto’s experiments, until a complete independent investigation could be done that would unearth the range of those ongoing pesticide/GMO experiments, thus assessing the danger and the harm.

The vote last Election Day was a victory. It wasn’t an “almost.” It wasn’t “we’re getting there and we’ll do better the next time,” it was: We Won.

And because Monsanto sued immediately and hung up the case in federal court, the result of the legitimate vote was not implemented.


I keep writing about Maui vs. Monsanto because the people of Maui are acutely aware they’re the targets of Monsanto experiments, and they did something about it, against all odds.

I keep writing about the case because Maui County, the Big Island, and Kauai are very important Monsanto research centers, and a blow against those centers is a blow against the whole GMO empire.

I write about this case because the old tradition in Hawaii is respect and love for the land. In a half-sane world, that land would never have been taken by force, in the first place, from the native people who made it their home.

A monstrosity of a corporation, Monsanto, backed up by the US federal government, has seen fit to spray toxic chemicals and deploy experimental GMOs in Hawaii, for its own profit, with no benefits for anyone anywhere.

This is a case with enormous implications. It isn’t about labeling poisons and health hazards; it’s about banning them and opening up Monsanto’s secret records and finding out exactly what they’ve been doing.

Time is of the essence, because Monsanto is undoubtedly shredding and transferring its documents, just in case it loses this legal battle.

International pressure is necessary. International outrage is necessary.

The result of the Maui vote is on the record. That vote established new law. The vote has been denied—and the County Government of Maui has joined the case on the side of Monsanto, thus betraying its own people.

From a simple journalistic perspective, if this isn’t a “lead paragraph,” nothing is.

Sometimes, the future hangs by a thin thread. What will happen and what won’t happen depends on what people become aware of, and what they do about it.


Mainstream reporters, if they are paying any attention at all, cover the case as a puzzle of complexities stemming from arguments on both sides. They stand back and paint a thin veneer on the whole proceeding. They invoke their tradition of “well, we’ll see what happens next.”

Of course, striking a deep blow against Monsanto is forbidden because, after all, the world of biotech intersects with the world of media corporations.

In the Monsanto vs. Maui case, there is a great deal of gibberish about “jurisdiction.” Which government entity—county, state, federal—controls the regulations on agriculture.

The answer to that question is simple: jurisdiction is in the hands of the people on the ground who are harmed.

The other answer is: this is not a case about agriculture and farming at all. It’s about massive human experimentation with unapproved non-commercial GMOs and chemical pesticides. With no informed consent.

If you lived in a neighborhood where a giant corporation was spraying chemicals whose names you didn’t even know, you wouldn’t be delighted to let the experts diddle each other over the fine points.

You would want action. A ban. An independent and full investigation. A prosecution of crimes. If you could vote for all that, you would.

The people of Maui did.

That’s exactly what they did.

And they’ve been denied.

Simple enough?


power outside the matrix


Anyone with a nose for news understands that Monsanto is holding, in Hawaii, vast secret records on its experiments—records that, if released, in the open, could blow the doors off Monsanto’s global operations.

Some people still remember that, during the Vietnam War, Monsanto manufactured Agent Orange, a highly toxic substance (cancer, birth defects) that was sprayed all over Vietnam.

Agent Orange was a plant killer, an herbicide. So is Monsanto’s Roundup, which the World Health Organization has just declared a probable carcinogen. Roundup is the most popular herbicide in the world.

The unknown experimental chemicals Monsanto has been spraying on Hawaii for years are herbicides.

And the people of Maui are being sued because they voted to find out what those chemicals are?

That lawsuit is itself a crime; the court case, dragging on and on, is a crime; the two federal judges in the case, Barry Kurren and Susan Oki Mollway, are abetting a crime.

Where are the human rights organizations? Why aren’t they descending on the scene and holding press conferences and demanding justice?

Where are the groups who promote decentralization of political power away from the federal government and toward local communities? Here is a clear-cut illustration of local people winning a vote and winding up in federal court to defend themselves and their vote.

Where are the groups who defend victims of human experimentation?

Where are the groups who attack the monolithic power of the Corporate State?

Where are the websites who promote the right of people to control their own health?

Where are the so-called libertarians?

Where are the groups who ceaselessly investigate how big government hides its secrets? This is a case in which the federal government is backing the right of a giant favored corporation, Monsanto, to conceal all its data re chemical and genetic experimentation affecting a population.

Where are magazines once thought of as “dissident,” who could be sending reporters to Maui to dig into this case and come up with the grotesque details?

Where are the groups who relentlessly defend the rights of indigenous peoples all over the world—but ignore Hawaii?

Where are the thousands and thousands of environmental groups who attack anyone who dares to interrupt the life cycle of a fish or an insect?

Where are the vociferous critics of chemtrails, when there, in Hawaii, is a clear-cut, government-supported case of years and years of Monsanto spraying unapproved chemicals into the air, on the population?

Where are the GMO labelers, when in Maui County, the vote to put a temporary ban on GMO/pesticide experiments actually won?

And without the massive support of all these groups, what are the chances that one man or woman who works behind the fortress walls of Monsanto will leak the secret records of experimentation, chapter and verse, and let the world know what is going on?

I guarantee that such a man or woman, stepping out into the light of day with a trove of Monsanto documents, would face a storm the likes of which would make the pressure on Edward Snowden seem like a Sunday picnic.

That’s a fact to ponder.

It revels the priorities of the establishment, the status quo, the government, the State, the Globalists, the mega-corporate colossus, the Reality Manufacturing Company in their actual and correct sequence.

Jon Rappoport

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

Germanwings plane crash: major media cover-up

Germanwings plane crash: major media cover-up

by Jon Rappoport

April 1, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“When systemic fraud reaches a certain level where collapse of some basic institution is inevitable, the powers that be invent a different storyline. They tell an outright fairy tale and keep pushing it. They’ll even stage events that confirm the fairy tale. Anything to avoid the truth that would disintegrate the whole structure. For example: the structure called Psychiatry.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Airbus A 320 flight from Barcelona to Dusseldorf. Crashed in French Alps. All 150 aboard killed. Pilot Andreas Lubitz flew the plane into a mountain. Lubitz had seen a psychiatrist for depression.

Major media cover the story from several angles.

Should airline personnel have known one of its pilots was suffering from depression? Did they know? Did they cover it up, or ignore it?

These media outlets studiously ignore the elephant in the room: the drugs used to treat depression.

This blackout is intentional. Any decent reporter would look into the antidepressants, Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, etc., as the cause of the pilot crashing the plane.

Go to the site, SSRI Stories, for a huge list of suicides and murders connected to the drugs. Read the warning labels (listing, e.g., suicide) on the drugs. It’s all there.

Visit psychiatrist Peter Breggin’s site, breggin.com. Breggin blew the whistle on these drugs long ago. Read his classic, Toxic Psychiatry.

So where is the media coverage now, in the Germanwings case? It’s virtually nowhere.

The go-to media experts in the field of psychiatry are cover-up professionals. Drug Companies, of course, buy enormous numbers of TV ads.

But beyond these factors, exposure of the truth about antidepressants and their connection to suicides and murders would take down psychiatry itself. The whole profession would collapse.

The sleeping population would stir and sit up and take notice.

Governments would be forced to admit their overt support of psychiatry is based on fraud, from top to bottom.

That is what’s at stake here.


power outside the matrix


And if the major media lived up to their (mythical) role of investigators of truth, the Germanwings story would expand into every nook and cranny of psychiatry: fraudulent diagnoses of every so-called mental disorder, for which there are no physical diagnostic tests: no blood tests, no urine tests, no brain scans, no genetic assays.

Battalions of real reporters doing real probes, backed up by media giants, would force doctors and medical bureaucrats out of their closets, and confessions would pile up.

But this will never happen, because those media giants are committed to supporting the Establishment of which they are a member.

The entire system of psychiatry—fraudulent diagnoses, dangerous and toxic drugs—is a colossus sitting on an earthquake fault. A triggering event, however, is protected from happening by the very media who should be making it happen.

This is a circle of lies.

“Since I first began working as a medical expert in product liability cases way back in the early 1990s, I’ve spent innumerable hours culling the sealed data contained within the files of companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly. Among other things, I long ago found evidence that Paxil and Prozac cause suicidality in adults. These discoveries then led to settlements in product liability suits brought against the two companies brought by surviving family members.” —Dr. Peter Breggin

“I got involved in the Miller case. Matt Miller was a 13 year old boy who had just changed schools and was feeling nervous. His parents prompted by the teacher brought him to a doctor who put him on Zoloft. Seven days later he hung himself in the bathroom between his parent’s bedroom and his bedroom.” —David Healy, Professor of Psychiatry, Bangor university, UK

Any media outlet, aware of these two statements (and many other similar statements), who did not then dig much deeper into the recent Germanwings disaster, would be actively concealing vital truth.

In other words, they would be carrying on business as usual.

Jon Rappoport

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

Message to a new generation of true science/medical reporters

Message to a new generation of true science/medical reporters

by Jon Rappoport

March 31, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

After covering medical/science scandals and deep fraud for over 30 years, I have some words of advice for people just entering the field.

I’m talking about independent reporters who want to discover the truth, no matter where it leads.

Let’s start with this: know the difference between an experimental hypothesis and actual science.

An experimental hypothesis can be disguised as official science, but it is actually in a nascent stage. It has little or no evidence to back it up.

No matter how many government agencies, courts, media mouthpieces, and bureaucrats promote it as “settled,” it is unconfirmed.

Take psychiatry, for example. It is a pseudoscience parading with bells and whistles and loud music.

I’m not going to recapitulate the many articles I’ve written demonstrating the pseudo-basis of this “discipline.” To summarize:

None of the 300 or so official mental disorders has any physical diagnostic test to justify its existence.

The general proposition that all mental disorders stem from a chemical imbalance in the brain is unproven.

Committees of psychiatrists meet and decide which disorder-labels to apply to which groupings of behaviors. This is their “science.”

And of course, all psychiatric drugs are toxic. Not only that, inexpert and sudden withdrawal from them can create very dangerous effects.

Psychiatry is, at best (without even going into the political ramifications of the profession), an experimental hypothesis.

As such, it should be governed by the stringent rules of informed consent, by which the patient learns of the drugs’ toxic effects and the non-scientific basis for diagnosing any “mental disorder.”

No government agency should have granted official protected status to the profession, its practitioners, or its drugs.

Psychiatry is human experimentation gone crazy.

I pick this example because so many people automatically assume psychiatry is a science.

The popular consensus is: it’s a workable and necessary approach to human problems.


power outside the matrix


Medical/science reporting involves more than exposing the latest limited scandal. It should dig far below the surface and go to the basic fraud.

Reporters should also be prepared to respond to their critics and official spokesmen (liars) who use bluster soaked in arrogance to a) attack and b) pump themselves up. Don’t be shy. Don’t adopt a defensive stance. Stick to your guns. Dissect critics’ illogic. Grind their arguments down to powder.

Assume nothing. Again, search out the most basic fraud you can find and expose it to the light of day.

In doing so, you’ll be miles ahead of the game.

So, for example, just as the latest pronouncement of an epidemic is launched from the bowels of the CDC, while others are arguing about how “the virus” can and can’t be transmitted, you’ll be looking for evidence that the virus was ever IDed at all, was ever isolated from a human patient. And finding no evidence, you’ll be entering the fray at the correct portal, where the initial boggling crimes are being committed. You’ll be undercutting others who are less astute and curious than you are.

Go deep. And deeper. Forget other people’s pre-set agendas. Your agenda is exposing the bottom-line pretense.

In case you hadn’t noticed, society, more and more, is constructed, concocted, and controlled via pseudoscience maxims and pretensions. This is a highly dangerous situation that is leading us into a lunatic future.

That makes your work more important than ever.

Jon Rappoport

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

News vs. sub-news: how the game works

News vs. sub-news: how the game works

For example, in faking medical reality

Let’s start there…

by Jon Rappoport

March 30, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

News is defined, within the media industry, as stories being reported as they’re happening.

Troops invade Libya. Germany protests over US spying. Car crash in fog in Indiana. President states plan to restructure jobs program.

That’s news.

Sub-news is any number of reports, statements, interviews that occur outside the news cycle, or express a summing-up of a problem.

In a half-sane media landscape, certain sub-news statements would become the basis for extensive investigation by media outlets. Sub-news contains, from time to time, a great deal of juice. It’s provocative, even astonishing.

But overwhelmingly, sub-news is left lying on the side of the road like discarded garbage. Why? Because it threatens established interests. Furthermore, the media outlets who could magnify sub-news are aligned with those established interests. Joined at the hip.

For example, here’s a staggering piece of sub-news:

On January 15, 2009, the NY Review of Books published a devastating quote from a woman who, for 20 years, was an editor at one of the most prestigious medical journal in the world:

“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.” —Marcia Angell, MD, “Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.

For any ambitious medical reporter, the quote could have been the jumping-off point for an investigation aimed at taking down medical journals and the whole peer-review system that underpins medical publishing.

But nothing happened. No dots were connected. The quote was left hanging in mid-air like a Hindenburg whose explosion had been indefinitely postponed.

Here is another Hindenburg quote of a similar nature, also published in the NY Review of Books (May 12, 2001, Helen Epstein, “Flu Warning: Beware of Drug Companies”):

“Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false.”

Here’s another quote from the same article:

“Last year, GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia was linked to thousands of heart attacks, and earlier in the decade, the company’s antidepressant Paxil was discovered to exacerbate the risk of suicide in young people. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was also linked to thousands of heart disease deaths. In each case, the scientific literature gave little hint of these dangers.”

And finally, here is yet another statement from Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine:

“A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies [that praised the drugs] were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.”

It turns out that the informational pipeline that feeds the entire perception of pharmaceutical medicine is a rank fraud.

Relentlessly investigating that pipeline, over the course of a year or two, would uncover scandals that would rock the foundations of the medical cartel.

But no. The sub-news is cast aside, ignored, left to rot in the sun.

Forgotten.


power outside the matrix


To the terms “news” and “sub-news,” we could add, in parallel, “major consensus” and “minor consensus.” Major consensus is manufactured. It attempts to block out the sun.

People who encounter sub-news within the mainstream are often driven to distraction, when they expect major revelations to follow—and nothing happens. They can’t figure out what’s going on.

They need to realize their confusion is entirely proper and natural; and they should move on from there to challenge the builders of news and major consensus. They should become relentless.

From their ranks can be born the new generation of real reporters.

Jon Rappoport

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