Category Archives: Press Fraud

The News: mind control through “cognitive dissonance”

The News: mind control through “cognitive dissonance”

by Jon Rappoport

February 24, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“When professionals broadcast one absurdity after another, they begin to see the effects are actually strengthening their own position of authority. It’s a revelation. It’s also a continuation of the tradition of the Trickster archetype. For example, with just a few minor adjustments, Brian Williams can be seen as the sly Reynard the Fox…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

From the viewpoint of elite television news, controlling the minds of its audience depends on what’s politely called “cognitive dissonance”:

As the anchor recites a news story, the viewer sees an obvious hole through which he could drive a truck.

The story makes no sense, yet it’s being presented as bland fact. The trusted anchor clearly has no problem with it.

What’s the viewer to do? He experiences a contradiction, a “dissonance.”

For example, this year’s flu vaccine. The US government has admitted the vaccine is geared to a flu virus that isn’t circulating in the population. Therefore, even by conventional standards, the vaccine is useless. But the kicker is, the CDC says people should take the vaccine anyway.

The anchor relays all this information—and never seriously questions the situation, never torpedoes the government for recommending the vaccine.

The average viewer feels a tug, a pulse of discomfort, a push-pull. The vaccine story is idiocy (side one), but the trusted anchor accepts it (side two).

Dissonance.

The top chiefs of news—and top propaganda operatives—anticipate cognitive dissonance. In a real sense, they want it to happen. They make it happen. Over and over.

Why?

Because it throws the viewer into a tailspin. And in that mental state, in his effort to resolve the contradiction, he will normally choose to…give in. Surrender. Believe in the anchor. It’s the easier path.

The viewer will even doubt his own perception. “I see no good reason for Building 7 to collapse, but the news doesn’t bring that up, so…it must be me.”

This is the power of the news. It presents absurdities and then moves right along, as if nothing has happened.

For the viewer, it’s the equivalent of: “Don’t you see that pile-up of smashed cars on the freeway, and the smoke? No? Oh well, it must be me. I guess I was wrong. There isn’t any pile-up.”

The introduction of contradiction, dissonance, and absurdity parading as ordinary reality is an intentional feature of brainwashing.

On the nightly news, the anchor reports that US government debt has risen by another three trillion dollars. He then cuts to a statement from a Federal Reserve spokesman: the new debt level isn’t a problem; in fact, it’s sound monetary policy; it strengthens the economy.

The viewer, caught up in this absurdity, tries to make sense of it, then gives up and passively accepts it. Brainwashing.

Smoothly transitioning from this story, the anchor relays information from the CDC: vaccination rates must achieve 90% in the population, in order to protect people from dangerous viruses. The viewer thinks, “Well, my daughter is already vaccinated, so if she comes into contact with a child who isn’t vaccinated, why would that be a problem for her? Why does 90% of the population have to be vaccinated to keep her safe? She’s already vaccinated.”

The viewer wrestles with this absurdity for a moment, then gives in and accepts what the CDC and the anchor are saying. More passivity. More brainwashing.

The anchor moves right along to the next story: “The US is experiencing one of the coldest winters in history, further evidence of the effects of global warming, according to scientists at the United Nations.”

The viewer shakes his head, tries to deal with this dissonance, surrenders, and accepts what he is hearing. Deeper passivity is the result. Deeper brainwashing.

On and on it goes, day after day, month after month, year after year, on the news.

Contradiction, absurdity, dissonance; acceptance, surrender, passivity.

The same general formula is used in interrogations and formal mind control. It adds up to disorientation of the target.

Most disoriented people opt for the lowest- common-denominator solution: give in; accept the power of the person of authority.

When it comes to the news, that person is the anchor, the narrator, the presenter of reality.

He sows the ground with seeds of dissonance. That is how he gains compliance from the viewer.

power outside the matrix

If the news anchor experiences moments of conscience and self-doubt, he can tell himself he is doing the work of a journalist: he’s presenting information obtained from reliable sources. If these sources are spouting contradictions and absurdities, so be it. “Nothing better is available.”

Among the many supporters of conventional news is the education system. Most teachers never learn logic, and they don’t teach it. The result? Their students never gain the ability or the courage to reject the news and its dissonances.

What little these students gain from 12 or 16 years of schooling they eventually sacrifice on the altar of consensus reality—as broadcast every night on the screen before them.

In the face of absurdities that never add up or make sense, they surrender their minds.

If you gain enough distance from the news and watch it every night and pick it apart and see every dissonance, you realize the news is utterly Surreal. However, it is sold as utterly Normal. That is its trump card—the ability to sell itself as the ultimate in Normalcy.

That is its greatest achievement: overcoming its deepest contradiction.

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.

Fake Disney measles outbreak: send in the clowns

Fake Disney measles outbreak: send in the clowns

by Jon Rappoport

February 15, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“Lacking any real science proving we have a serious 2015 measles outbreak, and lacking any science supporting the idea that the measles vaccine is safe and effective, we’re looking at a psyop called The Disney Story. A fake horror movie happening at ‘the happiest place on Earth,’ Disneyland. It’s a perfect way to scare the moms into vaccinating their kiddies. If the happiest place on Earth isn’t safe, then where is safety? ‘Mickey Mouse infects children.’ Cue the ominous music. ‘Cotton candy dream turns into nightmare.’ ‘Send in the clowns, carriers of the virus.’” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

150 measles cases. No deaths.

Dangerous outbreak? Are you kidding?

Mainstream media recalling past problems with the measles vaccine? Are you kidding? The news brushes off what happened 24 hours ago.

Medical scholars and historians are no better. Most of them operate on behalf of entrenched money; and that money wants the population to believe all vaccines are remarkably safe and effective.

What follows are several past statements and reports about the measles vaccine and measles. In a half-sane society that tried to live up to its laws, these statements would spark deep investigations. But we have a different kind of society…

“In 1977, 34 new cases of measles were reported on the campus of UCLA, in a population that was supposedly 91% immune [via vaccination], according to careful serological testing. Another 20 cases of measles were reported in the Pecos, New Mexico, area within a period of a few months in 1981, and 75% of them had been fully immunized, some of them quite recently. A survey of sixth-graders in a well-immunized urban community revealed that about 15% of this age group are still susceptible to rubella [German measles], a figure essentially identical with that of the pre-vaccine era.” (Richard Moskowitz, MD, The Case Against Immunizations, 1983, American Institute of Homeopathy.)

“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” (Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977.)

“By the (U.S.) government’s own admission, there has been a 41% failure rate in persons who were previously vaccinated against the (measles) virus.” (Dr. Anthony Morris, John Chriss, BG Young, ‘Occurrence of Measles in Previously Vaccinated Individuals,’ 1979; presented at a meeting of the American Society for Microbiology at Fort Detrick, Maryland, April 27, 1979.)

power outside the matrix

“Prior to the time doctors began giving rubella (measles) vaccinations, an estimated 85% of adults were naturally immune to the disease (for life). Because of immunization, the vast majority of women never acquire natural immunity (or lifetime protection).” (Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, Let’s Live, December 1983, as quoted by Carolyn Reuben in LA WEEKLY, June 28, 1985.)

“Administration of KMV (killed measles vaccine) apparently set in motion an aberrant immunologic response that not only failed to protect children against natural measles, but resulted in heightened susceptibility.” (JAMA Aug. 22, 1980, vol. 244, p. 804, Vincent Fulginiti and Ray Helfer.) The authors indicate that such falsely protected children can come down with “an often severe, atypical form of measles. Atypical measles is characterized by fever, headache… and a diverse rash (which)… may consist of a mixture of macules, papules, vesicles, and pustules…”

This last statement is particularly troubling. It suggests that vaccination can increase the likelihood of catching measles; and when that does happen, the illness is far more serious than the ordinary type.

So-called medical experts (see also this) and PR front men for vaccines are banking on an ignorant population composed of compliant androids.

Mainstream media aren’t the only culprits. Find one course in one college or medical school in America titled: “Vaccines Pro and Con, the Full Story.” You can’t? The very idea of such a course is ludicrous? That’s no accident.

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.

Every television newscast: staged reality

by Jon Rappoport

February 14, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staged news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staged.

They’re marketing thin context.

power outside the matrix

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

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

What sits behind that statement?

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

It’s time to advance the medical police state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

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

The space-time continuum called The News

The space-time continuum called The News

by Jon Rappoport

February 10, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“The news isn’t a just a thing, a person, a message. It’s a hallucination pretending to be real, as if a dreamer has suddenly risen and broken through the surface of the ocean, and now he can see the shore and the glittering buildings…and when he reaches the beach, he can walk into the city and actually watch very important people doing very important things all around him…and that’s supposed to be the up-to-the-minute news. But actually, it’s the reverse. The news is the dream, not the awakening.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Images sent over thousands of miles; well-lit anchors who seem alert to everything of importance taking place in our world; field reporters in far-flung places who pop up and respond instantly to the anchors…

—And, over and over, the same important faces of government leaders who, day after day, are “struggling to improve our destiny against great odds, against intransigent enemies of progress.”

All this is delivered in the space of a few minutes, each night, like clockwork.

The anchor can twist the truth, burn it, hide it, step on it, reverse it; it doesn’t matter. He performs those actions before he sits in his chair and the cameras roll.

If the US government hires, supports, and arms terrorists, the news can claim the government is doing everything possible to fight against terrorism—including installing a massive Surveillance State.

In 1927, Carl Jung wrote: “…the dream is the theater where the dreamer is at once scene, actor, prompter, stage manager, author, audience, and critic.”

But in the case of the news, the dream must come from an external place. It must come from a personage (the anchor) stamped with an official imprimatur.

There must be The Voice and it must narrate (invent, fabricate) the dream.

When this happens on a daily basis, most viewers sink so far into it they fully accept its parameters and remain enclosed.

The space and time of the news form their own continuum.

In this continuum, viewers are content to “take their dream-knowledge” from the anchor. This is considered safe. This is considered proper. This is considered reasonable. Knowledge comes to be thought of as always and forever coming from a place that is definitely not-self.

And that’s how individual power is replaced and hidden.

When I was a small boy, the stooge for official reality was one of the most respected men in America, Edward R Murrow. He seemed to be talking out of a dark vault. His somber tone, his serious intent, his moonscape rhythms offered doom, but always with a hint of light, because “he knew Justice and, therefore, it might still prevail.” He was the pope of hope.

I can still remember thinking, this is a show, it’s a good show, but it’s theater. I knew that, because in those days my friends and I played on fields of our own choosing, we were free, we made up our own rules and our own games, and we loved having that power.

And then at night, I found my imagination by reading novels about sea voyages and trips to other planets—and soon enough I realized the news was a story about power being everywhere I wasn’t.

It was a losing proposition, from one end to the other.

Fortunately, my other early education was conducted in a local pool room. People who were a lot smarter than I was taught me how to recognize a hustler.

Official reality is a cosmic hustler.

In Paddy Chayefsky’s 1976 film, Network, the unhinged news anchor Howard Beale tells his audience: “We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. 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. You do whatever the tube tells you….You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God’s name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion…”

As the Brian Williams front is crumbling, it’s important to understand what is really happening. Williams is the host and master of ceremonies of the space-time continuum called the News. That’s his job. And his viewers, at some level, understand it.

They enter that continuum every night, and the deal they make with Williams is: “You pretend to be honest and we’ll pretend to believe you.” That’s the ticket, the agreement, the price of admission. Once the deal is consummated, the audience willingly enters dream-fantasyland, in order to receive their dose of hypnotic trance. It’s the dose they want.

But Williams’ pretense of honesty, his side of the bargain, has been exposed, has been made public. The trance has been interrupted.

THE TRANCE HAS BEEN INTERRUPTED.

How does the audience enter a trance-space when there is now a large hole in it?

It’s like a devotee of a diet guru discovering the guru actually had his stomach stapled. The devotee still wants to genuflect at the feet of the guru, but it’s much harder now.

“I want to pretend the space-time universe of the news is more real than real, but now the host is wearing a clown mask and big fake feet, and he’s pumping up brightly colored balloons with helium…”

People who want a trance tend to become quite angry when their fervent wish is derailed.

So let’s not think the Brian William affair is a matter of truth versus lying. It’s about sticking a pin in the space-time enclosure called the News. It’s about the popping sound and the deflation of that universe.

“I just don’t know whether I can believe Brian Williams anymore.” No, no, no, no. That’s not it. It’s “I don’t know whether I can keep living in that world every night. I really want to. I do. But it’s harder to induce my trance…”

Of course, this isn’t a Brain Williams problem. It’s about consensus reality itself. If the interior little swinging pendulum and the soothing inner objective voice narrating “the collective stories of our time” shut down, what then?

What then? The return of the individual.

The individual, who beyond the layers of programming, was there all along.

Front and center stage.

His rational mind awake, his imagination and creative-force powering up.

This is exactly what the news is meant to bury in electronic narcosis. This is what the news is supposed to supplant, by constructing a parallel universe. This is the same perverse art that has launched religious and metaphysical cosmologies as old as time, cosmologies that place the individual inside a labyrinth whose exits disappear.

In 1978, in a speech titled, “How to Build a Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later, Philip K Dick offered this: “Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups…So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.”

The news is a strong pseudo-reality because it purports to describe what is actually happening in the moment. But no, it is a fabricated continuum, in which billions of people can be told the equivalent of: ducks are flying space ships to the moon, the price of condos on Jupiter is dropping, and Presidents keep saving our bacon.

Billions of people want to bathe their psyches in that invented place and rest and sleep there. This is modern space travel.

This is mind transportation from one world to another.

The staff and crew who assemble the nightly news understand this well. Enabling smooth transitions from one story to another, backing up the anchor whose voice-rhythms intone surety, switching from anchor in-studio to field reporters and back, they do everything they can to eliminate technical mistakes and, above all, guard against their nemesis:

Dead air.

Seconds of nothing.

This is also what a hypnotist avoids; anything that would cut the trance.

An anchor who can pull this off, while at the same time describing events that are disturbing, wins the big prize, the big check, and the big fame. He’s the modern version of the underworld ferryman Charon, carrying a billion souls across the River Styx every night.

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 elite television anchor: narrator of reality

The elite television anchor: narrator of reality

by Jon Rappoport

February 8, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“Millions of people have become little news broadcasters and anchors, relaying pictures and text about their parties, picnics, family gatherings, updating their breaking stories, narrating the story lines of their lives. All they need for a complete imitation of the networks is sponsors.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

It’s not only the content of news that is embraced, it’s the style, the manner of presentation—and in the long run, the presentation is far more corrosive, far more deadly than the content.

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

Most of America 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 Brian Williams and Scott Pelley, have set the tone. They define the genre.

The elite anchor is not a person filled with passion or curiosity. Therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be passionate or filled with curiosity, either.

The anchor is not a demanding voice on the air; therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be demanding.

The anchor isn’t hell-bent on uncovering the truth. For this he substitutes a false dignity. Therefore, the audience can surrender its need to wrestle with the truth and replace that with a false dignity of its own.

The anchor takes propriety to an extreme: it’s unmannerly to look below the surface of things. Therefore, the audience adopts those manners.

The anchor inserts an actor’s style into what should instead be a relentless reporter’s forward motion. Therefore, members of the audience can become actors shaping “news” about their own lives through Facebook.

The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience’s psyche that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect.

From their perch, the elite television anchors can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.

But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right. You can rely on us for that.”

This is the great PR arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold billions to convey that false assurance.

The elite anchor must pretend to believe the narrow parameters and boundaries of a story are all there is. There is no deeper meaning. There is no abyss waiting to swallow whole a major story and reveal it as a hoax. No. Never.

With this conviction in tow, the anchor can fiddle and diddle with details.

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, unimaginable truth.

The anchor is quite satisfied to obtain all his information from “reputable sources.” This mainly means government and corporate spokespeople. Not a problem.

Every other source, for the anchor, is murky and unreliable. He doesn’t have to worry his pretty little head about whether his sources are, indeed, trustworthy. He calculates it this way: if government and corporations are releasing information, it means there is news to report.

What the FBI director has to say is news whether it’s true or false, because the director said it. So why not blur over the mile-wide distinction between “he spoke the truth” and “he spoke”?

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.

Essentially, the anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?”

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’s Brian Williams—or it was, until his “conflations” and “misremembrances” surfaced.

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

The cable news networks don’t really have anyone who qualifies as an elite anchor. Wolf Blitzer of CNN made his bones during the first Iraq war only because his name fit the bombing action so well. Brit Hume of FOX has more anchor authority than anyone now working in network television, but he’s semi-retired, content to play the role of contributor, because he knows the news is a scam on wheels.

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.”

Neutrality implies: this is a democracy; an anchor is no more important than the next person (and yet he is—another contradiction, swallowed).

Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re not like the cop shows; we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re like a responsible charity.

The anchor is the answer to the age-old question about the people. Do the people really want to suck in superficial cause and effect and surface detail, or do they want deeper truth? Do the people want comfortable gigantic lies, or do they want to look behind the curtain?

The anchor, of course, goes for surface only.

The anchor is so accustomed to lying and so accustomed to pretending the lies are true that he wouldn’t know how to shift gears.

power outside the matrix

At the end of the Roman Empire, when the whole structure was coming apart, a brilliant and devious decision was made. The Empire would proceed according to a completely different plan. Instead of continuing to stretch its resources to the breaking point with military conquests, it would attack the mind.

It would establish the Roman Church and write new spiritual law. These laws and an overriding cosmology would be dispensed, in land after land, by official “eunuchs.” Men who, distanced from the usual human appetites, would automatically gain the trust of the people.

These priests would “deliver the news.” They would be the elite anchors, who would translate God’s orders and revelations to the public.

By edict, no one would be able to communicate with God, except through these “trusted ones.” Therefore, in a sense, the priest was actually higher on the ladder of power than God Himself.

In fact, it would fall to the new Church to reinterpret all of history, writing it as a series of symbolic clues that revealed and confirmed Church doctrine (story line).

Today, people are believers because the popular stories are delivered by contemporary castrati, every night on the evening news.

If these castrati say a virus is threatening the world; and if they are backed up by neutral castrati bishops, the medical scientists; and if those medical scientists are supported by public health bureaucrats, the cardinals; and if the cardinals are given a wink and a nod by the President, the Pope; the Program is working.

And the news is spread to the people…

On September 24, 2014, the New York Times blasted out an article estimating that Ebola cases, worldwide, could reach 1.4 million in four months. Now, in February 2015, the same official sources who handed that figure to the Times report that, worldwide, Ebola cases have reached 23,000.

Not a problem. The television anchor can absorb and deflect all contradictions, as if they never existed. It’s another aspect of his little bit of magic.

Reality is a psyop.

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.

Mind-control media: Brian Williams, fake science, and the reality egg

Mind-control media: Brian Williams, fake science, and the reality egg

Brian William caught in his own trap

Cracking the reality egg

Notes and thoughts

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“If you want a winning role, act like a scientist. Talk like a scientist. Imagine that everything you say is backed by a study published in a peer-reviewed journal.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Objectivity. What more could you want? What could be more objective than science? What could be less open to dispute? Who could be more authoritative than a scientist? What could influence public opinion more thoroughly than a whole group of scientists, an establishment of scientists, backed by the government?

Notice that when a news anchor takes an unimpeachable statement from a scientist, they both sound like scientists. The double whammy.

It impresses the rubes and yokels and even the well-educated viewers.

This is no accident.

It’s a system of persuasion.

I published this quote yesterday. Here it is again:

“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.)

Essentially, Angell is saying that fraud dressed up to look like science is pervasive in official medical media.

So it is in the news business.

The veneer and the tone and pose of objectivity are a front, a con.

Take the breaking story of NBC’s Brian Williams, “the most trusted name in news.” He lied about being in a helicopter taking fire in Iraq in 2003. He admitted the lie yesterday, and in his confession he apparently lied again, giving the false impression that the helicopter right in front of his took the fire, when at least one soldier on the scene states that Williams’ helicopter wasn’t even in the same formation, but landed some time later.

The impact of Williams lying is magnified by his persona of objectivity, which is on display every night on NBC. The objective man was lying. He was making it up. He was faking it.

Consider the 2004 Pediatrics study which exonerated the MMR vaccine and claimed it was in no way connected to autism. Objective science. But last August, one of the authors of the study, William Thompson, a long-time researcher at the CDC, released a statement through his attorney, Rick Morgan, confessing that he and his co-authors had lied, omitted vital data, rigged the study, in order to give the vaccine a free pass.

An objective expert—a rank liar.

Centuries ago, when a ruling priest addressed an audience and shouted and pointed at the sky and warned of great danger and destruction, and told of curses, and laid out a path for appeasing the gods, he was considered an “objective authority.” He wasn’t accused of ranting.

Today, the appearance of scientific objectivity is the key. Whoever holds that key is considered an authority. Therefore, many, many people affect that pose. Especially in the news business.

In days gone by, priestly shouting was accepted as a truth-indicator and thus induced a trance. Today, the pose of science induces the trance.

Mainstream television news has staged itself as a “conveyer of science.” Because it works.

power outside the matrix

This is the reality egg: the pose and appearance of scientific objectivity. This is how the egg is built.

But here is the truth. The egg, the enclosed dome are being built for us by messengers who appear to be objective. They’re the narrators. They’re the news princes and the “scientists.” They’re the key actors.

They can mix image and word and algorithm and computer model to prove anything, and in doing so they can act as if they’re reporting facts—rather than building the egg.

The egg is there for one reason: to convince us that each one of us can’t invent his own open realities, to convince us that we can’t find ways to cooperate, as free and independent and powerful individuals, and crack the egg.

Their strategy and pose is failing. Badly.

Now that’s a news story.

That has legs.

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.

Breaking: CDC vaccine whistleblower given immunity to testify

Breaking—CDC vaccine whistleblower given immunity to testify

William Thompson free to describe vaccine-autism fraud at CDC to Congress

Vaccine wars heat up

Sold-out media line up to defend vaccines

by Jon Rappoport

February 4, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Patrick Howley (twitter) at The Daily Caller reports that William Thompson, CDC whistleblower, has been given immunity from prosecution, by the federal government, to testify before Congress about vaccine fraud at the CDC.

Cautionary note: so far, The Daily Caller is the sole source on this story.

On August 27, 2014, Thompson, a long-time researcher at the CDC, published a statement through his lawyer, Rick Morgan, admitting that he and colleagues at the CDC violated the protocol in a study on the MMR vaccine’s connection to autism.

The study, which was published in the journal Pediatrics in 2004, exonerated the vaccine, when in fact the study omitted vital data on a group of black babies who showed an increased risk for autism after receiving the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

Since he released his August 27 statement, whistleblower Thompson has maintained silence and has refused to talk to reporters.

Now it appears he’s ready to step into the light—if there is a Congressional hearing. That’s a big if.

Thompson is working with Florida Congressman William Posey. Posey serves on the House Science Subcommittee on Oversight.

A Congressional hearing could be explosive, if members of the Committee ask Thompson the right questions, probe deeply, and find out exactly how an arrangement was made, inside the CDC, to cover up the MMR vaccine’s connection to autism.

The study in question had several authors, two of whom—Frank Destafano and Coleen Boyle—are now high-ranking CDC executives in the area of vaccine safety.

If Thompson convincingly shows they were in on the fix, the whole business would explode and the CDC would be exposed as rank liars and threats to human health before the public.

On the other hand, if this is a one-day hearing, at which the testimony devolves into a boring he-said she-said proposition, and if the press barely takes notice, the outcome (and the truth) will rest entirely in the hands of alternative media.

No Congressional hearing has thus far been scheduled.

Another major CDC figure in this scandal: Dr. Julie Gerberding, former head of the CDC in 2004. Would she be subpoenaed to testify?

In 2004, whistleblower Thompson wrote her a letter, in which he warned her that he had sensitive and troubling data about the MMR vaccine’s connection to autism. He was shortly due to present the data at a major vaccine/autism conference.

Apparently, Gerberding didn’t answer the letter, and Thompson’s presentation was canceled.

***After Gerberding left the CDC in 2009, she ascended to the position of president of Merck Vaccines. Merck manufactures the MMR vaccine. Get the picture?

Interestingly, in December of 2014, Merck removed Gerberding from her august position and placed her in a new role, a role that never existed within the company before: executive vice-president for “strategic communications, global public policy and population health.”

Did Merck make this move to shield Gerberding, to protect her from a possible scandal tying her to the 2004 MMR-autism fraud at the CDC? If there is a Congressional hearing, will Gerberding be conveniently unavailable because she is overseas tending to her new international duties at Merck?

power outside the matrix

Meanwhile, as these developments play out, there is a political battle taking place re mandatory vaccination vs. parents’ right to choose whether to vaccinate their children.

Presidential candidates Chris Christie and Rand Paul have made statements supporting, to one degree or another, parents’ right to choose. The “medical experts” have invaded television news to slam these statements as grossly irresponsible.

These are the same experts who always answer the call when some element of the medical cartel is under threat of exposure. Their job is to provide cover, sound authoritative, and make medical critics into “dangerous people.” (see also Joe Biggs’s update.)

As I’ve documented over the years, these professional experts are actually sitting on a powder keg that threatens to blow the whole medical system sky-high. The issue, which must never be revealed.

Medically caused death and human destruction.

Here are a few citations and facts which remain state secrets, as far as major news outlets are concerned. Reading them, think about how much credibility the “medical experts” really have whenever they open their mouths about public health in ANY form:

Citation: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

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

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

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

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. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans.

Previously, I have documented that the FDA knows; because the FDA has a page on its own website that admits—without taking blame— 100,000 people are killed every year by medical drugs, and two million more people are severely injured by the drugs. (Go to startpage.com and search for “FDA Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions”)

And for the past five years or so, I have been writing about and citing a published report by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield that indicates 106,000 people in the US are killed by medical drugs every year. Until her death in 2011, Dr. Starfield worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her report, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, was published in the Journal of American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

Do an extrapolation: 106,000 people killed every year in the US by medical drugs=a MILLION deaths per decade.

Starfield didn’t stop there. She also attributed 119,000 deaths per year to mistreatment and medical errors in hospitals—bringing the annual total of US medically caused deaths to 225,000.

Here’s another study: April 15, 1998, Journal of the American Medical Association, “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.” It, too, is mind-boggling.

The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:

In a given year, in the US, 106,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs. Beyond that, 2.2 million hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.

The authors write:

“…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered.”

Roughly 1.5 million American soldiers have died in all wars in US history.

In any given 10 years of modern medical treatment? 2.25 million deaths (Starfield).

The Matrix Revealed

Consider how much suppression is necessary to keep the medical death-numbers under wraps.

Now think about these “medical experts” who appear on television news programs and assure the public that modern medicine is perfectly safe.

When they blithely state that vaccines only rarely cause problems of any kind, and when they state that vaccines have absolutely no connection to neurological damage in children, what is their level of credibility?

It may interest you to know that the US system of reporting severe adverse effects of vaccines is broken. There are no reliable numbers. That’s because the reporting is done by patients or doctors.

Barbara Loe Fisher, of the private National Vaccine Information Center, has put together a reasonable estimate:

“But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]

“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting [via VAERS]; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.

“Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, ‘Vaccine safety,’ Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]

“However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”

Now you have the background to assess what CDC whistleblower William Thompson may say if there is a Congressional hearing on CDC vaccine-autism fraud.

Thompson states that he was part of egregious lying in a published study.

Well, how in the world do you suppose the medically caused death-and-damage I’ve cited in this article is suppressed and covered up and papered over?

Every single medical drug and vaccine that creates the death and damage has been written about AND CALLED SAFE in at least one study published in a “reputable” medical journal.

Get it?

Rank fraud in published medical studies is everywhere. All the time.

Indeed, here is a devastating statement, from a doctor who has examined more published medical studies than any expert who shows up on television and spouts off about our perfectly safe medical system.

For two decades, she was the editor of one of the most prestigious medical journals 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.)

Hello, Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, David Muir, Wolf Blitzer, Bill O’Reilly, Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, and all the so-called medical reporters for mainstream television and print outlets across America. Do you have the courage, brains, and will to cover and hammer on the biggest story of your lives—Medically Caused Death and Destruction?

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.

Media: the most shocking interview that “never happened”

by Jon Rappoport

January 16, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

Suppose a reporter interviewed players behind the scenes re the question: who really runs the US government? Who really sets national policy?

A legit interview. Actual people. Actual quotes. Not just a circumstantial case.

And suppose these players answered the big questions directly and unmistakably?

And then…nothing happened.

No further coverage. No media hounds let loose to dig further. No government investigation. Nothing.

Well, it’s true. There was an interview. The questions were asked and answered. There was no tap-dancing or beating around the bush or vague reference.

Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics or media had access to the interview. Understood its meaning.

But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one protested loudly.

The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy were agents of an elite shadow group.

And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements. Carter was himself a covert agent in the White House, a willing pawn, and despite his proclaimed religious values, was nothing more than a rank con artist, a hustler, a phony down to his fingertips.

I’ll boil down the 1978 conversation between a reporter and two Trilateral Commission members:

“The US has been taken over.”

“Yes, so?”

By the way, the infamous Trilateral Commission still exists.

Many people think the TC, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.

Think again.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

For example:

* Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;

* James Jones, National Security Advisor;

* Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;

* Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members: George HW Bush; Bill Clinton; Dick Cheney; Al Gore.

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller:

“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Okay. Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s through-the-looking-glass—a conversation between reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of exactly who was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches. [untrue]

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

This interview “slipped under the mainstream media radar,” which is to say, it was ignored, buried, sat on, censored.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

When Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Think about this: if the interview had gained exposure, if it had ignited a firestorm in the press, with reporters pouring gasoline on it day in and day out, for months, interviewing Trilateral players and their government allies and their banking allies and their mega-corporate allies and their shills…with rats coming out of the closet and confessing exactly how the US government had been taken over…

…with headlines like:

SECRETIVE GROUP RUNS US NATIONAL POLICY;

US GOVERNMENT HELD PRISONER BY TRILATERAL COMMISSION;

AMERICA RUN BY ROCKEFELLER;

THE MEN BEHIND THE CURTAIN: DESTROYING INDEPENDENT AMERICA…

On and on and on…

This would have created the seeds of an alternative future, a future quite unlike the present we are living through now.

Of course, the naysayers would say it’s futile to imagine a future that didn’t happen, and we should just lay down and forget and let the takeover proceed. Yes, they always say that. They always say there is no chance for victory, because they’ve given up on their own lives, they’ve made their own internal compromises, they’ve sold themselves out over and over, they’ve bargained away their last chip of power and imagination, and they want companions in their spiritual narcosis.

But there it is. The interview that “never happened.”

The Matrix Revealed

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

Scott Faber: “No one is seeking to ban GMO crops.” W-h-a-t?

Scott Faber: “No one is seeking to ban GMO crops.” W-h-a-t?

Memo to Just Label It: fire Scott Faber, and fire yourselves

by Jon Rappoport

January 2, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Scott Faber (twitter) testifies before Congress. Wobbly drum roll, sour cymbal crash.

Faber is the executive director of Just Label It (twitter), a group that wants mandatory labeling of foods containing GMOs. He’s also the VP of Governmental Affairs for the powerful Environmental Working Group (twitter).

As the representative of all Americans who want labeling (really??), Faber recently testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, about the Pompeo Bill (“The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014” (HR4432)), which, if enacted into law, will put an end to mandatory GMO labeling everywhere in the US.

So what did Faber do? After finding 10 or 20 different ways to say the American people have a right to know what’s in their food, he figuratively went down on his knees and offered this sopping wet olive branch:

“We do not oppose… genetically modified food ingredients. We think there are many promising applications of genetically modified food ingredients… I am optimistic that the promises that were made by the providers of this technology will ultimately be realized…that we will have traits that produce more nutritious food that will see significant yield…” (see the 2h29m05s mark here)

Boom.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlfpViqjJTE&w=480&h=360]

He thus led inquiring minds to wonder: was his stunning testimony connected in any way to the fact that he used to work as an executive for the Grocery Manufacturers Association of America (GMA) (twitter)?

After all, that was the group which poured millions of dollars into campaigns to DEFEAT mandatory GMO labeling in four states.

To put it another way: why the hell is Scott Faber now the executive director of Just Label It?

There’s more. If you read again that little piece of pro-GMO promo Faber offered to the House Committee, you’ll understand that, by implication, he seems to be giving silent assent to the highly toxic Roundup, since it goes hand in glove with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GMO crops. He’s certainly not attacking it.

Think about it. What impression did Faber leave with the Committee, and by extension, the full Congress?

Representatives are scratching their heads and saying, “Why did he bother testifying at all? He doesn’t sound like he’s worried about GMO food or Roundup. He doesn’t have a problem with them. He didn’t make a sharp distinction between GMO food and conventional food. He just wants people to have the right to choose between one type of harmless food and another type of harmless food? Is this guy nuts? If we go up against Monsanto and Dow and DuPont and vote down the Pompeo Bill, HE’S the guy who has our backs? Are you kidding?”

The result of Faber’s testimony, in other words, was to sway more Congressman to pass the Pompeo Bill.

Was that staggering incompetence on his part? Or was he intentionally sending a covert signal whose message was, “We’re weak. Drive over us with a steamroller.”

I’m asking. I want to know. I think other people do, too.

It’s an honest question. Scott: who are you working for? Just Label It or the Grocery Manufacturers Association? Or is Just Label It now an offshoot of the Grocery Manufacturers Association?

power outside the matrix

To be fair, and this is important to understand, the mandatory GMO labeling groups, who’ve been trying to get those ballot initiatives passed, haven’t offered any strong, what’s the word, JUICE, as they pursue their cause. Have you seen their ads?

They look like they were made by some goofball low-rent PR firm that employs anonymous, supposedly attractive humans who list “spokesperson” on their resumes.

A young blonde, for no apparent reason, walks toward the camera and flashes a warm plastic smile and says, “Hi. You have a right to know what’s in your food.”

Viewing such major productions from their tower, Monsanto crime bosses tremble in their boots. They really do. They go up to the roof and think about jumping off. It’s sheer hell for them to be up against such a charm tsunami.

The cherry on the cake? Faber, writing an opinion piece in Roll Call (12/17) (Pompeo Bill Keeps Consumers in the Dark) about his Congressional testimony, makes this preemptory lunatic assertion:

“Finally, some inevitably say we need GMO crops to feed the world. But no one is seeking a ban on GMO crops.”

No one? Is that right?

What planet do you call home, Scott? Oh wait, I get it. That was just you trying to cut people off from the only sane solution to Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, BASF, Syngenta and their ongoing population experiment using poisonous pesticides and cross-species genes. You were sending a Christmas card to the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

“No one is seeking to ban GMO crops.”

Of course not.

How silly of me to flash on Jackson and Josephine Counties in Oregon, Humboldt and Mendocino Counties in CA, Maui, Kauai, the Big Island, Burlington, Boulder, Rome, Milan, Turin, Brescia, Genoa, and for that matter Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Greece, Spain, UK, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, China, Albania, Bulgaria, Canada, Cypress, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, India, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, etc… all of whom have instituted some sort of ban on growing or importing GMOs.

“No one is seeking to ban GMO crops.”

That statement, Scott, would be true if you changed it to read, “Relatively few people in the USA know how powerful the ban-GMO movement is, because the American media are weak, soft, and sold out.”

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.

Monsanto: science and fraud are the same thing

Especially when the media agree and offer their seal of approval

by Jon Rappoport

December 18, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

Imagine this. A killer is put on trial, and the jury, in a surprise verdict, finds him not guilty. Afterwards, reporters interview this killer. He says, “The jury freed me. It’s up to them. They decide. That’s what justice is all about.”

Then the press moves along to members of the jury, who say: Well, we had to take the defendant’s word. He said he was innocent, so that’s what we ruled.

That’s an exact description of the FDA and Monsanto partnership.

When you cut through the verbiage that surrounded the introduction of GMO food into America, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.

Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998, “Playing God in the Garden”), Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, famously stated: “Monsanto shouldn’t have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, “Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” here is what the FDA had to say on this matter: “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”

The direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements is no accident. It’s not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It’s a clear signal that the fix was in.

No real science. No deep investigation. No convincing evidence of safety. Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora’s Box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.

In order for this titanic scam to work, the media had to cooperate. Reporters had to be a) idiots and b) sell-outs.

Reporters and their editors let the story die. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait, but who said mainstream reporters are sane or principled?

Underneath the Monsanto-FDA buck-passing act, there was a conscious deal to give a free pass to GMO crops. This had nothing to do with science or health or “feeding the world.” It was about profits. It was also about establishing a new monopoly on food.

Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet’s food supply as never before, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were engineered.

It’s very much like saying, “A cob of corn is not a plant, it’s a machine, and we own the rights to every one of those yellow machines.”

How was Monsanto able to gather so much clout?

There was one reason and one reason only. Putting the world’s food supply into fewer hands was, and is, a major item on the Globalist agenda. If it weren’t, the FDA-Monsanto approval scam would have been exposed in a matter of weeks.

Major newspapers and television networks would have attacked the obvious con job like packs of wild dogs and torn it to pieces.

But once the scam had been given a free pass, the primary corporate-government tactic was to accomplish a fait accompli, a series of events that was irreversible.

In this case, it was about gene drift. From the beginning, it was well known that GMO plants release genes that blow in the wind and spread from plant to plant, crop to crop, and field to field. There is no stopping it.

Along with convincing enough farmers to lock themselves into GMO-seed contracts, Monsanto bought up food-seed companies in order to engineer the seeds…and the gene-drift factor was the ace in the hole.

Sell enough GMO seeds, plant enough GMO crops, and you flood the world’s food crops with Monsanto genes.

Back in the 1990s, the prince of darkness, Michael Taylor, who had moved through the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto several times, and is now the czar of food safety at the FDA—Taylor said, with great conviction, that the GMO revolution was unstoppable; within a decade or two, an overwhelming percentage of food grown on planet Earth would be GMO.

Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew that ownership of the world’s food, by a few companies, was a prime focus for Globalist kings.

Control food and water, and you hold the world in your hand.

Here is evidence that, even in earlier days, Monsanto knew about and pushed for the Globalist agenda. Quoted by J. Flint, in his 1998 “Agricultural Giants Moving Towards Genetic Monopolism,” Robert Fraley, head of Monsanto’s agri-division, stated: “What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of [Monsanto-purchased] seed companies. It’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain.”

And as for the power of the propaganda in that time period, I can think of no better statement than the one made on January 25th, 2001, by the outgoing US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Glickman said:

“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech [GMO] side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department [USDA]. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of these issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”

Glickman reveals several things in these remarks: he was spineless; people at the Dept. of Agriculture were madly buying into the Monsanto cover story about feeding the world; and there had to be a significant degree of infiltration at his Agency.

The last point is key. This wasn’t left to chance. You don’t get a vocal majority of Dept. of Agriculture personnel spouting Monsanto propaganda merely because the fairy tale about feeding the world sounds so good. No, there are people working on the inside to promote the “social cause” and make pariahs out of dissenters.

You need special background and training to pull that off. It isn’t an automatic walk in the park. This is professional psyop and intelligence work.

It isn’t rinky-dink stuff. To tune up bureaucrats and scientists, you have to have a background in manipulation. You have to know what you’re doing. You have to be able to build and sustain support, without giving your game away.

Psyop specialists are hired to help make overarching and planet-wide agendas come true, as populations are brought under sophisticated and pathological elites who care, for example, about feeding the world as much as a collector cares about paralyzing and pinning butterflies on a panel in a glass case.

Here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

The Globalists play for keeps.

Owning the food of the world is part of their strike-force action plan, and Monsanto is a technocratic arm of that plan.

power outside the matrix

Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto/FDA story with its time-honored policy of “he said-he said.” This policy dictates that stories merely present both sides of a conflict without drawing conclusions.

Monsanto’s lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.

The NY Times and the Washington Post could sell millions more papers on the back of Monsanto stories. It would be a bonanza for them. But no. They don’t care. They’d rather keep declining and losing readers. They’d rather die.

Normally, a business doesn’t commit suicide, especially when it sees exactly how to resuscitate itself. But here we are dealing with an agenda which can’t be disturbed. Globalism, and its agri-techno partner, Monsanto, are creating a planetary future. Major media are part and parcel of that op. They are selling it.

Again, we aren’t talking about sloppy reporting or accidental omissions of fact or boggling incompetence or ignorance about science. We are talking about conscious intent to deceive.

Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto. But placement and frequency are everything. How often do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page 3? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal more and more crimes? Does the basic story gather steam over the course of weeks and months?

These are the decisions that make or break a story. In the case of Monsanto and the FDA, the decisions were made a long time ago.

Part of every reporter’s training in how the real world works, if he has any ideals at all, is marching into his editor’s office with his hair on fire demanding to be given an assignment to expose a crime. The editor, knowing the true agenda of his newspaper or television network, tells the reporter:

“We’ve already covered that.”

“It’s old news.”

“People aren’t interested in it.”

“It’s too complicated.”

“The evidence you’re showing me is thin.”

“You’ll never get to the bottom of it.”

“The people involved won’t talk to you.”

And if none of those lies work, the editor might say, “If you keep pushing this, it would be bad for your career. You’ll lose access to other stories. You’ll be thought of as weird…”

This is how the game works at ground level. But make no mistake about it, the hidden agenda is about protecting an elite’s op from exposure.

If NBC, for example, gave its golden boy, Brian Williams, the green light, he would become an expert on Monsanto in three days. He’d become a tiger. He’d affect a whole set of morally outraged poses and send Monsanto down into Hell.

Don’t misunderstand. Brian hasn’t been waiting to move in for the kill. But wind him up and point to a target and he’ll go there.

However, no one at NBC in the executive offices will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.

All the major reporters at news outlets and all the elite television anchors are really psyop specialists. It’s just that most of them don’t know it.

One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put it to me this way: “When I was in the game, I looked at the news as a big public restroom. My one guiding principle was: don’t piss on your shoes. That meant covering a story that was considered out of bounds. If I talked to the boss about one of those stories, he’d look me up and down and say, ‘Hey, you pissed on your shoes. Get out of 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.