Facebook blocks Jon Rappoport’s articles

by Jon Rappoport

February 17, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

I became aware of the block and censorship a few days ago, soon after I wrote and published the article: “Ruthless State of the Union: current crime boss speaks.”

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2013/02/13/the-ruthless-state-of-the-union-the-current-crime-boss-speaks/

That article was about Obama, and it was also about every president as far back as Nixon. It mainly described the absurdities implied by Obama’s vague notion that “we all have to work together.”

Readers began letting me know they couldn’t Facebook-share my articles. This became: no one could share any article that included: “blog.nomorefakenews.com.”

As a reporter for 30 years, I know a little about the 1^st Amendment. Criticizing the president, or the medical cartel, or any number of other institutions I’ve taken on is par for the course. If some Facebook readers are marking these articles spam or abusive, they should think again.

Lots of people these days believe it’s part of the game to try to censor their perceived opponents. “Why debate or even allow a different voice? Let’s just block it out.”

Blocking the FB posting of my article links could also be part of the Facebook management purge of political activists, particularly those who defend the 2^nd Amendment and private gun ownership. This happened to a number of people at infowars.com last December, and it also happened at Natural News.

At the moment, I have a workaround in place, and my site and blog are working just fine, but the basic wider issue of blocking dissident opinion isn’t going away.

Some people have pointed out that Facebook is a private company, and therefore it has the right to define acceptable speech any way it wants to. This may be true, but blocking and censoring political viewpoints is a very bad policy. Claiming, for example, that Facebook is only for making and communicating with friends is a cop-out. If friends can’t share information about political realities, it’s a hollow situation.

Many reporters, including myself, came to the Internet because we were sick and tired of trying to convince editors at newspapers and magazines that our work should see the light of day. Editors routinely shot down (and still do) article ideas that wandered too far off the mainstream reservation.

That was the censorship we were leaving in the dust. Now, here it is again.

Every day, I read articles I don’t like. The idea of somehow censoring them would be absurd.

In this country (and other countries), we have people who believe in and support free speech. Then we have True Believers, whose cause in their minds outdistances any considerations about liberty. They would trample liberty at the drop of a hat to make the world over in their image. Finally, we have organizations who enter into covert political alliances to advance their own interests. These organizations also care nothing about the 1^st Amendment.

Where is Facebook in all of this? Are they just a front for gathering personal information on a billion people? Are they just another wing of the vast surveillance apparatus that is operating from a playbook that wants androids instead of thinking citizens?

It’s time for the bosses at Facebook to step out into the light and explain, in detail, exactly how they block information and on what grounds. How are reports of spam and “abusive content” processed by their algorithms? What is their position on the 1^st Amendment?

Failure to make this clear is evidence of purposeful concealment.

Perhaps an article I wrote and published last August, “Facebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the tanking IPO,” will help put this situation into perspective:

The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.

Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.

Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”

That’s not the only connection between Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.

With these CIA/Darpa connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who could fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?

But now the Facebook stock has tanked. On Friday, August 17, it weighed in at half its initial IPO price. For the first time since the IPO, venture-capital backers were legally permitted to sell off their shares, and some did, at a loss.

Articles have begun appearing that question Zuckerberg’s ability to manage his company. “Experts” are saying he should import a professional team to run the business side of things and step away.

All this, despite the fact that Facebook’s first posted revenue as a public company has exceeded analysts’ predictions, according to the LA Times.

This has the earmarks of classic shakeout and squeeze play. It’s how heavy hitters gain control of a company. First, they drive down the price of the stock, then they trade it at low levels that discourage and demoralize the public and even semi-insiders. As the stock continues to tank, they quietly buy up as much of it as they can. Finally, when the price hits a designated rock bottom, they shoot it up all the way to new highs and win big.

And they hold enough shares to exert more control over the company itself.

That is how Facebook will survive. Zuckerberg’s grip on Facebook will loosen.

The company is too important as a data-mining asset of the intelligence community to let it fall into disrepair and chaos. The CIA and its cutouts will save it and gain more power over it. It’s what they’ve wanted all along.

From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.

CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a standard operation for agencies like the CIA.

When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.

Now it’s time for Zuckerberg to pass the baton to his handlers, so they can maximize the economics of Facebook and utilize it to spy even more extensively.

The media will play along, pretending the eventual upswing-recovery of Facebook stock happens for fundamental reasons connected to the company’s “better level of performance.” The media take this approach to every stock and every company, to avoid letting the public know how massive manipulation actually runs these trading markets.

End of the August 2012 article.

People might ask, “Then why, Rappoport, do you use Facebook at all?”

That’s a legitimate question. My answer is simple. Since I began working as a reporter in 1982, I’ve used every possible opportunity and venue to put my information out there.

There’s a big difference between that and overtly supporting all those venues.

When I admire a writer, broadcaster, or organization, I say so, and I have. Even then, that doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything they say or stand for.

That’s a distinction with a meaning. It’s exactly the distinction I’m asking Facebook to clarify: what will they allow, whether they agree with it or not?

Do I expect them to spell it out in sufficient detail? No. But then that means something, too.

None of this will change one iota of what I write or say.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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

Is Christopher Dorner another psychiatric killer?

By Jon Rappoport

February 11, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Accepting on faith any part of the official scenario in this case is risky and ill-advised, but assuming Dorner is guilty of committing murders, his highly publicized manifesto may hold a clue.

Buried in the text, here is one of his statements. As usual, the major media are ignoring it completely:

“If possible, I want my brain preserved for science/research to study the effects of severe depression on an individual’s brain. Since 6/26/08 when I was relieved of duty and 1/2/09 when I was terminated I have been afflicted with severe depression. I’ve had two CT scans during my lifetime that are in my medical record at Kaiser Pemanente. Both are from concussions resulting from playing football. The first was in high school, 10/96. The second was in college and occurred in 10/99. Both were conducted at Kaiser Permanente hospitals in LA/Orange County. These two CT scans should give a good baseline for my brain activity before severe depression began in late 2008.”

So the question is, did Dorner ever see a doctor for his depression? Was he diagnosed? Was he given one of the SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.)?

Either taking one of these drugs or withdrawing from it can and does cause violent behavior, including suicide and homicide. This is well established from both reports and studies. (See the extensive reports at ssristories.com, and consult the work of Dr. Peter Breggin at www.breggin.com and Dr. David Healy at www.davidhealy.org.)

No doubt, the LAPD and other investigating agencies know a great deal about Christopher Dorner’s medical history, but they aren’t saying anything. This suggests the situation in both the Aurora and Sandy Hook massacres, where no public statements have been made about psychiatric drugs the accused shooters were prescribed.

In Dorner’s case, his possible psychiatric history doesn’t affect the veracity of his accusations against the LAPD—which is a separate matter for independent investigation—but it certainly is relevant to his actions.

If Dorner indeed has killed people as part of a plan to enact revenge on his former employers, those actions and that plan could be fueled by antidepressant use or withdrawal.

In 1999, shortly after the Columbine school massacre, I interviewed Dr. Peter Breggin, and he confirmed that an antidepressant like Luvox, which one of the shooters, Eric Harris, had been taking can stimulate the desire to “make grandiose plans for mass destruction.”

Contrary to pronouncements by psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies, the whole theory about depression stemming from an imbalance of serotonin in the brain is an unproven hypothesis. And the antidepressant drugs, claimed to selectively target serotonin levels, actually have wildly unpredictable effects on brain neurotransmitters.

CT scans and other brain-imagining technology do not reveal definitive changes that can be attributed to the onset of depression or any other so-called mental disorder. The whole “science” of psychiatric diagnosis, as I’ve demonstrated in several articles, is nothing more than supposition and pseudo-analysis.

But if Dorner sought medical or psychiatric help for what he called “severe depression,” it’s almost certain he would have been diagnosed and prescribed one of the highly dangerous drugs that can cause a brainstorm and ensuing violence.

It is exactly this volatile situation that President Obama and other gun-control advocates are encouraging and implementing through their new program of expanding mental-health services across America: more treatment, more drugs, more murders.

Dorner’s stated history of concussions could also play a role in his actions, even years after the fact—-just as dosing with antidepressants can result in violence long after a person has stopped taking them.

As I’ve written before, every time a mass shooting occurs, pharmaceutical companies make their presence known behind the scenes, with the goals of covering up the shooter’s psychiatric-drug history, blacking out the name of the doctor who prescribed the drugs, and keeping media exposure to a bare minimum.

On their part, the police and other investigating agencies cooperate in full, because they don’t want to tangle with the psychiatric profession. They use psychiatric experts in court to make their cases. They don’t have the professional clout to counter medical claims that the drugs are safe and effective. And the role of psychiatric drugs in committed murders would only serve to let suspects off the hook.

If there is a psychiatrist who prescribed SSRI antidepressants to Christopher Dorner (just as with James Holmes and Adam Lanza), he’s keeping very quiet. The last thing he wants is exposure as the doctor who treated a killer.

Meanwhile, in court cases all over America, the plea of non-guilty by reason of insanity is being used as a cover for: committed murder because he was prescribed psychiatric drugs. Christopher Dorner may well be one of these cases.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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

Having trouble getting on this email list?

Hi, it’s Jon. A few of you have tried to get on the free email list and run into that little thingo where you have to type in letters that are distorted, to prove you aren’t an alien from Andromeda.

Turns out that security feature, called CAPTCHA, automatically kicks in when a lot of people are signing up. A lot of people are signing up these days.

I’ve talked to Constant Contact about it and they’re aware some people have a problem with it. I’ve had problems with it when I run into it.

So here’s a solution. After giving it a good try (and please give it a good try), if you can’t get by it, just email qjrconsulting at gmail dot com, and someone will put you on the list right away.

We won’t do anything else with your email address. We’ll just get you on the list, so you can receive my articles in your Inbox.

Thanks, and sorry for any inconvenience you may have experienced.

Jon

HELLO? OBAMA DIDN’T GIVE YOU YOUR CELL PHONE

(IN CASE THAT’S WHY YOU’RE VOTING FOR HIM)

by Jon Rappoport

September 29, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Maybe somebody inside Obama’s re-election campaign is spreading disinfo about the president giving away free cell phones, but if so, it isn’t true.

Poor people aren’t getting free phones or discounted service fees from the Obama administration.

People voting for Obama because they have a free cell phone are way off. They should try voting instead for a giant telecom company—only that company isn’t running for president.

Since 1997, people below the poverty line have been getting discounted phone service, because big telecom companies have been making it possible, by charging everybody else a few bucks extra on their monthly phone bills. That’s how it works.

The basic program is called Lifeline, a branch of a non-profit company, Universal Service Administrative Company, set up by the FCC in 1997, as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed by Congress. That’s how the poor get discounted phone bills.

The Constitutionality of the federal government setting up a non-profit company is another story for another time. Suffice it to say, it should be illegal.

Free cell phones for the poor come from SafeLink which, according to FactCheck.org, is operated by America Movil, a giant wireless company. SafeLink, however, is paid for by that non-profit the FCC set up, Universal Service Administrative Company, which in turn gets its money from the big telecoms, who charge everybody who isn’t poor a few extra bucks on their phone bills. Got it?

Nothing to do with Obama. There is no Obama Phone.

But what a windfall for the Obama campaign when poor people believe the president gave them their phones. In Ohio alone, a key election state, there are now a million people who have some kind of discounted phone service.

Are government-funded community groups and community organizers out there, across America, recruiting poor people and telling them they can get Obama Phones? There are now 16.5 million people in the US receiving discounted phone services. Between 20 and 30 million Americans are eligible. That’s quite a nice election-vote bump.

“Obama re-elected! It was the phones, pollsters say.”

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

PROZAC? ZOLOFT? PAXIL? LEXAPRO? DID ONE OF THESE DRUGS DRIVE THE EMPIRE STATE SHOOTER TO COMMIT MURDER?

By Jon Rappoport

August 25, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Jeffrey Johnson, a disgruntled ex-employee of a Manhattan company, Hazan Imports, is accused of killing a former co-worker before engaging police in a shootout that left two people dead and nine wounded at the Empire State Building.

In assessing possible reasons for the attack, police and FBI will omit one glaring possibility: Johnson’s festering resentment was ignited and driven over the edge by an SSRI antidepressant: Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.

On September 14, 1989, in Louisville, Kentucky, another disgruntled ex-employee, Joseph T Wesbecker, entered the premises of his former company, Standard Gravure, killed eight people, and wounded 12. He then killed himself.

A month earlier, Wesbecker had started on a course of Prozac. Eventually, the people he wounded, and families of the deceased, filed a lawsuit against Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, claiming that the drug had pushed Wesbecker into murder.

At the time, Lilly was facing a number of potential lawsuits on this very issue, and the Wesbecker case was crucial to establishing a precedent. Lilly knew Prozac could induce violence. If they lost the Wesbecker case, they would face a flood of similar court actions and a loss of business and reputation.

An instructive article, “Protecting Prozac,” by Michael Grinfeld, in the December 1998 California Lawyer, describes the astonishing Wesbecker trial.

Grinfeld details a set of maneuvers involving attorney Paul Smith, the plaintiffs’ lead counsel.

After what many people thought was a very weak attack on Lilly by lawyer Smith, the jury came back in five hours with an easy verdict favoring Lilly and Prozac.

Grinfeld writes, “Lilly’s defense attorneys predicted [their victorious] verdict would be the death knell for [anti-]Prozac litigation.”

“Rumors began to circulate that [prior to the trial] attorney Smith had [illegally] made several oral agreements with Lilly concerning the evidence that would be presented, the structure of a postverdict settlement, and the potential resolution of Smith’s other [anti-Prozac] cases.”

In other words, the rumors said: This lawyer made a deal with Lilly to present a weak attack, to omit evidence damaging to Prozac, so that the jury would find Lilly innocent of all charges. In return for this, the case would be settled secretly, with Lilly paying out monies to Smith’s clients. In this way, Lilly would avoid the exposure of a public settlement, and through the favorable verdict would discourage other potential plaintiffs from suing over Prozac.

The rumors congealed. The judge in the case, John Potter, asked lawyers on both sides if “money had changed hands.” He wanted to know if the fix was in. The lawyers said no money had been paid.

Judge Potter didn’t stop there. In April 1995, Grinfeld notes, “In court papers, Potter wrote that he was surprised that the plaintiffs’ attorneys [Smith] hadn’t introduced evidence that Lilly had been charged criminally for failing to report deaths from another of its drugs to the Food and Drug Administration.”

Judge Potter alleged that “Lilly sought to buy not just the verdict, but the court’s judgment as well.”

In 1996, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued an opinion on all this: “… there was a serious lack of candor with the trial court and there may have been deception, bad faith conduct, abuse of the judicial process or perhaps even fraud.”

After the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the state attorney general’s office, the whole matter dribbled away, and then resurfaced in a different form, in another venue. Finally, the original judgment in the case was allowed to stand. Lilly had won the battle.

It’s important to note that the violence-inducing effects of Prozac apply, as well, to the other SSRI antidepressants, such as Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, and Lexapro.

After commenting on some of the adverse effects of the antidepressant drug Prozac, psychiatrist Peter Breggin notes, “From the initial studies, it was also apparent that a small percentage of Prozac patients became psychotic.”

Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a time. Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.” She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”

Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”

In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin mentions that the Donahue show (Feb. 28, 1991) “put together a group of individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response confirmed the problem.”

Breggin also cites a troubling study from the February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) which reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed `intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment.’ The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding `suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”

An earlier 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 akathisia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.”

Breggin comments that akathisia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathisia 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, ‘Akathisia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

Akathisia can also occur after taking a non-SSRI antidepressant, Wellbutrin.

California Lawyer magazine, in its December 1998 article, “Protecting Prozac,” mentions highly qualified critics of Prozac: “David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events. An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”

There are 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 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.

In the current case of the Empire State shooter, why don’t police and district attorneys immediately check on the accused’s psychiatric-drug status? Why isn’t that right at the top of the list?

Because, in a crime of murder, how many cops and prosecutors want to go to war with “psychiatric experts” and drug companies?

As time passes, fewer and fewer.

It may appear that the days of accusing psychiatric drugs of inducing murder are over, because “we have better knowledge now,” or “the newer drugs are safer.” That’s what the drug companies would like you to assume. But the truth is, the drugs are just as dangerous. The law-enforcement community has decided to take a pass, though. They would rather keep blinders on.

However, the configuration and unfolding of the James Holmes case in Aurora is going to ignite new fires, despite the police and FBI wanting to leave the lid on.

Warning: Sudden withdrawal from any psychiatric drug can be highly dangerous to the patient. See www.breggin.com for advice on this subject.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

MONEY AND THE DESTRUCTION OF NATIONS

By Jon Rappoport

April 3, 2012

“The American people have been bamboozled on two counts. First, the Republic that was established in the Constitution was stolen from them, and what eventually replaced it was a conquering American Empire. Then the Empire was integrated into Globalism, which meant that America was gone altogether, because the ultimate plan is for a single world-nation.” — Ellis Medavoy, retired propaganda master, interviewed by Jon Rappoport in THE MATRIX REVEALED.

In the last ten years, the American people have been treated to an intensification of The Democracy Op.

It’s really nothing new. It’s been going on for a long time, in various incarnations. But the pace has stepped up. A diplomat once described it to me bluntly as “crap on toast.”

We are supposed to believe that in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Uganda, Iran, and other places, the so-called uprisings of the people—aided modestly and strategically and compassionately by our own government—have tried and somehow failed, so far, to bring about a genuine Constitutional revolution of freedom.

But, we are told, this establishment of freedom abroad IS the US government’s fervent foreign-policy wish and aim.

Well, no. The truth is somewhat more sordid. The foreign policy of the American government, in opposition to the will of the American people (were they to understand what is going on), is to open markets for American corporations and military bases and platforms for our Armed Forces.

And somewhere in the upper mists of this expansive operation, there are deals to be worked out, so that the final winners will be multinational players (corporate and finance), and what would otherwise have been American Empire will merge and blend with the ambitions of elites from other countries, and we will have de facto global management of the planet.

The good news is that the upper-echelon Globalists aren’t quite as smart as they think they are. They create their own problems and they keep trying to solve them, and the worse the problems are, the more desperate they become for answers.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the money game. Why do I say that? Because an internal contradiction rises like a mad flame, in the middle of their plans to bankrupt governments and make populations poorer.

Among the elite global players are multinational corporations, who not only want to play a central role in running the planet, but also want to…SELL THEIR PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS.

And if the bulk of those consumers can barely shop at a 7-Eleven, those corporations are going to go down the toilet.

It’s that stark.

About 20 years ago, author William Greider (“One World, Ready or Not”) pointed out that many mega-corporations were operating their assembly lines at about half-capacity, because there were only a billion people on the face of the Earth who could afford their products.

Since then, the situation hasn’t noticeably improved.

Therefore, it doesn’t really matter how the Globalists restructure the money system or bail out governments they demolished. The question remains: who is going to buy the goods of the mega-corporations?

As early as 1940 (!), Bucky Fuller was writing about the feasibility of supplying the essentials of survival to every human on Earth. The secret was out. It could be done, and over time, with technological innovations, it would be easier to do.

At that moment, corporations faced a choice. They could find a way to carry out a plan for universal abundance, or they could continue on the track of cutthroat competition based on a notion of scarcity.

Scarcity was really a myth, of course. But it enabled those who wanted more wars and more control.

Obviously, the corporations turned a blind eye to Bucky Fuller’s revelations.

And now they are paying the price. They are literally spinning their wheels.

China and India, with their enormous populations, are the current Holy Grail of the global market, but that is only a temporary fix.

There are two ways to solve the problem these corporations face. The first is exemplified by ObamaCare. Under this plan, government itself will manage, more and more, the sickness-care industry that currently sucks up (2009 figure) 2.5 trillion dollars per year.

Given the multiple scandals in Medicare, the prospect of government handling the books for a far larger system is unappetizing, to say the least. And this factor doesn’t even touch on the nightmare of forced toxic medical/pharmaceutical care decimating the population at new levels.

Can you imagine what would happen if the federal government moved in and really took over the food supply, lock, stock, and barrel—and then began to distribute everything from beef to peanut butter, according to a “fair plan” designed to produce “abundance for all?”

Destroying the free market in this way, crushing it, pulverizing it has been tried. It fails. And to push such a program forward on a planetary basis would cause mega-corporations to feel a kind of pain they don’t even dream of now. The idea might seem, on the surface, to be workable, as long as corporations are married to the elites who run Central Distribution for Planet Earth. But that’s an illusion. In the long run, fewer and fewer companies would stay on board. Why? Because everything that motivates individuals within corporations to work, to innovate, to market their products, to compete, to win would be hammered into submission.

You can say these business motivations are selfish or greedy or vicious, and should be eradicated, but try to stamp them out by law and by force, and you won’t get far. You’ll have the USSR writ large and writ worse.

The other option is to preserve the free market with one great change. If corporations realized that providing the essentials of survival to every man, woman, and child in the world is a goal THAT COULD INCREASE THEIR BOTTOM LINE, you could see a change.

In other words, compare selling a million coats at $40 a coat to selling fifty million coats at $8 a coat.

In the “new free market,” the corporate goal would be to expand sales and charge less, while actually improving the quality of the goods.

I fully recognize the pitfalls, complexities, and challenges of such a system, when applied to the planet—not the least of which is the VOLUNTARY conversion of corporate types to a different perception of the world and their place in it.

Nevertheless, it is a solution, and right now solutions are not on the horizon.

Make no mistake about it, there is a hot dagger in the heart of the Globalist plan to run the planet. Crushing and enslaving people, in order to control them over the long term, runs into the corporations who are trying to make these very people into consumers.

If you think the mega-corporations are going to lie down for this, you need to think again.

And when the players draw up their chairs to the conference table at the Bilderberg meetings, the CFR meetings, the Trilateral meetings, the Skull and Bones alumni meetings, they are, in some part of their minds, thinking about this. They are thinking about this more and more.

If they continue to see reality through their old eyes, they’ll end up killing each other off.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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, and creativity to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

THE HUNGER GAMES ARE STILL HUNGRY

MARCH 29, 2012. Threatening box-office records, this movie about children fighting to the death, beneath the iron fist of a national dictatorship, is a page out of the propaganda op called Arrested Development.

Yes, I have a slightly different take on The Hunger Games. Beyond the setting—high-tech foppish gods imposing an impoverished agrarian economy on a kept population—the movie sells the idea that children can save the world.

Its target audience is children and the inflated egos of their parents, in this everything-is-for-the-magical-kids Boomer fantasy.

Perhaps some of you never knew a time when that fantasy wasn’t blanketing Middle Class America. But I remember things before the great change. So I can tell you “Magical Kids” is a piece of propaganda that caught hold in the late 1960s, and has evolved into a suburban religion.

Kids are now supposed to be looked at as super-precious objects who must be over-protected in every possible way—while they work astonishing miracles and rescue the planet.

The ultimate point of this op is NOT GROWING UP.

Be a kid. Stay a kid.

If you’re already unlucky enough to have become an adult, then discover how to tap into your inner child and regress.

Infantilism.

That’s the motto.

It plugs into the whole over-entitled brain-dead self-esteem movement, in which kids are told again and again how special they are, until they sink into a swamp of confusion—because they know, deep-down, that self-esteem is based on what they can actually accomplish. It’s not based on fawning adults hovering over them and trying to insert maniacally positive cliches into their little heads.

My long-time readers know I’ve presented tons of printed and spoken words on the subjects of imagination and creative power. So I’m not downplaying those forces. Not at all. I’m talking about something entirely different here.

“Only the kids can save us. The children are our future.” Special, special, special, with whipped cream and a cherry on top.

It may shock some of you to know that, in the early days of television, there were hardly any children on the screen. I recall only one such show—Howdy Doody. A puppet was run by Uncle Bob, who had a sidekick clown named Clarabelle who never spoke, just squeezed the bulb of a horn. We watched it now and then, but we were mostly outside playing games. And we didn’t identify with the kids on the screen, because, God forgive us, we wanted to grow up! What a concept.

There was no Adoration of the Kid. That came much later, when ad agencies realized children were an unexplored consumer market.

What are the oppressed adults doing in The Hunger Games? I guess they’re waiting for the kiddies to bail them out. Why haven’t they risen up en masse and fought to the death against the gods who are sacrificing their offspring in these Games? Wouldn’t you?

Here’s a shocker. Are you ready?

Kids wanting to see other kids on small screens and big screens doing amazing things is NOT a natural impulse.

That may be hard to swallow, but it’s an artificial construct that’s been sold and packaged.

The whole notion of unbelievably magical super-kids sneaked into the culture because their parents were toast at an early age. And THAT happened because those delicate parents were raised with certain cartoonish expectations that never materialized…so it had to be all about the children.

The parents were raised on the totem of consumerism: material things in endless proliferation make you happy. Material things all by themselves are transformative. Oops. That didn’t work out. Advertising, exploding in the 1960s and 70s, made the case, sold the case, and it was a dud. So what was left? A goofy ad-driven idea that kids, without lifting a finger, are automatically little gods and goddesses.

IT’S A CARTOON.

Whatever truth exists about kids with powers was defaced and wiped away by the CARTOON.

If you want to look at this like one big lab experiment, here’s the essence:

Raise a generation of kids who are taught that their Middle Class lifestyle IS the key, the salvation, the prime reality that surrounds them. Those kids grow up, and at about age 30, they’ll start to split apart like a thin porcelain vase made by an amateur. Because they don’t have anything to hold on to. What they were raised in was a bad animated movie. So now they’re depressed and confused. They get married and have kids. Now they try to infuse those little walking talking “hopes for the future” with something desperately extraordinary. With magic. The trump card of all trump cards.

Of course, childhood already has authentic magic in it. But the parents will supersede all that. They’ll shove in their cliched version of it. They’ll paint over the Van Gogh with a doofus on black velvet.

And that’s not workable. Sorry.

But the parents don’t understand that. They don’t have the background to understand it. They just keep going and wind up with the idea that children will not only do well, they’ll actually save the planet. In for a penny, in for a pound.

The secret message of The Hunger Games is: adults can’t have power, only kids can. Guess what? That’s political propaganda of a very serious kind.

And if you were trying to take over civilization and run it from a high perch (just like the elite do in the movie), selling THAT message would be a pretty good strategy, don’t you think?

And here’s another piece of the puzzle. Starting in the 1960s, psychologist-propagandists began selling the notion that parents and kids had to really get together and talk about everything. Lack of communication was horrible, and it had to be remedied. But of course, the premise was vastly over-pumped. So eventually you had parents who were letting their kids into every corner of their adult lives, and finally a perverse kind of exchange was made. The kids became adults and the adults became kids. It was and is grotesque…

…It ends with The Hunger Games… with a few kids — in a loony bin of a society, stringing bows and sharpening knives to go to war with the evil ones who are enslaving their parents — while the parents cluck helplessly from the sidelines.

I’d like to make a movie in which a special little kid is granted, magically, by the wizard president of Harvard, a PhD in psychology—and then she treats her father in an office as his therapist. The father confesses every stupid thing he’s ever done, and the kid regresses dear old dad back to age three, where, suddenly, the father refuses to budge! He wants to stay there forever. Wa-wa-wa! And the longer he stays there and acts like a three-year-old, the older his daughter becomes. She soon ends up a wise crone sorceress of 90, and he’s a squalling spoiled brat who’s hooked on marshmallows and Diet Coke. Or something.

But excuse me, I have to get back to work on my new project: re-writing Moby Dick as an animated feature, with Alvin the Chipmunk playing the White Whale and a six-year-old girl as Captain Ahab. It all takes place in rocket cars on Hollywood Boulevard. The climactic smash-up comes in a giant field where an exposition, Century of the Child, is opening. The gray-faced adults are sticking their ATM cards into machines and handing buckets of cash to their children to buy weapons of mass destruction from friendly space aliens who are here to guide the kiddies in the war to end all wars against the Snouted Oligarchs of Olympus.

Yeah, I’m making jokes about all this, but the promotion of infantilism in society is real. It’s an op, on many levels, and its objective is to weaken the foundations of a nation, until there’s nothing really left, there’s no one at home.

And again, the one big piece of the deal was selling kids on the idea that they really wanted to watch, and read about, other kids doing fantastic things. Believe me, don’t believe me, that’s nonsense. Kids want to run and play and learn and excel and become strong and grow up.

The idea that they want to remain kids forever comes later, when they look back with nostalgia on the good days—AND when “eternal children” is sold to them as a package.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. 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, and creativity to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

ROBOT OR FREE?

MARCH 1, 2012. The other day, someone asked me why I put together my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED. I said there were a thousand answers to that question.

Here is one:

There are some people who hear the word CREATE and wake up, as if a new flashing music has begun.

This lone word makes them see something majestic and untamed and astonishing.

They feel the sound of a Niagara approaching.

They suddenly know why they are alive.

It happened to me one day in 1949 when I was 11 years old. I was boarding a bus in upstate New York for a full day’s ride back down into New York City. I was sitting by the window as the bus pulled out of a parking lot, and I opened the first page of Ray Bradbury’s Martian Chronicles, a perfect children’s book.

The word CREATE wasn’t on that first page, but I felt it. It sounded like a great bell in my ear, and I knew I was in a different world.

As you may know, I’ve been writing about the creative life for some time. For me, this life is a far cry from the pallid oatmeal of “peace through avoidance.”

The creative life is not about slogans and systems and intellectual finger food. It is about EXPERIENCE.

It’s about diving in. It’s about a kind of transformation that shreds programming and gets down to the energy of the Fire.

Most people don’t want to travel to that grand arena because they have been trained like pets by some sector of this society to be good little girls and boys.

The truth is, if people want to live the creative existence, they have to be willing to destroy—and the main thing that awaits their destruction, delivered with force, is their own illusions and their commitment to the World of Nice where doily power is the only power. Where that tired phrase, “the approval of others,” is the guiding precept and the stick of fear.

The creative life isn’t about little changes done in little penguin steps. It’s about putting your arms and your mind around Deep, Big, and Wide Desire. It’s about making that Desire come to life.

99% of the world has been trained like rats to adore systems. Give them a system and they’re ready to cuddle up and take it all in. If they have questions, or if they want to argue, it’s about how to tweak the system to make it a little better. And with every move they make, they put another blanket over the Fire Within.

They sleepwalk through life and say yes to everything.

Maybe you once saw something truly free that didn’t care about consequences, and it blew you away and turned on your soul’s electricity for an hour.

Maybe you’re sick and tired of bowing and scraping before a pedestal of nonsense.

CREATE is a word that should be oceanic. It should shake and blow apart the pillars of the smug boredom of the soul.

CREATE is about what the individual does when he is on fire and doesn’t care about concealing it. It’s about what the individual invents when he has thrown off the false front that is slowly strangling him.

CREATE is about the end of mindless postponement. It’s about what happens when you burn up the pretty and petty little obsessions. It’s about emerging from the empty suit and empty machine of society that goes around and around and sucks away the vital bloodstream.

People come to the brink, and then they stop. They opt instead for a form of hypnosis. They say, “I’m waiting for orders. I’m looking for a sign. I don’t have any primary impulse of my own. I want the signal that it’s okay to proceed.”

It’s a form of self-induced brainwashing.

Imagination transforms a life, but if people feel queasy about using imagination, they are stuck at the gate.

People pretend they don’t know anything about imagination, about how “it operates” (as if it were a machine), about what it can do, about where it can go, about how it can take them into new territory. They feign ignorance.

Why?

To protect themselves from elevating to a new position, a new space, a new perspective.

“I want to stay the same, and I’ll do anything to maintain that.”

This is why people seem to get more hazy and less intelligent as they grow older. And in order to do that, they have to appear ignorant to themselves.

People want a certain level of defined comfort, and they want to BELONG TO SOMETHING.

“I want to belong. It’s my reason for being. It’s my hole card. Therefore, I’ll sit on my imagination, so it won’t take me out beyond this thing I want to attach myself to.”

So it’s a test of loyalty. Do you want to remain faithful to an idea that is just a small piece of what you can be, or do you want to take the greater adventure?

The propaganda machines of society relentlessly turn out images and messages that ultimately say: YOU MUST BELONG TO THE GROUP.

The formula is simple. The group wants the status quo. Imagination transcends the status quo. Therefore, belong to the group and avoid the possibility of transformation.

This is, in fact, modern alchemy with a reverse twist. It is engineered to put people into a position of less power. Advertising is a program founded on the ideal of Huxley’s Brave New World, where everyone is happy, happy, happy—and if they aren’t, they can (and must) take a drug (or a convenient substitute) that will restore their “equilibrium.”

No imagination required. No creation required.

Day after day after day, year after year, the media celebrate heroes. They inevitably interview these people to drag out of them the same old familiar stories. Have you EVER, even once, seen a hero who told an interviewer in no uncertain terms: “I got to where I am by denying the power of the group, by denying the propaganda that says we all have to BELONG.”

Have you ever heard that kind of uncompromising statement?

I didn’t think so.

Why not?

Because it’s not part of the BELONGING PROGRAM, the program that society runs on to stay away from the transforming power of IMAGINATION.

Jon Rappoport

Jon is the author of the new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

GOT YOUR MIND IN MY POCKET

by Jon Rappoport

January 13, 2012

I’ve been working on an invention for the past 15 years, and I finally have it perfected. It allows you to put your mind in my pocket and forget about it. Sounds a little strange, doesn’t it?

I can tell you, it was quite a challenge to come up with this, but I could see it was essential, because so many people are worrying about their minds.

And then I had to figure out what to do with lots of minds that came my way. A few colleagues and I worked out a system for separating the constituents and selling them for scrap. As you might know, the scrap biz these days is very big.

Anyway, the procedure for transfer is pretty simple. You don’t have to check into a hospital or a clinic. We handle it in the privacy of your own home. We set you up in a comfortable chair (you can even watch TV while this is all happening). The energy-suction machine is about the size of a cell phone. It locates the dimensions of your mind (not your brain, of course), and then it establishes a territory of about four feet by six in which it radiates a frequency of extreme pleasure. Your mind just pops out of its locale and comes scrambling over to the pleasure-field like a puppy and we pocket it. Bang. No problem.

Gone forever.

You should know how we define mind. It’s the totality of repetitious, aimless, and unproductive thinking. The useless stuff that goes around and around and gets nowhere. It’s the worrying and the globs of passive hand-wringing that never lead to action. It’s really the totality of the illusion that you only exist in one space. That’s what we take away. All the rest of your thoughts, whatever they may be, remain intact.

After the procedure, you’ll know you can create space(s). And that will alleviate the need to start thinking round and round in circles again.

In other words, you’ll know you’re an artist.

You’ll know you invent reality.

Disclaimer: How you handle your new echelon of existence is, of course, not our concern. We can’t hold your hand forever. Revelations about your new status might come as a shock to the system. You could engage in certain forms of chaotic behavior. You could try to attach blame to our service. That’s why we have this 60-page ironclad no-fault addendum, which you’ll have to sign in the presence of three witnesses. It exempts us from liability. It informs you that under no circumstances can your mind be replaced if you’re dissatisfied.

Of course, if you want to undertake the stripping of your illusions on your own, without our help, you could. That might involve a lengthy process. The results, naturally, aren’t guaranteed.

It’s the difference between being flown to a high castle by helicopter and climbing the trails and scaling the rocks yourself.

We prefer the easy way. It’s our specialty and our business.

If you feel you want to take advantage of our offer, but need the assurance of a “figure of authority,” we can provide a simulacrum of a “fully realized ancient spiritual master,” who will come to your home and cast our work in the light of a miracle, a moment of grace, a “deserved reward” for your lifetimes of suffering “on the wheel of Karma.” Or some such. We can perform those theatrics for you.

At the moment, we’re in the middle of negotiations with the federal government. If our funding grant comes through, we’ll be able to provide our service at no charge to those who can demonstrate some level of disability. We’ll have counselors on call who can help you navigate the relevant regulations.

Welcome to your new life!

Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

TRADING UNIVERSES

by Jon Rappoport

January 12, 2012

See, I’ve got this universe here. I’ve got a whole bunch of others in a storage locker in Long Beach. This one I’m willing to trade, if you have one I’m interested in.

I don’t care what the rules are for yours. It could be an inside-out job with music, or a long skinny one with ladders and unlimited energy. But it has to have lots and lots and lots of painters, because I’m opening a gallery.

We could do a plus-cash deal as well. I might be willing to kick in some diamonds or gold bars.

But don’t, under any circumstances, try to pawn off the one we’re standing in right now, because it’s a lemon. Okay? Energy conservation law, an excess of machines, androids, wars, fundamentalists. I don’t want crowds of people screaming about God or gods or heaven or The Book or any of that stuff. And I don’t like some of the insects and animals. Baboons. I don’t like baboons at all. Whoever started that whole line should be put on a small asteroid and left there. And slugs. I’m not happy about slugs and snails. People eat snails. What further proof do you need that this universe is a whack-job?

Do you have one that’s populated by musicians as well as painters? I mean real musicians, not screamers with guitars and make-up. Improvised symphonies that span a whole galaxy and go on for a few hundred years at a time. That’s more to my liking.

But the very last thing I’m looking for is people who are unaware they’re living in just one cosmos out of trillions. Those people will tire you out faster than a big stack of rubber pancakes.

My cousin lives in one of those. He sends me messages about “the human condition” all the time. I have to tell you, although I’m not unsympathetic, this wears on a person. It’s so…parochial. And he thinks he’s on some kind of frontier of consciousness or something. Can you imagine? Babbling on and on about existential this and shrunken down that. Drives me bats! What am I supposed to say to the guy? He’s blind? I mean, he is, but he doesn’t react well to that sort of talk. He gets his fur up and goes on the attack. Pathetic.

Anyway, I’m up for a trade. If you get my voice mail, leave a detailed message. Remember—painters and musicians. Academics are okay, as long as they know their place. Throw in a few shrinks, just for laughs, and you might have a deal. All transfers are final. No refunds. No rebates. No discount coupons.

As you may have guessed, I don’t do God. If you’re thinking of trading me a universe where some guy’s playing God, forget it. First thing I’d do is fire him and his whole bureaucracy. But usually they have laws about that. You know, employment guarantees. With bonuses! I don’t want to get caught up in red tape. I say if you can’t fire a guy, you have to fire the system. I could be spending a few thousand years trying to engineer that.

Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com