Category Archives: Press Fraud

“We lost contact with the plane.” Really?

“We lost contact with the plane.” Really?

by Jon Rappoport

July 24, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Today—Air Algerie Flight 5017, from Burkina Faso to Algiers crashed, according to “officials.”

Some of these officials state contact with the plane was lost an hour after takeoff.

You can probably remember similar statements about other doomed flights: lost contact. Wasn’t that the case on 9/11?

“Lost contact” appears to cover all available means of communication. Nothing on radar screens. Radio inoperative. No transponder signals picked up.

In this day and age, with a blizzard of technology available to track and surveil, what is going on?

Commercial jets have only one transponder? Isn’t it possible to embed dozens of GPS-type devices at various points in the craft? And wouldn’t those devices report a plane’s location, no matter how far it strayed off course?

Even underwater? Isn’t the US Navy able to keep tabs on its own submerged submarines?

So either we are looking at an international scandal, in which modern tracking technology is not being fully applied to commercial planes…or officials are lying when they say: lost contact.

The Matrix Revealed

Assuming cutting-edge tracking tech is, without public knowledge, being used on modern commercial jets, do hijackers have the ability to jam all signals emanating from the planes? If so, passengers would like to know.

“Attention, passengers. Before boarding this flight, you should realize only one transponder is being deployed. Although the device, plus radar, plus radio will help track your location, there are dozens of other devices we could use to make sure we know where you are. Unfortunately, the manufacturer has not yet installed them. Consult the 800 number on your ticket. Feel free to contact the manufacturer and make inquiries.”

If the NSA can simultaneously tap every phone in America, somehow I think they can track a giant jet, if they want to. Unless perhaps, these planes are still using a primitive communication apparatus from the 1950s.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

How many covert ops can dance on the head of a pin?

How many covert ops can dance on the head of a pin?

by Jon Rappoport

June 27, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

These are notes on covert ops I’ve made over the years. They apply to any arena where deception is the name of the game.

Every covert op needs a cover story. That is, the public must be made to look in the wrong direction.

A cover story not only hides the identity of perpetrators, it also imparts the wrong meaning to the event being staged.

Example: a war is set in motion, in order to bankrupt several governments. But the public is told the war means: “protecting democracy.”

Major covert ops have more than one objective. A war will bankrupt governments; it will also result in a peace treaty that creates a larger cooperative structure than previously existed, spanning several nations—and the men who end up running that larger structure are the same men who triggered the war in the first place. They wind up with more control and power than they had before.

Covert ops of great size and importance must include the laying of false trails. Thus, in the wake of the op, investigators will find clues that lead them down roads that come, eventually, to alleys that dead-end against blank walls.

In the process, they discover perpetrators who weren’t really perpetrators. They discover motives that weren’t true motives. They pick up hints that were deposited like break crumbs to divert and mislead.

In case some element of the actual covert op is revealed, there is the limited hangout. This is a confession. It offers a mea culpa, but only concerning a relatively trivial factor.

“Yes, our agency did make mistakes, and those mistakes led to the loss of public funds. But we are taking steps to assure nothing like this ever happens again…”

And of course, in order to “take steps,” the agency needs a larger budget.

A massive series of connected covert ops, over a long period of time, are built, as a kind of hierarchy that leads to some ultimate objective. This is the “ops within ops” strategy.

Identifying and derailing a handful of ops will not stop the overall program.

For example, an ultimate objective would be: the triumph of Globalism. This means putting the nations and peoples of the world under a single management system.

That system, an enormous bureaucracy run at the very top by a small secret group, would eventually make all important decisions involving: politics; the economy; money; credit; production and distribution of goods and services; energy; military use of force; media/propaganda content; medical treatment; mega-corporate power; natural resources; food; water; geo-engineering; freedom of speech; education; geo-distribution of populations.

In order to create this overarching reality, multiple systems of mind control, indoctrination, self-policing, and operant conditioning must be enacted and expanded.

Such a conspiracy (Globalism) does not need the conscious cooperation of many people who are “in on the secret.” That childish position is repeated intentionally by idiots and dupes and pawns and infiltrators.

Compartmentalization is the key. You can take any group and assign it various separate tasks, each one masked by “humanitarian” slogans, and you will get eager compliance.

power outside the matrix

Only a few people in charge see the big picture and understand how the separate tasks (ops) combine to achieve the overall goal.

The art and skill of covert ops involve coordinating such machinery to yield the desired result.

The main propaganda/media approach is: “Events that are taking place in the world are unrelated. These crises and problems are separate fires breaking out, without a central cause.”

To view this in action, just watch the network evening news. It’s an exercise meant to engender partitioned minds, which nibble a bit here, a bit there. Stories break out, are covered, and then disappear, to be replaced by new material.

The elite anchors are inducers of short-term memory and long-term amnesia.

Alongside media, a continuous downpour of propaganda urges the primacy of the group and the mass and the collective beyond any “selfish” concerns.

This op is intended to erase the very concept of the individual.

Why? Because the free, powerful, and independent individual can expose how “the group” is being recreated every day as a mythological symbol.

A symbol of (false) hope, caring, dependence, passivity, acquiescence, surrender, and envelopment within the banner of “enlightened humane leadership.”

If it quacks and walks like an organized religion, it is some version of an organized religion. It doesn’t need a God. It just needs a priest class to preach Rescue For All People.

Quack, quack. Op, op.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Why the FDA should be charged with murder

by Jon Rappoport

May 16, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

If you worked for a federal agency that was killing people at the rate of 100,000 a year, every year, like clockwork, and if you knew it, wouldn’t you feel compelled to say or do something about it?

At the FDA, which is, in fact, killing Americans at that rate, no one has ever felt the need to step forward and speak up.

Let’s shift the venue and ask the same question. 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).

And with that, let’s go to the smoking guns. The citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. (See http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e3989)

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 100,000 people are killed every year by medical drugs, and two million more people are severely injured by the drugs. (Search engine “FDA Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions” or click here to be taken directly to the FDA page in question).

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.

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, why shouldn’t I go along with Janet Napolitano’s advice: see something, say something.

This is what I see and this is what I’m saying. Maybe DHS would like to investigate the FDA as a terrorist organization.

How many smoking guns do we need before a sitting president shuts down the FDA buildings, fumigates the place, and prosecutes very large numbers of FDA employees?

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

power outside the matrix

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, 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.

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 medical 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.

Except in the real world, it doesn’t. Which tells you something about the so-called real world and how much of it is composed of propaganda.

Here is the situation. No medical drug in the US can be released for public use unless and until the FDA says it is safe and effective. That’s the rule. The FDA is spitting out drug approvals month after month and year after year, and the drugs are routinely killing 100,000 people a year and maiming two million more, which adds up to a million deaths per decade and 20 million maimings per decade. The FDA and the federal government are doing nothing about it, even though they know what’s going on. This is mass murder. Not accidental death. Murder. A holocaust.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Aftershocks from my interview with Sharyl Attkisson

by Jon Rappoport

April 26, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

The ripples don’t stop. Attkisson was on to something huge at CBS, when she covered the CDC’s lies re the Swine Flu “pandemic.”

When an epidemic is promoted by governments and public health organizations, it’s an absolute disaster for them if their work is exposed as a fraud.

Much of the public believes in the medical cartel, as devotees do when they belong to a Church.

The scale of the CDC’s lies re Swine Flu, when exposed, would be on the order of a bishop saying, “You know that holy document we’ve been telling you about? It’s a fake. It never existed. We made it up.”

So here, once again, is the key question and answer from my interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

JON RAPPOPORT: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

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

Do you get it? Attkisson is saying that, while at CBS, she had made Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests, and came up with evidence that the CDC had been lying about Swine Flu from the early days. They knew that almost all the purported cases had no kind of flu at all.

But they buried that knowledge. They continued to frighten the public and insist on the use of an experimental flu vaccine.

Attkisson goes on to say that her story was vetted, checked, and ready to go, for broadcast, on the news…and then it was killed. CBS wouldn’t air it.

So she wrote it for the CBS website, where it was published in October of 2009—with much less fanfare and exposure.

Her website piece explained that a) the CDC stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America in July of 2009, at the so-called height of the epidemic, and b) all 50 states were sending their counts of Swine Flu cases to the CDC, prior to the stop-order—that’s, in fact, how the CDC gathered its data on Swine Flu. The individual states handed over the data.

Attkisson: “…we asked all 50 states for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 [Swine Flu] prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July. The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico.” (CBS News, Oct. 21, 2009, “Swine Flu cases overestimated?”)

That was the core of the scandal. The CDC, all along, had been getting these reports from the states showing that the vast numbers of presumed Swine Flu cases had no Swine Flu—but the CDC didn’t make that fact public. Eventually, they stopped counting cases, in order to hide the truth.

Attkisson had wanted the content of her print article for CBS to air on its national news telecast, where it would gain much more exposure—and ignite a firestorm.

That never happened. She was shut down.

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

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

22 million cases of Swine Flu in America. Roughly 1 out every 15 Americans came down with Swine Flu. What??

The CDC, which had stopped counting cases, because there were so few, because the vast majority of samples from suspected patients came back negative, with no sign of any kind of flu, suddenly says: 22 million American cases.

Can you imagine what would have happened had Attkisson’s story been trumpeted on the CBS Evening News? The CDC would have come back and said: new discovery: all Americans have Swine Flu from birth. This year of 2009, it was activated by comets passing the sun. And solar flares. And Martians coming here on vacation to watch the NFL Pro Bowl.

power outside the matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Exclusive: an interview with investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson

by Jon Rappoport

April 25, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

Before her recent resignation from CBS, Sharyl Attkisson was a mainstream news star. Multiple Emmys. CNN anchor, CBS anchor on stories about space exploration. Host of CBS’ News Up to the Minute. PBS host for Health Week. Investigative reporter for CBS.

Attkisson dug deep into Fast&Furious, Benghazi, and the ill-effects of vaccines. Too deep. Her bosses shut her down and didn’t air key stories.

She now has her own website, sharylattkisson.com. She is writing a book, Stonewalled: My Fight for the Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.

It’s not every day that a major mainstream journalist leaves the fold and then seeks to expose the corruption that impinged on her work.

She agreed to do an email interview. Some of the questions I sent went to the heart of her book-in-progress, so she declined to answer them. However, her answers to my other questions were revealing and explosive.

I know you’ve had problems with your Wikipedia page. What happened there?

Long story short: there is a concerted effort by special interests who exploit Wikipedia editing privileges to control my biographical page to disparage my reporting on certain topics and skew the information. Judging from the editing, the interest(s) involved relates to the pharmaceutical/vaccine industry. I am far from alone. There is an entire Wikipedia subculture that exists to control pages and topics, and another one that watchdogs all that’s gone wrong with Wikipedia (Wikipediocracy). It’s a fascinating subject.

In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

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

You’ve revealed serious problems caused by vaccines. Have you run into opposition as a result of covering these stories?

This is a long discussion but yes, it is one of the most well funded, well orchestrated efforts I’ve ever seen on a story. Many reporters, if not all, who have tried to factually cover this topic have experienced the same opposition as have researchers who dared to uncover vaccine side effects. Those who don’t want the stories explored want to censor the information from the public entirely, lest the public draw the “wrong” conclusions about the facts. The media has largely bought into the conflicted government, political and medical complex propaganda on the topic that marginalizes researchers, journalists and parents who dare to speak to the scientific facts they’ve uncovered or to their own experiences. It’s a giant scandal of its own.

In an interview with Real Clear Politics, you suggested that the website, Media Matters, has been targeting and attacking you. Why have they gone after you? Because of your work on the Fast&Furious story? Do these people just reflexively react whenever a reporter writes something that casts a negative light on the Obama White House?

I didn’t interview with Real Clear Politics but maybe they quoted my interview with CNN. MediaMatters is well known to be a left wing propaganda group that acts as a pro-Obama surrogate to attack journalists that threaten the agenda. It works in concert with federal officials who withhold public information from the press and the public but then share it with MediaMatters so that the “talking points” of the day can be controlled and manipulated. (One example: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/) The group works with other surrogates such as Talking Points Memo to controversialize and harass reporters to intimidate them and try to stop their damaging coverage. None of that is surprising or unexpected. They are simply using a media campaign to try to squelch the journalists who they believe could damage the interests of those they serve. The only strange part of the equation is that the “mainstream” press at times almost treats these paid opinion bloggers as if they are objective media watchdogs. I don’t see these news organizations respond to the right wing counterparts with the same deference. They news media typically doesn’t quote conservative media ‘watchdogs’ or question journalists about the conservative watchdogs’ criticisms and observations. Just the liberal ‘watchdogs.’

At this moment in time, because you’re not employed by a major news network, are you viewed by the media establishment as a loose cannon? Are you being painted as an outsider, a weirdo, a chronic dissenter with an axe to grind?

All of the above, I suppose, but I don’t pay attention that. It’s expected. I have heard from many colleagues at various networks who are happy that I’m in a position to speak freely of things that they, too have experienced and observed but cannot say publicly.

power outside the matrix

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

My comment on Attkisson’s answers: Her discussion of the endlessly corrupt CDC is remarkable. The most hyped “epidemic” in recent history, Swine Flu, had absolutely no basis in fact. It was one more effort to promote vaccines and scare the public. And the harassment of mainstream reporters who question the sacred conventional wisdom about vaccines is another piece of the story.

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.

Explosive: what really happened to Sharyl Attkisson at CBS News?

Explosive: What really happened to Sharyl Attkisson at CBS?

by Jon Rappoport

April 12, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Sharyl Attkisson, CBS’s top investigative reporter: gone, resigned, floating free, unchained, now viewed by the news establishment as an outsider, a defector, a weirdo with an axe to grind.

Among the controversial stories she covered at CBS: Benghazi. Just as she was digging below the surface of the Obama coverup, she was cut off and shut down by her network bosses.

Here’s the crux. The Rhodes brothers.

Ben Rhodes, David Rhodes.

Ben is a deputy national security advisor to Obama and writes speeches for him. In September 2012, Ben was “instrumental,” according to ABC News, in changing the White House talking points (the story) on what happened in Benghazi.

Ben’s brother, David, is president of CBS News. Attkisson was working for David. She was investigating all the changes (12) in the Benghazi talking points. She was shut down.

Nothing to see there, move along, eyes straight ahead, go back to sleep, zombie-zombie, it’s all good don’t worry, be happy, hope and change, the audacity of whatever.

Now, on top of this, Attkisson’s computers, at work and at home, were hacked while she was still at CBS. The network acknowledged this and said “they were investigating.” They’re still investigating. So are other unnamed entities.

Who hacked her computers? CBS? The White House? NSA?

Attkisson covered other stories at CBS that were highly problematic for the White House. Fast&Furious, for example. And in the summer of 2009, Attkisson struck gold on Swine Flu. You know, the pandemic that wasn’t. She discovered that the CDC, which is tasked with tracking numbers of cases of outbreaks, had, get this, stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Stopped.

But the CDC was still trumpeting the extreme danger of Swine Flu, with no way to measure its true impact.

Dr. Peter Doshi, long after the whole Swine Flu dud was over, wrote a stunning report for the British Medical Journal Online. Seems that every year, hundreds of thousands of samples from suspected and diagnosed flu patients are sent to labs for analysis—and only about 16% of these samples turn out to be positive for the flu.

That’s a killer of a revelation. Among other things, it means that most people who are told they have the flu couldn’t possibly have been protected by any flu vaccine, even assuming the vaccines are useful and effective…because these people don’t have the flu.

I wrote Attkisson about Dr. Doshi’s finding, and she got back to me, in essence saying, well, yes, this is why the CDC stopped counting Swine Flu cases.

Huge numbers of people who were being diagnosed with Swine Flu didn’t have any kind of flu at all.

CBS shut down Attkisson on both the Fast&Furious story and the Swine Flu story.

power outside the matrix

Here’s an interesting bombshell. On April 1, 2011, Attkisson authored a piece for CBS News, “Vaccines and Autism: a new scientific review.” She dispelled the notion that the vaccine-autism connection was a dead issue. All sorts of red flags went up the flagpole. Mainstream media are supposed to treat vaccines, all vaccines, as holy sacraments of the medical cartel. Praise them, bow down to them, never accuse them of doing harm of any kind.

Sumner Redstone, the executive chairman of CBS, Attkisson’s employer, has a very significant stake in vaccines. His Foundation, on its site, states: “The Sumner M. Redstone Foundation’s contribution to the Global Poverty Project raising $118 million in pledges for vaccines…”

Redstone’s Foundation has also donated $1 million to a charity called Autism Speaks, which supports genetic testing for the diagnosis of Autism. You can be sure this charity has zero interest in reviving the vaccine-Autism debate and exposing the fact that there is most definitely a connection.

So Attkisson was stepping on Sumner Redstone’s toes with heavy boots.

Attkisson is now writing a book about her career. When published, it’ll land in the mainstream news cycle for a week or two at the most. Doesn’t matter how explosive its revelations are. She’s an outsider now. She isn’t in the loop. She isn’t playing the game according to the rules.

Therefore, my advice to her: come out swinging. Blast the whole rotting news establishment.

However, if Attkisson is angling for a new job at, say, FOX, or even CNN, whose ratings have gone down the toilet, she’ll have to pull her punches. Every major news outlet sits on its own reporters and gags them when things get too hot.

The first casualty in mainstream news is the truth.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

The story the Washington Post won’t print

The ‘NSA surveillance’ story the Washington Post won’t print: covert ops

by Jon Rappoport

March 24, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

In the world of spying and social engineering, the punch line you see coming isn’t always the real one. It’s just a setup for something else.

In many of my articles over the past 13 years, I’ve been explaining how this works in various covert theaters of operation.

Here’s another one.

To set the stage, read these three quotes from a March 18 Washington Post story, “NSA surveillance program reaches ‘into the past’ to retrieve and replay phone calls”:

“The National Security Agency has built a surveillance system capable of recording ‘100 percent’ of a foreign country’s telephone calls, enabling the agency to rewind and review conversations as long as a month after they take place.”

“The voice interception program, called MYSTIC, began in 2009. Its RETRO tool, short for ‘retrospective retrieval,’ and related projects reached full capacity against the first target nation in 2011. Planning documents two years later anticipated similar operations elsewhere.”

“At the request of US officials, the Washington Post is withholding details that could be used to identify the country where the system is being employed or other countries where its use was envisioned.”

Okay. This last quote reveals that the Post won’t print the name of the country the NSA has completely blanketed. The Post knows which country it is, but it won’t say.

So that’s the apparent punch line.

That sets up an argument about how much secrecy the NSA should have in its work, and whether the press should go along with the government and conceal certain facts.

The Post story, and the Post’s refusal to “name the country” is very much like a film teaser or trailer: “We know what country it is but we aren’t saying at this time. Stay tuned. More exciting revelations to follow…and who knows? We might break our code of silence and tell you the name of that blanketed nation! Is it Afghanistan? Iraq? France? England?”

So what’s the real bottom-line op here?

It’s all about keeping the NSA story alive, in order that people know they’re being spied on 24/7. That’s the social engineering aspect. That’s the game.

And in that regard, the slow-drip method of releasing Snowden files is quite useful. It appears to be a smart journalistic strategy, to “keep the issue before the public so that a true debate about government secrecy and spying can take place.”

But the debate isn’t effective. The NSA isn’t being curbed. If one of its channels of snooping is cut back, another one will emerge.

No, the actual op is: keep reminding people they’re being spied on; that will make them more cautious; that will make make them conform in action, speech, and thought.

That’s the goal. And in that sense, it doesn’t really matter whether the NSA is blanketing the populace with its programs. It only matters that people believe it’s happening.

This op is as old as the hills. For example, a famous manual for the Catholic Inquisition, the Directorium Inquisitorium, reprinted in Rome in 1578, contained the following:

“…punishment does not take place primarily for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evil they would commit.”

The Inquisition was a traveling circus for Church sadists and control freaks. It held show trials, torture sessions, and public executions.

Today, in less overt terms, the op is still all about weaning the population away from the “evil they would commit.”

Today, as in the past, every person is considered a potential threat. So he must be monitored and spied on. More than that, every person must believe he’s being spied on.

All this “media and public debate”about the NSA keeps the pot percolating and boiling—so that people are put on notice every few days that the NSA is looking over their shoulder.

People at the Washington Post may actually believe they’re engaged in a moral struggle to define where national security ends and the public’s right to know begins. But they’re dupes in a larger op.

Whether you believe Ed Snowden is a hero for our times or a Trojan Horse wheeled into our midst, the deep op is the same: release his files via the slow-drip method, keeping them in the hands of “responsible journalists,” provoke an ongoing “debate about the public good and the right to privacy,” and thus:

Prove to everyone everywhere that they’re under surveillance, and therefore should tailor and reduce their behavior to more extreme forms of conformity and assent.

That’s the actual punch line.

The Matrix Revealed

You’ve heard the term “metadata”? It basically means data about data. Well, this is a meta-op. It piggybacks on the “debate about spying,” and it does its work with relative invisibility.

Major intelligence ops are always layered. They use “honorable concerns in a free democracy” as fronts, behind which they hide.

Mass spying on the public is an honorable concern. That’s why the meta-op works. It preys on and uses evidence of real crimes to achieve its own crimes.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

The voice of mind control

The voice of mind control

by Jon Rappoport

March 4, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Every civilization and every generation has their defining voices.

The voice does two things. It tells the story of the times; and it injects the telltale emotions, moods, and attitudes of that story.

The public swallows the tale with all its lies and omissions, and accepts the way in which the whole act is spooled out by the sound of the narrative voice.

The tone of the story creates a trance.

Different societies are vulnerable to different styles of story-telling.

Americans on this side of the Atlantic, listening to the radio speeches of Hitler delivered with staccato militant force, thought the German people were clearly crazy to go along.

It never occurred to the Americans, glued to their radios listening to President Roosevelt, that many Germans would think the sing-song pseudo-British style of the aristocratic FDR was a transparent joke.

“I’ll take my hypnosis on rye with mustard.” “I’ll have mine on a bun with mayo.”

It’s assumed that, because Hitler and Mussolini were cementing their control through mass arrests and overt shows of force, they could get away with vocal displays of shouting and intimidation. Otherwise, the people would have turned away from them in disgust.

That’s not the whole picture, by any means. Large numbers of people in Germany and Italy responded enthusiastically to the voices of Hitler and Mussolini.

The trance they entered, as a result, wasn’t a passive narcosis. It was a kind of hysteria that demanded action.

If, down the road, America is put under an openly declared state of martial law, with all the bells and whistles attached, elite television anchors, like Brian Williams and Scott Pelley, will tell that story—not as Mussolini would—but as our anchors always do; in measured, “responsible, objective” tones. It will be “grave and sober.” The voices will suggest a dollop of alarm, but…everything is under control.

That’s the way modern Americans want to hear The Voice narrate the story of the times.

And the president of the moment? He will deploy those same tones. He won’t be standing on the balcony of a building shouting and waving his arms.

But the result will be the same.

In the wake of post-WW2 America, as the feisty combative Harry Truman exited the White House, the bland-egg Eisenhower took up residency. He was always calm and under control. He was the modest hero. He was what you’d call, in his speeches, a Grade B anchor. Not good, but not the worst.

At the same time, American television news was coming into being. Douglas Edwards, one of the first elite anchors, was a smoother, better-trained-for-television Eisenhower. Ed Murrow, who had been narrating the war from London, added his “pregnant-with-meaning” ominous tone to US news broadcasting.

The narrative style of the American voice was under construction.

Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, along with Walter Cronkite, moved in to put their ineradicable stamp on the sound of our civilization. They were a step up from Doug Edwards. They could crystallize a tight range of repressed feelings in every sentence they uttered. They were coming out of literary traditions: Hemingway, Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett.

Tough guy with a warm edge.

America loved it. Those new voices enabled every kind of con, six ways from Sunday, to be visited on an adoring public.

Flash forward to 1968. Despite the revolution of the 60s, more than half of voting America still wanted the whitebread, big-bullshit, used-car-salesman nostalgia of the previous decade. So Richard Nixon, a man who couldn’t open his lips without lying on several simultaneous levels, waltzed into the White House.

After the hopeless Gerald Ford stood in for Nixon, a cartoon of a cartoon was needed; a peacemaker; a man “of the cloth.” Sold out to David Rockefeller down to his jockstrap, Jimmy Carter came to the presidency to heal the nation from Watergate. He was the new voice silkily twanging the American story, a respite from Nixon.

Then, out of Hollywood, appeared an actor who, despite a wretched history in films, could sell a cartoon of “the shining city on the hill.” Ronald Reagan. America wanted a redux of the freedom story, and he supplied it, as the invasive federal government nevertheless continue to burgeon from its every rotting pore.

And on it went. Presidents and anchors on television conspired to deliver a two-dimensional fairy tale, in a country where an accelerated androidal conformity was beginning to dominate the landscape.

Television was the mutual electronic feeding trough for the Great Voices and the public. They mixed and matched and swam in convenient concert, through gray offal.

Talent spotters at the networks and inside the major political parties knew what to look for. They knew how the voices needed to sound. They knew the game.

Slightly more progressive and hip for the boomers? Bill Clinton.

Shit-kicker John Wayne retro? GW Bush.

A new interplanetary sun-god messiah? Obama.

A Hemingway knockoff with an edge in his voice? Dan Rather.

Smooth-groomed high IQ macaque? Brian Williams.

Might turn in his mother to the cops? Scott Pelley.

Drooling sad-eyed swan imported from the Morning Show? Diane Sawyer.

Sacrifice the mind on the altar of cosmically oozing sentimentality, tricked out as New Age news? Oprah.

Floating blithely in an ocean of high-level corporate-government-banking crimes, Americans can choose their favorite voice to obscure the truth and tell a very, very tall tale.

That’s what people want, and that’s what they get.

Will any of these elite voices ever upset a serious apple cart? Not on your life.

If America really wanted a Hitler to stand in the middle of the Rose Bowl, surrounded by perfect columns of ramrod soldiers, and lay out the next hundred years of triumph of the will, do you think the television networks would find one?

Are you kidding? In a New York minute.

But Americans want their fascism soft-boiled. Americans want gradualism. They don’t want a coup in the middle of the night. They want to watch the leaves fall off the tree of freedom one branch at a time.

When the Republicans ran Mitt Romney against Barack Obama, they were banking on the premise that somehow, somewhere, the majority of the public desired a retro Wonder Bread hero. But that voice and that tone and that mood didn’t fit. It didn’t carry the day.

Interestingly, there was an enormous groundswell for a man who had no voice at all, in the media sense.

But the Republican door was firmly closed to him, because of his ideas, but also because he wasn’t a typical anchor.

Ron Paul.

You can take this to the bank. If Ron Paul ever became the voice of our times, reality itself as most people accept it would crack under their feet, and they would fall into black space screaming.

One reason? Paul isn’t spinning a story with the impressive rhythms and tones and segueways of a media pro. Therefore, you actually have to pay attention to the content of his words. That alone is enough to give most people strokes, blood clots, and titanic neurological chaos.

The US government is loathe to legislate mandatory television-news-watching to every American. It leaves that aspect of the fascist agenda to its corporate partners and their advertising agencies.

And little boys and girls dream of growing up and becoming finely coiffed and perfumed anchors and pundits.

A precious few will make it. They’ll tell tales of the adored Matrix. They’ll carve their names in the fake book of chords and melodies. They’ll stir the appropriate sentiments. They’ll deliver the news every night. They’ll present every half-cocked limited hangout and define every outrageous set of straitjacket parameters to a prepared audience.

You’re an aspiring anchor? Come on down. Some day you might be the chosen one. You might become the messenger, the talent turned out by the royal court, to ring the bells and sing the songs. If you’re lucky, and you sing on key, you may have five or 10 years before the next up-and-coming voice edges you out.

You might be assigned to bring mind control to your generation. You might be the one to obscure and conceal the real Fed Reserve, the crimes of the medical cartel, the Globalist agenda, the theft of trillions of dollars, the Collectivist framework, and the death of individual freedom.

Doesn’t that sound like a great job? And you can call it responsible journalism.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

The elite television anchor: imitation of life

The elite television anchor: imitation of life

by Jon Rappoport

February 27, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

In a country in which art has little or no perceived value, there’s a sucker born every millisecond. Why? Because when consciousness of art is nil, people accept official art, which is always present, as the guiding and only reality. And of course, they don’t see it as art.

“Things can’t be any other way. This is it.”

Nowhere is this more true than in television news.

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 style. 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, the audience can remain content in its own related role: watching the actor.

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

Night after night, the anchor, working from a long tradition, confirms that he is delivering the news as it should be delivered, in both style and substance. The audience bows before the tradition and before him.

The television anchors are, indeed, a different breed.

From their perch, they 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 millions to convey that false assurance.

The elite anchor must believe the narrow parameters and boundaries and context of a story are all there is. There is no deeper meaning. There is no abyss waiting to swallow whole a story and reveal it as a cardboard facade. 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, that fact alone 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”?

Therefore, as night follows the day, the anchor is a mouthpiece for government and corporations.

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?” And the public buys it.

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.

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

The public expects to hear that vibrating string. It’s been conditioned by many hard nights at the tube, watching the news. When Diane Sawyer goes too far and begins dribbling (alcohol? tranqs?) on her collar, a danger light blinks on and a mark is entered against her in the book.

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 gives assurance that everything is under control. And neutrality implies: the nation is so powerful we don’t need to trumpet our facts; we don’t need to become excited; our strength is that secure.

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 soaps and 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 believing the lies are true that he wouldn’t know how to shift gears.

“Well, folks, our top story tonight…it turns out that IG Farben, a famous chemical and pharmaceutical octopus that put Hitler over the top in Germany, was instrumental in planning what became the EU, the European Union. In other words, today’s United Europe is World War Two by other means.”

I don’t think Williams, Pelley, or Sawyer could deliver that line without going into a terminal paroxysm.

At the end of the Roman Empire, when the whole structure was coming apart, a brilliant and devious decision was made at the top. 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).

For example, the famous event wherein King Solomon received the Queen of Sheba, would now officially be conceived as illustrative of The Arrival, a Church “headline” category, covering many disparate bits of the past.

Reinterpreted, Sheba and Solomon were nothing more and nothing less than the Church’s precise copyrighted and fully owned story of the entrance of Jesus into this world. One arrival became another arrival.

If this seems absurd, unbelievable, grossly puerile, and illogical to us today, it was very serious business for the Roman Church. Recasting history was an essential function of its news division, its universally trusted eunuchs, priests, bishops, cardinals, Popes, the elite anchors, weaving their Matrix.

Today, you could ask, how can people believe the popular stories of wars, when we know powerful financiers and corporations support both sides, for their own devious objectives?

People believe because the popular stories are delivered by contemporary castrati, every night on the evening news.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Government monitors in newsrooms: the solution

Government monitors in newsrooms: the solution

by Jon Rappoport

February 19, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Ajit Pai, an FCC commissioner, has blown the whistle on a government plan to put federal monitors in newsrooms.

The plan is billed as a study, to determine how major networks assemble their stories—and also as a teaching program to show newspeople what stories are vital and critical, and what stories aren’t.

The Orwellian op even covers newspapers, to which the FCC has no regulatory connection.

Pai writes in the Wall St. Journal:

“…the agency [FCC] plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, SC, is scheduled to begin this spring.

“The purpose is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about ‘the process by which stories are selected’ and how often stations cover ‘critical information needs,’ along with ‘perceived station bias’ and ‘perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.’”

Keep this in mind: major media outlets are already heavily censored. As collaborators with governments and other corporations, they lie on a regular basis and omit stories that would expose the men who are actually running things.

So this FCC crackdown is about the leftover bones and bits of flesh. “Leave that bone alone. Talk about this bone.”

If media outlets cared about government agents trampling their home turf, they could implement an easy solution and jack up their ratings through the roof.

Film the monitors.

Film everything they say and do. Film them at lunch and in the bathroom. Film them when they’re giving advice about which stories to run and why.

And live-stream that raw film 24/7. Post it online.

Watch the watchers.

Of course, that won’t happen.

Here’s what will happen. Government monitors will say, “That story on transgender 10-year olds? You’re running it at the bottom of the line-up, just before the weather. We think you should put it up higher. And in the story, in paragraph three, we detect a micro-aggression against transgender boys. You should change the wording. The transgender community is underserved. It needs more positive exposure…”

“Why do you keep running stories about Benghazi? That issue is dead. What are you trying to accomplish? You’re showing bias. Instead, you should be highlighting the progress the people of Libya have made since the death of Gaddafi.”

And so on and so forth.

Government news. Don’t worry, be happy.

The upside is, even more people will shut off mainstream news and go to alternative sources.

Meanwhile, the State will shape news tighter, because they believe they can get away with it.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 www.nomorefakenews.com