Category Archives: Press Fraud

Down in the psyche of the individual, there still burns a flame

Down in the psyche of the individual, there still burns a flame

by Jon Rappoport

April 15, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

I’ve been working as a reporter for 30 years, and during that time, I’ve spoken with numerous mainstream reporters and editors, off the record, who’ve confirmed that:

They are absolutely not permitted to take down a major government institution for any reason. No matter how many horrendous crimes that institution or department commits, it will never disappear. It will never vanish in the night. It will never turn to dust.

That may seem quite obvious, but it’s only because we’ve become conditioned to believe that government can never shrink in size.

Off the top of my head, there are three agencies of the federal government that should be stripped of all their power, de-certified, and disbanded. Once that’s done, wholesale reorganization could take place—if there were honest people to do it.

And I’m not even including, for the purposes of this article, the Pentagon or the Federal Reserve or the IRS, or the departments of Education and Energy and Justice. They all should have their employees fired and the numerous buildings they occupy fumigated, for starters. Then the criminal trials could begin.

No, the agencies I have in mind are the FDA, the CIA, and the USDA. They are RICO mafias. They have engaged in long chains of abuses and crimes. A smart sixth-grader doing pattern recognition would be able to ferret out these felonies in a few days.

The crimes range from approving, as safe and effective, numerous medical drugs that kill, at a minimum, 225,000 Americans a year, like clockwork (FDA); to running an inhuman mind-control program (MKULTRA/CIA); to overthrowing foreign heads of state (CIA); to certifying, as safe and effective, a wholly untested form of corporate agriculture (GMO/USDA), which has subsequently been shown to cause horrendous health effects, as its leading proponent, Monsanto, has gained a stranglehold on the seed market.

I’ve written extensively on these subjects.

Major media could not, even if they wanted to, expose these crimes to such a degree that they would end the life of these federal agencies in the process.

“Expose” has a specific reference here. It doesn’t mean an occasional negative piece or a he said-he said. It doesn’t mean a piecemeal revelation, for example, about this drug and that drug causing deaths. It means an all-out attack that brings to light a long-standing pattern of abuse and felony.

Reporter after reporter, and editor after editor, have looked at me, when I brought up the subject, as if I were crazy. “Impossible. Could not and would not happen, under any circumstances.”

And yet, this is exactly what the American people need, because the crimes go deep, deeper, and deepest. The profession of journalism, the “free press,” is supposed to serve as a watchdog, to prevent these government agencies from ascending to such height that they become untouchable.

We should have seen massive takedowns and erasures of federal agencies many times during our nation’s history.

From the editor’s and publisher’s perspective, there is one way to accomplish it. I’ve mentioned this before.

A news outlet lets the hounds loose.

Day after day, week after week, month after month, the newspaper or network publishes the unvarnished truth and continues to dig for, and print and broadcast, more and more devastating material.

We do not see that approach in major media. It’s not there. It’s missing in action.

The editors and reporters and publishers and producers and anchors understand the approach well. They know what they could do if they wanted to, but of course…

The corporations that control the press would not allow it.

This is why people, otherwise bright, actually believe the federal government is a force for good. They don’t see the naked exposure of its crimes, and so they acquiesce. They go passive.

Here is a reconstruction of my notes, from a long-ago meeting with a highly regarded mainstream print reporter, who finally opened up to me about “taking down a whole government agency”:

“It’s a dream. It’s a dream that more reporters than you know about actually have. For example, the CDC. I know three reporters who would make it their life’s work to destroy that organization from front to back. They can feel it, believe me. They would drop everything to take it on. They know how corrupt those bastards are.”

“Exposing a whole federal agency to the point where it would be disbanded isn’t like a decommissioning a battleship or an aircraft carrier. It’s like walking naked into arena, with no weapons, and facing a starving lion.”

“The federal government is the final frontier. It’s in some ways worse than a mega-corporation, in terms of dismantling it. If you could [take down] a whole federal agency, that would start a domino effect, and other agencies would fall, too.”

“Left-wing media, right-wing media, it’s a joke when it comes to the size of the federal government. Neither side is going to go all-out after a federal agency with the intention of destroying it. The expanding size of the government is a given.”

Consider media franchises like FOX, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. You’d think they would be up for an all-out attack on a federal agency, with “the intention of destroying it.” But obviously, that’s not the case, not when it comes to a serious department like the FDA or the USDA.

Why? Because those agencies protect giant pharmaceutical corporations and giant biotech corporations, and that’s “sacred ground.” So in the end, these so-called conservative reporters and commentators are supporting the size of the federal government in very significant ways.

In fact, they would probably say the FDA and the USDA are inhibiting the actions of corporations.

No matter where you look in major media, you see an op to conceal the truth about these agencies. It’s ongoing. It’s every day. It’s a media RICO crime, given the fact that the press is supposed to be fearless in its mission to protect the rights and safety of citizens.

The sold-out cowardly nature of the press leads to millions of people believing that politics as usual is the status quo forever, nothing can be done about it, and all mature adults should accept this as a fact of life.

Yes, it’s a fact. Until it isn’t.

The Matrix Revealed

Now we’re talking about psychology, real psychology, not the fatuous brand taught at universities. The psychology of mass acceptance. Mass surrender. Mass delusion.

And the press, as well as the man on the street, is subject to it.

People want stories, nice neat stories. They’ll buy a scandal, for example, that touches on a government agency. It’s titillating. It’s fun. It’s vicarious revenge. It’s “important.” But a wholesale revelation that exposes a criminal mafia like the FDA down to its very core, that explodes it into a million pieces?

That breaks the hypnotic trance. It’s surreal. It leaves people feeling reality is no longer what it’s supposed to be. The ground is shaking and cracking and truth is oozing out of the cracks.

Such a revelation penetrates the buffered and protected and dead psyche. It wakes it up. And that’s absolutely verboten for most people.

They would begin to realize part of the reason they’re dead inside: they’ve been settling for nice neat stories and refusing to admit the truth runs much, much deeper.

Down in the psyche of the individual, all evidence to the contrary, there still burns a flame. To take down an entire federal agency through an exposure of its most heinous and continuing crimes is exactly the sort of thing that makes the flame jump higher.

This is what people are protecting themselves against. They re-channel the energies of the flame into partisan anger. They settle for a substitute. They take this president over that president. They go left or they go right.

The press is supposed to tear away the substitute and show the more profound reality. That is its job.

But like millions of citizens, the press is dead inside, too. Reporters and editors are dead. They’re going through the motions, and a surprising number of them know it. They’ve abandoned their courage and their mission.

They do everything they humanly can to snuff out the inner flame. Being dead is part of the code of their fraternity.

And what is the opposite of this?

Individuals rebelling against the prevailing empire.

The kind of rebellion I’m talking about is self-generated. It’s not a gift, it’s not in the genes.

Along with this rebellion, people need to realize they create their own minds.

That may sound like a very curious thing to say, but it’s a truth that’s buried thousands of feet below the absurdity we call education.

It doesn’t matter if teachers, parents, and other authorities try to train the mind like a dog. It’s up to the individual to take whatever is useful in that training and then leave the rest behind in the dust.

To do that, a person has to WANT to do it. He wants logic? He learns it and uses it. He wants to think on the basis and foundation of freedom? He does it. He wants to torpedo the psychology of self-chosen victimhood? He does it. He shapes his own processes.

This is about a bottom-line refusal to accept consensus fairy tales manufactured out of a craving need for absolute rescue.

The struggle recorded by history is the individual coming into being out of the mass, the group, the tribe, the clan, the gang, the mob. When courage fails, we see periods when the group ascends to greater power.

But even the group is a kind of misnomer, because at the top is a leader, or a small number of leaders who promote the group as the answer, in order to maintain their exclusive power.

Yet the flame inside the individual doesn’t go out. It never does.

Exit From the Matrix

Every so-called mental or emotional problem stems from this: No matter what the individual does to demean or reduce himself, the fire remains. No matter how many lies he tells himself, no matter how strong the group is or its leader, the individual has the potential to reclaim what he is.

Without that, we would all be planted like vegetables in a garden.

At levels even they don’t understand, the titans of media must try to destroy the individual in favor the group. That is why they cannot allow, under any circumstances, journalists to dismantle and wreck a controlling agency of government with the truth.

Such destruction would call into question the concept of the group itself. It would fan the sparks that live in every individual psyche and imagination.

It would signal a breakout from the prison of the trance.

George Orwell described the trance this way: “…consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.”

A retired propaganda operative, Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), once told me: “When you say a person is in a trance, that doesn’t mean he’s walking around like a robot. He can seem very alive. But he has a connection to established institutions of society, and that connection, that wholesale acceptance, does put him in a trance. It’s a trance he wants and inflicts on himself.”

For the self-hypnotized individual, there are certain basic building blocks in the organized world that must never be shattered. These institutions reflect his own stolid faith in automatic regulated function. Were the blocks to crumble, he would see himself crumble.

He would be forced to unseal his own tomb where the central undisturbed flame burns. He would gain entrance to his inner sanctum. He would feel alive in a way he had forgotten was possible. He would shrug off the folds of the mass, the group, the organization, and step out of the shadows.

The hammering pulse of his own blood would make him ready for action.

Much better, he concedes, to support and exalt all the structures of the world that hold his mind in thrall, that keep him in contact with his false self, that mirror his gift for deception.

In that way, the silent partnership will live on.

At the root inside the root, people aren’t stupid. They choose to be stupid. They aren’t asleep. They decide to go to sleep. They don’t forget. They make themselves forget. They aren’t simply fooled. They fool themselves on purpose.

Then they look out on the world for confirmation of their own acts of sabotage. And they see institutions that have been built on the same blueprint as their own, and they support such institutions and rely on them.

“Yes, the world is fake and so am I, and we must do everything possible to keep it that way.”

This, believe it or not, is a species of art. This fakery. It may not be timeless art, but it is universal. It’s an enduring creation.

The great traditional media monoliths of our time are devoted to the invention of a common form of sleep for all. It must be common and shared; otherwise, the institutions of government and corporate power would immediately split apart and fall into the sea. They only exist as long as they reflect the consensus dream that souls enact to protect themselves from the flame, the unique ever-burning 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. 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

Even the NY Times is now rejecting Monsanto GMO science

Even the NY Times is now rejecting Monsanto GMO science

by Jon Rappoport

April 9, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

This isn’t a leak. It isn’t a timid flow. It’s a flood.

I’m talking about about the criticism of Monsanto’s so-called science of genetically-engineered food.

For the past 20 years, independent researchers have been attacking Monsanto science in various ways, and finally the NY Times has joined the crowd.

But it’s the way Mark Bittman, lead food columnist for the Times magazine, does it that really crashes the whole GMO delusion. Writing in his April 2 column, “Why Do G.M.O.’s Need Protection?”, Bittman leads with this:

“Genetic engineering in agriculture has disappointed many people who once had hopes for it.”

As in: the party’s over, turn out the lights.

Bittman explains: “…genetic engineering, or, more properly, transgenic engineering – in which a gene, usually from another species of plant, bacterium or animal, is inserted into a plant in the hope of positively changing its nature – has been disappointing.”

As if this weren’t enough, Bittman spells it out more specifically: “In the nearly 20 years of applied use of G.E. in agriculture there have been two notable ‘successes,’ along with a few less notable ones. These are crops resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (Monsanto develops both the seeds and the herbicide to which they’re resistant) and crops that contain their own insecticide. The first have already failed, as so-called superweeds have developed resistance to Roundup, and the second are showing signs of failing, as insects are able to develop resistance to the inserted Bt toxin — originally a bacterial toxin — faster than new crop variations can be generated.”

Bittman goes on to write that superweed resistance was a foregone conclusion; scientists understood, from the earliest days of GMOs, that spraying generations of these weeds with Roundup would give us exactly what we have today: failure of the technology to prevent what it was designed to prevent. The weeds wouldn’t die out. They would retool and thrive.

“The result is that the biggest crisis in monocrop agriculture – something like 90 percent of all soybeans and 70 percent of corn is grown using Roundup Ready seed – lies in glyphosate’s inability to any longer provide total or even predictable control, because around a dozen weed species have developed resistance to it.” Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup.

Just as the weeds developed resistance and immunity to the herbicide, insects that were supposed to be killed by the toxin engineered into Monsanto’s BT crops are also surviving.

Five years ago, it would have been unthinkable that the NY Times would print such a complete rejection of GMO plant technology. Now, it’s “well, everybody knows.”

The Times sees no point in holding back any longer.

The Matrix Revealed

Exit From the Matrix

Of course, if it were a newspaper with any real courage, it would launch a whole series of front-page pieces on this enormous failure, and the gigantic fraud that lies behind it. Then the Times might actually see its readership improve.

Momentum is something its editors understand well enough. You set your hounds loose on a story, you send them out with a mandate to expose failure, fraud, and crime down to their roots, and you know that, in the ensuing months, formerly reticent researchers and corporate employees and government officials will appear out of the woodwork confessing their insider knowledge.

The story will deepen. It will take on new branches. The revelations will indict the corporation (Monsanto), its government partners, and the scientists who falsified and hid data.

In this case, the FDA and the USDA will come in for major hits. They will backtrack and lie and mis-explain, for a while, and then, like buds in the spring, agency employees will emerge and admit the truth. These agencies were co-conspirators.

And once the story unravels far enough, the human health hazards and destruction wreaked by GMOs will take center stage. All the bland pronouncements about “nobody has gotten sick from GMOs” will evaporate in the wind.

It won’t simply be, “Well, we never tested health dangers adequately,” it’ll be, “We knew there was trouble from the get-go.”

Yes, the Times could make all this happen. But it won’t. There are two basic reasons. First, it considers Big Ag too big to fail. There is now so much acreage in America tied up in GMO crops that to reject the whole show would cause titanic eruptions on many levels.

And second, the Times is part of the very establishment that views the GMO industry as a way of bringing Globalism to fruition for the whole planet.

Centralizing the food supply in a few hands means the population of the world, in the near future, will eat or not eat according to the dictates of a few unelected men. Redistribution of basic resources to the people of Earth, from such a control point, is what Globalism is all about:

“Naturally, we love you all, but decisions must be made. You people over here will live well, you people over there will live not so well, and you people back there will live not at all.

“This is our best judgment. Don’t worry, be happy.”

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

Experiencing an erection of collectivism lasting 4 hours? Stop watching MSNBC

Experiencing an erection of collectivism lasting 4 hours? Stop watching MSNBC.

By Jon Rappoport

April 6, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Bye-bye daddy, bye-bye mommy: MSNBC discovers who children really belong to. Finally. This burning question has been answered. What a relief.

Melissa Harris-Perry, a university professor and weekend host at MSNBC shares the wisdom:

“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we’ve always had a kind of private notion of children—‘your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.’ We haven’t had a very collective notion of ‘these are our children.’ So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.”

How many ways to take this hogwash apart?

A “kind of private notion of children.” Yes, how primitive. I mean, only bitter clingers would ascribe to this ancient concept, right? Such parents need re-education, they need to move into the modern age and embrace many mothers and fathers, including I suppose, Melissa Harris-Perry herself, although I’m sure her schedule is already overcrowded. But perhaps she’s good for a nod and a wink between violin practice and soccer games where nobody wins.

Then, precisely what community should own your kids? Your block, neighborhood, town, city, nation? People you know? People you don’t know and never will? A coalition? Perhaps…the government? Ah yes, that would would be it, wouldn’t it?

Because, as any good collectivist knows, the government is the ultimate “expression” of the people. The government creates, manages, and sustains the collective. The government decides, the people comply. The government knows best.

Therefore, all you whacko parents out there; stop thinking your children belong to you. You’re wrong.

Hillary Clinton knew this. That’s why she wrote It Takes a Village, another collectivist manifesto. Except her community happens to be nannies, the Secret Service, the State Department, the Senate, and the White House.

Since Melissa Harris-Perry is discussing public education, you can be sure the collective solution to your kids will involve more vaccines, more psychiatric appointments, more diagnoses of fictitious mental disorders, and more doling out of highly toxic and violence-inducing drugs.

More sex-ed at age five and six, since you parents don’t have a clue about sex and shouldn’t be allowed to approach it. More instruction about “sharing” as the basis of all knowledge.

Essentially, a collective is a group of people teaching others about the primacy of the group. It’s a madhouse from start to finish. It takes the principle of the inviolate individual and burns it to the ground.

It attacks the family precisely because the family resists the collective in any society where a few shreds of freedom remain. The family is a potentially dangerous source of decentralized power.

Harris-Perry is really advocating the sacrifice of your children to the “wider problem of all children.” Don’t raise your kids according to your own best principles. No. Give them over to “the wiser ones.” Let’s all do that.

Her solution also, of course, involves an enormous shift of responsibility. Parents can unload that burden. The “community” will shoulder it. I can’t wait.

This is the strategy of regression to the lowest common denominator. Since there are truly horrible parents out there who can’t handle family life, let’s all give up the primary job of raising children in order to save those parents who are abject failures.

Behind this is the program to destroy families and elevate the State. Make no mistake about it. It’s an op from the ground up, and always has been.

Just as state and county and city governments have been targets for the federal government, so is the family. The idea is to overwhelm all opposition to federal power. Under the mask, that is the naked face of the collective: everybody organized under central dominion.

Going still further, we enter the Globalist plan. Institute a world collective, in which every citizen is directly beholden to Earth’s princes and their bureaucrats, “for the good of all.”

It’s a stage-magic trick. Erase the individual and all he stands for. He was here—and then, poof, he’s gone. A mere trace of a memory remains.

The Matrix Revealed

Exit From the Matrix

If Melissa Harris-Perry wanted to talk about family, you’d think she would have stressed the greater responsibility of a mother and father. At home. She would have talked about alcoholic parents, inattention toward kids, the need to take home life very seriously. But instead, she went the other way.

She didn’t even offer a tip of the hat to churches, neighbors, clubs, cousins, uncles, grandparents—those people who do, in fact, form communities. Not grist for her mill. No, because she’s talking about money. Spending more money on public education. And for that, you need myth and fairy tale.

You need the disastrous construct of a public institution that will carry the job of bringing up children.

As if that were possible.

Perry rejects Private in favor of Government, which is her bread and butter. Public policy. Abstractions seeking a New World.

Much in the same way, Obama endlessly mouths, “We’re all in this together.”

The “this” turns to be the surrender of fierce freedom and independence.

I would like to see millions more parents deliver the correct response to Perry. Home schooling. That would solve it. That would deliver a profound message:

Babble on as long as you want to about pie-in-the-sky communities; try to melt the citizenry down into one giant glob of goo; fake your way into legends of better and more expensive schools replacing parents.

It’s for nothing. People know you’re a hyping con artist. People know that families and good education begin with real parents and can’t succeed without them.

The “new collective spirit” is very old. As old as the hills. College kids who know as much history as caterpillars out for a stroll after the rain are buying this lunacy, but when they leave the friendly confines of school, they’ll discover the only place they can find a job is with the government.

And that tells us something about who will swell the ranks of the collective. Those who have been rendered disabled by education. This is the public department Perry wants to improve.

We need more money to brainwash more children. That’s the underlying message.

To spread it, you only need one college with one cheap four-year class: the students sit in front of their laptops and phones and watch MSNBC 24/7.

To those students whose breath can still fog a mirror, you offer a piece of paper after four years. The paper tells them they’ve matriculated, and they can now be reborn as mosquito drones and launch out into the atmosphere of big government and find a communal nest.

O wonder of wonders. Parenting was unnecessary.

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

Who will narrate reality in the future?

Who will narrate reality in the future?

by Jon Rappoport

March 10, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Humans love to study animals and catalog their unique habits. If we could back up far enough to see ourselves, surely we would rank our modern method of gaining something we call “the news” one of our strangest customs.

A face and a voice on one of three preferred channels tells us what the world is like every day.

Millions of us consider such transmissions not only informative but authoritative. Somehow, the capsulized squibs and fragments form for us a picture of truth.

The first principle applied to the training of an elite anchor is: pay no attention to what opposing sides agree on.

It may seem like a strange place to start, but it’s absolutely crucial.

As a hopeful anchor rises up through the ranks toward cherished positions on the national evening news at NBC, CBS, and ABC, he is exposed to Washington politics. He learns those ropes well.

He perceives conflict and battle and anger and hatred. He is looking at issues on which the two major parties differ in the strongest possible terms. This is what he is supposed to see. This is his indoctrination.

He gets a feel for this. After all, it is what he is already predisposed to observe, because he knows that all news involves side A versus side B. Without that, there is no news.

“…a scheduled meeting between House leaders was canceled after a rancorous confrontation between…”

But here are a few items that are largely ignored: paid lobbyists and secret councils shaping legislative decisions; fraudulent medical research; the federal government aligning itself with Globalist policies; federal support of illegal corporate activities; enormous and illegal Federal Reserve power.

To the degree that both major parties agree in these areas, there is no news. It doesn’t exist.

The aspiring anchor learns to ignore such “dead subjects.”

Therefore, he’s conditioned to define what is news in very narrow terms with narrow boundaries. He consistently misses the big picture.

A reporter for one of the major networks once told me, “It’s useless to pitch stories [to producers] where there isn’t any clear conflict among the recognized players.”

Of course, a conspiracy consists of people who wholeheartedly agree on something behind the scenes. Conspiracy is often what the noisy out-front conflict is supposed to hide.

When a major news reporter makes light of conspiracies, part of what he’s saying is: “It wouldn’t be news because people aren’t fighting with each other about it.”

As a reporter moves closer to winning an elite anchor’s slot, something else happens. He’s introduced to what used to be called “the Eastern establishment.” At parties, at charity fundraisers, at meetings of the CFR, he meets players:

bankers, Congressmen, lobbyists, key lawyers, leaders of non-profit foundations, favored academics and technocrats, PR agency people, Beltway “facilitators,” corporate big shots, a few intelligence-agency friendlies, Pentagon execs.

He understands very well that his new friends are feeling him out and vetting him. They expect him to be earnest, glib, and facile. They watch for signs that a cloud of doubt is hanging over his head—meaning that he is skeptical of entrenched Power. That would be an overwhelming mark against him.

Essentially, a subliminal unspoken pact is forged. The heavy hitters assert: “We are the core of the country. What we do in secret is not to be discussed or aired.”

The anchor replies: “I understand that. Don’t worry. I won’t cover it unless you can’t conceal it. It’s not news. I’m looking for conflict.”

The reporter who is on his way up to an elite anchor’s job can affect a strong moral sense, because that is part of his persona, because being able to invoke it sells advertisers’ products on the evening news; he can and does apply his morals selectively.

Through tone of voice and facial expression, he can make his disapproval known to the viewing audience, when he “objectively” covers a drug recall—the drug in question having caused deaths among patients.

“The best-selling drug Vioxx was taken off the market today when it was revealed that…its manufacturer nevertheless suggested that many people were helped by…”

But the anchor would never recommend collecting many such stories and welding them into a wide-ranging indictment of the FDA or the drug companies. That’s not on his radar. That’s not permitted. That’s called inventing a conflict that doesn’t exist.

A crime dug up solely by reporters is almost always non-starter. At best, it might run as a brief “feature” on the evening broadcast, and then the coverage would contain sufficient generalities to obscure the perpetrators. And once this feature is aired, it is forgotten. It was filler.

Take a story like Wall Street bankers committing huge and ongoing RICO financial felonies. A certain amount of coverage is allowed, but it’s verboten to highlight the fact, over and over again, that these people aren’t being arrested, tried, and sentenced to prison terms.

A Bernie Madoff gets the full treatment, but only after the Justice Department arrests him. And then Madoff is portrayed as the crazy Ponzi-scheme hustler, the exception, the lone wolf.

The vetting of an elite anchor is very thorough, because normally he is going to be the managing editor for his own national evening broadcast. That means he will have the final word on which stories run and where they run in the line-up.

His bosses want no blowups. They want no visible wrangling between the anchor and his editors and producers. They definitely don’t want the anchor going off the reservation to bring in a dangerous (to favored players) story out of left field. A few of these gross transgressions and he’ll be fired. But the whole point is to avoid the mess by choosing the “right” anchor to begin with.

Several years before golden boy Brian Williams was tapped to sit in the prince’s throne at NBC, it was obvious he was the heir apparent. He could affect an aura of honesty, a sincere dedication to the truth. He passed the “character test” with flying colors.

On the scale of “believable moral sense,” Williams was within shooting distance of a young Walter Cronkite. Of course, if you started to qualify where and how his moral commitment would be exercised, and where it would be excused from duty, you would find yourself traveling down into a very deep and disturbing rabbit hole.

If you’re looking for Williams to cover the nexus of the CIA, the Pentagon, mega-corporations, NATO, and other players in their ongoing program of destabilizing foreign nations, you’ll be wasting your time. Unless some giant blow-up over this issue surfaces in the Congress, Williams will be silent. And in this regard, you’ll see an effort to minimize and distort coverage of Rand Paul, because he, like his father, states that he wants to bring US troops home from their massive foreign deployments.

If, by chance, a long-form interviewer at C-Span or PBS, addled for the moment by a prescription drug, throws out a question to Williams about US government empire-building, Williams will talk out of several sides of his mouth simultaneously, leaving the impression that this is “a profound issue he really cares about.”

The elite news anchor a) believes the news only involves visible conflict, b) misses the big picture through ignorance, c) understands there is a big picture and intentionally ignores it, d) is truly honest, e) is a liar down to his shoes, f) opposes undo corporate influence on government and politics, g) is completely sold out to the corporate-government partnership, h) has no clue about the true intentions of US foreign policy, while purposely omitting coverage of those intentions and their consequences.

The elite news anchor is an actor who can know and not know, at a moment’s notice, that he is acting.

He can deal with these massive internal contradictions because he is a roaring success; he is admired; he banks a big check every month; he exerts influence; he has a certain amount of power; he thinks about ratings and what he has to do to improve them; he lives in a bubble where all the important people lie all the time. He is familiar with the culture and is part of it.

If everybody else in his world is a multiple personality, he can be, too, and it isn’t disturbing. It’s how the stage play works.

Over time, though, the elite anchor performs a kind of psychic surgery on himself, cuts away the rough edges and the doubts and the consciousness of the con and the scam. It’s more comfortable that way.

In other words, he lowers his own IQ and blurs the boundaries of his perception. The lies he never really believed before he does believe now.

His own multiplicity and contradictions are mixed into a sludge, whereby the apt summary and the capsule explanation, beamed out to millions of people every night, are “the best that can be done under the circumstances.”

The elite anchor comes to know, intimately, the mad rush and the deadline and the fever to beat the competition. If he needs a final distraction to lead him away from what he once comprehended about reality at a deeper level, this is it. “We have to get this story on in five minutes…”

The elite anchor is everything the CIA would program into existence, if they needed to. But they don’t. Because all over America, children are growing up who want to do the news. And out of all of them, the few who will rise to the top are already internalizing the personal and professional requirements of the job, day in and day out. They haven’t even visited Washington DC yet, and they’re sopping up psychic clues like sponges.

This is a piece of how the Matrix operates. In a highly organized society, roles are available. People will cast themselves in those roles and learn how to play them. They’ll reach out for the brass ring. Some will do a better imitation than others. Some will do the imitation and believe in it. And the winners will believe it and not believe it.

The elite anchor knows that if he wanders too far afield, if he becomes too real, if he brings in stories that don’t fit the mold, if he goes up against the forces with whom he is allied, he will suffer.

There is no need to point this out to him. There is no need, because the anchor has already geared his persona and intelligence to the machine he represents.

Once in a great while, he probably plays out a little scene in his head: he brings in an incredible story that mangles the highest people he knows in the pyramid of power; he achieves great recognition for his courage; and then one night he dies on a lonely road.

But this cautionary tale is sheer fantasy, because he is the incarnation of what social planners and engineers and psyops specialists and spooks and mind-control researchers and PR experts would have cooked up to fill his chair in the studio of NBC, ABC, or CBS. He’s that guy.

And he did it himself, which always works better because the result is more convincing.

A retired propaganda operative once told me that the index of an anchor’s performance is his sources. For those shadowy types who keep track of how well an anchor is working his mass deceptions, an examination of sources is revealing.

More specifically, who is feeding stories to the reporters who work for the anchor? A list compiled over the years will tell you whether the anchor is staying within the prescribed boundaries. When you see hundreds or even thousands of names from government, from foundations, from corporations, from think-tanks, from favored academia, and almost no names from anywhere else, you know the anchor is in the right wheelhouse.

The anchor is the magnet created to attract specific kinds of metal filings.

He can say, “We take our information from the most reliable people out there. What else can you ask for?”

Not much, if you want the news to emanate from a sealed universe, with one highly structured hole for IN and one for OUT.

Because of that architecture, the major news businesses of the country are failing. Their bottom lines are shrinking. They’re going up against this other universe we all know about and access, which has at least 500 million holes for in and out.

The Matrix Revealed

The heart and soul of THE MATRIX REVEALED are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together. One of those Matrix-insiders is ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades. For more information on how increasing your command of Logic can help you navigate your convictions more clearly, see the FREE article I wrote entitled “Matrix programming 101: destroy logic”.

But don’t discount the hypnotic effect an anchor like Brian Williams has on the public. There is a marriage there, no question about it.

Williams, like others before him, fits the stripped down concept of the operator, one who can push and pull all the right gears, to convey Factoid and Summary.

Sit down at the meal, Brian’s here. He’s a smooth server. He brings only what is necessary, and because of that, we can trust him.

America wants (and therefore gets) a newsman to tell its national stories every night in terms a salesman who has risen through the ranks would use: he doesn’t persuade or cajole or push; he’s above that; he’s shed the big smile and the glad hand.

He’s a pro’s pro. He need only tilt his head in a direction and people follow. He need only indicate with a glance and the message is picked up by the millions. He informs us, by his very manner, that we are all now operating in a vacuum jar. All our battles and oppositions are being played out in a strange silence at the core of the surrounding noise.

We’re all dead, except we’ve forgotten the fact. In this limbo, he will guide us. There is no boat to take souls across the river. There is no inner life of the individual; that is over. There are only the slight changing shades of feeling that signify one thing is more important than another.

Postmortem America presents its own peculiar problems, and Williams understands them well. He schooled himself to be the guide in this moonscape, where his ministrations are like changing ticks in the stock market of drained souls.

Up a little today, down a little tomorrow. A crisis here, a crisis there. This is better, that is worse. Today the machine outperformed the machine yesterday by seven degrees of calculation.

He speaks in atomic strings of thought, adjusted and groomed.

Yes, this is a marriage. The public wants this. It wants the conversion rate of consciousness at 6:30 every night, presented in terms a computer can fathom and store until the next modulation.

He, the anchor, will decide how horrible an event can become. He will draw the line. He will make the distinctions. Nothing is measured or given meaning outside the vacuum.

Underneath and between his words, the alive Desire that once animated souls washes up on the beach of television like a dead fish, every night.

Spiritually and cosmologically speaking, it is his job to move steadily ahead, broadcast by broadcast, and present debris, fragments of existence after the Fall. It is his job to walk the parched deserts and translate into beveled English the aftershocks of detonations set off by the crime bosses called leaders.

What he conveys, and what the medium through which he reaches us proposes, is a declaration of surrender. The loss of a war. We’re supposed to believe that the war fought on behalf of the inner fecund life of the individual is lost.

This is the imperative peddled by our official salesmen.

They don’t realize that such a war can never be lost. Any person can pick up the scent and the sound of the river within his own psyche and awaken his need for open water.

Any one of us can stop calculating gains and losses by a serial morbid clock. Any one of us can stop hammering new pieces into a mechanical fortress, which is only an impregnable symbol of despair.

We can awaken from the dream of motion, time, and energy inside the vacuum. Then we will see there are trillions of other dreams, none of them yet created, but wholly dependent on our capacity to invent Something from Nothing.

This is the spark. After the fire begins to burn in the true soul, not the fabricated one, The News will fade away like an old skin, no longer needed.

The hunger for a voice to tell us what death after death is like will vanish, and so will the news, as we know it.

People will say, “Yes, there was once a rare specimen who narrated reality to the rest of us. It was a hypnotic dream we were all engaged in. But that specimen is now extinct. It outlived its usefulness.”

Is such a heraldic future possible? The answer each one of us makes draws a line in the sand. On one side are those who consent to the declaration of surrender. On the other side are those who intimately understand the terms of the struggle and never give in.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

Two words that don’t go together: “medical” and “journalism”

Two words that don’t go together: “medical” and “journalism”

by Jon Rappoport

March 6, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Yesterday, I was scanning through medicalnewstoday.com, catching up on the wacky and highly dangerous world of medicine.

What caught my attention were the story headlines themselves. In the news biz, everything depends on those headlines and what they mean, imply, suggest. They’re magnets.

So take a trip with me through one day of the magnetic field.

First, let’s get a few OOPS headlines out of the way:

“Common Cancer Vaccine Ingredient Diverts T-cells From Tumors”

“Shelf Life of Blood Nearer 3 Than 6 Weeks”

“One-Third of Doctors Miss Electronic Test Results”

These headlines should be rewritten and blasted across the front pages of newspapers and jammed into the top spots on the evening television news. But no. They aren’t. They might disturb the sleeping masses.

GIGANTIC CANCER VACCINE SCREW-UP

ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO GET A BLOOD TRANSFUSION?

DOCTORS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL…AGAIN

The common cancer vaccine ingredient referred to in the first headline is mineral oil. It’s used in experimental cancer vaccines being tested on animals. Seems the T-cells in the body, stimulated by the vaccine, fail to attack the cancer tumors. Instead, they attack the injection site. Where the vaccine was jabbed. Oops.

The T-cells are attacking the mineral oil!

You mean, all these studies of cancer vaccines, for all these years, were goofing on a monumental stupidity? The immune systems of all these mice were turning around and attacking the hole where the vaccine went in? Yes, the T-cells, in fact, were attracted to the mineral oil. Wonderful. And for a bonus, the result was infection. Good work. Splendid work.

In case mineral oil is ever found to be lethal, we can make the body attack it.

The next headline refers to the fact that, finally, researchers have figured out something important about blood used for transfusions: better not use blood stored for six weeks—it’s not any good. Oops.

Hospitals have been using six-week-old blood forever. But that blood doesn’t transfer enough oxygen to the patient. No. Doctors shouldn’t be transfusing blood older than three weeks.

In fact, a Johns Hopkins newsletter drops this little nugget. “One previous, large study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has already shown that cardiac surgery patients who received blood stored longer than three weeks were almost twice as likely to die as patients who got blood that had been stored for just 10 days.”

Oops, oops, oops.

“Remember Frank? Hell of a guy. Always on the go. He went to the hospital for surgery and they gave him old blood. He died. Tragic. But hey, the doctors tried. They thought that, like wine, blood is best when it’s aged.”

The third headline has to do with the problem we all face in sorting through the ton of emails we get every day. In the wacky wonderful world of medicine, many test results on patients are now transmitted to doctors via email. How modern. One little problem, though. The doctors miss them. They don’t read the emails. Oops.

“Mr. Jones, your test results have been delayed. Don’t know why. So I’ll just wing it. Let’s see. I’ll put a blindfold on and reach into this cabinet full of different medicines and grab a bottle. Here, take this twice a day. And don’t call me. If you convulse, try 911.”

Now we come to a type of headline I love. The maybe-could be headline. Actually, it’s a lying headline, but it’s couched cleverly—if you have no more than three brain cells to work with:

“Obesity Gene Linked to Skin Cancer”

First of all, this assumes researchers have really found a gene that causes obesity. That’s sheer baloney. Generally, baloney causes obesity. Second, the word “linked” means, “Might be relevant, we don’t know, we’ll see, or maybe we’ll just drop the whole idea…but we did get some grant money for the research.”

“Investigators Identify Genetic Risk Factors for Age-Related Macular Degeneration”

Translated, this means: “There might be two or three or possibly six or 40 genes related to macular degeneration, we don’t know, but we can build a little model that quantifies what we call risk, which is a probability, but this makes no difference, because we don’t have a genetic treatment for macular degeneration; in fact we don’t have ANY genetic treatment which works across the board for ANY medical condition. But we did get grant money for this study.”

“Two genes linked to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s Disease)”

Ditto. “Linked” means maybe, could be, we don’t know, and we have no genetic treatment for Lou Gehrig’s Disease and we don’t know whether we ever will. It also means: this disease may not be a disease at all; it could be head injury or exposure to a chemical, but we call it a disease because disease-names equal money.

Next, we have the DUH headlines.

“Sleeping Pills Raise Hip Fracture Risk in Nursing Home Residents”

Really? You mean people who live in a daze because they’re loaded with sleeping pills day after day actually fall down and break something? Astounding. And you discovered this by doing a full-bore study? Good for you. Here’s a suggestion for your next grant application: “Bright lights suddenly turned on, accompanied by sirens, cause people who are sleeping to wake up.”

“Inappropriate Use of Opoids, FDA Extremely Concerned”

Again, astounding to learn—people are using too many opoids. And the FDA concern is felt coast to coast. We appreciate that. While you’re at it, you (FDA) might express some concern about the fact that you’re certifying drugs as safe and effective that are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 Americans every year. And that’s a very conservative estimate.

There’s one more DUH headline. It took me an hour to figure out what it means:

“Optimism and Feelings of Vulnerability Skewed Following Tornado, Should Be Reflected in Emergency Preparedness”

As far as I can tell, they’re talking about people who feel optimistic after a tornado hit their town. Meaning: these residents say they don’t expect another one in the future. Wow. Researchers state this optimism is inappropriate, and therefore emergency responders should prepare for it…or something. Again, study completed, grant money deposited in bank account.

“Are you going to be home tonight for dinner, Daddy?”

“No, Jimmy, I’m going to be working. I have to drive to Small Town USA and nag the local residents, who were hit by a tornado last year, by asking them whether they feel optimistic about a lack of tornadoes in the foreseeable future. This is vital information I’m gathering. I can’t remember why at the moment, but it is putting food on our table. So clean your plate at dinner tonight.”

Then we have a feel-good headline. Maybe.

“Good Quality Hospital Care Indicated by Facebook ‘Likes’”

Well, isn’t that special. Forget hospital records. Forget the fact that hospitals kill 119,000 Americans every year (by conservative mainstream estimates). Who cares? Our hospital got 489 Facebook Likes from patients. Good work, guys. Here, let me read one Like to you:

“Although I was given a heart bypass for my broken ankle, the recovery period was highlighted by balloons which the staff brought into my room and the candy bars they placed on my night table. Was that a nurse who walked into my room at three in the morning, or was it a hooker paid for by the assistant director, who seemed very concerned about my well-being and had me sign some kind of waiver while I was drugged to the gills with morphine?”

Finally, we have this headline:

“Children with ADHD Require Long-Term Treatment Well Into Adulthood”

Let’s see. ADHD is a fake disorder for which no diagnostic test exists. The drugs used to treat it are cheap speed, which can cause very dangerous effects, like hallucinations, aggressive behavior, and deep sadness. But no problem. Keep drugging kids all the way into adulthood. Ruin their lives. It’s good for business.

Well, there you are. That’s just a partial list of one day’s medical headlines.

Kudos to the headline writers and the conscientious journalists who got their stories right and really let us know what’s what. We’re now much wiser, and we feel confident that medical science is marching forward into a future where, for example, tiny nanobots can be injected into our blood streams. These bots, armed and programmed with such useful and true medical information, will automatically make changes inside our bodies and correct any problems they discover.

We’ll feel better and be better. We’ll take a moment every day to bow down to the guardians of our health.

Give us more medicine! Give us more care! Heal us! We trust you! We love you!

Here are a few basic headline-rewrites that better reflect medical journalism in today’s world. I’m 100% sure that if the NY Times ran them across the top of the front page, day after day, the readership would explode and the Times would rescue itself from impending financial ruin.

HA-HA-HA; WHEN DOCTORS SAY ‘GENETIC LINKS FOUND’ THEY MEAN ‘WE HAVE NO IDEA BUT WE’RE BANKING $$$’

ADHD A FICTIONAL FANTASY, BUT THE DRUGS SELL LIKE CRAZY AND SCREW KIDS INTO PRETZEL SHAPES

VACCINE ATTACKS HOLE IN THE BODY WHERE THE NEEDLE WAS STUCK

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE STONED ON PAIN KILLERS ARE TURNING INTO ZOMBIES, HIP-REPLACEMENT BUSINESS SOARS

THOUSANDS OF DOCTORS DON’T READ YOUR MEDICAL TESTS, WING IT FOR FUN AND PROFIT

WANT A DEFICIT OF OXYGEN? GO TO A HOSPITAL AND GET SOME OLD BLOOD

FACEBOOK-LIKES CURE CANCER, ALTHOUGH DEATH MAY BE A SIDE EFFECT

I’m available for freelance headline work.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

225,000 US patients die in doctors’ hands: silence of the lambs

225,000 American patients die in doctors’ hands: silence of the lambs

by Jon Rappoport

March 3, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

In my previous article, I examined the silence of the lambs (media) concerning the collusion between Monsanto and the FDA.

In the case of medical care in America, that purposeful silence reigns supreme as well.

By the most conservative estimate, researched and published by mainstream medical sources, the US medical system kills 225,000 people each year.

That’s 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.

You’d think such a mind-boggling fact would rate a relentless series of page-one stories in the press, along with top-story status on the network evening news.

But no. It’s wall-to-wall silence.

Why? We can list the usual reasons, the medical/pharmaceutical advertising dollars spent on television and in newspapers being the most obvious reason.

We have the reality that, of those 225,000 annual deaths, 106,000 occur as a direct effect of pharmaceutical drugs. The FDA is the single government agency tasked with certifying all medicines as safe and effective before they’re released for public use. Any exposure of the medical death statistics would automatically indict the FDA. Major media won’t take on the FDA at that level.

One of the many truths which would come to light in the event that the press did attack the FDA full-on? The FDA spends an inordinate amount of time, energy, and money going after the nutritional supplement industry, which causes virtually no deaths in any year or decade.

The public would of course discover that, by certifying medical drugs as safe and effective, drugs that kill, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the FDA is colluding with, and serving, Big Pharma.

You can’t possibly approve so many drugs that wreak so much human destruction through mere incompetence. Apologists for the FDA might like to think so, but they are terribly, terribly wrong. They are whistling in the dark, trusting “science” as our guide.

Since I’ve been reporting these medically-caused death figures—I started 12 years ago—people have told me, “This is impossible. If it were true, the media would be reporting it.”

That argument is upside down. The statistics are real and true. In fact, they are very low estimates. Therefore, the press is colluding to keep them well under the radar.

The mainstream press is built to be able to maintain silence on issues such as this. It’s part of their job. Although many reporters and editors are simply ignorant and clueless, at the highest levels of media we are looking at sheer manipulation. We are looking at the crime of accessory to murder.

I don’t say murder in any non-literal way. It’s murder because, when you know the facts, when you know what a huge government institution (FDA) is doing to the population, and when that institution itself is well aware of its lethal impact on the public and does nothing about it, year after year, decade after decade, it’s FDA murder and it’s media’s accessory to murder.

It’s not merely negligent homicide. There is no negligence here, any more than there would be if you took a loaded gun out into the street and started firing randomly at crowds of people.

Underneath it all, the press maintains silence because they are not permitted to hammer a huge fracture in what is called “the public trust.”

And what is the public trust? It’s the false illusion that basically things are all right. That’s the simplest way to say it. Things are all right.

They’re especially all right when it comes to the medical profession. Doctors are modern priests in white coats.

But the priests are the ones who are prescribing the drugs that are killing people. If the extent of their crimes were made known, trust would evaporate in seconds. And not just trust in the medical profession. Trust, or the lack of it, is contagious. It spreads to other areas quickly.

“Well, if they’re lying abut this, and killing people, then who else is lying and killing?”

“We know that people die in wars. But the doctors are supposed to be saving lives. They’re not supposed to be giving people drugs that kill them at the rate of 106,000 a year, every year.”

The press and the people who own media companies are aware they are guardians of the public trust. However, that has nothing to do with telling the truth. The press is guarding the illusion of truth. That’s how they interpret their mandate.

Nowhere is this perversion more clear than in the medical arena.

As I do every so often, I’m presenting my interview with the late Dr. Barbara Starfield, who for many years was a revered public health authority at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. She was the researcher who exposed the truth about medically caused death in America.

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

It presented three key facts. Every year, the US medical system kills 225,000 people. 106,000 die from the direct effects of FDA-approved medical drugs. 119,000 die from the effects of treatment in hospitals.

Soon after her review was published, it gained some media attention. Not headline attention, but the press carried the story. Then, like a report of a car crash or a storm, Starfield’s revelation disappeared, vanished without a trace.

In other articles, I’ve made it clear that Starfield’s journal paper is confirmed by other sources. In fact, on a page of the FDA’s own web site, it is admitted that 100,000 people die every year in America from the effects of pharmaceutical drugs. However, as in the case of every psychotic criminal, the FDA takes no responsibility.

Here are excerpts from my interview with Dr. Barbara Starfield:

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

NO.

Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.)

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

What was your personal reaction when you reached the conclusion that the US medical system was the third leading cause of death in the US?

I had previously done studies on international comparisons and knew that there were serious deficits in the US health care system, most notably in lack of universal coverage and a very poor primary care infrastructure. So I wasn’t surprised.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

The Matrix Revealed

In THE MATRIX REVEALED, the 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

The first bonus is the complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

The second bonus is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades. For more information on how increasing your command of Logic can help you navigate your convictions more clearly, see the FREE article I wrote entitled “Matrix programming 101: destroy logic”.

INTERVIEWER COMMENTS:

This interview with Dr. Starfield reveals that, even when an author has unassailable credentials within the medical-research establishment, the findings can result in no changes made to the system.

Many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs.

The buck stops there. If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable. The American people must understand that.

As for the other 119,000 people killed every year as a result of hospital treatment, this horror has to be laid at the doors of those institutions. Further, to the degree that hospitals are regulated and financed by state and federal governments, the relevant health agencies assume culpability.

It is astounding, as well, that the US Department of Justice has failed to weigh in on Starfield’s findings. If 225,000 medically caused deaths per year is not a crime by the Dept. of Justice’s standards, then what is?

To my knowledge, not one person in America has been fired from a job or even censured as result of these medically caused deaths.

Dr. Starfield’s findings have been available for 12 years. She has changed the perception of the medical landscape forever. In a half-sane nation, she would be accorded a degree of recognition that would, by comparison, make the considerable list of her awards pale. And significant and swift action would have been taken to punish the perpetrators of these crimes and reform the system from its foundations.

The pharmaceutical giants stand back and carve up the populace into “promising markets.” They seek new disease labels and new profits from more and more toxic drugs. They do whatever they can—legally or illegally—to influence doctors in their prescribing habits. Many studies which show the drugs are dangerous are buried. FDA panels are filled with doctors who have drug-company ties. Legislators are incessantly lobbied and supported with Pharma campaign monies.

Nutrition, the cornerstone of good health, is ignored or devalued by most physicians. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to attack nutritional supplements, even though the overall safety record of these nutrients is excellent, whereas, once again, the medical drugs the FDA certifies as safe are killing 106,000 Americans per year.

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the whole literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjyspoyCg2o&w=470&h=264]

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

Monsanto and the FDA: 2 crime families working a trillion-dollar hustle

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Perhaps you remember the ill-fated Just-Label-It campaign. A number of activist groups petitioned the FDA for a federal regulation that would make labeling GMO food mandatory.

The petition amassed over a million signatures. But the FDA decided only 394 of these were legitimate, because all the others were electronically submitted in one document.

Infuriating? Of course. But that was nothing. Let’s get down to the core of the crime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora’s box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.

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

With few exceptions, reporters and their editors let the story rest there, as a “he said-he said” issue. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait at that point, but who said mainstream reporters are sane or principled?

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

Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet’s food supply, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were technologically engineered.

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

How was Monsanto able to gather so much clout?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew that ownership of the world’s food, by a few companies, was a prime focus for Globalist kings who intended to feed the population through Central Planning and Distribution.

“We feed these people; we hold back food from those people; we send food there; we don’t send food here.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve done some investigation of various groups on both the left and the right, and I’ve seen some pros in action. They’re good. They know how to leverage ideas and slogans and ideals. They know how to defame opponents and find just the right words to sink them. They know how to turn high-flying but vague words about “humanity” into moral imperatives.

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

Truth be told, governments are full of these pros, who will take any number of causes and turn them into what falsely sounds like good science, good government, good morality, all the while knowing that, on the far shore, sits the real prize: control.

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

Here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:

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

The Globalists play for keeps.

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

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

It applies across the board—except when it doesn’t. For example, for reasons too complex to go into here, the Washington Post decided to suspend its policy in the Watergate case. Woodward and Bernstein were assigned to investigate what was going on behind White House denials and obfuscations.

The same thing could be done with Monsanto, and it would be far easier. The lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.

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

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

Even as their bottom lines erode, these newspapers and television networks have to stay on their present course. By pretending they’re reporting the real news, they’re giving the impression that Monsanto and the FDA are home free.

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

Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto. But placement and frequency are everything. How often do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page 7? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal more and more crimes? Does the basic story gather steam over the course of weeks and months?

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

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

“We’ve already covered that.”

“It’s old news.”

“People aren’t interested in it.”

“It’s too complicated.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t misunderstand. Brian hasn’t been waiting to move in for the kill. He’s a neutral entity. Wind him up and point to a target and he’ll go there.

But no one will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.

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

One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put it to me this way: When he was in the game, he looked at the news as a big public restroom. His one guiding principle was: Don’t piss on your shoes. Stand closer to the urinal. Pissing on your shoes was covering a story that was considered out of bounds. If you pissed on your shoes and walked into the boss’s office, he’d look at you and see the telltale sign. He’d say, “Hey, you pissed on your shoes. That’s disgusting. Get out of here. You’re fired.”

Jon Rappoport

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

10 things the media don’t want to discover about Sandy Hook

10 things the media don’t want to discover about Sandy Hook

by Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Slashing through the bland authoritative front the media have presented, people want to know more about the Sandy Hook massacre. But the elite networks have no intention of answering the most obvious questions.

Why? Because the follow-up agenda of gun control is all important, and the official Sandy Hook scenario must stand, in order to forward that agenda.

Any return to the scene of the crime will:

divert media coverage from its all-out push to make guns into taboo objects of scorn, ridicule, fear, and hatred;

focus attention on reasons for the massacre that have nothing to do with guns;

engender deep distrust of the Sandy Hook police investigation and therefore, by association, throw into doubt the notion that law-enforcement personnel should be the only people carrying guns in America.

Here are 10 things the media doesn’t want to know about and has no intention of investigating. These are only the basics, amid a wider sea of unanswered questions:

Where is the video footage from inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School, footage that surely exists and shows some part of the massacre? Who has that video record? What does the video reveal? Where is the video (or photo) evidence that Adam Lanza was the shooter?

How did the accused killer, Lanza, gain entrance to the school? Having just installed a new security system that required outside (and presumably heavy) doors to be locked, and with a procedure for entry that demanded two-way video communication with the principal’s office—what exactly happened?

From available information, it seems almost certain Lanza was seeing a doctor and was on medication. Who was the doctor and what drugs did he prescribe? Did they include SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil, or Ritalin and Adderall—drugs known to cause violent behavior, including suicide and homicide. If so, then all the focus would shift to excoriating the drugs and eliminating them from our society.

What was the exact story on the two or three other suspects captured and detained by the police? Who are they? Why were they pursued? What did their questioning reveal? Why were they released? No vague generalities. Instead, all the details. And let’s have in-depth television interviews with these suspects.

Once and for all, let’s have a definitive statement on what guns were used in the killings and what guns were found in the trunk of the car. So many lies and contradictions were floated, it’s a sea of confusion. So let’s have the facts—and evidence to back them up. For starters, let’s see photos of the killer and his weapons taken inside the school. Undoctored photos.

What is the detailed explanation for the massive shift from Lanza’s father being killed in New Jersey to Lanza’s mother being killed in Connecticut? No vague generalities. No nonsense about “typical early confusion” in reporting. Let’s see the whole chain of information and the people who forwarded it. Similarly, if the early conclusion pointed to Adam’s brother Ryan as the killer, a conclusion which was withdrawn because Adam was carrying his brother’s ID, explain that. According to reports, Adam hadn’t seen his brother in more than two years. Offer hard evidence that Adam was, in fact, carrying his brother’s ID.

Where are complete statements and interviews with witnesses who were in the school at the time of the shooting? We have seen a few short interviews. There must be more. Let’s have them or get them. Are we to believe (as independent investigator Mike Powell has rightly doubted) that one teacher stuffed all her children into classroom cabinets, which ordinarily are filled with school supplies?

In the television interviews with parents of children murdered in the Sandy Hook School, not one parent was angry, not one parent demanded a deeper investigation. Obviously, this screening of interviewees was purposeful. Where are the outraged parents? What do they have to say? Do they know anything we don’t know? Have they been told (as people were at Columbine) to keep quiet?

And now, as the gun-control agenda is being pursued, precisely how will new laws curb the majority of gun violence in America, violence which is taking place in cities—much of it gang-related. Explain why President Obama doesn’t vigorously and publicly target these high-crime areas, if his objective is to reduce the gun violence, rather than gun ownership.

The pending and often postponed Chicago trial of Jesus Niebla, high-ranking member of the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel, experiences delay after delay. What vital facts are being kept from the public? There are serious defense charges here; namely, that Niebla and other Sinaloa members have received permanent immunity from prosecution in a prior deal with the DEA and FBI, in return for supplying information on rival cartels. In fact, the US federal government has obtained a suppression of defense-attorney documents in the trial, claiming their exposure would violate National Security.

Does Sinaloa have explicit US government permission to deliver tons of cocaine and heroin into Chicago, and then to cities all over America? This enterprise would certainly, as a side effect, produce a significant amount of gun violence. Does the federal government really want to curb this violence, or is its arrangement with Sinaloa taking precedence?

Finally, in the wake of Sandy Hook, how does President Obama’s declaration that mental-health services will be expanded across America add up to reduction of gun violence? In fact, this will lead to higher levels of prescribed dangerous psychiatric drugs, which in turn will cause a serious escalation in gun violence and mass shootings.

The Matrix Revealed

Major media don’t want to know anything about these points. And yet they’re betting they will retain the public trust. But the fact that their ratings are sinking, month after month, year after year, is a message from the public.

The media refuse to hear it, though. They glide through their rehearsed paces and pretend they are captains of information. Their elite owners would prefer to let the media ship go down, rather than tell the truth.

That’s understandable. After all, these owners, and the owners who own them, are guilty of all sorts of crimes, the reporting of which would make ratings soar but destroy their own empires, reputations, and lives.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

How television news creates the illusion of knowledge

by Jon Rappoport

January 27, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

In analyzing network coverage of the Sandy Hook murders, I had no intention of doing a series of articles on television news, but the opportunity to deconstruct the overall grand illusion was compelling.

A number of articles later, I want to discuss yet another sleight-of-hand trick. The myth of “coverage.”

It’s familiar to every viewer. Scott Pelley, in seamless fashion, might say, “Our top story tonight, the widening conflict in Syria. For the latest on the Assad government crackdown, our coverage begins with Clarissa Ward in Damascus…” .

Clarissa Ward has entered the country secretly, posing as a tourist. She carries a small camera. In interviews with rebels, she discovers that a) there is a conflict, b) people are being arrested c) there is a funeral for a person who was killed by government soldiers, d) defiance among the citizenry is growing.

In other words, she tells us almost nothing.

But CBS is imparting the impression that her report is important. After all, it’s not just anchor Scott Pelley in the studio. It’s a journalist in the field, up close and personal. It’s coverage.

Here are a few of the many things we don’t learn from either Pelley or Ward. Who is behind the rebellion in Syria? What is their real goal? What covert role is the US playing? Why are there al Qaeda personnel there?

But who cares? We have coverage. A key hole view. It’s wonderful. It’s exciting for two minutes. If we’re already brainwashed.

Coverage in television means you have the money, crew, resources, and stand-up reporters you can send out into the field. That’s all it means. It has nothing to do with information.

CNN made its reputation by coverage, from one end of the planet to the other. Yet, what did we really learn in all those years? We learned that, by straining to the point of hernia, a cable network could present news non-stop, 24/7.

The trick of coverage is the smooth transition from anchor in the studio to reporter in the field. The reporter is standing in front of something that vaguely resembles or represents what we imagine the locale contains. A large squat government building, a tower, a marketplace, a river, a skyline.

At some point during the meaningless report, the screen splits and we see both the anchor and the reporter. This yields the impression of two concerned professionals discussing something significant.

Then we’re back to the reporter in the field filling up the whole screen.

The anchor closes with a question or two.

“Denise, have you seen any tanks in the area?”

“No Wolf, not in the last hour. But we have reports from last night of shelling in the village.”

Well, isn’t this marvelous. Wolf is in Atlanta and Denise is in Patagonia. And they’re talking to each other in real time. Therefore, they must be on top of what’s going on.

“Denise, we understand medical help arrived a short time ago.”

“Yes, Wolf. Out in the desert, in tents, surgeons are performing emergency operations on the wounded.”

Well, what else is there to know? They’ve covered it.

In a twist on this performance, Denise might say, “Government officials are cautiously optimistic about repelling the invading force.” We cut to an interview conducted by Denise, in a hotel room, a few hours earlier.

She’s sitting across from a man in a suit. He’s the minister of information for the ruling party.

Denise: Is it true, Dr. Oobladee, that rebels groups in the suburbs have taken over several branch offices of the central bank?

Dr. Oob: We don’t believe that’s accurate. Our soldiers have been providing security for families in the area.

Denise: And their fortifications are secure?

Dr. Oob: They’ve trained for this mission, yes.

Cut back to Denise standing where she was standing before.

“Wolf, as the night wears on, we hear sporadic gunfire from the civic center. It’s a repeat of the last three evenings. The rebels are determined to make a stand and not give up further ground, in this war that enters its sixth month…”

Cut back to the studio in Atlanta.

“Thank you, Denise. We’ll take a break and be back in a minute to discuss the upcoming controversial film, Cold War in a Hat, starring George Clooney.”

We went from Atlanta to a street corner in the capital of Patagonia and then to a hotel room in the city, and then back to the street corner, then to Atlanta, off to a commercial, and then back to the studio for teasers on a new film. The technology and the technique are indeed impressive. The knowledge imparted is hovering at absolute zero, but it doesn’t matter. They have coverage.

It’s on the order of a magician sawing a woman in a box in half, after which the box is opened and found to be empty.

Coverage can also be simultaneous. In the middle of the screen is the anchor, head and shoulders, talking about the latest shooting. In the upper left-hand corner is a little static scene of three police cars with flashing lights sitting near a strand of yellow tape across a front yard. At the bottom of the screen is a moving line of text recapping headlines of the hour. Coverage. Look at all that. They must know what they’re doing.

Then we have the bonanza of coverage, a story that deals cards to several reporters in the field at different locations. As always, the anchor retains control. He may have two or three reporters on screen at the same time after they individually file their thirty-second pieces.

There is a bit of crosstalk. The anchor mediates. The shipment of frozen food was tainted. Therefore, we have a reporter standing in front of FDA headquarters in Maryland, another reporter in front of the manufacturer’s home office in Indiana, and a third reporter outside a hospital emergency room in San Francisco, where a child is having his stomach pumped. There is also a three-second clip of a lab in which workers in white coats and masks are moving around, and a clip of a moving assembly line which presumably has something to do with the production of the tainted product.

The whole story, as the network tells it, could be compressed down to 20 seconds, total. But they want coverage.

On election night, a network could simply show three or four newsmen sitting around in shirtsleeves smoking cigars and talking about the Jets for a few hours, after which one of them says, “Obama just won.”

But instead, we get the circus. A half-dozen stand-ups from various campaign headquarters, a numbers guru with a high-tech map as big as a movie screen pulling up counties in the studio, an anchor “bringing it all together,” and pundits weighing in with sage estimates. Team coverage. The “best in the business.”

I love hearing Wolf Blitzer utter that line. It makes me think of a guy selling expired cheese. But after all, he has a right to promote his people. He’s not just in a studio, he’s in The Situation Room. Where there is coverage.

The height of absurdity is achieved during a violent storm. A reporter has to be standing out in the rain and vicious wind, water seeping into his shoes, holding an umbrella in one hand and a mic in the other, looking for all the world like the umbrella is going to take him up into the sky.

The storm could be shot from inside a store at ground level, and the reporter could be sitting in a chair next to the cash register peering out through the window, but that wouldn’t really be coverage.

If you were to compare the anchor/reporter-in-the-field relationship of 40 years ago to today, you’d see a stark difference. In days of yore, it was exceedingly clunky and clumsy. It was one anchor and one reporter, but at least the man in the field was expected to have something to say. Now it’s all flash and intercutting. Now it’s the technique. The facile blending. The rapid interchange of image. It’s nothing made into something.

Segueways and blends are far more important than content. The newspeople are there merely to illustrate smoothness and transition. Brian Williams (NBC) is the champion operator for this mode. He is the doctor who can impart to you a diagnosis of a disease that doesn’t exist, but you don’t care. He’s a fine waiter in an expensive restaurant who will deliver three small items in the center of a very large plate and make you feel honored. He’s a golfer with such a fine swing you don’t care how many strokes he takes to get to the green. When he shifts to his man or woman in the field, you feel he’s conferring knighthood. Brian knows coverage.

There is a phenomenon that ought to be called minus-coverage coverage. Sandy Hook gave us wall-to-wall everything without exposing a single fact behind a fact. We saw nothing but Sandy Hook for two days on end, with stand-ups from every hand on deck, and yet we learned almost zero after the first few hours.

In the second Gulf War, we were bombarded with studio and field reports, but we saw no engagement or conflict that exposed both sides in simultaneous action against each other. Embedded reporters had to pledge the life of their first-born they wouldn’t break a rule laid down for journalists by the Army command.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Modern network coverage does one important thing. It establishes a standard by which other news is measured. For most viewers, if the news can’t display full technique, full smoothness, full effortless transition, it must be lacking in some important, though undefined, way.

Coverage is almost synonymous with transition. How the news moves from anchor to reporter(s) and back is Value. This is highly significant because it mirrors what a good hypnotist is able to do. If he’s a real pro, he doesn’t just put someone in a trance and talk to him, he puts him under and then moves from one topic to another—without breaking the trance. This is a skill.

In fact, the hypnotist’s transitions are a vital aspect of the process itself. The patient feels the guidance as the scene changes before his eyes. The hypnotist (or news anchor) is presenting scene after scene and extending time without causing a jarring ripple in the still lake of consciousness.

Coverage.

Whatever a person learns in a trance state, while, for example, watching the news, functions somewhat differently from what he learns while he is awake. Trance learning tends to settle in as a lens, as a way of thereafter viewing the world. It doesn’t add content or knowledge so much as it produces a viewpoint that generates an attitude toward reality.

As in: THESE are the parameters of reality, but THOSE aren’t. I care THIS much, I don’t care THAT much. I care in THIS way, not in THAT way. I’m at THIS distance from what is happening, not at THAT distance.

To enhance this level of teaching, the major networks utilize technology and personnel in the direction of making each edition of the national news, every night, one seamless ribbon of flowing river, with straightaways, corners, turns, adjustments; never breaking, never ceasing until the last breath of the anchor and the closing music fadeout.

That’s coverage.

And the next challenge for them is the integration of commercials, so the viewer truly doesn’t register a shift of consciousness during those moments.

Some day, people will look back on the news of today and say, “How could they have altered the mood during commercials? That was ridiculous. They were really primitive, weren’t they? What were they they thinking? The whole idea is to have one uninterrupted experience.”

The blue hues in the news studio set will match up perfectly with the blues in the commercials. The sound and tone of the anchor’s voice will be mirrored by the narrator of the commercial. The pace of the commercial will match the pace of the news.

In fact, it’s already starting to happen. If you watch shows via a DVR, you might notice that fast-forwarding through commercials is a different experience these days. It used to be a cinch to stop the fast-forward when the show began again, because the colors and shapes of the commercials were so different from those of the show. But now, not so much. The commercials are tuned more closely to the programs.

Some day, the meaning of network coverage will include commercials. The one unending stream will sustain the light trance of the viewer.

Major corporate advertisers will realize they don’t want to jolt the viewer out of the show; they want to leave him in the trance. In other words, corporations won’t be so concerned about competing against other corporations. With these companies coming, more and more, under centralized ownership, under the control of big banks, the whole idea will be to tune the attitude of the viewer toward “corporate buying” in general.

Every huge corporation, allied with big government, will aim to condition the viewing audience to the State Oligarchy.

Coverage in the Matrix.

Jon Rappoport

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

Flashback: mind-control programming on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno

by Jon Rappoport

January 23, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ve recently been writing about the corrosive effect of television on the national psyche, and how media depictions of tragedies, like the Sandy Hook murders, are geared to create artificial story lines divorced from reality.

I thought it would be a good idea to go back to a 2003 article I wrote about the famous appearance of Arnold Schwarzenegger on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

The show had been hyped as the moment when Arnold would announce whether he was going to run in the recall election against California Governor Gray Davis.

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

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

If Arnold decided to run, he wouldn’t be announcing it at a press conference at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, after a brief introduction from LA Mayor Richard Riordan. No, Arnold would obtain a rocket boost from Jay Leno.

Here is a blow-by-blow account of Arnold on The Tonight Show. I obtained a tape of the show and watched it many times.

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

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

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

Arnold would say yes or Arnold would say no. He would run or he would decline.

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

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

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

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

Cut to a stark room, shot from above. About 40 reporters doing almost nothing at tables. Obviously, the room was set up for this event.

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

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

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

The audience laughs. There is applause, too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laughter, applause, whistles.

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

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

An absolutely important confirmation.

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

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

“The politicians are fiddling, fumbling, and failing.” Very big applause follows. The audience is doing its job.

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

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

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

They’re working hard.

Paying their taxes.

Raising their families.

But the politicians are not doing their job.

Now he executes a decent blend around the far turn: “And the man that is failing the people more than anyone is Gray Davis!”

The crowd goes wild. The girls scream at this political denunciation as if they’re at a kiddie rock concert in the magic presence of four sixteen-year-old pretty boys. It’s eerie.

And now the audience is suddenly on an edge.

They can handle the juice.

Arnold senses it.

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

Boom. Bang. Pow. Zow.

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

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

The Tonight Show band lays down some heavy chords.

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

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

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

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

The sea has parted. The consecration has been performed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This means something.

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

“Oh yeah? How big?”

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

“Come on.”

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

“Too good to be true.”

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

“And the contagion factor?”

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

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

“Precisely.”

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

Gray Davis was left with his putz in his hand.

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

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

For example, NBC is owned by GE. What business interests does GE have in California? Might such interests be assisted by an Arnold victory at the polls?

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

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

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

Something out of nothing.

GE: We bring good things to life.

The Matrix Revealed

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

There are many who are afraid to admit that twelve minutes on Leno won the election. They refuse to believe that the audience-to-larger-audience infection is real. They want to exist in a fantasy where most citizens turn the factual issues over in their minds before casting their ballots.

It’s too nasty to confess that garble and gobbledygook can sustain us on the ridiculous basis that other people have attached themselves to it like barnacles—and that therefore we too must adapt to this submarine force.

But it’s time we admit that reality can be passed, hand to hand, mind to mind, adrenal gland to adrenal gland, from a concocted, groomed, cultivated, prepackaged television audience to any target area on the planet.

A target area like voting precincts.

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

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

And it’s overtly political when a fading movie action hero trying to roll a seven on his latest film suddenly says he’s going to take over the reins of California.

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

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

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

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

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

We have a hero, we know his name, we know what to do. What else do we need?

That’s television.

That’s a slice of Matrix programming for America.

Now in 2013, it’s standard practice. Politicians plan their guest shots on Leno, Letterman, Fallon, Ferguson, Kimmel, The View, etc.

If they want to appeal to the younger crowd, they do Fallon, who plays the wild child with a juvey rap sheet, backed up by a howling studio audience who must be breathing meth through the ventilation system.

If they want to hit the fading boomer crowd, they do Letterman, who persists in his nightly imitation of a semi-retiree on the verge of dementia.

The formula is the same. Jack up the studio audience, transmit the hysteria to the viewing audience at home, and spread the television disease.

The audience as actor.

Which, by the way, is why reality shows are so popular. People who otherwise would never have moved out of the audience are now stars in their own right, in front of the camera.

The audience is now thoroughly aware that their contribution makes or breaks a television show, and so they feel perfectly entitled to celeb status and their own reality series, in a jungle, in a house, in an apartment, in a bathroom.

Entitlement-audiences and entitlement-citizens walk hand in hand through a society where rights are expanding to mean “I’ve got my cell phone, I’m somebody.”

The content of an idea or the value of an object is merely the number of reflections of applause that accompanies its presence.

And there is this evolution: a) What’s marketing? b) I have to market myself. c) I am what I’ve marketed.

The tree falling in the forest never makes a sound. There is no sound unless and until and only when the sound is promoted, preferably on television. Then it exists.

Then the people who watch the tree fall on their screens hear it, and they become important. They become kings and queens in a cartoon matrix.

Jon Rappoport

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