London: elderly man charged on suspicion of murder for defending his home against thieves

London: elderly man charged on suspicion of murder for defending home against thieves

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2018

In the midst of London’s rising crime wave, a 78-year-old man, Richard Osborn-Brooks, has been arrested on suspicion of murder, after defending his home against two thieves.

The Daily Mail offers this statement from Scotland Yard: “At 00:45hrs on Wednesday, 4 April, police were called by a homeowner to reports of a burglary in progress at an address in South Park Crescent, Hither Green SE6, and a man injured.”

“The 78-year-old resident found two males inside the address. A struggle ensued between one of the males and the homeowner. The man, aged 38, sustained a stab wound to the upper body.”

“London Ambulance Service took the injured male, who was found collapsed in Further Green Road, SE8, to a central London hospital. He was pronounced dead at 03:37hrs.”

The Telegraph states: “Police arrested him [the homeowner, Osborn-Brooks] on suspicion of grievous bodily harm before then arresting him on suspicion of murder.”

Arresting Osborn-Brooks on what grounds? Defending his home? Defending his life? Defending his wife, who was sleeping upstairs?

Since when is it murder, when a person fights off a thief? Was Osborn-Brooks supposed to sit quietly in a chair, tell the thieves (one of whom ran away) to take everything they wanted, and ask them not to harm him or his wife? Is that proper behavior? Is that what the government demands of its citizens?

If the facts of the story are what Scotland Yard reports to the press, for what possible reason is Osborn-Brooks sitting in a jail cell?

Why aren’t the police thanking him for defending his home and family?

The Daily Mail: “British law allows homeowners to use ‘reasonable force’ against intruders to protect themselves or others in their home.”

“Guidelines introduced in 2005 allow people to protect themselves ‘in the heat of the moment’ – including using an object as a weapon. They can also stop an intruder running off, for example by tackling them to the ground.”

“There is no specific definition of ‘reasonable force’ and it is said to depend on the circumstances.”

So a person is permitted to defend his home with force “in the heat of the moment.” But not if he uses force in a calm, cool, and rational state of mind?

The government presumption is biased against a citizen’s right to self-defense. Thieves’ motives are clear and easily understood, but targets of thieves have ambiguous motives that must be sorted out before a decision is made about whether to prosecute them or release them. In the meantime, lock them up.

This is backwards.

But many people would call it “progressive.”

You see, the thief is really the victim, and the victim is the perpetrator. Once you digest that formula, you’re ready to enter the New Society.

Any person who owns property is automatically suspected of having committed a crime. Property IS theft. A thief would never steal unless he had been “oppressed.”

Got that?

Congratulations. You’re now a card-carrying liberal.

A word of caution: when you see some of your liberal LEADERS moving about with armed security teams, don’t fret or ask questions. They have special rights. Because they’re in the vanguard, flying the banner of new revolutionary values. They need whatever they say they need. It’s all in The Memo.

Which you didn’t receive.

Because you’re an unknowing dupe. The rich and privileged people you think you’re fighting against are the rich and privileged people who are leading you.


The Matrix Revealed

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

Oprah is waiting for God to tell her whether to run for the presidency

Oprah is waiting for God to tell her whether to run for the presidency

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2018

People Magazine has the word from on high: “Amid calls for her to consider a run for the White House — from fans as well as her closest friends — ‘I went into prayer,’ she tells PEOPLE in the magazine’s new cover story.” “’God, if you think I’m supposed to run, you gotta tell me, and it has to be so clear that not even I can miss it.’ And I haven’t gotten that.”

My article here isn’t a scan of strange and questionable and revealing things Oprah has done over the years. It’s about the God question, as in:

Why would anyone tell the public she will relay the word of God to them?

Might that not be a bit presumptuous?

The future of America hangs in the balance, and Oprah will let millions know what God has to say about it. He might say, “Run, Oprah, run.” Or he might not.

This God is not just Oprah’s private counselor, or worse, her subjective projection. No, to Oprah he is THE God. Therefore, what he confides to Oprah applies to everyone. She is the conduit, the priestess, and in this case, also the potential beneficiary of His Word.

My, my. That’s some remarkable chutzpah. It sparkles.

It smacks of this: “I’m so important I know people will take my account of what God said as authoritative.” Wow.

And also: “I would never make up my mind about running for the presidency on my own. That’s out. I’m too humble for that. Instead, I’ll refer to, let’s see, uh, the Creator of the Universe and what he specifically tells me.” Stunning hubris masked as humility. Nice trick.

Oprah is parlaying every tidbit of New Age wisdom she’s accumulated and disseminated in her decades of broadcast history, in order to give this “God connection” story some serious legs. It’s Oprah, Chapter 3,456: “The Presidency Conundrum and How I Handled It.”

I’m trying to imagine myself as an Oprah fan, on the edge of my chair, day after day, waiting for her to come across with the mighty Message from The Lord.

And what would God be thinking? “This woman is now asking me whether she should run for the presidency of the United States? What makes her believe I respond to such questions? I mean, if that’s part of my job description, wouldn’t I have advised other candidates? Bernie Sanders? Marco Rubio? Jeb? George? Bob Dole? Kasich? What am I? A political pundit?”

Does God tell one candidate from each Party to run? Or does he favor only one candidate in each race? Maybe the Pope can supply some information. He’s familiar with this type of higher communication.

Perhaps we should poll the leader of every organized religion in the world. “Should Oprah run?” Every religion believes it has the best (or only) line to God.

In 1998, Oprah stated, “I never think about what I want. It’s about what you want to give to other people.” Does God believe Oprah NEVER thinks about what she wants? If not, He might consider that egregious whopper a reason for her not to run.

If Oprah does throw her hat in the ring, how many people will say, “Well, I’m voting for her because God told her go for it”?

This would be an interesting twist. Oprah holds a press conference and says: “God told me not to run but I’m going to do it anyway.” Now she would have my interest. Now I would want to hear more.

Reporter: Why did you decide to go against what God told you?

Oprah: Because I think every person should make up his/her mind about what to do in life.

Reporter: Even if God says no?

Oprah: Sometimes God tests people’s will.

Reporter: Do you think that happened in your case, or were you always planning to run, regardless of what God advised?

Oprah: I was always planning to run. And God is testing my will. Both.

Reporter: So you were, in a sense, using God to get you more votes.

Oprah: If that were that my motive, I would have lied and said God told me to run.

Reporter: So in this election, you’re not only going up against your opponent, you’re going up against God.

Oprah: Already asked and answered. God is testing my will.

Reporter: How do you know that?

Oprah: I have insight.

Reporter: You mean a pipeline to God’s intentions?

Oprah: When God speaks to me, I listen very carefully. I listen to the sound of the words.

Reporter: So this time, what exactly did God tell you?

Oprah: He said, “Beloved, don’t run.”

Reporter: And you knew—

Oprah: I knew it was a test. He was leaving the door open for me. Knowing that was enough. I could make up my own mind.

Reporter: So in a sense, he’s on your side.

Oprah: He’s always on my side.

Reporter: Do you see God when He talks to you?

Oprah: This isn’t Skype. And forget the big “He.” God isn’t an old man in the sky.

Now we would have the bare bones of an ever-expanding story. Who knows where it would lead?

Q: “Did God keep guiding you to change weight-loss regimens?”

But alas, I fear this Oprah tale isn’t going to go that far. We’ll get a stunted version.

Vapid generalities are the stuff and fluff of the New Age.


The Matrix Revealed

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

What happened to love letters?

What happened to love letters?

by Jon Rappoport

February 19, 2018

Going back thousands of years, wherever there has been a civilization with written language, there have been love letters.

—Passion, joy, and longing unbound—

—Letters that ignite and cleanse the soul, surpassing the energies of every-day life—

Today, in our highly technological society, the love letter has been a waning moon. My wife, Laura Thompson, has wisely decided to resurrect the form and breathe life back into it. Anyone can contribute to the renaissance:

https://www.facebook.com/vitaminlovewellness/

https://www.vitaminloveinc.com/love-letter-challenge

Laura Thompson: “Why write a love letter? Oh, the power of a love letter! Something you can hold in your hand. Something so real…”

“When you write one, your cells are vibrating…Your body, with all its magnificent division of labor…like an orchestra or chorus during a glorious performance.”

“Is it a lost art form or can we keep it alive?”

“We, as a society, don’t write love letters much anymore. We use cute emojis to express love and admiration. We text phrases. We hint and beat around the bush with the quick forms of communication at our fingertips.”

“…if everyone wrote a love letter to the ones they love… good things would happen that would spur on more good. I wonder how high we could go? Is the sky the limit – or beyond?”

Laura invites your participation.

Why not dive in? You have nothing to lose, except the Ordinary and the Mundane.

Jon Rappoport

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

Top 10 things progressive politicians should do to prove they’re progressive

Top ten things progressive politicians should do to prove they’re progressive

by Jon Rappoport

January 29, 2018

It’s a simple premise: since so-called progressive politicians are incessantly meddling in other people’s business, telling them what they should and shouldn’t do, these progressives should demonstrate their own values by exemplifying them in their own lives.

Why not? If the values are virtuous, what harm could result? Only good could come of it.

One: To improve your life, to make it better, bring at least three single-male illegal immigrants, between 18 and 25 years of age, into your home to live. Provide a sanctuary. If you own several homes, settle several of these immigrants into each, as full-time residents.

Two: Give up all your guns. Fire your armed security personnel.

Three: Immediately receive all vaccinations listed on the CDC expanded schedule. Don’t worry about the aluminum, the formaldehyde, and other toxic chemicals in the shots. Ignore the fact that no proper studies have been done assessing the effects of multiple vaccinations given in combination. Just keep quiet and take the shots.

Four: Those politicians who voted for the infamous Dark Act, which effectively banned Americans from knowing whether their foods contain GMOs: eat only GMO food with its increased load of pesticides. No worries.

Five: Go to war on any battlefield when war is declared. Join the infantry. Pick up a gun. Position yourself on the front lines. Kill or be killed.

Six: Take your children out of elite private schools and send them to public schools.

Seven: No more private jets. You believe in manmade global warming. Use only public transport. Have a deep analysis done of every wasteful CO2 practice you engage in, and eliminate it. Reduce your carbon footprint. Get rid of extra homes.

Eight: Participate fully in Obamacare. Cancel any other health insurance policy you have.

Nine: Sell the home you live in, and move to a neighborhood where illegal immigrants have been newly resettled.

Ten: Divest yourself of all monies inherited or gained through investments, since these are signs of Privilege. If you’re still in the top tax bracket, pay 90% of you annual income to the federal government.

There is more—for example, since you support Antifa, refuse the help of the police under any and all circumstances—and since you champion the DOJ and the FBI, warmly accept full government surveillance of your conversations stemming from FISA court warrants—but those above ten actions will start you off in the right direction. I’m sure you’ll feel better, knowing you’re personally living the improved life you want everyone else to live.

It’s a win-win, isn’t it?


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, 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 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The medical CIA: how environmental destruction magically becomes a medical disease

by Jon Rappoport

December 20, 2017

“To handle all that [pig-farm feces] waste, farmers in North Carolina use a standard practice called the lagoon and spray field system. They flush feces and urine from barns into open-air pits called lagoons, which turn the color of Pepto-Bismol when pink-colored bacteria colonize the waste. To keep the lagoons from overflowing, farmers spray liquid manure on their fields nearby. The result, says Steve Wing, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is this: ‘The eastern part of North Carolina is covered with shit’.” —National Geographic, 10/30/14

The above quote describes corporate pig farming around the world.

In order to carry out this operation, giant companies like Smithfield have influenced legislators and government-agency officials. Environmental laws and regulations are ignored, or changed. Lawsuits are fought, hammer and tongs.

Here is what Robert F Kennedy Jr. told radio interviewer, Rachel Lewis Hilburn on 6/3/16:

“…a hog produces ten times the amount of fecal waste by weight as a human being, so if you have a facility that has ten thousand hogs in it, it’s producing as much sewage as a city of a hundred thousand people. Smithfield has one plant in Utah—they call it Circle Four Farms—that has a million hogs on it, so it’s producing the same amount of waste as New York City every day.”

Here is Kennedy’s kicker:

“There’s no difference between hog waste and human waste in terms of its danger to human health. They [Smithfield and other giant corporate pig operations] ought to have to have a sewage treatment plant that cleans it up. And yet, if they had to build that sewage treatment plan, it would drive the price of hogs up so that they could no longer function in the marketplace…they ought to have to build sewage treatment facilities but nobody’s making them do that because they have used political clout…”

All right, that’s a bit of background. Now I’m going to shift to the subject of Swine [Pig] Flu, the phony epidemic of 2009.

Where did it start?

At a Smithfield pig-raising operation in Perote, Mexico; in a village called La Gloria. Smithfield raises 950,000 hogs a year there.

Press reports described outdoor “pig feces lagoons” on the property. When workers began to get sick, the area was sprayed with unknown chemicals. More workers fell ill and died.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of public health could testify that this combination of mind-boggling (non-) sanitation, plus strong germicides, plus other toxic chemicals routinely dumped in the feces lagoons, could and would cause human illness and death.

In fact, it doesn’t matter which particular germs are present in the mix.

People at the CDC had to be well aware of this. Yet, in 2009, their choice was to rush researchers to the Smithfield operation in La Gloria, Mexico, armed with the unfounded assumption that some novel virus, never before seen, was the culprit, and their job was to take blood samples and discover what the new germ was.

Why? Why assume, when workers who operate in that kind of environment get sick, there is some new disease at work? The symptoms of the workers were not unusual, given the circumstances.

Workers dying in that vat of filth and chemical soup should be expected.

But, up front, based on no evidence, the CDC on-site team was going for a new germ and a new disease, and that’s what they announced they had found. A gullible world, fed by press reports, bought in.

And that’s how the fake epidemic called Swine Flu was launched.

All the focus that could have centered on the highly toxic Smithfield pig operation in La Gloria was diverted.

Diverted to a virus.

H1N1 it was called. The Swine Flu virus.

Suddenly, it was a medical problem. Not an environmental disaster.

It was RE-INVENTED as a medical problem.

If you don’t yet get what I’m pointing out here, imagine this: you’re living in an old sewage tunnel under a city. You’re surrounded by human excrement and biting insects and fetid waste water and foul air—and when you fall ill, you suddenly see virus-hunting researchers, not haz-mat rescue workers, approach you and take blood samples. Are they crazy?

No, they’re just doing what their bosses tell them to do. Your illness has to be shifted over to a “new disease and a new virus.”

This is how the game works.

This is the medical hoax.

In the case of Swine Flu, it gets worse. It turns out that the virus is not so prevalent after all. That is why, in the early autumn of 2009, CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson discovered that the CDC, ignoring its mandate and charter, had secretly stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. You see, the overwhelming percentage of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, when sent to labs for testing, were coming back with no trace of the so-called Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus. CBS put Attkisson’s published report on the shelf and never followed up on it.

Again, the virus as the cause of illness, was the cover story. Intelligence agencies float cover stories on a regular basis. It’s no accident that CDC has a large unit of virus hunters called the Epidemic Intelligence Service.

Right off the top, I can tell you they create disinformation on a scale that must make the CIA jealous.

Graduates of this EIS program, as proudly stated by the CDC, have gone on to occupy key positions in the overall medical cartel: Surgeons General; CDC directors; medical school deans and professors; medical foundation executives; drug-company and insurance executives; state health officials; medical editors and reporters in major media outlets.

It’s a loyal insider’s club. They collaborate to float prime-cut, A-number-one cover stories of extraordinary dimensions. They invent medical reality out of thin air.

Here is a brief excerpt from the CDC’s website, “50 Years of the Epidemic Intelligence Service”:

“In 1951, EIS was established by CDC following the start of the Korean War as an early-warning system against biologic warfare and man-made epidemics. EIS officers selected for 2-year field assignments were primarily medical doctors and other health professionals…who focused on infectious disease outbreaks. EIS has expanded to include a range of public health professionals, such as postdoctoral scientists in statistics, epidemiology, microbiology, anthropology, sociology, and behavioral sciences. Since 1951, approximately 2500 EIS officers have responded to requests for epidemiologic assistance within the United States and throughout the world. Each year, EIS officers are involved in several hundred investigations of disease and injury problems, enabling CDC and its public health partners to make recommendations to improve the public’s health and safety.”

Several hundred investigations a year. An unparalleled opportunity to shape the truth into propaganda. Control of information about disease. Control out in the field, where EIS agents rush to the scene of “outbreaks”—all the way back through the hallowed halls of academia, into the press, into Big Pharma, into the government.

When I say control of information, I mean disinformation. That’s what the EIS is for. They’ve never met a virus they didn’t love, and if they couldn’t find one, they pretended they did.

They front for the medical cartel. And they provide cover for the crimes of mega-corporations. There’s a town where poverty-stricken people are dying, because horrendous pesticides are running into the water supply and soil? No, it’s a virus. There’s a hotel where the plumbing is broken and human waste is getting into all the bathrooms, and they want this hotel to be the epicenter of a new epidemic? No, it isn’t the plumbing, it’s a novel virus never seen before by man. There’s a section of a city where the industrial pollution is driving people over the edge into immune-system failure? No, it’s a virus.

And here’s the capper. Their propaganda is so good, most of the EIS people believe it themselves. You don’t achieve that kind of robotic servitude without intense brainwashing. The first installment of the mind-control program is called medical school.

Psy-op and propaganda begin with the virus hunters of the EIS. They control and own the chokepoint of disease research. They blow up their scanty findings into ex-cathedra pronouncements.

And of course, this strengthens the vaccine establishment because, for every virus, there must be a vaccine: the shot in the arm, loaded with toxic chemicals and a variety of germs.

The EIS. The CDC’s band of brothers. The medical CIA.

“Show me vast pig-feces lagoons, and I’ll show you a virus you’ve never heard of before. I’ll protect corporate criminals from here to the moon…”


The Matrix Revealed

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

Australia: jail young children without charges; they wouldn’t do that; oh yes they would

Australia: jail young children without charges; they wouldn’t do that; oh yes they would

And it’s a perfect “bait and switch”

by Jon Rappoport

October 16, 2017

It’s still labeled a proposal, but it has widespread support among Australia’s political leaders.

The BBC: “…proposals that could see children as young as 10 held for two weeks without charge under new terror legislation.”

“State and territorial leaders approved the plans with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull at a Coalition of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting…”

The public hasn’t seen any details of the plan.

It’s obviously aimed at children who are suspected of preparing to commit terrorist acts, or children who are suspected of already committing those acts. Evidence would be lacking, formal charges wouldn’t be filed, but the children would still be arrested and held.

Let’s cut to the bottom lines. There are already laws which cover arresting children-terrorists. Yes, there needs to be evidence of some kind, but why is that a problem? For example, if federal police found a compound where children were being trained to handle weapons, and it was clear the intention was terrorism, those children could be taken into custody and investigated.

To understand the deeper point, however, you need to recognize that a new law restricting freedom for one reason can and will be expanded to include more reasons—all in the name of public safety and protection, of course. What creeps along the ground today stands up and runs wild tomorrow.

In this case, simply refer to the merciless Australian crackdown on parents and doctors who question the wisdom of vaccination and offer proof that vaccines are harmful, who are willing the buck the tide of official liars who insist that vaccines are miracles.

A year from now, two years from now, someone in government circles will come up with the bright idea that unvaccinated children, innocent victims of their parents’ madness, should be taken in, quarantined, held, because they are little walking time-bombs of contagion—and they must receive treatment. Which will be vaccination. Which will be “psychological intervention,” to “liberate them” from their parents’ delusions.

“Well you see, when we arrest little children on suspicion of being terrorists, we’re not really blaming the children. They’re victims. We need to sequester them away from the general population and find a way to re-educate them. In a similar fashion, when unvaccinated children are allowed to roam the streets and shops and schools, they too must be sequestered by the government…”

What’s that? You say children suspected of being terrorists and children suspected of being unvaccinated are not equivalent? So what? What leads you to believe the government is operating on a rational or logical basis?

The overriding issue here is control. That is the motive. The government feels a permanent need for more control over the citizenry.

It will seek it out and find it wherever it can, no matter how thin its justification.

“We do this for the children” can eventually mean anything the government wants it to mean.

Right now, Australia’s political leaders are worried about the people they call the “anti-vaxxers.” Why? Because the anti-vaxxers’ message is resonating with the public. Mothers whose babies’ lives have been destroyed by vaccinations are speaking up. Mothers who have raised happy and healthy children without vaccinations are speaking up. The fake medical cover story about the wonders of vaccination is being blown wide open.

What can be done? Whatever will shift control of children from parents to the State.

This new proposal to detain children suspected of terrorism is the planting of a seed that can and will sprout poisonous fruit. Today, terrorism. Tomorrow, vaccination.

To cite an egregious example: in the wake of the 9/11/01 attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush declared a new and improved War on Terror. He said America would seek out and destroy terrorists wherever they could be found; and states who refused to cooperate while they harbored terrorists would be considered enemies. Then…

What country did Bush choose to attack, for one? Iraq. There was no evidence Iraq was a center of terrorism. But that didn’t matter. American neocons wanted a war and they got one, along with a rationale: “Look what happened on 9/11.”

What started as a “reasonable” proclamation led to sheer insanity.

Wake up and smell the bait-and-switch and the con job. It’s coming up over the horizon.


The Matrix Revealed

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

FAQ on Rappoport Logic & Analysis Course

FAQ on Rappoport Logic & Analysis Course

by Jon Rappoport

October 12, 2017

I’ve been getting requests to describe my logic course–hence this FAQ, which answers a lot of questions.

Note: The Logic & Analysis Course is part of a much larger collection, The Matrix Revealed. The course was selling, alone, for three times as much as the entire Matrix Revealed collection but I decided to roll it into the Matrix Revealed collection to reach a wider audience.

I’ll make this FAQ as complete as I can.

Q: How long is the course?

A: Eighteen classroom sessions. That includes a final exam.

Q: So it isn’t just a workshop or a seminar.

A: No, it’s a real course.

Q: At what pace would you recommend teaching it in a home-school setting?

A: Three sessions a week, if possible. An hour per session.

Q: Is the course available online?

A: Upon purchase of The Matrix Revealed, you then download the document and audio files.

Q: What are the course materials?

A: A extensive teacher’s manual, student study sheets (text passages), and audio files.

Q: What’s in the teacher’s manual?

A: The manual contains a layout for all the lessons, in chronological order, and explanations for all the passages that are analyzed in the course.

Q: Passages?

A: Yes. There are short and long passages of text. I wrote these with logical errors embedded in them. Students and teachers work over the passages and discover the specific logical errors. The main passages are written to resemble news stories, press releases, political-speak, science journalism, and internet reporting.

Q: Why?

A: Because they resemble what you encounter in the real world. The whole point of the course is gaining the ability to deal with information in any form, in life. That means being able to take information apart and pinpoint the specific logical mistakes, and analyze those mistakes, in detail.

Q: If an adult is studying the course on his own, how does he proceed?

A: Actually, whether the adult is studying the course on his/her own or preparing to teach it to children, the approach is the same. Go through the entire teacher’s manual, step by step. Master everything.

Q: What is on the audio files?

A: My analysis of the six long passages of text that make up the core of the course. I wanted to do this part in audio, so the teachers can listen to me attacking the text and pulling it apart. It gives a sense of what it’s really like to dig out each logical error and identify it.

Q: When a home-schooling adult teaches the course, is it a process of the teacher and students mutually discovering logical fallacies?

A: No. The teacher already has mastered the course and knows where all the errors are. However, in class, the children first battle through a passage on their own, with the teacher noting their findings. Then the teacher explains each actual logical error in detail. Then, as homework, on their own, the students go back to that passage again and find all the logical errors, and describe them in writing.

Q: These logical fallacies—are they written in stone or did you dream them up?

A: The traditional fallacies have been discovered and described, in various ways, over the last 2400 years. They are very real and very exacting.

Q: What is your background?

A: As a college student (Amherst College), I studied logic as part of my major in philosophy. I had extensive training in logic there. I taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles, and tutored remedial English at Santa Monica College. I’ve had a 25-year career as an investigative reporter—LA Weekly, CBS Healthwatch, Spin Magazine, Stern (Germany), etc. During this period, I applied logic to my investigations on a regular basis. Particularly in the area of medical fraud, I had to use logic to get behind the PR pronouncements of various “authorities” and find the inconsistencies and deceptions that were occurring in published research.

Q: On what basis do you sell your course to home-schooling parents?

A: They may use it with any size class for as long as they want to teach it, as many times as they want to teach it, but the course must be taught in their own home-school. The course is copyrighted and cannot be sold or given away to other teachers.

Q: I have a plan to teach it to people in my community. Is that all right?

A: Absolutely. You can deliver the course as many times as you want to–as long as you are the teacher.

Q: Is your course given for academic credit in home schools?

A: No. It is for enrichment. I don’t use sanitized and silly politically correct passages in the course—most if not all school systems would refuse to allow real-world-type passages. They want largely unrealistic material. That would defeat the whole purpose of the course.

Q: Why is logic so important?

A: Because it is the foundation on which all other fields of study are built. It is a priceless Western tradition, and it is being lost. We need to reverse that trend. A student can’t be truly literate unless he can analyze what he is reading. This fact is ignored in most schools.

Q: Do you oppose rote learning?

A: Actually, no. I oppose learning that is exclusively and only rote. Students also think. Everybody thinks. There is a choice. You can learn how to think clearly, or you can remain passive and accept whatever is thrown your way. People have a confusion about this. They sometimes believe independent thinking is the same thing as rebellion. Clear thinking is clear thinking. It enables you to face information, reporting, and argument head-on, and make judgments on the merits. The logical merits.

Q: But what about, say, faith? How does logic relate to faith?

A: Learning how to think lucidly strengthens any faith or first principles you live by, because logic is about something else. Logic shows you the difference between profound faith and analysis. You don’t need to confuse the two.

Q: How many long passages are there in the course?

A: Six. They are taken up and analyzed during twelve classroom sessions. They are analyzed deeply.

Q: Is each classroom lesson of the course based on the prior lessons, or can it be taught in any sequence?

A: You follow my sequence. The course is built in a traditional fashion. The easier and simpler material comes first. Then, the more complex lessons and passages.

Q: Can I read an outline of the course?

A: Yes. I’ve included it at the end of this FAQ.

Q: Are eighteen classroom sessions enough to become a logical thinker?

A: Yes. You certainly don’t exhaust the whole field of logic, but you move into a new sphere. You can no longer be deceived or taken in by illogical presentations. You can take those presentations of information, in whatever form, apart and dissect the logical errors.

Q: Illogic is rampant in our society?

A: It’s the “way things are done” now. You have to realize that the higher you go on the educational ladder, the more subtle bias and coercion creep in. Teachers and institutions have their slant on things. They cleverly sell that slant and disguise it. If students don’t know what’s going on, they become captive to some form of bias. They become “products” of the system.

Q: Your course is an antidote to that?

A: It is. In our society, there are many political points of view masquerading as pure knowledge. The question is, do you want your children to fall under the sway of these strategies, or do you want their heads to rise above them.

Q: As an adult, will I be able to master the course myself?

A: Of course. The reading level required for the course is “bright high school.”

Q: I have children I want to home school, but they’re young.

A: I have several parents who have young children. These children are readers, but they’re not yet at the level of the course. So the parents are taking them through the course by reading parts of it to them, and then discussing the logical issues in those passages. Later, when these children are old enough and are reading at a high school level, the parents will teach the course to them again—fully. It’s a very good strategy, and it gives the kids a fine head start.

Q: There are several different types of illogical arguments?

A: About ten basic ones.

Q: Certain patterns of illogical argument emerge and you can recognize these patterns?

A: Exactly. I once had a student who worked for a big company. He was on the receiving end of many reports from a particular manager. After studying logic, the student was able to see that this manager was making the same basic illogical argument over and over, in different situations. He was costing the company a great deal of money.

Q: On the whole, would you say that people who offer illogical information are unable to see what they’re doing, or are they intentionally trying to deceive others?

A: Mainly, these people who chronically commit logical errors are uneducated—they don’t know logic. They’re struggling along in the best way they can. But a surprising number of people are just trying to sell their own personal bias. They’re slanting things intentionally to fit that bias. It happens in politics all the time, but I can say from experience that it happens just as often in science, and in other fields. Economics, history, psychology, for example.

Q: And students who can see this clearly and specifically would be ahead of the game.

A: Such students would have a towering advantage.

If you have any further questions, feel free to email me at “qjrconsulting [at] gmail [dot] com”.

Here is the course outline:

The course has 18 classroom sessions. The last two sessions are the final exam and the teacher’s step-by-step review of the exam.

The teacher’s manual explains how every lesson is laid out.

EVERY CLASSROOM LESSON IS FILLED WITH EXAMPLES THAT ARE STUDIED BY THE STUDENT, UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE TEACHER.

LESSON 1: The student learns how generalizations and vague terms can infect the reasoning process and make it useless and misleading. What is a generalization? What is a vague generalization? What is a vague term? Examples are studied. Vague terms and generalizations are the most common errors found in the reasoning process.

LESSON 2: The student learns to analyze several traditional logical fallacies that occur in a line of reasoning. These fallacies are shown in many examples. They are concise and clear. These are the flaws first described by Aristotle in ancient Greece.

LESSON 3: The student now begins to examine actual passages of text that contain multiple logical errors. The passages are short. With the teacher’s guidance., the student comes to see how these passages are misleading. This lesson is the groundwork for everything that is to come in the course.

LESSON 4: The student tackles a whole host of text passages that contain logical flaws. These passages illustrate such fallacies as: polemic; attacking the person rather than the argument; vague terms; inappropriate analogy; “sales pitch”; omission of vital information; circular reasoning.

LESSONS 5-16: The student now embarks on the analysis of six much longer and more complex text passages. Each long passage is studied for two classroom sessions. These passages resemble news stories, political promotion, internet journalism, science press releases—in other words, just the sort of material we all come across every day. The teacher has the students take apart each passage and offer up the errors they find; then, the teacher explains ALL the errors.

In my audio files that accompanies the teacher’s manual, I go through each of these long passages and describe the errors contained in them.

Lessons 5-16 are the core of the course. The student gains confidence in being able to dissect, SPECIFICALLY AND IN DETAIL, realistic written material that contains multiple logical errors. Step by step, passage by passage, the student learns how to find the flaws and see through the misdirection.

LESSONS 17 AND 18: The student takes the final exam. In it, the student examines a new long text passage and writes down all the SPECIFIC errors he/she can find. Then, after grading the exams, the teacher gives, in the last class, a detailed analysis of the exam passage.

The teacher’s manual is very complete. It contains every passage contained in the course–and a detailed explanation of how the major passages are flawed. Essentially, the teacher studies the manual, listens to the audio files of me breaking down the text passeges, and then teaches the course.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Here are the contents of my collection, The Matrix Revealed:

* 250 megabytes of information.

* Over 1100 pages of text.

* Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

* My complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and audio to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

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

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

* ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

* RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

* JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages.

Also included:

* Several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix. 53 pages.

* The ten and a half hours of mp3 audio are my solo presentation, based on these interviews and my own research. Title: The Multi-Dimensional Planetary Chessboard—The Matrix vs. the Un-Conditioning of the Individual.

(All the material is digital. Upon ordering it, you’ll receive an email with a link to it.)

Understanding Matrix is also understanding your capacity and power, and that is the way to approach this subject. Because liberation is the goal. And liberation has no limit.

I invite you to a new exploration and a great adventure.

Jon Rappoport

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

Meet the Grand Magician of Is

Meet the Grand Magician of Is

by Jon Rappoport

September 18, 2017

This Wizard is one of my favorite inventions for explaining “life in this reality.”

The Wizard is always busy pointing out What Is. “This is, and then over there, that is, too. Don’t ignore this other thing that is…”

On and on and on.

The Wizard of Is surveys the world and the universe and says, “Here it all is. This is what will eliminate the need for you to invent your own world.”

Translation: “It will keep you in a beautiful prison forever, because all roads lead through a maze that takes you back to the beginning, where you started.”

The Wizard of Is does everything he can to convince you that What Already Is is your best option, your destiny, your home of homes.

After that, you only have to find your place in it. The Wizard is very good at cooking up mumbo-jumbo about you needing a particular place and how, when you find it, things fall together and click together for you.

“We’re making this endless TV series called Reality and there are many roles available. If we can find your best role, you’ll fit it like a glove, and then you’ll be happy.”

The Wizard then makes sure to indicate that challenging What Is is a very difficult road. It opens you up to all sorts of dangers, he says. The Wizard has lots of experience in wielding the stick and the carrot.

What are some of the characteristics of What Is? It’s always there. You can always see it and look at it and get involved with it. It’s like a vast painting in a museum—except you walk into it and live there. It’s made for you. It’s apparently seamless—once you’re inside it. It doesn’t break down and reveal rips in its fabric. It endures.

You can approach it from many angles—political, economic, social, medical, military, scientific. But above all, What Is is a Continuum, which is to say it’s an interlock of space-time-energy. It all fits together. Each aspect enforces and confirms every other aspect.

The idea of exiting from it seems absurd. You’re there, and there you will stay. Your job is to fit in, to find your place, your role, your destiny.

A great deal of Wizard-of-Is propaganda surrounds it. For example, you have no capacity to exceed its parameters. You can make use of technology to explore and manipulate certain pieces of What Is, but without technology you’re lost. Therefore, those who supply you with technology are your masters.

The Wizard states that he is your guide. He’ll help you navigate What Is to your advantage. This is your best option. Your only option.

All of this is a highly sophisticated form of hypnosis.

The Wizard says, “You don’t want to think too much about What Is. It’ll lead to disillusionment. You’ll feel depressed. You won’t know what to do. You need to accept What Already Is. All happiness stems from that.”

But acceptance is half a meal. It’s unstable. It breaks down. In time, the devotee finds himself at sea, cut off from his own creative power, unwilling to exercise it, for fear that he’ll overstep his mandate as a human being.

This makes the Wizard rejoice. It’s his device, his con.

Some years ago, I was interviewed by a host who urged me to talk about the Matrix. But with every step I took, I could see in his rushed agreement all the signs that he was becoming more and more uncomfortable.

He was looking for a conclusion, a wrap-up that would confirm his hypnotized belief in What Is.

It was, all in all, quite amusing. He was saying yes, yes, while he was thinking no, no. He wanted the Wizard of Is, that’s all.

So I introduced the idea of the Wizard. Then, I really saw him go into internal paroxysms. He looked like he was about to fall off his perch.

He was dedicated to systems all the way down. He wanted to be surrounded and comforted by a structure that would eliminate the need for him to do anything—while he pretended that was not the case.

I said, “Look, if you really like systems, invent your own. You don’t have to be living under the umbrella of someone else’s.”

I saw a small light go on in his eyes.

“That’s interesting,” he said slowly.

After the interview, he took me aside and told me, “You know, I rarely think about a new idea on these shows. I’m pretty much up to speed on everything. But maybe I can dump that Wizard you talked about…”

The Wizard isn’t forever. He just acts as if he is:

“DON’T IMAGINE. DON’T CREATE REALITY. JUST KEEP LOOKING AT WHAT ALREADY IS. THIS IS AND THAT IS. JUST KEEP LOOKING AT WHAT IS…KEEP LOOKING…”


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, 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 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

It takes a village to ruin everything

How elite problem-solving works

by Jon Rappoport

August 16, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

Here is a formula for you: “smaller problem, bigger solution.”

It’s quite an elite formula, and I’ll explain it as I go along.

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller, Memoirs 2003)

In a future sea of darkness, the islands of light, toward which people desperately grope, are clusters of buildings occupied by mega-corporations and government agencies.

To achieve a measure of survival, people seek those islands and the jobs that come with them.

When you sign on and are accepted, you pledge a loyalty that knows no bounds, because there is no viable alternative. You cease worrying about the crimes your employer is committing, because you are safe, you are out of the darkness, and you want to stay there.

What would cause this future to come to pass? Many answers have been offered. I’ll add a factor to the list.

It concerns a method of problem-solving. Here is the premise: if a problem crops up, solve it by enlarging the scope of the relevant factors.

More precisely, ARTIFICIALLY enlarge the scope of the relevant factors.

This is Elite Problem Solving.

In 1996, Hillary Clinton’s book, It Takes a Village, appeared. In it, she argued that a whole community must solve the problem of raising a child. Of course, this was pretentious nonsense. It runs parallel to the idea that no entrepreneur can prosper without infra-structure that is built with public money, and therefore the entrepreneur and his output should be the property of the state.

Starting with the individual child, Clinton offers a solution that encompasses a town or a community or even a city…or who knows…maybe a planet.

But the original problem isn’t solved (if it was a problem to begin with), and the solution is an artifact designed to regulate a larger environment. To put it another way, Clinton’s model makes it necessary to put everyone under the gun because a child may be a problem.

Problem: a gaggle small fish might be wiped out by allowing water from rivers to irrigate farmland. Solution: we must consign the whole valley of farms to eternal drought.

If the free market gives birth to 12 million companies and corporations, this creates the “problem” of uninspected potential crimes. Therefore, we have to put the world under the regulatory eye and nose of agencies, whose ultimate objective is to wipe out those enterprises, or weaken them to the point at which they will be absorbed in much larger corporations—until, finally, there are 400 mega-corporations that are responsible for 80% of all international trade and production.

Then and only then can we feel safe. Then and only then can we know that government will exercise proper control over business on planet Earth.

Of course, when 400 corporations do constitute the productive engine of Earth, they will have bought off governments so they can do exactly as they like. They will partner with governments to share the spoils. Which was part of the idea in the first place.

Again, the method is: whatever the size of the original purported problem, make the solution bigger and more encompassing.

If one gun (fired by one person) killed one person, confiscate all guns everywhere.

Here is another example: if you foment and prepare and fund and supply a war between two major powers, in the aftermath you will solve the problem of reconstruction by welding those powers together as one Complex…in which case, you end up with larger unified organizations than when you started, and you control that unified whole.

In Europe, that whole is called the totalitarian European Union.

Look at the opposite strategy, which is no longer held to be viable: you create self-sufficiency wherever possible. Responsible self-sufficiency. Most people don’t have a clue what that means.

Suppose you started a small nation. You would be faced with the problem of survival. How would you solve that? You could forge all sorts of relationships with other countries in the areas of trade, loans, and purchases of material…except you know that these other nations are corrupt beyond the telling of it. Their governments are corrupt, their economies are corrupt, their leaders are criminals. Do you opt for this larger entangling solution, or do you decide to make do with what you have and innovate and work your way toward the objective of your own national self-sufficiency?

If you opt for the second choice, what happens? It has rarely if ever been tried. These days, you would be accused of isolationism and, at the very least, “exiled from the world community.”

And yet, theoretically speaking, if you could survive and prosper as a new nation, dedicated to inculcating the self-sufficiency of every citizen as a long-range goal, you would stand as a shining example to the rest of the world. You would have made the great experiment with freedom work. This was, in a way, what the original American Republic was built to achieve, before it was subverted, three or four minutes after the Constitution was drawn up.

During World War 2, members of the Council on Foreign Relations were tasked with setting out a plan for the creation of the United Nations, the grand global solution to war everywhere at all times.

As we have seen, its emerging agenda has been a covert op to control many facets of human life in all nations, under the rubric of “sustainability.”

In 1988, two UN agencies that seemed to have little power, the World Meteorological Association and the Environmental Programme, created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC went on to spearhead the drive to convince the world that man is causing so much atmospheric warming, civilization will soon end if the UN doesn’t radically reorder the behavior of all societies and individuals. And the UN mantra is: “the science is settled.”

A child in a classroom fidgets in his chair and looks out the window. He doesn’t respond immediately when the teacher asks him a question. Well, this child needs to be “solved.” For that, a school counselor is brought in, who in turn recommends a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist makes a diagnosis of ADHD, which doesn’t exist. There is no test for it. The child takes Ritalin, and within eight weeks falls into a funk. The psychiatrist diagnoses this as a new emerging condition, clinical depression, rather than an understandable reaction to Ritalin. He prescribes one of the SSRI antidepressants. Two months later, the child cuts himself. The psychiatrist, ignoring the fact that these SSRI drugs are known to cause suicide, decides to prescribe an even stronger chemical, one of the so-called antipsychotics. The parents refuse to allow this. Child Services is called in. They interview the parents and suggest that a charge of medical neglect could be brought against them, in which case the child might be taken from the home and put into state-sponsored foster care.

It takes a village. An overbearing criminal village.

An innovative but struggling company, Silk, which markets organic soy products, sells itself to Dean, a giant agribusiness corporation. Dean turns around and begins buying cheaper soy from China, rather than from the US organic farmers who were supplying Silk. Some of those US farmers go out of business. This is called “free trade,” and is justified by the claim that we’re all living in One World, and the sovereignty of nations is merely an outmoded fiction. Loyalty to one’s own country is scoffed at as “primitive.”

All over the planet, huge agribusiness corporations are bringing local farmers to their knees. These corporations are international. They owe no allegiance to any nation. They float.

Here is Richard Bell (pseudonym) (16 interviews, 132 pages with Richard in my collection The Matrix Revealed), a former financial insider: “Someday, up the road, a few of these agribusiness corporations will merge into a super-entity. Then what will we have? Is this still the free market? Of course not. The level playing field no longer exists.”

“And here’s the kicker: overall food production declines. Government pension funds and banks are INVESTED in the stock of that super-agri-entity. They want to see that stock price rise. They’ll do NOTHING to interfere with that.”

“Agriculture becomes a closed system. The whole idea is to make it look like free-market capitalism, when it isn’t. It turns out that you need separate nations to have capitalism. You need tariff protections. You need nations that figure out how to move toward self-sufficiency. You won’t learn these principles in college courses. You’ll learn just the opposite.”

We have been sold a fiction. Time and time again we have been told that no nation can exist and survive on its own. Self-sufficiency is a foul and selfish myth. Every nation needs vital resources it doesn’t have. It can only obtain them from another country.

This presupposes that the ingenuity and imagination of the human mind is limited in what it can devise. Which is the biggest lie of all.

Discrediting the notion of self-sufficiency is the cornerstone in the building of Globalism.

Why do you think we are bombarded with stories and pictures of poverty around the world? Why do you think stories of celebrities adopting babies from “The Third World” are given such wide play? Because our so-called leaders really care? This op has as its goal fostering the amorphous conviction that everyone must pitch in to help everyone at all times everywhere.

And THAT sets the stage for what? Not share and care. Not a better world. No. It sets the stage for mega-corporations and their partner governments and banks, backed up by intelligence agencies and armies and “missionaries,” to enact their Great Solution: global control, management, governance.

The celebrity, bouncing her new adopted baby on her knee, says, “I know, in the end, when all this is done, our leaders will make it a better world. I know they will. Share and care will win.”

But that’s not the plan. It never was.

You can find the elite formula in many places: “smaller problem, larger solution.”

The smaller problem leads to a grand solution that encompasses far more than the problem ever touched.

In other words, it’s a fake solution dressed up to look like the real thing.


The Matrix Revealed

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

If you want to avoid jail time, run for president

If you want to avoid jail time, run for president

by Jon Rappoport

July 28, 2017

Richard Painter was once an ethics lawyer for George W Bush.

Lawyer Painter claims Trump must not push the Attorney (AG) General into prosecuting Hillary Clinton, because it is wrong for a sitting president to go after his former opponent from an election campaign.

Wrong? Painter actually wrote:

“[Trump] Pressuring AG to prosecute the person [Hillary] who lost the election is an impeachable offense if we value free elections.”

Impeachable? Really?

By that logic, it might be a good idea for drug traffickers and banksters and mobsters and other miscreants to gain immunity by running for the highest office in the land.

“Hey, you can’t arrest me. I ran for president.”

Painter may be a lawyer, but he doesn’t understand logic. Or he does, and he’s just bloviating, because he wants to pile on Trump.

“Mrs. Clinton, did you begin committing your first felonies after you announced your candidacy for the presidency in 2016?”

“Ha-ha, goodness no. Bill and I were breaking all sorts of laws from the beginning, back in Arkansas.”

If lawyer Painter had lived at the time of Al Capone, he could have said, “Big Al, I have a one-stop shop for your legal problems. Join one of the two political parties and run for president. Then you’ll be untouchable.”

The money-washing Clinton Foundation was not an invention of Donald Trump. Neither was the outrageous uranium deal the Clintons helped engineer, during which 20% of US uranium production was sold to Putin.

“Mrs. Clinton, we’re taking a close look at your role in the invasion of Libya, which turned that nation into a sewer of destruction, death, and chaos.”

“Sorry, I can’t answer questions on that subject. I ran for president.”

“Are you pleading the Fifth?”

“Certainly not. I’m saying I was promised immunity.”

“By whom?”

“Myself.”

I’m waiting for lawyer Painter’s next shot out of the box. It might go this way: “Trump didn’t actually win the election, he colluded with Russia, so he isn’t president, so he can’t order the Attorney General to do anything. Hillary Clinton is actually the president, and as such, she can claim executive privilege and refuse to allow herself to be prosecuted, as long as she remains in office.” Which, in her mind, is forever.

I’m aware that many people believe Trump himself is escaping prosecution for past financial crimes because he is in currently in the White House. However, the last time I looked at the law, two wrongs don’t make a right. If Hillary has committed serious crimes (and she has), then prosecution ought to follow.

The media shouldn’t object. Hillary Clinton, in the dock, in a globally televised trial? The ratings would extend to Mars.

With Mr. Painter as her attorney, there would be fireworks:

“My client, Hillary Clinton, was born in a solar system far, far away. That information has just come to light. Therefore, I challenge the standing of this court to review her actions. At the moment, space ships are departing her home planet with legal papers to serve, including a birth certificate. They should arrive circa 2406AD. Until that time, she should be released on her own recognizance.”

“This is trial is being brought to you by Bayer, maker of Thorazine. Ask your doctor if Thorazine is right for you.”

Jon Rappoport

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