How many lies can the White House tell before the walls collapse?

How many lies can the White House tell before the walls collapse?

By Jon Rappoport

October 22, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Obama has no one to blame but himself:

He was the one who campaigned, in 2008, on Hope and Change. He was the one who deployed high-flying rhetoric to promise a new day in Washington politics.

He was the one who said he was going elevate the level of discourse and make government transparent. He positioned himself as a new kind of leader. He was the one who turned his candidacy into a religious experience.

He was the one who convinced voters he stood above the fray, as a man and as a symbol, and on that basis they boarded his train and rode it all the way.

He was the one who, inheriting a desperate economy, made his signature move upon gaining office:

Obamacare.

Not jobs. Not prosecutions of corporate and banking criminals.

He made devastating choices for all Americans.

He was and is the one who has presided over a sinking economic ship.

Given his proclivity for big and bigger government, he could have launched a serious public program, one which really put people back to work, repairing the infrastructure of the nation. But even this was beyond him.

And getting out of the way and letting Americans expand their small businesses, and supporting them with the same intensity of rhetoric he used to win his election? Out of the question. Not in the playbook. Not for a second.

His big play out of the gate, Obamacare, shocked his closest advisers. They assumed jobs would be his number-one priority. They were dead wrong.

And what about “post-racial” America? That was not only a dud, it was a disaster. Division and polarization are the order of the day.

How about dependence, and government as the solver of all problems, as the beneficent giver? How has that worked out? How can it possibly work out? America is going to become one big Sweden? Really?

It’s one thing for a Clinton or a Bush to lie and skate and divert and play the usual horrific games. But Obama set himself up as a man who was fundamentally different. That was his ace. That was how he won the Presidency. That was what people bought into.

So he falls further, even as his media supporters keep launching blizzards of lies to prop him up.

Many of his loyal followers believe “powerful forces” have fenced Obama in and sabotaged his efforts to work positive transformations. If so, then as a transcendent figure, he should step forward and use his oratorical powers to expose the criminal enterprise that surrounds the Presidency. He should speak directly to the American people and lay it on the line.

Or else he confesses that he is, in fact, another Clinton, another Bush.

The public loves fairy tales and myths, but considering the shape this country is in, that fascination is wearing very thin. It isn’t going to sustain the next three years of Obama in the White House.


The Matrix Revealed


90 million people are out of the work force. 50 million are on food stamps. Recovery? Is the President really going to keep pushing that narrative?

Admitting the truth might, as a long shot, create a platform from which Obama could launch a real campaign to restore jobs…but faking the unemployment crisis has been his chosen path.

The government Obamacare website is a shambles. It doesn’t appear that a simple fix is possible, which means chaos will continue for many months, perhaps longer. Private insurance companies are canceling hundreds of thousands of policies.

The last seven years of American political life have added up to a disaster. Blaming it all on Congressional gridlock, on delaying the ability of the White House to invent trillions more in debt at the drop of a hat, isn’t working.

So many actions and omissions of madness…it leaves us with the reasonable conclusion that Obama’s Presidency was designed from the outset to flame out and fail.

And the principal target was the economy.

The President, fresh off an election victory in 2008, and in that glow, could have used his monumental leverage to put people back to work. He could have hammered on it day and night. He could have rallied support and energized the country.

But now…what do we have? Welfare America to the nth degree. Beyond what anyone thought was possible. And media traitors are backing it.

For decades, for more than a hundred years, power has been in the wrong place.

It belongs with you and with me.

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

The elite television anchor: mouthpiece for the Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

October 15, 2013

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 Douglas Edwards and 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.

[…]

[Link to full article.]

Who will narrate space and time in the future?

by Jon Rappoport

October 14, 2013

Since I wrote this piece seven months ago, there have been so many public scandals and eruptions I might miss one or two, if I tried to name them all.

But through the twisted belching landscape, there has been one constant for millions of people: the elite television anchor.

He is the guide who tones down meaning and supplies assurance. He stems the tide. He stays in the dream.

[…]

[Link to full article.]

Staging the news and staging reality are the same thing

by Jon Rappoport

October 12, 2013

“Hi! We’re the news…manufacturing witnesses, creating dupes, and using true believers. Just like an intelligence agency. Come join us!”

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

[…]

[Link to full article.]

Vaccine damage, hidden truth: not on the evening news

by Jon Rappoport

October 4, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

120,000 adverse effects from vaccines every year in the US? 1.2 million?

What??

Read on.

The reference here is “In the Wake of Vaccines,” by Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center. Her article was published in the Sept./Oct. 2004 issue of Mothering Magazine.

Gathering information from several sources, Fisher makes a reasonable estimate of vaccine damage—actual figures are not available or carefully tracked or vetted. In other words, the system for reporting adverse effects is broken.

Fisher:

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

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

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

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

Knowing all this, it’s easy to figure out why researchers don’t do large controlled double-blind studies on vaccines.

They say they don’t compare large groups of people (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated) in studies because, get this, it would be unethical to deprive volunteers of vaccines during the length of the clinical trial.

Nonsense.

That’s the cover story.

The real reason is spelled out above. The group receiving vaccines would incur so much damage, it would be visible for all to see.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Memo to Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Dianne Sawyer:

If you want to be an actual journalist, try getting at the truth and reporting it.

Try ignoring the arrogant doctors who assure you everything is fine.

Oh, wait. You can’t. Your bosses won’t let you. And you don’t care.

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.

NSA at work: Do you have a secret “social profile?”

NSA at work: Do you have a secret “social profile?”

By Jon Rappoport

October 2, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Do you know a grape grower in France? An activist in England?

NSA may have built an extensive social profile on you.

The NY Times reports (9/28): “NSA Gathers Data on Social Connections of US Citizens.”.

It’s a long piece, and it’s pinned to the idea that the NSA can track US residents who are connected to “foreign citizens of interest.”

Presumably this means the foreign citizens are suspected terrorists. Well, not necessarily. No.

As is often the case with the NY Times, the real nuggets are buried down deep in the story. So I’ve dug them out and assembled them more cogently. In other words, I’ve re-edited the Times piece to make things clearer. You’re welcome.

Do NSA’s foreign targets have to be suspected terrorists? To get on the radar, qualifications “could include anything from ties to terrorism, weapons proliferation or international drug smuggling to…[being] foreign politicians, business figures or activists.”

Boom.

Get the picture? NSA is spying on foreign politicians, business people, and activists. That’s a broad population. And of course, activists could be stumping for a wide variety of causes, including the right to privacy from snoopers.

By implication, that means NSA could shape a social profile of any American with serious or casual ties to these politicians, business people, and activists. So much for believing NSA would only target Americans with connections to foreign terror suspects. That’s a fairy tale for the masses.

Next topic: When the NSA shapes a social profile of an American, how far can they go? What can they access? How much of that person’s life can they invade?

Well, emails and phone records, right? Sure. Is that it? Not by a long shot.

“…bank codes, insurance information, Facebook profile, passenger manifests, voter registration rolls and GPS location information [where you are right now], as well as proprietary records and unspecified tax data.”

The NSA states they have a profile template of “164 relationship types…using queries like ‘travelsWith, hasFather, sentForumMessage, employs.’”

Translation: NSA builds a social profile of a person by spying to obtain info on 164 categories of activity, behavior, and status of that target.

How do you like it?

You could be an acquaintance of a businessman in France. The NSA has targeted him, and they’ve come across you in the process—so they access all the data and records mentioned above, to come at you on 164 vectors.

To put the cherry on the cake, your “phone and email logs…allow [NSA] analysts to…acquire clues to religious or political affiliations…regular calls to a psychiatrist’s office, late-night messages to an extramarital partner…”

Blackmail, anyone?


The Matrix Revealed


Yes, you say, this is horrible, but NSA’s spying activity only covers a relatively few Americans. Wrong. Let’s go to another quote from the Times article:

An NSA program called Mainway “in 2011 was taking in 700 million phone records per day. In August 2011, it began receiving an additional 1.1 billion cellphone records daily from an unnamed American service provider under Section 702 of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, which allows for the collection of the data of Americans if at least one end of the communication is believed to be foreign…”

And that’s not enough. No. “…the agency [NSA] is pouring money and manpower into creating a metadata repository capable of taking in 20 billion ‘record events’ daily and making them available to NSA analysts within 60 minutes.”

One subject the Times article didn’t cover: what happens when the NSA assembles a profile on an American who has casual ties to, say, a European businessman? Are they going to stop there? What about that American’s social connections here in the US? The American knows the cousin of a lawyer who’s speaking out against government surveillance. That cousin knows the mother of a child who was suspended from school for displaying the picture of a gun on his computer…

Obviously, NSA wants the ability to spy on everybody all the time.

But don’t worry. Keith Alexander, the head of NSA, assures us that everything the Agency is doing is legal, above-board, and necessary to keep us safe.

By “safe,” he means: NSA will spy on us 24/7 so the information can be used to create one huge system of tracking and control. Control of life. Regulated life. Algorithms that determine the shape of the dystopia we are entering.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMIcTiOG4UU&w=560&h=315]

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

Alexis, Lanza, Holmes, and the Psychiatric State

Alexis, Lanza, Holmes and the Psychiatric State

by Jon Rappoport

September 28, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Whether or not these three men committed the crimes they’ve been accused of, there is no doubt scenarios have been written and established to emphasize and advertise them as mental cases.

And not only mental cases, but people “in need of psychiatric treatment…if we had only caught them in time, we could have gotten them help and then they wouldn’t have killed all those people…”

That’s the PR people at work, because gun control is only one of the items on the agenda here. The twin is MORE PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT AND DRUGGING.

And of course the way the story is being spun, anyone can go off the rails, so be on the alert, your neighbor could have a mental disorder, it’s all right, no stigma attached, he needs treatment right away.

It’s called The Psychiatric State. It’s based on myths and fairy tales about distinct and separate disorders and “good treatment” and sharing and caring in this new humane society of ours.

“Everyone at some time in their lives will experience a mental disorder.”

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 (twitter).

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.


The Matrix Revealed


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.


Exit From the Matrix


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.


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, 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 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 nothing to do with fraudulent psychiatric diagnoses.

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

If an elite television anchor confessed to everything

If an elite television anchor confessed to everything

~a short story~

by Jon Rappoport

September 27, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

“Nothing’s been done about that story [the Seal Team raid on the Osama bin Laden compound], it’s one big lie, not one word of it is true.” (Seymour Hersh)

This is the thing. They thought they could rush John Smith, the most famous television anchor in the world, to Bellevue, after he went off on his news broadcast. They thought they could sneak him through the back door.

But the hospital was surrounded by reporters with camera crews when they got there. And Smith wasn’t drugged yet, nor was he was in a straitjacket.

He stepped out of the ambulance and saw…an audience. He immediately perked up. He smiled. He stood there in the driveway, ran his hands through his hair, and gestured at the men in suits who flanked him.

“These security people,” he said, “ believe I’m crazy. I’m not and I want to make a brief statement before they take me inside and do God knows what to me.”

Applause broke out. And some laughter.

The guards looked at each other and froze.

A tall blonde standing 20 feet away from Smith tore off her blouse and stood naked from the waist up in the dying light of the summer evening.

Cheers. Some of cameras swiveled to pick her up.

(She was a backup plant in the crowd.)

WE LOVE YOU, SMITH, she said in a clear voice.

“Well,” Smith said, “I’m sure this is a wonderful moment of distraction for all of us, but in the history of the world, breasts are nothing new. Check that. I’d say yours look like Marty Cohen’s work. I should know. My first wife was his patient. Marty’s an artist. He has an office in McLean. Does some of the CIA wives.”

Big laughter.

The blonde suddenly looked worried. She put her blouse back on and melted into the crowd.

“So,” Smith said, “now that we’ve got the commercial out of the way, let’s get to the heart of things.”

The laughter died down. The crowd went quiet. The cameras were rolling.

“About an hour ago, I was doing the news and I said, ‘This is ridiculous, I can’t go on with this, it’s stupid and I don’t want any more deceptions.’ They cut to commercial and before I knew it I was in an ambulance headed for this funny farm.

“I operate as a mouthpiece. The way I speak on television sets up frequencies and rhythms that are hypnotic. It’s a skill you hone if you want to rise in this business.

“My tone is flat, it’s objective, it’s a bit tough and tender, as if I’m concealing, but just barely, a sympathy for the common people and their plight.

“In fact, I know very few common people, and my sympathies lie with myself, my position, my career, my front. Of course I love my family, and I have close friends, but what I do, what I’m paid very good money to do is shape consensus.

“It may seem strange to consider it, but reality…public shared reality is a fiction. I ought to know. I invent that fiction every night on the news. That’s my job.

“If I do it well, I’m a star, and the people behind the people who pay me are happy.

“I’m not suffering from a nervous breakdown. The stress of the job hasn’t gotten to me. I don’t have a mental disorder. I’m not crazy. I’m just tired of inventing the fiction.

“I don’t like it anymore.

“First of all, I give you news without context. I never fill in the blanks that would make the stories of our time have meaning. I don’t tell you about the natural gas pipeline through Syria or the long-time plan to destabilize Syria and the whole Middle East. I don’t come right out and say the US government is arming and backing the very same terrorists they claim to be fighting. I omit that. I omit context.

“Therefore, you don’t have a chance in hell of understanding the news.

“Then I also omit altogether certain stories that would shake you to the core and crack the pillars of our way of life. For example, I don’t come out and say the Federal Reserve is actual a gang of private bankers pretending to be part of the government, a gang that manipulates the value of money and creates money out of thin air.

“I don’t say that the medical apparatus in this country kills, at minimum, 225,000 people a year. I don’t do simple arithmetic and tell you that means doctors are killing TWO POINT TWO FIVE MILLION AMERICANS PER DECADE.

“If I did say these things on the nightly news, I’d be ripping apart the fictional reality I invent for you.

“Then, when it comes to what are politely and inaccurately called scandals, I don’t press the issue. I don’t pound on these stories night after night, going deeper, finding the criminals who are responsible, who should be locked up for rest of their lives.

“If I set my hounds loose, my reporters, if I took the leash off them, on, say, a story like Benghazi, and if I issued updates every night for three or four months, I’d tear a huge hole in the consensus-reality fabric. Murder, weapons transfers to terrorists. Naming names. Relentlessly.

“I don’t do that. I wouldn’t last a day on the job if I did.

“My whole life has been a lead-up, a preparation for a grand simulation. Do you see? From the time I was a boy, I realized there was this thing called simulation.

“It’s like a cartoon, but it’s a serious cartoon. And I realized I could narrate these animations, I could make people believe them.

“My voice. The cultivation of a voice. A believable telling of a tale. It was easy for me. I found out how I could relate to people and get them to trust me.

“I saw INTO what they wanted. A feeling of security, a feeling that things are all right. And, I thought, why shouldn’t they want that? If I can give it to them, I’m performing a valuable service. Everybody wants that.

“From this core, a long time ago, I shaped my persona, my attitude, my way of speaking and responding. To use an old phrase, I was ‘other-directed.’ From all appearances, I wasn’t interested in myself.

“That became my motto and my religion. DON’T BE INTERESTED IN YOURSELF.

“But somewhere along the line, a confusion set in. I was doing good, I was giving people what they wanted, I was keeping my own desires in check. I was narrating stories. And yet, the outcome…the outcome was twisted.

“I wasn’t a therapist or a chaplain or a teacher trying to help people get their lives back. I was a broadcaster, a news man. I was supposed to take a direct line to the truth, and when I found it, I was supposed to travel even deeper, into the dark places where the lies are manufactured.

“But you see, I was in a dark place, and I was manufacturing lies.

“It’s taken me many years to admit this contradiction and see it squarely.

“In the process, I’ve seen more and more of what we call reality and how it’s MADE.

“I’ll tell you this. If I could somehow retain the public platform I’ve built, I would spend the rest of my life doing nothing but showing HOW IT’S MADE. That would be my job.

“But of course, that’s impossible.

“These men beside me are going to take me into this hospital, and a psychiatrist is going to interview me and diagnose me with a mental disorder.


The Matrix Revealed


Exit From the Matrix


“And most of you will believe the news reports about me. You’ll accept the reality that psychiatrists invent out of thin air. You’ll shake your heads and say, ‘It’s too bad what happened to Smith. I always liked him. Now I’m going to have to find another person, another voice, another face, another anchor to make reality for me every night.’

“Well, you won’t put it that way. But that is the situation.

“Who is going to make reality for you? The eternal search.

“How many of you will realize that you, individually, can make it for yourself, that the whole notion of a collective consensus is fatally flawed, that CONSENSUS is a gigantic teaser for the upcoming news?

“There is one thing you can do for me now. In this country, we still have a few freedoms, a few protections. I don’t have to submit to someone, a psychiatrist, telling me what my state of mind is.

“I can declare my own state of mind.

“On the off-chance that I might not be crazy, that I do have the right to assert and judge my own thoughts, you can intercede at this moment.

“Do you understand?”

Silence.

The crowd was silent.

Everything was suddenly very still.

Then…one beat. Two beats. Three beats.

And…

THEY SURGED FORWARD.

A few hundred people moved forward and got between Smith and his guards.

The cameras kept rolling.

The crowd formed a cordon around Smith.

And that was the way they walked back out of the driveway and into the street.

The sun had set.

It was night.

Uncertain, developing, breaking…

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

Navy Yard shooting: media dump shocking story line

Navy Yard shooting: media dump shocking story line

by Jon Rappoport

September 26, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The reference here is USA Today, September 17, “Shooting Rampage at Navy Yard Leaves 13 Dead.”

This isn’t some little local paper. It’s big-time national media. So one would expect that, when it develops a crucial story line, it would follow up on it, press it, keep digging into it.

Here is the USA Today quote from 9/17:

“A federal law enforcement official said Monday that Alexis, who had been staying at a nearby Residence Inn since late August or early September, legally purchased at least some of the weapons used in the assault within the past few days in Virginia.

“Alexis allegedly drove to the Navy Yard complex with the weapons early Monday and cleared security checkpoints before parking in a lot on the property, said the official, who was not authorized to comment publicly. After leaving his car, it is believed that Alexis was involved in two altercations in which he opened fire, killing one or possibly two people. (emphasis added)

“The official said Alexis then entered the building and went to the third and fourth floors, where much of the assault was carried out…”

This is an entirely different picture of the shooting. It’s not the official version. And now we have video purporting to show Aaron Alexis entering the Navy Yard building, with his bag, without a hitch.

No presentation of credentials at the door. No guards present.

If, as the USA Today federal source describes, Alexis shot several people in the parking garage BEFORE entering the building and killed at least one person, you would assume that would spark an immediate security call and lockdown of the building.

Alexis would have met heavy armed resistance before entering the building. But according to the video, he didn’t.

So what really happened?

No word. No retraction from USA Today. No followup from USA Today or any other major media outlet.

“Just drop it. Who cares? It doesn’t fit with the official narrative. Let it go. Move on. We have a new story line. He never shot anybody in the parking garage. He walked into the building unhindered. So be it…”

Really?


The Matrix Revealed


The public is so used to this kind of press-coverage YES then NO dump-a-story-and-walk-away tactic, they don’t even register it anymore.

“His father was dead in New Jersey? No? His mother was dead in Connecticut? He had to pass inspection from a video camera in the principal’s office before he could get into the school? He got in anyway? He had three guns? No, two? One? There were two other shooters? No, one? No? None? He was the only one? Okay. Whatever they say.” (Sandy Hook)

“What? Two witnesses saw another shooter in the theater? What happened to that story line? Where are witnesses now? Where’s the other shooter? Oh, there wasn’t one. Okay, no problem.” (Aurora, Colorado)

“What? Witnesses say there were shooters besides Harris and Klebold in the school? Where did they go? Where are the witnesses now?” (Columbine; search for “Columbine 101 witnesses What Really Happened” to read what 101 witnesses have to say about other shooters.)


Exit From the Matrix


A federal official tells USA Today that Alexis SHOT PEOPLE IN THE PARKING GARAGE. Are you kidding? And then he strolls into the building a few minutes later and nobody stops him.

An eight-year old with a few active brain cells calls this a contradiction. But USA Today and every other major media outlet call it nothing. Just one of those glitches. Happens in every story like this. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it.

“They always get it wrong at first. Then they get it right.”

You mean, “Somebody lets the cat out of the bag and then they put the cat back in”?

If indeed Alexis or someone else shot and killed people in the parking garage before the shooting in the building started, then we have the kind of security breach that does far more than inspire a call for a “review of security” at all naval installations.

We have a completely different account of what actually happened at the Navy Yard.

For example: other shooters; doctored FBI video; a planned and coordinated op.

“Oh, don’t be silly. The FBI needed time to put the evidence together, and now they have. Everything’s correct.”

Why?

Because it has to be. Otherwise, reality is not what it seems.

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

Politicians can decide whether I’m a journalist? Good luck.

Politicians can decide whether I’m a journalist? Good luck.

By Jon Rappoport

September 19, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The Free Flow of Information Act, Senate Bill 987, is now under consideration.

This misnamed piece of insanity seeks to define who a journalist is and isn’t, thereby compelling all “non-journalists” to reveal their sources on demand.

Who would be non-journalists? Millions and millions of people who blog, write online articles, and post videos.

Sorry. No sale, Congress.

The bill, which tries to define what a reporter is, is going to be as effective as trying to stop waves from breaking on the beach with your prurient sniffing noses.

If politicians can decide whether I’m a journalist, I can decide whether they’re representing the people who elected them.

If politicians can declare I’m not a reporter, and therefore I must testify about my sources, I can decide they’re not representatives, and therefore all their votes on legislation are null and void.

I can also decide Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Dianne Sawyer are animated cartoons that read press releases from the White House. Not journalists.

I can decide that one of the bill’s main supporters, gun-toting Senator Dianne Feinstein, who replaced her weapon with armed security guards, is a frog who was hatched in a Superfund site.

I can decide the Constitution makes illegal 95% of what the federal government does, merely on the basis of the 10th Amendment.

I can decide the NSA is a fake investigative reporter who is sourcing 90% of his stories by spying on the American people—and therefore must reveal those sources. He must disclose all the names of all the people in America (his sources) on whom he is spying.

I can decide Washington DC is a cesspool of poison and must be cordoned off, eliminating entry and exit, and thereby protecting the rest of America.

My freedom does not come from the government.

My freedom to write and speak does not come from politicians.

Or from the courts.


Exit From the Matrix


Feinstein wants to define a reporter as someone who draws a paycheck from a legitimate news organization. I define her as a politician who draws an illegitimate paycheck from the American people.

I define mainstream news organizations as cowardly thieves who spend their days deceiving their audiences. These organizations should exist in a giant soap bubble, where they can talk only to each other.

Because news companies are bleeding red ink out of every orifice, they want protection. They want an official legislated monopoly on inventing reality.

But intrinsically, reality is a matter open to debate.

That fact will never change.

No president, whether he claims to feel our pain, can’t read a teleprompter, or appears out of a cloud to save the world can alter that fact.

Here is the truth. Everyone is a reporter. Everyone can seek answers and look for them. This is: the ocean.

Now, you politicians, waddle up to it and stick your nosy noses against it and try to stop it.

You lose.

Your cesspool will go dry before our ocean does.

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