Category Archives: Press Fraud

Cutting up news of the economy

Cutting up news of the economy exposes the essence

by Jon Rappoport

January 30, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Government and media periodically release reports about the state of the economy. It’s up, it’s sideways, it’s recovering, and so on.

Reading such reports is like reading background information on the weather. Lots of data, dubious value, and twisted truth.

For example, today the NY Times published a piece headlined, “Brisk 4th Quarter Lifts Hopes for Economy in 2014.”

I’ll give you an excerpt. Warning: reading it may put you to sleep, so pinch yourself, because the punch line comes later.

“‘What’s encouraging is that consumer spending and business investment improved, showing healthier underlying growth in the economy,’ said Michelle Meyer, senior United States economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. ‘The fundamental story for 2014 is still positive.’

“While the headline number was encouraging, the details of Thursday’s report neatly illustrate the crosscurrents that have been buffeting the economy, and have prevented it from achieving more sustained gains.

“For example, although consumer spending grew by 3.3 percent in October, November and December, up from a 2 percent increase in the third quarter, government expenditures plunged 12.6 percent because of the shutdown and automatic budget cuts imposed by Congress at the start of 2013.

“Over all, the government pullback lowered fourth-quarter growth by 0.9 percentage points, with the shutdown itself shaving off 0.3 percentage points. In addition, the residential housing sector was also a source of weakness, cutting overall growth by 0.3 percentage points.

“Some of that drop was weather-related, as construction activity halted, but it also represents a slowing of housing gains as mortgage interest rates rose and the sector’s postrecession rebound cooled. The fourth quarter of 2013 was the first time that housing was a drag on overall growth since 2010.

“As was the case in the third quarter, inventory additions by businesses lifted growth, adding 0.4 percentage points. Those stockpiles will most likely be drawn down in the first quarter of 2014, slowing the expansion a bit in the current quarter, economists said.”

Okay. Still here?

In 1958, in Paris, artist Brion Gysin developed Cut-Up; techniques for cutting and pasting and rearranging text. He and William Burroughs explored this approach together.

Now you can find, online, “cut-up machines” that will instantly and randomly transform text for you. I entered the above Times excerpt and got something that made a lot more sense to me.

Here are the (slightly edited) most interesting parts.

Of course, when I say “made more sense” and “interesting,” I mean that the basic insanity of these state-of-the-economy assessments is revealed. Instead of merely knowing they’re insane, the craziness hits you in the face.

If the Times published THIS stuff every day, I’d buy the paper:

“the growth overall encouraging the shutdown by growth is crosscurrents and 0 since that that automatic 3 2010 consumer have budget percentage”

“Some the business the by of case investment economy Congress that in improved and at drop the showing have the was third healthier prevented start weather-related quarter underlying it of as inventory growth from 2013 construction additions”

“Over activity by the more all halted businesses economy sustained the but lifted gains”

“United spending by of points States grew 0 housing Those economist by 9 gains stockpiles at 3 percentage as will Bank 3 points mortgage most of percent with interest likely America in the rates be Merrill October shutdown rose drawn Lynch”

“postrecession first for from 3 rebound quarter 2014 a percentage cooled of is 2 points The 2014 still percent In fourth slowing positive increase addition quarter”

“While in the of expansion the the residential 2013 a headline third housing was bit number quarter sector the in was government was first the encouraging expenditures also time current the plunged a that quarter details 12 source housing economists of 6 of was said Thursday’s percent weakness a report because cutting drag neatly of overall”

Exit From the Matrix

Isn’t that better?

I suggest economics professors at Harvard and MIT change their courses. Present THIS stuff and let the students finally enjoy themselves.

A few kids would go crazy, but that would be a positive outcome. In future years, they wouldn’t be around to write reports on the economy.

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

Consciousness, art, and psychiatry

by Jon Rappoport

January 22, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

With the NSA scandals, many more people have read and heard the term “metadata.” It means “data about data.”

Well, there is also “metalife.” It means “life about life.”

Which means Art.

Art is a way of reaching life on another level.

When the first cave painter scratched an animal on a stone wall, he was undertaking a unique action. He was expressing his own consciousness beyond living his life.

He was inventing beyond his experience.

Suddenly, his experience had another use. It could be gathered up and transformed into painting, creation.

The first artist was the first alchemist.

So it is with all art. You can transmute your own past, your own experience, your own knowledge, your own emotions into works of imagination.

Art is a spiritual path.

From its dynamic perspective, everything that has ever happened to you can take on absolutely new meaning.

This also happens to be the goal of all therapies.

But with art, the goal is fulfilled.

It is no exaggeration to say that the artist can reinvent his past.

Civilizations rise and fall, come and go, and their fate is decided by untold millions of people who refrain from taking the path of the artist.

Ordinary life as we know it doesn’t resolve into a grand solution. It never has. Through alchemical persuasion, however, it can. And that alchemy is art.

Metalife.

The chain of cause and effect, threading from past into present, breaks. Instead, imagination/consciousness invents new realities and new futures, utilizing the energy of past events.

But this energy is no longer connected to those events. It’s brand new, it’s fuel for the fire.

As soon as imagination/invention/creation becomes the leading prow of action for an individual, the energy conversion and liberation begins.

Many, many artists don’t realize the power they have in their hands. They persist in seeing themselves as “entitled to be crazy” in their lives, and this undercuts their own consciousness.

Many artists are so obsessed with commercial success and fame that they’d dance at the end of a leash like a dog if they thought it would bring them recognition. This, needless to say, is debilitating.

So-called spiritual traditions tend to have a habit of depicting states of consciousness and enlightenment. They’re intent on describing the Reality behind reality.

Art makes no such claims. On its path, the artist invents many, many realities, and in doing so, he moves beyond all such descriptions.

For a culture to realize all these things, something quite different from propaganda and indoctrination would have to take place. In the meantime, metalife is an individual proposition.

It always has been.

Exit From the Matrix

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

In this society, psychiatrists are the primary definers of mental states. Their efforts are accepted as official science.

The Psychiatric Political State is based on myths and fairy tales about distinct and separate disorders and “good treatment.”

One of the main psychiatric mantras gaining force? “Everyone at some time in their lives will experience a mental disorder.”

But an open secret has been slowly bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

But we have a mind-boggling twist. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for 3 years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances (twitter), and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the (then) latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many more diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.

Finally, at the end of the Wired interview, Frances flew off into a bizarre fantasy:

“Diagnosis [as spelled out in the DSM-IV] is part of the magic…you know those medieval maps? In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here’…we have a dragon’s world here. But you wouldn’t want to be without the map.”

Translation: Patients need hope for the healing of their troubles; so even if we psychiatrists are shooting blanks and pretending to know one kind of mental disorder from another, even if we’re inventing these mental-disorder definitions based on no biological or chemical diagnostic tests—it’s a good thing, because patients will then believe and have hope; they’ll believe it because psychiatrists place a name on their problems…

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with science.

If I were an editor at one of the big national newspapers, and one of my reporters walked in and told me, “The most powerful psychiatrist in America just said the DSM is sheer b.s.,” I think I’d make room on the front page.

If the reporter then added, “This shrink was in charge of creating the DSM-IV,” I’d clear room above the fold.

If the reporter went on to explain that the whole profession of psychiatry would collapse overnight if the DSM was discredited, I’d call for a special section of the paper to be printed.

I’d tell the reporter to get ready to pound on this story day after day for months. I’d tell him to track down all the implications of Dr. Frances’ statements.

I’d open a bottle of champagne to toast the soon-to-be-soaring sales of my newspaper.

And then, of course, the next day I’d be fired.

Because there are powerful multi-billion-dollar interests at stake, and those people don’t like their deepest secrets exposed in the press.

And as I walked out of my job, I’d see a bevy of blank-eyed pharmaceutical executives marching into the office of the paper’s publisher, ready to read the riot act to him.

Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM-IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definition of Bipolar was expanded to include more people.

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;

life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;

brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

intercranial pressure leading to blindness;

peripheral circulatory collapse;

stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

serious impairment of cognitive function;

fainting;

restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

Dr. Frances’ label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of toxic Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of choice.

So what about Ritalin?

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

* Paranoid delusions
* Paranoid psychosis
* Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
* Activation of psychotic symptoms
* Toxic psychosis
* Visual hallucinations
* Auditory hallucinations
* Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
* Effects pathological thought processes
* Extreme withdrawal
* Terrified affect
* Started screaming
* Aggressiveness
* Insomnia
* Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
* Psychic dependence
* High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
* Decreased REM sleep
* When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
* Convulsions
* Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

A recent survey revealed that a high percentage of children diagnosed with bipolar had first received a diagnosis of ADHD. This is informative, because Ritalin and other speed-type drugs are given to kids who are slapped with the ADHD label. Speed, sooner or later, produces a crash. This is easy to call “clinical depression.”

Then comes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. These drugs can produce temporary highs, followed by more crashes. The psychiatrist notices the up and down pattern—and then produces a new diagnosis of Bipolar (manic-depression) and prescribes other drugs, including Valproate and Lithium.

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week? They are in harness.

And Dr. Frances is somehow let off the hook. He’s admitted in print that the whole basis of his profession is throwing darts at labels on a wall, and implies the “effort” is rather heroic—when, in fact, the effort leads to more and more poisonous drugs being dispensed to adults and children, to say nothing of the effect of being diagnosed with “a mental disorder.”

I’m not talking about “the mental-disease stigma,” the removal of which is one of Hillary Clinton’s missions in life. No, I’m talking about MOVING A HUMAN INTO THE SYSTEM, the psychiatric apparatus, where the essence of the game is trapping that person to harvest his money, his time, his energy, and of course his health—as one new diagnosis follows on another, and one new toxic treatment after another is undertaken, from cradle to grave.

The result is a severely debilitated human being (if he survives), whose major claim to fame is his list of diseases and disorders.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Here is a smoking-gun statement made by another prominent psychiatrist, on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, clinical professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, prevously professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [emphasis added]

Without intending to, Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession.

So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.

These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.

If I said the moon was made of green cheese, even if I were a Harvard professor, sooner or later someone would ask me to produce a sample of moon rock to be tested for “cheese qualities.” I might begin to feel nervous, I might want to tap dance around the issue, but I would have to submit the rock to a lab.

Dr. Barkley employs a corrupted version of logical analysis in his statement to the PBS Frontline interviewer. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. But if a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have science at all, and that would mean our whole profession rests on nothing—and that is absurd, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”

That logic is no logic at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.

Close to 50 years ago, psychiatry was dying out as a profession. Fewer and fewer people wanted to see a psychiatrist for help, for talk therapy. All sorts of new therapies were popping up. The competition was leaving medical psychiatry in the dust.

As Dr. Peter Breggin describes it in his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, a deal was struck. Drug companies would bankroll psychiatry and rescue it. These companies would pour money into professional conferences, journals, research. In return, they wanted “science” that would promote mental disease as a biological/chemical fact, a gateway into the drugs. Everyone would win—except the patient.

So the studies were rolled out, and the list of mental disorders expanded. The FDA was in on the deal as well, as evidenced by their drug “safety” approvals, in the face of the obvious damage these drugs were doing.

So this is how we arrived at where we are. This was the plan, and it worked.

Under the cover story, it was all fraud all the time. Without much of a stretch, you could say psychiatry has been the most widespread profiling operation in the history of the human race. Its goal has been to bring humans everywhere into its system. It hardly matters which label a person is painted with, as long as it adds up to a diagnosis and a prescription of drugs.

Do people suffer, do they have problems, do they experience anguish and pain, do they make choices that sabotage their own interests, do they fall victim to external circumstances, do they long for relief? Of course.

But this has nothing to do with fraudulent psychiatric diagnoses.

It has to do with nutritional deficits, toxic drugs, toxic food and environmental chemicals, abuse, isolation, intimidation, and a whole host of other potential factors.

Psychiatry is trying to monopolize mental states and the understanding of the mind. It has no science, and it has no authentic conscience. It’s a pseudo-medical version of Orwellian politics, flying under the banner of a false professionalism.

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.

Sunday talk shows: Snowden is a Russian agent

Sunday talk shows: Snowden is a Russian agent

by Jon Rappoport

January 20, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

This is how media propaganda is done. Outlets that are supposed to be coming to their own conclusions present the same story, as one united front.

“Everybody ready? Got your lines straight? We all agree? Both sides of the aisle? Okay, go!”

In this case, the occasion was the Sunday network news-talk shows, and the target was Edward Snowden.

The shows followed on the heels of Obama’s Friday speech, in which the President defended the NSA and its “necessary actions.”

To bolster that message, the Sundays shows hit Snowden hard.

The specter of Russia was rolled out. Both Democratic and Republican legislators had their ducks in a row. They did innuendo, suggestion, “expert” inference.

Republican Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, appeared on Face the Nation (CBS) and Meet the Press (NBC).

Rogers: “Let me just say this, I believe there’s a reason he ended up in the hands, the loving arms, of an FSB agent in Moscow. I don’t think that’s a coincidence…I think there are some interesting questions we have to answer that certainly would lend one to believe that the Russians had at least in some part something to do [with Snowden’s theft of NSA files].”

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, appearing on Meet the Press, remarked that Snowden “may well have had help” from Russia.

Republican Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, showed up on ABC’s This Week: “I personally believe that he [Snowden] was cultivated by a foreign power to do what he did. I don’t think …Mr. Snowden woke up one day and had the wherewithal to do this all by himself…I believe he was cultivated.”

The Snowden-Russia media push just happened to occur on all three major network Sunday shows, and it just happened to be suggested by two Republicans and one Democrat.

And it just happened to occur two days after Obama basically defended the work of the NSA and the Surveillance State.

You can also factor in two suicide bombings in Volgograd, a video that threatens terror attacks at the upcoming Olympics in Sochi, and a hunt on in Russia for a woman (terrorist) with a scar on her face.

The Matrix Revealed

Perfect timing to roll out a Snowden-Russia connection.

The motive is clear: protect the US Surveillance State, assure the public its work is necessary to national security, and deflect criticism of the NSA.

At the same time, the State must keep trying to convince the American people that the portrait of Snowden as a lone patriot is false.

Propaganda is a battle between competing images and messages.

“No, that image is false. This image is true.”

If tomorrow, for reasons of protecting special interests and official agendas, Snowden needed to be painted as a mentally ill Tea-Party gun freak, or a homophobic green dragon with vampire fangs, there would be a gaggle of politicians and think-tank pundits ready to step forward and make the accusations, with great assurance.

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

Obama: one if by land, two if by sea, three if by metadata

Obama: one if by land, two if by sea, three if by metadata

by Jon Rappoport

January 18, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

In his Friday speech, Obama ignored the essence of the FISA Court, the secret body that’s rubber-stamped warrants to do surveillance for the past 35 years.

Most of these requests for warrants come from NSA and the FBI, and only government attorneys may appear before the Court, none of whose decisions are made public. Therefore, the Court is a de facto piece of the Executive Branch, and as such its existence violates the separation of powers principle of the Constitution.

One of Snowden’s documents revealed that FISA had approved a blanket warrant requiring Verizon to make available, to NSA, records of all daily phone calls in its system.

No, President Obama said nothing about this. Instead, he led off his speech on the NSA and national security with these words:

“At the dawn of our Republic, a small, secret surveillance committee, born out of the Sons of Liberty, was established in Boston. And the group’s members included Paul Revere. At night, they would patrol the streets, reporting back any signs that the British were preparing raids against America’s early patriots.”

Paul Revere as a metaphor for NSA spying.

Yes, it’s not widely known that Paul was a Peeping Tom. He had a mental disorder. He was compulsively sneaking into houses of the colonists in Boston and watching them read by candlelight.

Paul also hung around local meat markets swatting flies and eavesdropping on conversations.

He loitered in saloons, stood outside churches on Sundays to pick up juicy bits of gossip, steamed open letters, and quizzed blacksmiths on what their customers were jabbering about. He stole recipes for Thanksgiving dinner from Indians.

If only he’d had 30,000 employees working for him, he could have blanketed the 13 colonies.

The NSA is spying on 300 million innocent Americans. There is that difference between it and the midnight ride of Paul Revere. Just a small point.

Who’s writing the President’s speeches? Is he trying to make the coronated leader of the free world look as ridiculous as possible? And is Obama even reading the words before he steps to the podium?

“Hey, Cody, this piece about Paul Revere? I know we don’t teach history anymore in this country, but you took it way too far. It doesn’t even make sense. Oh, what the hell, who’ll notice it?”

This weekend, you’ll see pundits on the news talk shows debating whether the President proposed significant enough changes in NSA spying methods. Did he go far enough? On the other side: can American still protect itself against terror attacks?

This is the puppet presentation, framing the conversation in the wrong terms and then taking off from there to see who’s more right.

It’s like mounting a discussion on whether $700 trillion or $800 trillion should be the debt ceiling of the US government.

The Matrix Revealed

Here’s a reasonable takeaway from Obama’s speech: politicians lie, and they don’t learn how the moment they’re elected to office for the first time, because that doesn’t give them a long enough lead-in to be good at it.

They ARE liars. They know how to do it, from way back. They’re practiced. Gaining political office is just another opportunity to ply their trade.

It’s a step up. Instead of merely lying as the owner of an oil company or a baseball team, or as a lawyer in an office, or as a community organizer on the street, they can now do it on a larger stage.

Many of them feel they’re born to politics. And that’s why. They lie, and they lie about lying, and what they lie about when, for example, they move into the Oval Office is much more important.

“I thought I was telling whoppers back in Chicago (Little Rock, Whittier, Crawford), but this is really something. Now I’m not just saying black is white, I’m saying it’s glowingly, blindingly white.”

The news talk show I’d like to see this weekend would pose the following question: how would you compare, say, a king claiming God has given him a divine right to rule vs. President Obama saying we have nothing to worry about in this, the Surveillance State?

It’s important to know the ultimate rationalization politicians give themselves when they’re lying about everything all the time. It is:

“The people, the public are animals, biological machines, and they roam the countryside, and they’re very, very dangerous, and they must be controlled. They’re operating on faulty programming, and the only solution is giving them new and better programming. Meanwhile, we have to lie to them, to keep them reasonably pacified.”

Welcome to Democracy. First, for about five minutes, as the ink was drying on the freshly signed Constitution, there was a Republic. Then, men began asking, “How can I twist this thing and lie all the time?” Democracy was the consequence.

In order to make Democracy stick, we have the Surveillance State, and presidents who give it cover.

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

Snowden and the final purpose of the Surveillance State

by Jon Rappoport

January 16, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ve written much about Edward Snowden, his back-story, and the questions that surround him (full archive here). But here, I want to discuss the aftermath, because no matter how you view Snowden and what he has done, he is now being used as a symbol.

Take a hero who has broken through the veil of secrecy, who’s stolen the golden eggs from the goose’s eyrie, who’s escaped…

And put him through the meat grinder of the press.

Raise him up, put him down, praise him, excoriate him, threaten him, isolate him, adore him, and sooner or later he begins to fade from view.

His profile, his public persona has been chopped up so many different ways into so many disparate pieces that, eventually, the symbol of him no longer carries any real force.

Meanwhile, the NSA and the Surveillance State continue on. They weather the storm. Despite the exploding scandal and the fall-out, and even though certain modes of collecting information may be reduced, new strategies emerge.

Therefore, the Surveillance State becomes even more powerful than it was.

Snowden rocked the boat, but the boat has been repaired. It sails on with even greater assurance.

And regardless of how the public responds to Snowden and the NSA, it is only a partial response, because the true aims of the Surveillance State are a mystery to most people.

Surveillance is coming at us from all angles. Chips, drones, TSA checkpoints, smart meters, back-doored electronic products, video cameras, spying home appliances; our phone calls and emails and keystrokes and product purchases are recorded.

The government and its allied corporations will know whatever they want to know about us.

What then?

What happens when all nations are blanketed from stem to stern with surveillance?

Smart meters give us one clue. Public utilities, acting on government orders, will be able to allot electricity in amounts and at times it wishes to. This is leading to an overarching plan for energy distribution to the entire population.

Claiming shortages and limited options, governments will essentially be redistributing wealth, in the form of energy, under a collectivist model.

National health insurance plans (such as Obamacare) offer another clue. Such plans require every citizen to be assigned a medical ID package, which is a de facto identity card. In the medical arena, this means cradle-to-grave tracking.

Surveillance inevitably leads to placing every individual under systems of control. It isn’t just “we’re watching you” or “we’re stamping out dissent.” It’s “we’re directing your participation in life.”

As a security analyst in the private sector once told me, “When you can see what every employee is doing, when you have it all at your fingertips, you naturally move on to thinking about how you can control those patterns and flows of movement and activity. It’s irresistible. You look at your employees as pieces on a board. The only question is, what game do you want to play with them?”

Every such apparatus is ruled, from the top, by Central Planners. When it’s an entire nation, upper-echelon technocrats revel in the idea of blueprinting, mapping, charting, and regulating the flows of all goods and services and people, “for the common good.”

Water, food, medicine, land use, transportation—they all become items of a networked system that chooses who gets what and when, and who can travel where, and under what conditions.

This is the wet dream of technocrats. They believe they are saving the world while playing a fascinating game of multidimensional chess.

As new technologies are discovered and come on line, the planners decide how they will be utilized and for whose benefit.

In order to implement such a far-reaching objective, with minimal resistance from the global population, manufactured crises are unleashed which persuade the masses that the planet is under threat and needs “the wise ones” to rescue it and them.

We watch (and fight in) wars and more wars, each one exacerbated and even invented. We see (planned) famine. We are told about desperate shortages and a frying Earth. We are presented with phony epidemics that are falsely promoted as scourges.

The only response, we are led to believe, is more humane control over the population.

On top of that, we are fed an unending stream of propaganda aimed at convincing us that “the great good for the greatest number” is the only humane and acceptable principle of existence. All prior systems of belief are outmoded. We know better now. We must be good and kind and generous to everyone at all times.

Under this quasi-religious banner, which has great emotional appeal, appears The Plan. Our leaders allocate and withhold on the basis of their greater knowledge. We comply. We willingly comply, because we are enlisted in a universal army of altruistic concern.

This is a classic bait and switch. We are taught to believe that service for the greater good is an unchallengeable goal and credo. And then, later, we find out it has been hijacked to institute more power over us, in every way.

The coordinated and networked surveillance of Earth and its people is fed into algorithms that spit out solutions. This much food will go here; that much water will go there; here there will be medical care; there medical care will be severely rationed. These people will be permitted to travel. Those people will be confined to their cities and towns.

Every essential of life—managed with on-off switches, and the consequences will play out.

An incredibly complex system of interlocking decisions will be hailed as messianic.

Surveillance; planning; control.

The surveillance is expanded, not because we are constantly under threat and must be protected from terrorists, but because we can then be labeled and entered on to 10 billion squares of the game board, to be moved around or held in place.

This is the vision.

It isn’t ours. It never was. But we are not consulted.

The Matrix Revealed

Instead we are made witness to watershed events: the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center; the 2001 assault on the Trade Center and the Pentagon. These ops paralleled the unleashing of better and more far-ranging methods of surveillance.

We are profiled down to the threads on our clothing and DNA in our cells. But what is our profile of the technocrats and their bosses?

They are divorced from human life. They live in a vacuum. They take pleasure from that vacuum.

In 1982, I interviewed Bill Perry, who had just left his job as PR chief at Lawrence Livermore Labs, where scientists design nuclear weapons. Perry had been given the kind of job PR people long for. But one day, when he passed the desk of a researcher and listened to his complaints about budget limitations, Perry said, “Listen, America already has the means to blow up the whole planet eight times. What more do you need?”

The researcher looked up at him with a genuinely puzzled expression. He said, “You don’t understand, Bill. This is a problem in physics.”

In the same detached sense, the technocrats who want to calculate and direct our future, move by move, minute by minute, see us as components of a complex and very interesting problem.

Yes, they indeed expect to exercise power and control. But they also live in an abstraction. They deal their answers from that realm. They exercise cool passion. They see, for example, that not every single twitch of thought of every person on earth is yet mapped, so they want to finish constructing the means by which they can chart those “missing elements.” They want to complete the formula.

They view their research as a wholly natural implication of the mathematics they can manipulate. They swim in technology and they want to extend its architecture. To abandon the program would be tantamount to denying their own intelligence. They climb the mountain because it is there.

Exit From the Matrix

They do perceive that one factor does not fit their algorithms: the free individual. It’s the wild card.

Therefore, they are compelled to analyze freedom and break it down into DNA functions and brain processes. They assume, because they must, that the free individual is an illusory idea that flows from some older configuration of synaptic transmission, at a time in our evolution when we needed it. But now, they suppose, the engineering of human activity and thought has superseded such quaint notions. Now we all can be tracked, traced, and studied on a different and wider scale. Now we can be seen for what we really are: a hive.

Therefore, we must be instructed, within tight limits, about our various functions.

I’m reminded of a statement attributed to Nobel Laureate, Alfred Szent-Giorgi: “In my search for the secret of life, I have ended up with atoms and electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am retracing my steps…”

Today’s technocrats will admit no such disappointment or existential crisis. They flourish with great optimism as they design the future world and its single society. If they run out of pieces of their puzzle to study, they’ll try to track the motion of every atom and electron and quark in the universe. They’ll delight in it.

Knowing all this, we know the terms of the war we are in.

The Central Planners have an equation: “free=uncontrolled=dangerous.”

By the gross terms of that equation, they lump us in with thugs and murderers and terrorists. They even see the normal functioning of the brain as a threat, as an intrinsically defective process, and they have long since decided that organ must be corrected with drugs and electromagnetic interventions.

We, on the other hand, must assert, in every way possible, that freedom is real and inviolable, and we must back that up with our actions.

When individual freedom is no longer discussed in great depth by people who should know better, when it is left to wither on the vine, many programs and structures are built to take its place. But if freedom seems like a weak response to the Surveillance State and its goals, remember this: all the State power I’ve been enumerating is organized to curtail freedom, stop it, end it, make it obsolete. That enormous effort wouldn’t be necessary if freedom were merely a passing fancy. It isn’t. It’s an eternal force.

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 36 mysterious days of Edward Snowden

The 36 mysterious days of Edward Snowden

by Jon Rappoport

January 15, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

First, a comment about the number of documents Snowden took from the NSA. Estimates have ranged from 20,000 to 1.2 million. Snowden explicitly stated he had vetted all of them, to make sure their release would aid transparency, his goal, rather than harm individuals.

Whether the number is 20,000 or 1.2 million, it’s impossible to accept that Snowden carefully perused each doc. If you want to test this out, go to your local library and read 20,000 pages of anything. Never mind making notes. Just get to the end of it.

All right, let’s move on to the timeline of Snowden’s mysterious 36 days and explore what it means for the NSA, the smartest, largest, richest spy agency in the world. (The source for this timeline is The Guardian.)

May 20, 2013: Snowden arrives in Hong Kong from Hawaii. He’s just taken medical leave from the NSA. This is not troubling to his employer, despite the fact that, as AFP now reports, Snowden worked briefly at the US Embassy in New Delhi (2010) and abruptly left India, citing medical problems on that occasion as well.

Both times, Snowden didn’t seek medical help in the country in which he was employed.

June 1, 2013: Three reporters connected with The Guardian—Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill, and Laura Poitras—fly from New York to Hong Kong, and begin their week-long interview of Snowden. If this raises red flags, it doesn’t lead to intercepting Snowden.

June 5, 2013: The Guardian publishes its first article containing NSA leaks. The next three days see more NSA revelations, but there is no mention of Snowden.

June 9: The Guardian goes public about Snowden for the first time. According to Reuters, the NSA started an “urgent search” for Snowden several days before June 9—perhaps as early as June 1.

June 10: Snowden checks out of his hotel, but remains in Hong Kong. The US intelligence apparatus still can’t find him.

June 12: The South China Post publishes an interview with Snowden, who says he’ll stay in Hong Kong until he’s told he has to go.

June 14: The UK Home Office orders airlines to deny passage to Snowden, if he tries to come to the UK.

June 20, 21: The Guardian publishes more top-secret documents from the Snowden cache.

June 23: Free and unencumbered, Snowden flies to Moscow with Wikileaks’ Sarah Harrison.

During this entire period (May 20-June23), the NSA, and other agencies of the US government, have been unable to locate Snowden?

They’ve been unable to get hold of, or disable, his famous four laptops, which presumably contain all the documents he took from the NSA? Instead, Snowden transfers the documents to Greenwald and Poitras in Hong Kong, hides out successfully, and makes his flight to Moscow.

The Matrix Revealed

You can attribute all this, if you want to, to the sheer incompetence and stupidity of the entire US intelligence community.

There are other possibilities, if you take into account the fact that all intelligence personnel are trained to lie and deceive. It’s their staple.

Perhaps the NSA was aware of Snowden, as he was taking the documents, and they embedded a host of false trails and lies in his cache.

Perhaps some greater and more damaging revelations about the NSA were on the verge of exploding, and Snowden’s leaks functioned to conceal much deeper harm to NSA.

Perhaps the CIA, Snowden’s former employer, was still his employer, in their ongoing turf war with the NSA. And the CIA helped protect Snowden between May 20 and June 23, when he flew to Moscow.

In any case, believing that the NSA and other US intelligence operatives were unable to find Snowden in Hong Kong is like trying to eat metal.

It just doesn’t go down.

Snowden’s mysterious 36 days of freedom, as well as other elements of Snowden’s questionable bio, which I’ve covered in previous articles (see [ref1], [ref2], [ref3], [ref4], [ref5], [ref6], [ref7], and [ref8]), suggests the NSA-Snowden saga is more than it seems to be.

And don’t forget, despite the uproar about Snowden’s revelations, so far the NSA and the Surveillance State remain fully functional. The NSA’s reputation may have taken a large hit, but their work goes on unabated.

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

Television news, the stage play

Television news, the stage play

by Jon Rappoport

January 6, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

There is a bit of magic to it.

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 deliver close-up accounts of vital events.

And 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 to us in the space of a few minutes, each night, like clockwork.

The fatuous wall-to-wall lies aside, the news presents that little show of magic which the people sorely need. The need never dies. It’s eternal.

Substitutes for the real thing are acceptable. The television anchors can be obvious oafs, hucksters, cheap con artists; it doesn’t matter.

They can twist the truth, burn it, hide it, step on it, reverse it; it doesn’t matter.

If the US government hires, supports, and arms terrorists, the news can claim the government is doing everything possible to fight against terrorism—including the installation of a massive Surveillance State. The absurd contradictions are simply ignored.

As long as television news gives viewers a small hit of magic, it stays in business. The magic is the stage play, the anchors and reporters are the actors, and the whole show, as it passes into eyes and ears, imparts a dreamlike quality.

Once upon a time, the dream, the magic, the myth were the saddle, reins, and horse of a great personal adventure. But in this modern age, the news stands in as the (brain-addled) knight on his quest for truth and meaning.

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 for most people, that startling analysis was too much. A single human being staging his own reality? Impossible. The dream and the magic must come from somewhere else, from a place and personage stamped with an official authoritative imprimatur.

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

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

The space, time, and energy of the play form a continuum that is a prison.

In this prison, viewers are content to “take their magic” from an external source. This is considered safe. This is considered proper. This is considered reasonable. Magic comes to be thought of as always and forever coming from a place that is definitely not-self.

That’s the key.

By extension, speak to people about lost civilizations, hidden archeology, visitors from space—all of which are not-self—and they are eager for more of that magic.

But talk to them about lost continents within the Self, the archeology of the subconscious, the alchemical force of imagination, the creative principle underlying knowledge, their own manufacture of reality…and they tend to back away.

They prefer Small Self to Large Self. They’ve chosen a humble role. That’s the front they want to show to the world.

And society, government, and the news are more than happy to subjugate them to such a role.

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

The Matrix Revealed

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, if good men stepped forward and fought for it.

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.

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

Washington Post, its new owner, and the CIA: joined at the hip

Washington Post, its new owner, and the CIA: joined at the hip

by Jon Rappoport

December 22, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Norman Solomon (twitter), writing at Counterpunch, nails it down: building a version of the online Cloud that will run inside the CIA, for the CIA, has been awarded, as a $600 million contract, to Amazon Web Services.

Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, now owns the Washington Post.

$600 million creates a major conflict of interest, when it comes to reporting stories on the CIA. Of course, the Washington Post and other major media outlets are already compromised, when it comes to national security issues and the intelligence community. Stories are vetted by CIA, NSA, and other agencies, before they’re published.

But this one is a cherry on the cake. A big fat $600 million cherry.

Reporters at the Post will be extra-cautious about their pieces on the CIA. Ditto for editors.

Independent press? That’s a laugh.

The Matrix Revealed

WaPo is long known as an outlet that prints what amounts to CIA spin. So their new owner and his ties to the CIA are just part of “business as usual.”

According to a 2012 Seattle Times article, people who know Bezos describe him as a libertarian. The definition of that term must have undergone a sea-change. Taking $600 million to design online services for the CIA, a clandestine agency whose federal budget expenditures are a secret, an agency known for overthrowing governments abroad…this is an illustration of libertarian philosophy at work?

Maybe we should go back and read Plato’s Republic and Marx’s Das Kapital. They could turn out to be libertarian masterpieces.

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

Turning mass shootings into a police state and other games

Turning mass shootings into a police state and other games

by Jon Rappoport

November 4, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Now that everybody knows (cough, cough) the LAX shooter was “anti-government,” it follows as night from day that a) he must have developed his political views from conspiracy websites and b) those sites are culpable…right?

Is JD Salinger dead enough yet? Can we prosecute his corpse because Mark David Chapman read his dreary novel, Catcher in the Rye, and then killed John Lennon?

How about all those young men who found “the good pages” in an embargoed copy of Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer and then left home and family, or the later generation of boys who imbibed Jack Kerouac’s On the Road and joined The Beat Generation? Surely some able lawyer can mount a class-action suit against the estates of those two dead authors.

Any day now, I’m expecting the White House to announce the formation of a new cabinet post: the Inflammatory Rhetoric Department.

Hiring: analysts, evaluation experts, and SWAT teams trained for home and workplace invasions.

“What are you contemplating, Mr. Smith? Where did you get your information?”

Mass communication psychologists (aka psyop specialists) are working overtime to forge connections between accused criminals and their prior “influences.”

No longer is it enough to say, “The criminal made his own choices. He did what he did. He’s responsible.”

That went out when the State began taking psychiatrists’ testimony in court seriously.

But recently, things have gotten far more intense. So-called anti-government statements, wherever they are found, are taken to be assaults on Mommy and Daddy.

“How could anyone think the government is bad? It’s absurd. Government Daddy works all day at the office to help us, and at night he comes home and pats us on the head and government Mommy gives us hot chocolate…”

And therefore (against any semblance of logic), if a criminal makes statements against the government, that government and its allied stooges must track down where these ideas came from, and pin the blame there, at the source, where it belongs.

“No, the shooter would never have turned into the shooter had he not read volatile statements on website X. Once he did, he was hooked. His mind was transformed into receptive mush. He was helpless. He picked up a gun and walked into the mall and opened fire.”

The “new analysis” stems from the notion that humans are nothing more than reflex biological machines.

So in the spirit of contributing to this new field of inquiry, I have a couple of choices of my own that need serious investigating.

The Matrix Revealed

First, remember a little outfit called Project for the New American Century? Coming to power after 9/11, their highly influential chiefs lobbied hard for an invasion of Iraq. Talk about inflammatory rhetoric.

Add up the subsequent planes with bombs, the missiles, the soldiers with tanks, the deaths on both sides. Now that was a mass shooting, in full view of the American public.

And if you want to wander back much further into that hated territory called history, you’ll come upon another wild-eyed bunch called the Council on Foreign Relations.

In the early days of World War 2, they were already making plans for the post-war peace. They designated a committee to determine whether the United States could survive as an isolated entity, or whether it needed to go out beyond its borders for vital resources.

The CFR naturally concluded the latter, and doubling down, decided that the US should install, through force and clandestine operations, a Pax Americanus covering the whole globe. Imperial empire.

Those CFR boys knew how to inflame. And they had marvelous connections at the State Department, which in turn had a clear pipeline to Franklin Roosevelt, the President.

As a matter of fact, right now somebody should be investigating what the White House is reading, because with all those drone strikes, with all this non-stop surveillance, it’s obvious they’re on some pretty nasty websites.

One more while I’m at it. I want to know which conspiracy website the US Supreme Court is wrapped up in. Because their decision to allow a corporation or labor union to spend big money to advocate for or against a political candidate…well, those Justices are obviously being driven crazy by some master conspiracists.

Meanwhile, what about the millions of people who absorb their knowledge from the NY Times plus the three clowns anchoring the evening network news? That insane and monstrous influence should be investigated immediately, because the victims are dying, drip by drip, from terminal brain damage.

Whenever Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Dianne (“don’t cry for me, America”) Sawyer speak, neurons are irretrievably lost.

Here are a few more treasonous anti-government people who should be investigated, in absentia:

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost immediately he comes to the conclusion that government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable…” (HL Mencken, 1919)

“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” (Mark Twain, 1881)

“Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)

Where are these men? We must curtail their operations. What web sites are they running? Who might they influence to pick up a gun and commit a crime? We must locate these three men and get them to a psychiatrist, so they can be diagnosed with the correct mental disorders and treated with the appropriate drugs.

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. 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

LAX shooting, the storyline, the agenda, the questions

LAX shooter, the storyline, the agenda, the questions

by Jon Rappoport

November 1, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Mainstream media sources are now reporting:

The shooter at LAX, who killed one TSA (?) employee and wounded several others today, is in custody. His name is Paul Anthony Ciancia. He is 23 years old. His weapon was a semi-automatic rifle.

Pete Williams (NBC, who, as chief Pentagon spokesman, covered up the extent of US military killings in the 1989 Panama invasion), states that Ciancia had “anti-government materials” in his bag.

Other sources state Ciancia had a note in his bag which stated that he wanted to “kill TSA.”

Ciancia is a Los Angeles resident. His family lives in Pennsville, New Jersey. This morning, prior to the shooting, Ciancia’s father called the local Pennsville police and reported his son was missing.

The father also stated that his son had written to a sibling “in reference to taking his own life.”

That’s the storyline so far.

Agenda? Another gun murder in a public place, so take away guns from everybody. Semi-auto rifle was used? Ban them. Gun plus anti-government opinion? Terrorist. Step up surveillance, ID, watch, harass, and even arrest people who own guns and don’t like the government.

The Matrix Revealed

And now for the questions. This is a checklist that should accompany every such mass shooting:

Was the accused shooter seeing a psychiatrist?

Had he ever seen a psychiatrist or MD who prescribed psychiatric drugs?

If so, what were the drugs?

Ritalin (or other speed-type compounds) for ADHD?

Antidepressants, in particular the SSRI types (e.g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft)?

Both classes of drugs are known to push people over into suicidal ideation, suicide, violence, murder. (See Peter Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry, Medication Madness, and other titles. Also see the website, SSRI stories.)

Had the accused shooter ever withdrawn from, stopped using any psychiatric drugs? Withdrawal, done incorrectly, can cause severe problems, including aggression and violence.

Had the accused shooter ever stated he was under surveillance, was being harassed by authorities, was being targeted with microwaves, was hearing voices?

Yes, there are people who incorrectly believe these things are happening to them; but there are also people who are, in fact, being subjected to such harassment and control.

Has the accused shooter ever been subjected to military indoctrination? Has he ever had connections to military or civilian intelligence employees or assets? If so, what were the specifics?

And finally, was the accused shooter actually the shooter, or was he a patsy, a scapegoat?

I’m not downplaying the difficulty of answering these questions. But I am saying they’re all relevant.

Whereas the job of major media, in these incidents, is relaying to the public the statements of law-enforcement personnel and politicians. That’s their only job. They don’t investigate. They don’t go off on their own. They don’t know what they pretend to know. Pretending is what earns them their paychecks.

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. 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