The rise and fall of CNN, the most busted name in news

by Jon Rappoport

October 15, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

As new revelations about CNN emerge from Project Veritas (see also ExposeCNN.com for updates), here is a backgrounder I wrote and published several years ago. It brings back fond memories, and offers the beleaguered children at CNN solutions to their never-ending problems…

“CNN is still licking their wounds after a rather disastrous couple of weeks, where a shoddy Russia-Trump story led to three staffers resigning, a Project Veritas investigation exposed that the network’s producers peddled the Russia story for ratings, and what came off as a wholly inappropriate veiled threat against an anonymous Reddit user who created a Trump WWE video, which the president tweeted before the Fourth of July Holiday. The video shows Trump beating up WWE’s Vince McMahon, whose face has been superimposed with the CNN logo. The media went apoplectic as an attack against the press; it wasn’t. This spurred the network’s reporters to find the user and pretty much threaten to dox him if he continues to post things CNN doesn’t like.” (Townhall, Matt Vespa, 7/7/17)

If you create a giant, you gain extraordinary visibility, and if the giant develops an unsightly and grotesque case of fungal disease, that’s a problem.

CNN was born in 1980. At the time, it was the first television network offering 24/7 news, and it was the first network offering nothing but news in the US.

In 1991, CNN’s coverage of the Gulf War reached a billion viewers worldwide.

Today, CNN International reaches 200 countries.

That’s a giant.

But from the beginning, back in 1980, there was a major question: how was CNN going to fill up all that time every day with news? Face it, television networks, without bells and whistles, could boil down their coverage of a day’s events in four minutes. That’s because their analysis is so thin. It’s all surface.

When you assiduously avoid looking into WHO REALLY RUNS THINGS, the well runs dry quickly. When you avoid detailing the role of mega-banks and mega-corporations and groups like the Trilateral Commission and CFR and Bilderberg, and when you never define Globalism and reveal its true agenda; when you discover nothing of value about the CIA; when you never broach the subject of American Empire; when you refuse to examine the horrendous effects of the medical system; when you fail to expose the ongoing collaboration between establishment Democrats and Republicans, and the influence of lobbyists (e.g., Israeli fronts); when you intentionally remain blind to the destruction of the American Republic and the Constitution; when you ultimately side with National Security and the Surveillance State; when you manage to sidestep actual ongoing environmental pollution flowing poisonously from a number of sources; when you refuse to reveal the full effects of open borders; when you never connect the dots and instead rely on limited hangouts…

What are you left with? What do you do, for 24 hours of every single day?

Mainly, you wait for “big events,” and then you launch wall to wall coverage for as long as your viewers can stand it. The Gulf War; the first black president; the worst president and the worst human being in history (Trump).

You develop bloated panel shows, during which pundits babble across each other like meth addicts in a rubber room.

You call “the news” The Situation Room, as if you’re breaking vital stories every 30 seconds.

You plow the same ground over and over, until not even weeds can grow in the soil.

You fill your basket with the eggs of the “progressive agenda.” You go all in.

You fake stories.

You do a bizarre version of affirmative action with your on-air talent, as if this will result in “fairer” coverage.

And day by day, the public realizes you’re crazy.

You can’t hide, because you aren’t just laying on three fake newscasts a day; you’re ON all the time.

You’re hoping against hope for a new terror attack or a natural disaster, so you can flood the airwaves with live reports, but in the meantime, you’ll stick with 24/7 Trump, because he’s “the most interesting man in the world.” He’s creating your ratings, such as they are. You’re the tabloid at the checkout counter in the supermarket, and he’s always on the cover. You love him. You need him. It doesn’t matter whether he’s done what you say he’s done. That’s never been the issue. Without his presence, you’d be raking leaves outside a nursing home. You’re the self-appointed Pope, and he’s Satan, and that means dollars.

As a bonus, you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing, on behalf of Globalism and the “interdependent world.” The risk of Trump speaking words of Nationalism against Globalism (whether or not he meant them) is too great to go unchallenged. The international system (aka technocracy) that has been under construction since the dawn of the 20th century must not be derailed.

So whether it’s the way Trump sips water from a bottle, or scratches his nose, or treats one of your so-called reporters, you’re the National Enquirer blowing it up into a scandal of the moment. You’re leaking leaks from pipes that don’t even exist. Maybe he has a love child; look into that. Maybe he has another wife he never divorced. Maybe he’s an alien from Venus.

Keep those ad revenues flowing, no matter what. Face it, you’ve got nothing else going for you. Connect Trump to the latest news from Tibet if you have to. Or Madagascar. Or Tierra del Fuego. He caused the cold snap across America, because he didn’t sign the Paris Climate Accords.

You’re CNN, “the most trusted name in news.”

Ride that horse all the way to the end of the road.

If you end up shithole broke, somebody will bail you out. Warts and all, you’re too big to fail. Not just because of your work against Trump, but because The News, as the public knows it, must survive.

Otherwise, the people will find out what’s really going on in this world and who runs things. And that must never happen.

That’s the prime situation in The Situation Room.

Who could have guessed, say, 15 years ago, that the following exchange would occur on CNN, in March of 2014?

As reported by New York Magazine, CNN host Don Lemon, discussing the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, said: “People are saying to me, why aren’t you talking about the possibility — and I’m just putting it out there — that something odd happened to this plane, something beyond our understanding? What if it was something fully that we don’t really understand? A lot of people have been asking about that, about black holes and on, and on, and on, and all of these conspiracy theories…That’s what people are saying. I know it’s preposterous — but is it preposterous, you think, Mary?”

To which, Mary Schiavo, ex-Department of Transportation inspector general, replied: “Well, it is. A small black hole would suck in our entire universe so we know it’s not that.”

Maybe it WAS a black hole, and we all disappeared, and resurfaced in an alternate universe, where we got the CNN we know today.

Let’s look at Jeff Zucker, CNN’s boss.

In April 2017, Zucker baldly told the New York Times, “The idea that politics is sport is undeniable, and we understood that and approached it that way.” The “it” was certainly the 2016 presidential campaign.

Zucker always has understood political news in this corrupt fashion—and in the process, he helped elect a US president and a California governor.

Zucker was the man who launched The Apprentice, starring Donald Trump, at NBC, in 2004.

In other words, Zucker happened to play a major role in electing Donald Trump. There is no getting around it.

Washington Post, October 2, 2016: “Looking for someone specific to hold responsible for the improbable rise of Donald Trump?”

“Although there are many options, you could do worse than to take a hard look at Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide.”

“It was Zucker, after all, who as the new head of NBC Entertainment gave Trump his start in reality TV with ‘The Apprentice’ and then milked the real estate developer’s uncanny knack for success for all it was worth in ratings and profits.”

“And it succeeded wildly — boosting the network’s ratings, as well as Zucker’s [and Trump’s] meteoric career. In turn, under Zucker, the show gave rise to ‘Celebrity Apprentice,’ another Trump extravaganza. And, in turn, Zucker became the head of NBC overall.”

“The show [The Apprentice] was built as a virtually nonstop advertisement for the Trump empire and lifestyle…”

“The executive [Jeff Zucker] rode the Trump steed hard. When the reality-TV star was preparing to marry Melania Knauss in 2005, Zucker wanted to broadcast the wedding live. (Trump, uncharacteristically, declined.)”

“But make no mistake: There would be no Trump-the-politician without Trump-the-TV-star. One begot the other.”

POLITICS IS TELEVISION, AND TELEVISION IS POLITICS.

If you’re looking for a person who embodies that fake version of reality most purely, you need look no further than Jeff Zucker.

Despite his network’s present hatred of Trump, Zucker would give Trump his own show right now if he wanted one.

For ratings and ad revenues.

Consider another event, one which I’ve analyzed in great detail. It took place on NBC in 2003, when Zucker was the head of the network’s entertainment division. The Tonight Show, with Jeno Leno, was a prime piece of that division then. What Leno pulled off in 2003 had to have the OK from Zucker, because it was a highly unusual move, a distinctly unethical move.

An actor wanted to launch a political career and become a governor. The whole news division of a major network surrendered itself, for one ratings-busting night, to a talk show.

This is how Arnold Schwarzenegger won the California governor’s race. It all came down to his famous appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, where he announced that he was going to run.

The Arnold interview was a global event. It was pre-hyped to the sky, and after three red hot six-minute segments, with a studio audience screaming in approval, the election was virtually over.

POLITICS IS TELEVISION. TELEVISION IS POLITICS.

Here are a few of CNN’s “black-hole” gaffes, just refresh your memory—

Because Trump was attacking CNN and other media as fake, CNN claimed THAT was making life more physically dangerous for journalists in war zones and at home. Wow. I guess the takeaway is: don’t criticize mainstream news, keep your mouth shut and stay hypnotized…

Independent journalist, James O’Keefe, released two undercover sting videos which revealed CNN medical producer, John Bonifield, remarking that the whole Trump-Russia scandal is “mostly bullshit right now, like, we don’t have any giant proof”; and Van Jones, CNN political commentator, stating that “the Russia thing is just a big nothing burger.” Of course, CNN relentlessly pursues the Trump-Russia story as if God and a choir of angels have certified it as the truest, most important event of our time.

June 2017: CNN dumped Reza Aslan, the host of their network documentary series called Believer. Why? Because Aslan tweeted, “This piece of shit [Donald Trump] is not just an embarrassment to America and a stain on the presidency. He’s an embarrassment to humankind.”

October 2016: CNN contributor Donna Brazile was dumped, because she passed along questions that would be asked in an upcoming presidential debate, sponsored by CNN. Brazile passed those questions to the Hillary Clinton camp.

CNN reporter-dunce Chris Cuomo, during the 2016 election campaign, preposterously told the viewing audience that accessing Wikileaks’ treasure trove of John Podesta emails was a crime—for any member of the public. Only “the media” were permitted to perform that delicate operation and then decide what to report. Put a picture of Cuomo on your wall and pray to it every night.

On June 13, 2015, CNN host Fredricka Whitfield talked about the attack on the Dallas police headquarters. She said the shooter, James Boulware, was “courageous and brave, if not crazy.” Who’s crazy, Fredricka?

The 2016 Milwaukee riots. CNN aired a woman named Sherelle Smith telling the rioters, “Don’t bring that violence here.” She was calling for peace. Well, not exactly. The network failed to broadcast the rest of Smith’s advice: “Burning down shit ain’t going to help nobody! Y’all burning down shit we need in our community. Take that shit to the suburbs! Burn that shit down!”

CNN: the most trusted name in news.

CODA:

The pack of losers at CNN are always trying to save their operation. They obviously need to hire Jerry Springer as news director. The network is already a reality show; they just don’t know how to put one on. They require help.

Publishing fake news and airing talk-show hosts who spout venom doesn’t make it. It doesn’t go far enough. On camera, they need women breaking into the studio claiming their babies were fathered by CNN journalists; they need burly security guards tackling the intruders and bringing them to the floor. They need live audiences who hoot and holler and boo and applaud.

CNN is a reality show. But it doesn’t go far enough. If the network’s boss Jeff Zucker applied his talents, he could stage flame-outs and scandals that would rock the house. Go big. Go wild. Hire a few dyed in the wool terrorists and put them on in prime time and let them talk. Bring Glenn Beck back, build him a studio that looks like a chapel with stain glass windows, and let him tell the audience what God wants him to do. Lure Scott Pelley and Megyn Kelly to CNN and team them together in a show called The Sadism Hour. Set up Michael Moore in a Burger King for 24 hours straight every weekend and have him talk non-stop (while he eats and slurps) about why he hates Donald Trump. How about an investment show hosted by George Soros called How to Kill the West?

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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.

The basics of a staged bioterror attack

Oct11

by Jon Rappoport

October 11, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Imagine this. A big-time doctor from the US Biological Warfare Group waddles into a meeting room, where a collection of Army, CIA, NSA, and DHS representatives sit quietly in their chairs. He says: ‘So I understand you boys want to put on a little domestic bioterror show, to keep the natives from becoming too restless. Well, the first thing you need to know is, germs don’t obey orders. Forget all that sci-fi nonsense. Germs work and they don’t work. It’s a crapshoot. You could have a big fat dud on your hands. I can tell you how to make it work, though, if you give up on your fancy high-tech wet dreams…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

There are future scenarios which, with enough exposure before they’re staged, can be stopped—or at least analyzed correctly when they occur.

A calculated bioterror event is one of those.

The primary fact is: no matter what kind of germ you’re talking about or where it came from, releasing it intentionally does not guarantee predictable results. Far from it.

For instance, people whose immune systems operate at different levels of strength are going to react differently.

The perpetrators may find that less than 2% of people exposed get sick or die.

But there is another strategy that should be understood:

The use of a germ as a cover story for a chemical.

In other words, there is no germ attack. It’s called a germ attack, but that’s a lie. The perps bring in researchers to the affected area, who go on to claim they have isolated a germ that is the cause of death and illness. It’s a sham. What really happened was:

The spread of a toxic chemical that can’t be detected, unless you’re looking for it.

The chemical has severe, deadly, and predictable effects for a week or two. Then it disperses and loses potency and the “epidemic” is done.

In some town, a fairly isolated community, the word goes out that people are suddenly falling ill and dying. The CDC and the Army are called in to cordon off the area and quarantine all citizens. A peremptory announcement is made, early on, that this is a biowar attack.

Major media are allowed outside the periphery. Network news anchors set up on-location and do their wall to wall broadcasts “from the scene.”

The entire nation, the entire world, is riveted on the event, 24/7.

People inside the cordon fall ill and die. Reports emerge from the town:

The networks state that “heroic doctors are taking samples of blood and the blood is being analyzed to find the germ that is causing the epidemic.” The DOD confirms over and over that this is, indeed, a biowar attack.

Human interest stories pile up. This family lost three members, that family lost everybody. Tragedy and horror produce the desired empathic response from “the world community.”

It’s a soap opera, except real people are dying.

The medical cartel promotes fear of the germ.

All controlling entities obtain their piece of the terrorist pie.

Finally, the doctors announce they have isolated the germ causing death in the small town, and researchers are rushing to develop a vaccine (which they produce in record time).

Everyone everywhere must be vaccinated, now. No choice. Do it or be quarantined or jailed.

In this declared martial law situation, the doctors are the heroes. The doctors and the Army. And the government, and even the media.

Then, after a few weeks, when the potency of the secret chemical has dispersed, it’s over.

When you think about it, this scenario is a rough approximation of what happens every day, all over the world, in doctor’s offices. The doctors are prescribing chemicals (drugs) whose effects are far more dangerous than germs that may (or may not) be causing patients to be ill.

In other words, a chem-war attack is being leveled at people all over the world all the time.

See Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, “Is US health really the best in the world?” 106,000 people in America are killed every year by FDA-approved medical drugs. That’s over a million people per decade.

In the wake of a staged “biowar” terror attack, new laws are enacted. The State clamps down harder on basic freedoms. The right to travel is curtailed. Criticizing the authorities is viewed as highly illegal. Freedom of assembly is limited.

“Citizens must cooperate. We’re all in this together.”

A new federal law mandating the CDC schedule of vaccines for every child and adult—no exceptions permitted—is rushed through the Congress and signed by the President.

It’s all based on a lie…in the same way that the disease theory of the medical cartel is based on a lie: the strength of an individual’s immune system is the basic determinant of health or illness, not germs considered in a vacuum.

There are people who are determined to inflate the dangers of germs. They trumpet every “new” germ as the end of humankind on the planet. They especially sound the alarm when researchers claim a germ may have mutated or jumped from animals to humans.

“This is it! We’re done for!”

However, if you check into actual confirmed cases of death from recent so-called epidemics, such as West Nile, SARS, bird flu, Swine Flu, and Ebola, the numbers of deaths are incredibly low.

If political criminals, behind the scenes, wanted to stage a confined “biowar” event, they would choose a chemical, not a germ, and they would leverage such an event to curtail freedom.

Understand: researchers behind sealed doors in labs can claim, with unassailable ease, that they’ve found a germ that causes an outbreak. Almost no one challenges such an assertion.

This was the case, for example, with the vaunted SARS epidemic (a dud), in 2003, when 10 World Health Organization (WHO) labs, walled off from view, in communication with each other via closed circuit, announced they’d isolated a coronavirus as the culprit.

Later, in Canada, a WHO microbiologist, Frank Plummer, wandered off the reservation and told reporters he was puzzled by the fact that fewer and fewer SARS patients “had the coronavirus.” This was tantamount to confessing that the whole research effort had been a failure and a sham—but after a day or so of coverage, the press fell silent.

SARS was a nonsensical farce. Diagnosed patients had ordinary seasonal flu or a collection of familiar symptoms that could result from many different causes.

But the propaganda effort was a stunning success. Populations were frightened. The need for vaccines, in the public mind, was exacerbated.

Several years ago, I spoke with a biologist about the fake bioterror scenario I’ve sketched out above. His comment was: “Do you think any mainstream scientist would dare go into that cordoned-off town and actually check the area for a highly toxic chemical? He’d be blackballed, exiled, and discredited in a minute. The authorities would call him crazy. And that’s if he were lucky.”

Such is “science,” these days. A researcher can discover anything he wants to, if it’s approved. Otherwise, the door is closed.

After 30 years of covering and reporting on deep science fraud, I can tell you that most scientists know, without instructions from above, the dimensions of their “permitted territory.” They can sniff out career danger from a mile away.

GMOs? Roundup? Other toxic pesticides? Climate change? Vaccines? Medical drugs? Diagnostic medical tests? Actual environmental pollution? Mercury? Chemicals in food? Radiation? Nuclear power plants? Fracking? Fluorides? On these and a whole host of other issues, government is centrally involved as a ruling force. And there are armies of compliant scientists ready and willing to carry out preferred government (and corporate) dictates. These scientists already know the answers before the questions are even asked.

Meanwhile, propaganda rivers flow, extolling the glories of science.

It’s a dream situation, for the terminally corrupt.

A huge number of scientists, who don’t actually participate in research fraud, stand back and watch it happen and say nothing. They see the handwriting on the wall in very large letters.

In 1988, while writing my first book, AIDS INC., I interviewed a highly respected virologist at a US university. I mentioned that several molecular biologists were challenging the HIV-causation hypothesis of AIDS. He told me that he and a number of his colleagues were aware that “a serious problem” existed concerning evidence for the hypothesis, but they were all going to “let this one go.” It was too political, he said.

Yes, well, an enormous amount of science turns out to be political.

Keeping one’s head down and letting things go by may not be part of a PhD curriculum, but soon after school is out, researchers enter a different kind of training.

A main theme then pops up: do you want a career, or do you want to live in the middle of nowhere, in exile?

As it so happens, building a broad scientific consensus resting on sand is a straightforward job. It takes time and money, but the work requires no brilliance.

You just flash signs at scientists. The signs say: money; job security; status; advancement; promotion; grants; prestige; reputation; pension; exposure; censure; discrediting; exile; isolation; death.

They get the idea right away.

They would get the idea when a fake bio-attack (that was actually a chemical) occurred. Stay quiet, agree with the authorities.

“Sure, I knew it was a chemical, but I have house payments to make, and my kids are applying to expensive universities…”

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

Jon Rappoport

Opioid drug crisis: could the whole US Congress be impeached?

Sep30

by Jon Rappoport

September 30, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

First, a little background. Then I’ll get to the Congress. And Obama.

Severe addiction, mental dislocation, death. Millions of people are facing the devastating effects of the pharma drugs called opioids, on the streets of America—illegally trafficked.

2 MILLION OPIOID ADDICTS IN THE US.

300,000 DEATHS SINCE THE YEAR 2000 IN THE US.

Those are the official estimates, as of about 2 years ago. The numbers are rising.

We need to understand that people with deep physical pain should be able to obtain sufficient painkillers from doctors. Shortages being experienced are coming from drug over-enforcement in the wrong direction.

The situation is made more complex by the fact that traditional morphine, plus another few synthetic opioids, would be sufficient to handle all patients’ needs. BUT, when I started counting the pharmaceutical opioids in the marketplace, I stopped at 50. This is insane. There is absolutely no need for all these derivatives. And they make regulation and enforcement far more difficult. But the drug companies don’t care. They pursue profit.

Where are all the opioids that are maiming and killing people coming from? Who is launching these drugs on to the streets of nations?

Three main criminal sources of US opioids: pharmaceutical companies, like Purdue, who’ve filled gargantuan orders they KNOW are going to traffickers; Chinese labs; and Mexican processors and smugglers.

The rush of immigrants coming across the US southern border has diverted so many US agents, they can’t possibly stem the tide of opioids being smuggled through those borders. That’s just one effect of massive immigration that so-called “liberals” don’t think about. Millions of lives destroyed by the drugs are essentially being traded for open borders.

As ABC News reported on July 19, 2019, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection has stored enough fentanyl in the past year to kill an estimated 794 MILLION people…” That would be seized opioids at the US border. Fentanyl is 100 TIMES MORE POTENT than morphine. Mexico is a major pipeline. A significant percentage of the smuggled drugs comes to Mexico out of China. If that much fentanyl has been seized, how much of the drug has gotten through?

CBS News, August 30, 2019: “Law enforcement officers in Virginia have seized enough fentanyl to kill 14 million people, busting a massive three-state drug ring…one of the 39 people charged ordered fentanyl from Shanghai and had it delivered to Virginia through the mail.” So there is that route as well—China direct to the US through the US Postal Service.

If you’re getting the idea that this is a kind of chemical warfare against the population, you’re correct.

For the moment, let’s focus on pharmaceutical companies who are basically trafficking opioids on to the streets of America. Why can’t federal law enforcement stop that murderous flow in the blink of an eye?

Is there some secret we don’t know about? No. In fact, the answers are right out in the open. I had them confirmed over a year ago, from a source inside the DEA. But talk about “open—” the Washington Post laid out the sordid story in detail. AND AS USUAL, THERE WAS NO FOLLOW-UP. That’s how major media work. They have a piece of very ugly truth. They expose it. But then it mysteriously dies and is forgotten. In this case (opioid trafficking), a real follow-up would have led the public down into a Hell of evil influence, exerted by Pharma, on the US Congress.

Buckle up.

A 2016 LAW SIGNED BY OBAMA SHACKLED THE DEA (DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION) IN ITS EFFORTS TO CRACK DOWN ON BIG PHARMA OPIOID TRAFFICKERS.

That law is the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2016, passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on 4/9/16.

And that is the federal government’s role in perpetuating and expanding the opioid crisis.

Honest agents inside the complacent DEA want to have the right to march into a pharmaceutical company headquarters and say, “We know you’re shipping millions of opioid pills to little pharmacies and clinics that, in turn, are selling the pills to street dealers. We’re going to freeze those shipments now, and we’re going to arrest your key executives.”

But that 2016 law raises the bar so high, the whole law-enforcement effort is hamstrung, throttled, and loaded down with legal complications.

In essence, the US Congress gave drug companies a free pass.

And no one in the Congress is admitting it or talking about it.

The Washington Post, on October 15, 2017, talked about it. The article was headlined, “The Drug Industry’s Triumph Over the DEA”:

“In April 2016, at the height of the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history, Congress effectively stripped the Drug Enforcement Administration of its most potent weapon against large drug companies suspected of spilling prescription [opioid] narcotics onto the nation’s streets.”

“A handful of members of Congress, allied with the nation’s major drug distributors, prevailed upon the DEA and the Justice Department to agree to a more industry-friendly law, undermining efforts to stanch the flow of pain pills, according to an investigation by The Washington Post and ‘60 Minutes’…”

“The law [which was passed with an overwhelming YES count by both house of Congress] was the crowning achievement of a multifaceted campaign by the drug industry to weaken aggressive DEA enforcement efforts against drug distribution [pharma] companies that were supplying corrupt doctors and pharmacists who peddled [opioid] narcotics to the black market. The [drug] industry worked behind the scenes with lobbyists and key members of Congress [to pass the 2016 law], pouring more than a million dollars into their election campaigns.”

“The new [2016] law makes it virtually impossible for the DEA to freeze suspicious narcotic shipments from the companies, according to internal agency and Justice Department documents and an independent assessment by the DEA’s chief administrative law judge in a soon-to-be-published law review article. That powerful tool [freezing opioid shipments] had allowed the agency to immediately prevent drugs from reaching the street.”

The Washington Post article mentioned there was an attempt to reach Obama (who had signed the law) and obtain his comments. The effort failed. Obama kept his mouth shut.

EVERYONE IS NOW AWARE OF THE LAW’S HORRENDOUS IMPACT. WHY DOESN’T THE CONGRESS REPEAL IT?

The fact that no one is stepping up to the plate with a fast repeal is proof that multiple parts of the federal government are, in fact, tacitly supporting the opioid crisis and its devastating impacts on human life.

Failure to act swiftly amounts to collusion in Death by Opioids.

President Obama, the Congress, and key officials within the Justice Department and the DEA are all guilty.

My article is not about current efforts to impeach Trump. But, having read this piece, you should weigh the proposed charges against Trump, versus the potential charges against Obama and the whole Congress, Democrat and Republican, for the opioid crisis. I don’t care what you think of Trump or Obama, the leaders of both Parties, the Congress, liberals, conservatives, Communists, racists, socialists, Biden, Warren, Sanders. The facts about opioid crimes are clear. The corruption is deep. The human damage and loss of life are terrible.

If you speak to people who have a naïve and lasting faith in the good will of political leaders, they will probably tell you that the heinous 2016 law I detailed above was “an unfortunate mistake.” The members of Congress “didn’t know what they were voting for.” And somehow, that lets everyone off the hook. Really? Congress has known what they voted for (if indeed they were all ignorant back in 2016) for the past two years. SO WHY HAVEN’T THEY REPEALED THE LAW? Why haven’t they remedied their “error?” Why have they let untold numbers of people die for those two years while staying silent? Why hasn’t the whole Congress risen up to squash the “mistake?” They could do it in an hour. Obviously, they don’t want to admit their prior guilt. They don’t want an investigation which, if done with even a vague imitation of honesty, would expose some of their members as WILLING AND KNOWING COLLABORATORS IN DEATH. They don’t want to admit that the pharma campaign money they take is sufficient inducement to fake a blindness to the death they’re assigning to their own constituents and people all over America.

Still assigning. Now.

You Congressional representatives running for the Presidency on the Democratic side, and you Republican Congressional representatives who are thinking of challenging Trump for the Presidency, and you Congressional leaders from both Parties, (and you, Trump), get back into session and repeal the murder law you passed. Don’t wait for the stupid and mindless Health and Human Services “public comment period” on the law to be digested. For one real moment in your lives, stop lying and covering up and selling yourself and submitting to blackmail and do the right thing—not for forgiveness—but because you have to do it. Just take a collective breath and get back in that room and repeal the law. At least for the hour or so you’ll need to do the job, prove to the majority of the American people, who believe you’re incorrigible frauds, that you can do one thing once. One necessary thing once.

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

Jon Rappoport

My memories from the fake news business

Sep19

by Jon Rappoport

September 19, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“The true job of a reporter is using facts to overturn reality. Things are already upside down, and his job is to show that. In his work, he has to be relentless. This inevitably leads him to publishing his own words, on his own, because entrenched press outlets are in the business of propping up the very reality he aims to expose. He can’t go to them for publication. Once he learns that, he’s launched, and his life is never the same. It improves exponentially.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

There was the time a newspaper publisher inserted his own paragraph at the top of my story, under my name, as if I wrote it. He didn’t tell me. I found out later when the paper came out. I called him up. He was clueless. To him, his intrusion meant nothing. It was my story, but it was his newspaper. I learned something. If you want your own words, and only your words, to stand, publish them yourself.

There was the time I wrote a story about a dubious drug/supplement people were selling under the counter at health food stores. I took the supplement for a week and folded my experiences into the article, which was mainly about the unfounded “scientific background” in the package insert. The editor couldn’t fathom how a story could contain “two separate threads.” He axed half my story. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

There was the time I wrote a piece about widespread fraud in psychiatric diagnosis. The editor claimed I had employed “too much logic” and not enough “expert opinion.” He said “original research” was “out.” To no avail, I pointed out that logic was in the public domain, and therefore my “original research” could be checked. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

An editor once told me an article I’d written criticizing a senator wouldn’t be published. My harsh criticism was valid, he said, but readers might infer that the newspaper was turning against the senator’s political party. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

Once my career as a reporter was launched, magazine editors began contacting me with all sorts of proposed assignments. The subjects of the stories were boring, to say the least. I soon realized the editors were using those stories to fill out their no-context version of reality. I learned something. If you don’t want your words to be published, don’t submit them.

A newspaper editor once told me (paraphrasing from memory): “This story you wrote…part of the reason we don’t want to publish it is we don’t want to give it the contagion factor. If we publish it, other news outlets will pick up on it. We’re in an echo chamber. We ricochet stories back and forth. We all use the same experts to bolster our stories. So we take your controversial story and publish it, and then when the roar gets loud enough in the echo chamber, people are going to object. And we’ll be the ones they blame because we started it.”

I said to an editor, a year or so after 9/11: If I could give you ironclad evidence, from many reputable sources, proving that the planes crashing into the Towers couldn’t have caused them to fall, would you print the story? He said: The official story is already in place. There’s no way anyone could dislodge it now. I said: So it doesn’t matter what the truth is. He said: It matters, maybe 30 years in the future, but probably not.

A publisher once told me: We have our own definition of “controversial.” We decide what that is. It’s not your definition. It’s okay to write about impeaching a president, but if you find out there are people behind the scenes who are managing the presidency, people who aren’t in government, we wouldn’t touch that. If we did, that would break the mold. Everything would be up for grabs. People would realize most of what we publish is a tempest in a teapot, because there are more powerful forces at work.

An editor told me: After a big environmental catastrophe, we cover the story for a little while and then we let it go. We don’t want to look like we’re attacking the polluters too hard. So we don’t track what’s happening every day or every week. We let it go, and then after a few months or a year, we write a follow-up piece. We’re not crusaders. We don’t want to look like we’re out to get somebody. That would injure our reputation. We’re not muckrakers. We might favor a point of view, but we don’t lean on it too hard.

These and other similar encounters convinced me, 25 years ago, to step away from the news business. “Somebody else” is always running things. Their quirks and agendas are corrosive. They’ve gained their positions through compromise. They know that and accept it. And then they set about forgetting it.

Now, in the “information age,” these mainstream professionals are howling about fake news; they’re burying, even deeper, their knowledge that they are the prime fakers.

“I fake it, I bury my fakery deeper and deeper, and then I scream at other people for faking it.”

These are the actions of a temperamental child. And indeed, these people are angry little children in adult bodies. Luckily, they’ve found a business that honors that grotesque configuration. They’ve found a home.

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

Jon Rappoport

9/11: The Gold and The Minders

Sep16

by Jon Rappoport

September 16, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Searching through the archive of my past articles, I’ve come up with two 9/11 stories that have been largely ignored—left to gather dust as they fade from memory. Here they are:

Flashback: 9/11 and the gold in the NY Federal Reserve

January 30, 2014

With reports that Germany can’t get back much of its gold stored in the NY Federal Reserve, I remembered what I was writing just after 9/11.

Here are a few quotes. Most are from my posts on 9/11 and 9/12, 2001:

“Still no word on the condition of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, which is 2.5 blocks away from the destroyed WTC. This bank, underground, holds $75 billion in gold from [about five] dozen countries.”

“CNN has a large map posted today, which shows the condition of a number of buildings by name in the area, but, curiously, the NY Fed Reserve is not one of them.”

“And now that workers are going down underneath the remains of the WTC, where $100 million in gold is admittedly stored (Reuters), we have no word on the condition of that gold, either.”

“Yesterday, I brought up the issue of the gigantic fed gold reserve stashed underground 2.5 blocks from the WTC. And mentioned that no press accounts were covering damage to nearby buildings. Which I find odd.”

“Here is an account from [a reader] on the ground in NYC, as of an hour ago. ‘It seems like we are getting the same limited [TV] shot on all networks…kind of a tight angle shot of damage of the base of the towers…no shots of damage to nearby buildings, including the gold reserve building. No one knows anything because the whole island [of Manhattan] has been shut down below 14th St. Camera crews not allowed to wander. If you live below 14th St. and you leave your apartment you need identification in order to get back in.’”

“The WTC took up several blocks in lower Manhattan. From the Liberty Street side, it is about 2 blocks to the Fed Reserve Bank of NY, at 33 Liberty St. Under the Bank, 5 levels down, in bedrock, is the $75 billion in gold.”

“The NY Federal Reserve keeps a facility for storing gold in NYC. It handles the gold reserves of about five dozen countries. $75 billion in a vault. About 1/4 of the world’s gold supply. At least, that’s the Fed Reserve press release on this, from 1999. This vault is located close to the WTC, where the towers fell. Is it [the vault] buried? Is the vault open? Anyone see Die Hard 3? A gigantic terrorist ‘diversion’ leading to the theft of all the gold in the vault.”

In the days following 9/11, I also wrote that there were no reports or video of troops guarding the NY Federal Reserve building. This was very curious. 75 billion in gold and no troops present? Nor have I found any video from that time, later posted on YouTube, showing troops around the Fed Reserve.

There is debate about whether a tunnel existed connecting the basement of the old WTC and the basement of the Federal Reserve. A 2010 piece at Cryptome indicates (with photos) that, during the post-9/11 WTC cleanup, an old railroad tunnel between the WTC and Fed Reserve basements was uncovered. (Diehard 3 featured such a tunnel and track.)

Was the Fed Reserve gold taken away after 9/11?

Or had it been taken before 9/11? Perhaps long before.

Clearly, in the immediate wake of 9/11, there was a concerted press effort to omit or limit mention of the Federal Reserve building.

On March 2, 2013, Tyler Durden, writing at zerohedge.com, in Why Is JPMorgan’s Gold Vault, The Largest In The World, Located Next To The New York Fed’s?, reported his finding that “the de facto largest private gold vault in the world [is] located across the street [from the NY Federal Reserve building] 90 feet below 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza.”

This private vault, at the same level as the NY Fed Reserve vault, could front right up against it.

The private vault belongs to JP Morgan Chase. It is larger than a football field.

Under circumstances deemed “essential,” it would appear to be easy to transfer an enormous amount of gold from the Fed Reserve to JP Morgan Chase.

Silverdoctors.com reports that a US Treasury Dept. audit of all US gold reserves inadvertently exposed a total figure of 466 tons, far less than previous claims of 8,133 tons.

Anyone trusting that US-held gold reserves are safe and sound needs to examine his own head.

HERE IS THE SECOND STORY—

Intimidation of 9/11 Commission witnesses: the “minders”

September 15, 2017

Let’s say you work for a large corporation, which is undertaking an internal investigation of possible corruption and fraud within the company.

You’re sitting in a room, and an employee of the company is interviewing you.

But next to you sits your boss. He hears all the questions, and he hears your answers. He takes notes on the interview. He answers questions you are supposed to answer. He is your “minder.”

Getting the picture?

On October 2, 2003, during the 9/11 Commission investigation into what happened on September 11, 2001, a memo was sent to two Commission attorneys, Daniel Marcus and Steven Dunne. It was ominously titled:

“Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses.”

The memo was written by members of the 9/11 Commission’s Team 2: Kevin Scheid, Lorry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman. There is no indication that any official subsequently acted on their highly serious charges:

“When we have asked witnesses [in interviews] about certain roles and responsibilities within the intelligence community, minders [in the room] have preempted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal policies and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the intelligence community’s actual functioning and witnesses’ view of their roles and responsibilities.”

“[M]inders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, [falsely] conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses.”

“[Minders now and then] answer questions directed at witnesses.”

“[Minders write] verbatim notes of witnesses’ statements [which] conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution.”

“[Minders making notes] facilitates [government] agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commission’s lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.”

“[T]he net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses.”

This key memo defines the term “cover-up.”

Take it even further. This Commission “minder procedure” would be analogous to you sitting in the witness box at a criminal trial of a mob boss. You’re testifying for the prosecution against the boss. But in the box, next to you, sits a mob assassin.

So you say: “I may have implied I was there on the night the defendant was planning…whatever it was. But I didn’t really say that. I was misinterpreted. I don’t recall being there. I’ve never met the defendant. I’m a retired investor living on a pension. I’m receiving treatment for early-onset dementia…”

Granted, the 9/11 Commission interviewers were certainly asking superficial questions of witnesses from the get-go. But if a government witness by chance saw something or heard something or knew something that would have exploded the official 9/11 story, with his minder there he was in a straitjacket.

And he’ll stay in a straitjacket.

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

Jon Rappoport

Leaks, fake news, and hidden agendas

Sep10

Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

by Jon Rappoport

September 10, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Thousands of articles have been written about the so-called Russian hack of the US election. The term “Russian hack” suggests the Russkies actually found a way to subvert the results of voting machines.

But of course, no convincing evidence has been presented to support such a charge. In fact, when you drill down a few inches below the surface, you find this charge instead: Russia hacked into email accounts and scooped up Hillary, DNC, and Podesta emails, and passed them to WikiLeaks, who then published them.

But no chain of evidence supporting THAT claim has been presented to the public, either. Even assuming the assertion is true, an important factor is intentionally being ignored: THE CONTENT OF THOSE LEAKED EMAILS.

In other words, if making all this content publicly available cost Hillary the election, and if no one is seriously questioning the authenticity of the emails, then THE TRUTH undermined Hillary. However, no major media outlet is reporting the story from that angle.

After all, how would this headline look? TRUE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS SINKS HILLARY CLINTON. Or this? HILLARY COULDN’T REFUTE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS AND SO SHE LOST THE ELECTION.

Those headlines would attract millions of clicks. Why weren’t they printed? Big news outlets didn’t want readers to think about the story from that perspective.

Why not? Why was the heavy emphasis put on the hacking of the emails? To obscure the importance of their content: for example, DNC collusion to obstruct and undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders.

“Let’s make the story all about WHO we claim stole the emails, rather than WHAT THE EMAILS CONTAINED.”

When a tape surfaced in which Trump spoke about women who were eager to have sex with famous men, did major media make the story all about who had the tape and who released it to the press? No.

Perhaps you remember this 2009 email-hack controversy. Wikipedia sums it up: “The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as “Climategate”) began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.”

One of the most revealing elements in the email exchanges: an obvious attempt to sideline scientific critics of global warming. But major media quickly began to reframe the story. It was all about illegal hacking, and investigations were launched to determine the criminal. The contents of the emails were brushed off as “proprietary work product” and “misleading” because “context was missing.”

Big news media decide whether to focus on the WHO or the WHAT, in each case. “Should we give primary coverage to the leaker or what he leaked?”

But that is not a choice you are making. It’s a choice being made for you.

Government agencies and spokespeople leak news to the press all the time. In these instances, of course, the press doesn’t turn around and launch a probe aimed at exposing the WHO and discovering WHY a particular tidbit was passed along for publication. Newspapers and television news departments simply run with the stories.

“Okay, Bob. Here’s a little gem for you. The White House and the Congress are cooperating on this one. In the next few days, a piece of legislation is going to be inserted into a current bill in the House. It’ll establish a working group to combat ‘fake news’ operations that confuse the public…”

Does Bob, the reporter, bite the hand that feeds him? Does he write a story accusing his source of trying to knock out independent news competitors? Of course not. Bob plays along.

Sometimes, both the WHO and the WHAT are censored. Such was the case with CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, who confessed publicly, in August of 2014, that he and colleagues at the CDC committed fraud in a 2004 study of the MMR vaccine, by covering up the vaccine’s connection to autism. Thompson admitted the study was cooked. The mainstream press put a chokehold on the story. Aside from scattered references, and official denials, the story faded quickly. The leaker AND what he was leaking remained in the shadows. Independent news outlets (such as this one) kept the story percolating.

You can find examples of government actors spying on Trump—in these instances, the press decides to focus on the WHAT, the content gained from spying; and downplays the WHO, the people who green-lighted the surveillance.

There is no logic in the mainstream approach to leaks and leakers. The WHO and WHAT are decided on the basis of serving official interests and agendas—and repressing the public interest.

The NSA, with its gargantuan reach into the lives of the population (including government officials), has enough content to keep the press busy for the next 50 years reporting NSA leaks; but the NSA decides when, and for what reasons, to hold back what it knows. Or to leak bits and pieces through cut-outs.

The leaks-game is played over and over, and the rules of the game are shifted, depending on unrevealed agendas. Who do we want to expose this time? Who do we want to come out looking like a winner? Who are our friends at the CIA supporting?

Editors are there to keep reporters in line and correct oversights. Not in so many words, an editor would let a reporter know: “You picked the wrong source this time, Bob. Your guy is telling a story we don’t want to promote. Find a different source with a better take, in line with our agenda to attack (fill in a name).”

That’s what the editor means. But he might simply say: “Bob, that source of yours…I don’t trust him anymore. I’ve been hearing odd things about him. Don’t use him for this piece.” The reporter gets the message.

This technique of casual ad hominem criticism and rumor even extends to the realm of science. In 1987, a prestigious molecular biologist, Peter Duesberg, “leaked” what many virologists privately knew: the evidence for HIV as the cause of AIDS was full of gaping holes. Duesberg published a paper in the journal, Cancer Research, exposing the con.

Overnight, a whisper-campaign against Duesberg spread through the research community—and into the press. “We always knew Duesberg was an odd duck. He likes publicity. He hates authority. He runs his mouth off. He doesn’t care about evidence. He’ll take a contrary position just to stand out.”

The game of leaks, sources, and fake news takes many shapes.

Welcome to mainstream news.

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

Jon Rappoport

Psychiatry in charge of gun control: utter disaster

Sep5

by Jon Rappoport

September 5, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

During the reign of Barack Obama, mass shootings prompted a White House declaration that community mental health centers would be created across America, in order to spot and treat persons before they committed violent acts. Now, under Trump, we are seeing a similar reaction, with a twist.

The Daily Caller, Aug 22, 2019: “Trump Admin Is Considering Using Amazon Echo And Apple Watch To Determine If Citizens Should Own A Gun”

“The Trump administration is considering a proposal that would use Google, Amazon and Apple to collect data on users who exhibit characteristics of mental illness that could lead to violent behavior, The Washington Post reported Thursday.”

“The proposal is part of an initiative to create a Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA), which would be located inside the Health and Human Services Department, the report notes, citing sources inside the administration. The new agency would have a separate budget and the president would be responsible for appointing its director.”

“HARPA would develop ‘breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence,’ according to a copy of the proposal. ‘A multi-modality solution, along with real-time data analytics, is needed to achieve such an accurate diagnosis’.”

“The document lists several technologies that could be employed to help collect information, including Apple Watches, Amazon Echo and Google Home. Geoffrey Ling, the lead scientific adviser on HARPA, told reporters Thursday the plan would require enormous amounts of data and ‘scientific rigor.’”

Translation: Use all available resources to spy on Americans; and by deploying psychiatric definitions of mental disorders, somehow intercede before potentially violent individuals can legally obtain a weapon. Whether or not you favor gun control, creating this new federal agency would be on the order of injecting poisons in people to prevent poisoning.

Why? Because some of the most popular psychiatric drugs, given for “mental disorders,” cause people to go over the edge and commit violent acts, including murder. Once diagnosed, an uninformed person is at the mercy of psychiatrists who refuse to admit what their drugs are creating.

NOTE: Withdrawing from the drugs without expert supervision can result in effects which are even worse than those resulting from taking the drugs.

Here is an excerpt from my 1999 white paper, “Why Do They Do It? School shootings Across America.”:

The massacre at Columbine High School took place on April 20, 1999. Astonishingly, for eight days after the tragedy, during thousands of hours of prime-time television coverage, virtually no one mentioned the word “drugs.” Then the issue was opened. Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine, was on at least one drug.

The NY Times of April 29, 1999, and other papers reported that Harris was rejected from enlisting in the Marines for medical reasons. A friend of the family told the Times that Harris was being treated by a psychiatrist. And then several sources told the Washington Post that the drug prescribed as treatment was Luvox, manufactured by Solvay.

In two more days, the “drug-issue” was gone.

Luvox is of the same class as Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil. They are labeled SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). They attempt to alleviate depression by changing brain-levels of the natural substance serotonin. Luvox has a slightly different chemical configuration from Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft, and it was approved by the FDA for obsessive-compulsive disorder, although many doctors apparently prescribe it for depression.

Prozac is the wildly popular Eli Lilly antidepressant which has been linked to suicidal and homicidal actions. It is now given to young children. Again, its chemical composition is very close to Luvox, the drug that Harris took.

Dr. Peter Breggin, the eminent psychiatrist and author (Toxic Psychiatry, Talking Back to Prozac, Talking Back to Ritalin), told me, “With Luvox there is some evidence of a four-percent rate for mania in adolescents. Mania, for certain individuals, could be a component in grandiose plans to destroy large numbers of other people. Mania can go over the hill to psychosis.”

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo is a psychiatrist in private practice in Washington DC. He is the president of the Washington chapter of the American Society of Psychoanalytic Physicians. Tarantolo states that “all the SSRIs [including Prozac and Luvox] relieve the patient of feeling. He becomes less empathic, as in `I don’t care as much,’ which means `It’s easier for me to harm you.’ If a doctor treats someone who needs a great deal of strength just to think straight, and gives him one of these drugs, that could push him over the edge into violent behavior.”

In Arianna Huffington’s syndicated newspaper column of July 9, 1998, Dr. Breggin states, “I have no doubt that Prozac can cause or contribute to violence and suicide. I’ve seen many cases. In a recent clinical trial, 6 percent of the children became psychotic on Prozac. And manic psychosis can lead to violence.”

A study from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Dr. Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

Other studies:

“Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al. It reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”

September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.

The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics reveals a strange fact. It states that Ritalin [given for ADHD] is “structurally related to amphetamines … Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as those of the amphetamines.” In other words, the only clear difference is legality. And the effects, in layman’s terms, are obvious. You take speed and, sooner or later, you start crashing. You become agitated, irritable, paranoid, delusional, aggressive.

In his book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox, Paxil] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.” Children are frequently medicated with this combination, and when we highlight such effects as aggression, psychosis, and emotional instability, it is obvious that the result is pointing toward the very real possibility of violence.

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

Scarnati listed over a hundred adverse affects of Ritalin and indexed published journal articles for each of these symptoms.

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

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

Other ADHD medications, which also have a chemical profile similar to amphetamines, would be expected to produce some of the same effects listed above.

The ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News publishes the following warning in bold letters: “Do Not Try to Abruptly Stop Taking Psychiatric Drugs. When trying to withdraw from many psychiatric drugs, patients can develop serious and even life-threatening emotional and physical reactions…Therefore, withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done under clinical supervision…”

—end of excerpts from my 1999 white paper on school shootings and psychiatric drugs—

There is a problem. It is chilling. Pharmaceutical companies, which manufacture drug after drug for “mental disorders,” are doing everything they can to cover up the drugs’ connection to violence.

They use their lawyers and PR people—and their influence over the press—to scrub the connection.

And now, one typical, disturbing, official reaction to every new mass shooting is: build more community mental health facilities. Obama was prominent in this regard, after Sandy Hook in 2012. The implication? More drug prescriptions for more people; thus, more violent consequences.

I’ll close with another excerpt from my 1999 report. It is the tragic account of Julie Marie Meade (one account of many you can find at ssristories.org (also here)):

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo has written about Julie Marie Meade. In a column for the ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News, “Children and Prozac: First Do No Harm,” Tarantolo describes how Julie Meade, in November of 1996, called 911, “begging the cops to come and shoot her. And if they didn’t do it quickly, she would do it to herself. There was also the threat that she would shoot them as well.”

The police came within a few minutes, “5 of them to be exact, pumping at least 10 bullets into her head and torso,” as she waved a gun around.

Tarantolo remarks that a friend of Julie said Julie “had plans to make the honor roll and go to college. He [the friend] had also observed her taking all those pills.” What pills? Tarantolo called the Baltimore medical examiner, and spoke with Dr. Martin Bullock, who was on a fellowship at that office. Bullock said, “She had been taking Prozac for four years.”

Tarantolo asked Bullock, “Did you know that Prozac has been implicated in impulsive de novo violence and suicidalness?” Bullock said he was not aware of this.

Tarantolo is careful to point out, “Violent and suicidal behavior have been observed both early (a few weeks) and late (many months) in treatment with Prozac.”

The November 23rd, 1996, Washington Post reported the Julie Meade death by police shooting. The paper mentioned nothing about Prozac.

Therefore, readers were left in the dark. What could explain this girl’s bizarre and horrendous behavior?

The answer was there in plain sight. But the Post refused to make it known.

Mainstream psychiatrists would certainly be in charge of any new Trump program to “predict violent individuals” before they obtain a gun or commit heinous acts. The program wouldn’t just fail. It would increase violence.

Two questions always pop up when I write a critique of psychiatry. The first one is: psychiatric researchers are doing a massive amount of work studying brain function. They do have tests.

Yes, experimental tests. But NONE of those tests are contained in the DSM, the psychiatric bible, as the basis of the definition of ANY mental disorder. If the tests were conclusive, they would be heralded in the DSM. They aren’t.

The second question is: if all these mental disorders are fiction, why are so many people saddled with problems? Why are some people off the rails? Why are they crazy?

The list of potential answers is very long. A real practitioner would focus on one patient at a time and try to discover what has affected him to such a marked degree. For example:

Severe nutritional deficiency. Toxic dyes and colors in processed food. Ingestion of pesticides and herbicides. Profound sensitivities to certain foods. The ingestion of toxic pharmaceuticals. Life-altering damage as a result of vaccines. Exposure to environmental chemicals. Heavy physical and emotional abuse in the home or at school. Battlefield stress and trauma (also present in certain neighborhoods). Prior head injury. Chronic infection. Alcohol and street drugs. Debilitating poverty.

Other items could be added.

Psychiatry is: fake, fraud, pseudoscience from top to bottom. It’s complete fiction dressed up as fact.

But the obsessed devotees of science back away from this. They close their eyes. If a “branch of knowledge” as extensive as psychiatry is nothing more than an organized delusion, what other aspect of science might likewise be parading as truth, when it is actually mere paper blowing in the wind?

And yet, the Trump administration, following the same general game plan as the Obama administration, is seriously considering the creation of a whole new federal agency that will somehow use “psychiatric knowledge” (an oxymoron), as a guide, to carry out new forms of surveillance on the whole population and intercede, when individuals with “mental disorders” try to buy a gun in order to commit a violent crime.

Not only will this strategy utterly fail, it will, through the prescription of violence-inducing drugs, make the tragedies expand and multiply.

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

Jon Rappoport

Scuzzball Twitter Inc.

Aug21

by Jon Rappoport

August 21, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Apparently, Mitch McConnell doesn’t support more restrictive gun control. Therefore, protests…

Earlier this month, The Washington Post and other outlets reported that Twitter has locked Senator Mitch McConnell’s re-election Twitter account, until he deletes a video showing protesters outside his house shouting threats.

(Update: After politcal pressure from Mitch’s campaign and some of his supporters, Twitter has since unlocked the account and restored the tweet. “It shouldn’t have taken an avalanche of outrage from across the country to stop Silicon Valley from launching an effort to silence conservatives like the majority leader of the United States Senate in the first place,” said Kevin Golden, Mitch’s campaign manager in a statement.)

One of those protesters was identified, by the Courier Journal, as a Black Lives Matter member, Chanelle Helm, who shouted, “Just stab the mothefucker [McConnell] in the heart, please.”

Twitter, which makes no attempt to curtail the phrase “massacre Mitch” on its platform, had wanted the McConnell video taken down because it “violated our violent threats policy, specifically threats involving physical safety…”

How much bullshit does Twitter think it can get away with? Apparently, a mountain of it.

The “violent threats policy” is aimed at individuals or groups that promote their attacks as a way of gaining advocates and publicizing their actions. THIS video was posted by McConnell, who was the TARGET of a violent threat. Anyone who fails to see the difference should redo their education, starting with the first grade.

Let’s see. Suppose a hundred people gathered outside the headquarters of the FBI and shouted violent threats against the Bureau? And suppose the Bureau posted a tweet about it with video? Do you think Twitter would lock the FBI’s account?

Suppose a few people stood outside a building where Barack Obama was giving a speech and shouted violent threats at him, and suppose a Twitter user posted video of THAT? Do you think Twitter would suspend his account?

Twitter’s initial ruling in the McConnell situation implied that any posted video urging violent action anywhere in the world in any context should be deleted. Such video couldn’t possibly be news. It couldn’t possibly be a response from a target of violent threats. No. Such video is a “violation of standards.”

Actually, Twitter Inc. is violating a standard that any reasonable person would advocate: DON’T DEFEND YOUR BIAS WITH HALF-COCKED LIES. DON’T CONTRIBUTE TO DESTROYING THE 1ST AMENDMENT.

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

Jon Rappoport

Lone shooters, terrorism, and semantics

Aug15

by Jon Rappoport

August 15, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

This is a big one. It’s so big, in fact, that many people will want to turn their backs on it and pretend it doesn’t and couldn’t exist. But it’s real. It does exist.

No killing of innocent people can be called a “negligible statistic.” But what label do you apply when an entire government stands by and does nothing, while millions of people die?

A supposed lone shooter motivated by political ideology kills 20 people, and this is called a terrorist act. But what category do you apply when a government enables a monopoly that destroys millions of lives?

Don’t bother seeking answers from the mainstream press. They play dumb. They pretend to be clueless. They avoid these millions of deaths, as if they’re not worthy of news coverage.

Doesn’t that sound strange? The press, which constantly sniffs the air for stories that will rouse public interest, ignores a force that is routinely killing millions of people. Why? Because that very force pays huge sums of money to the press.

So let’s start here, with one of the most shocking mainstream reviews ever published in a medical journal. The date is July 26, 2000. The journal is the Journal of the American Medical Association. The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield, a respected and revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Impeccable mainstream credentials up and down the line. Starfield’s review is titled, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” She concludes:

The US medical system kills 225,000 people a year. 106,000 deaths from FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 deaths as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals.

Extrapolate those numbers out to a decade: that’s 2.25 MILLION deaths.

In an email interview I did with Dr. Starfield about a year before she died, I asked her whether the US government had undertaken any overall program to remedy this ongoing catastrophe, and whether anyone from the federal government had contacted her to consult on such a program. To both questions, she answered: NO.

Keep in mind that the US federal government, through agencies like the FDA, the CDC, and their parent agency, Health and Human Services, has extensive power over the US medical system. In fact, the FDA, through its routine manipulations and regulations, assures that the conventional mainstream medical system in America remains top dog; and competition from what has been called alternative or natural health is reduced as much as possible. It might interest you to know that, when a pharmaceutical company wants the FDA to review a new drug and certify it as safe and effective for public use, the pharmaceutical company pays a fee to the FDA. Dr. Starfield pointed this out to me. Therefore, in a real sense, the FDA works FOR drug companies.

I mention all this to make sure you understand that the federal government could, if it wanted to, undertake a sweeping investigation of the US medical system, from top to bottom, and face up to the ongoing of tragedy of millions of lives lost. The federal government could come down mightily on the medical system and do everything possible to eradicate this holocaust.

But the government doesn’t. It doesn’t do that. It stands by while millions die. Year after year after year.

I could cite other findings that back up Dr. Starfield’s published analysis, and I have, in other articles. Here, I’ll keep it simple. The government is entirely culpable.

Occasionally, I receive an email from a reader that goes this way: “I showed a friend your article and he said, what about all the lives the medical system saves? Why doesn’t Rappoport factor those in?”

To which I offer this. Suppose you created an invention—let’s call it X—which, for the sake of argument, we’ll assume saves many lives. But you also notice it kills many people—2.25 million people per decade. Would you simply stand back and assert that, on balance, you’re doing a fine job? Would you? Or would you do your very best to eliminate all those deaths, which are occurring as a result of your X? To put it another way, would you seek to be humane, or would you be a vast criminal?

As I started out, above, no killing of an innocent person is a negligible statistic, whether you call it an act of terrorism or something else. But what do you call it when the awesome power of an entire government is silent and passive, for decades, while the very monopoly it is enabling destroys millions of lives?

Depraved indifference? Negligent homicide? Manslaughter?

I call it mass murder.

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

Jon Rappoport

Elite news anchors are gone

Jul1

The ship is going down

by Jon Rappoport

July 1, 2019

There are many reasons why viewers are deserting mainstream news. This article is about one vital reason that has been overlooked…

Elite television news anchors are absolutely essential to the hypnotic delivery of fake news. They have always been a mainstay of the mind control operation.

From the early days of television, there has been a parade of anchors/actors with know-how—the right intonation, the right edge of authority, the parental feel, the ability to execute seamless blends from one piece of deception to the next:

John Daly, Douglas Edwards, Ed Murrow, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Harry Reasoner, Water Cronkite, Dan Rather, and more recently, second-stringers—Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelley.

They’re all gone.

Now we have Lester Holt, David Muir, and the newly appointed Norah O’Donnell. They couldn’t sell water in the desert.

Lester Holt is a cadaverous timid presence on-air, whose major journalistic achievement thus far is interrupting Donald Trump 41 times during a presidential debate; David Muir has the gravitas of a Sears underwear model; Norah O’Donnell, long-term, will have the energy needed to illuminate one miniature Xmas-tree light bulb.

The network news trance is falling apart.

The networks have no authoritative anchor-fathers waiting in the wings. They don’t breed them and bring them up in the minor leagues anymore.

Instead, armies of little Globalists, and ideologues who don’t realize they’re working for Globalists, have been infiltrating the news business. At best, they’re incompetent.

This is one reason why mainstream news has been imploding.

When gross liars don’t have hypnotic effect, they don’t have anything.

And lately, things have gotten even worse for the mainstream. Their ceaseless attacks on Trump are backfiring. More members of the public are seeing through the puerile throw-ANYTHING-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach; and more important, the style of these attacks is breaking the time-honored rhythms and pace of traditional news presentation, and thus are failing to put the viewing audience into passive brain-states.

Fundamental and tested means for trance-induction are going out the window. When you add in rude and contentious interviews and thinly disguised editorializing by “news reporters” who have no business being within a mile of a broadcast studio, who spout random shots of venom, the news-production techniques that enable an ongoing illusion of oceanic authority collapse like magnetic fields that have been suddenly switched off.

The selective mood lighting, the restful blue colors on the set, the inter-cutting of graphics and B-roll footage, the flawless shifts to reporters in far-flung places…it’s as if all these supporting features have suddenly been overcome by actors in a stage play who are abruptly stepping out of character. The spell is broken.

Humpty-Dumpty is off the wall and lying in pieces on the floor.

Elite mainstream news is committing suicide. And in a fatuous attempt to save themselves, they are trying a democratic approach. Anchors are sharing more on-air minutes with gaggles of other reporters. But this is counter-productive in the extreme. The News has always meant one face and one authority and one voice and one tying-together of all broadcast elements. It’s as if, in a hypnotherapist’s office, the therapist decides to bring in colleagues to help render the patient into an alpha-state.

Network news executives are clueless. News directors are clueless. The whole lot of them are too young and too foolish to remember what once made news dominate the public mind.

Plus they are swimming in shark-infested waters. The sharks are independent media.

Bottom-line?

This is a cause for celebration.

The movie called fake reality is packaged rolls of footage in the back of a very large truck moving slowly toward a graveyard.

The elite standard has always been: can we pacify the viewing audience and maintain them in a helpless condition? Now the answer is leaning further toward NO on both counts.

As I say, information mind control, as delivered by elite television news, depends entirely on the elite anchor. His modulated voice and presence and delivery are the glue that holds the illusion together. If by some miracle, the news bosses could raise Walter Cronkite, “the father of our country,” from the dead and put him back in the chair, they might have an outside chance of re-establishing their dominance. But too many years have gone by; years of unaccomplished anchors. The horse is out of the barn, the cat is out of the bag.

This is why major news outlets have been appealing to social media/big tech for help, AKA censorship of independent voices. But this desperate attempt is failing, too.

It is crashing on the rocks of vast, uneven, open decentralization of information.

One veteran news director told me several years ago, “We don’t have the stars [elite anchors] anymore. The star system is dead. The same thing happened to Hollywood. Now it’s happening to us. You could comb all the local news outlets in America, and you wouldn’t find one face and voice who could really carry the freight. They’ve vanished. The up and coming people are lame and weak. We’ve made them that way. It’s some cockeyed standard of equality we’ve internalized. And now we’re paying the price.”

Yes, indeed.

They’ve punched holes in their own ship.

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

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Press Fraud

The rise and fall of CNN, the most busted name in news

The basics of a staged bioterror attack

Opioid drug crisis: could the whole US Congress be impeached?

My memories from the fake news business

9/11: The Gold and The Minders

Leaks, fake news, and hidden agendas

Psychiatry in charge of gun control: utter disaster

Scuzzball Twitter Inc.

Lone shooters, terrorism, and semantics

Elite news anchors are gone