Exit From The Matrix: The individual and the reality machine

by Jon Rappoport

March 3, 2018

Technocratic mystics believe (or pretend to believe) that hooking up brains to a super-computer Cloud will bring on a miracle:

Humans will have instantaneous access to truth, facts, and bottom lines on any subject under the sun. The connection will be automatic.

Putting aside the vast neurological problems in achieving this fantastical state, the whole assumption is cockeyed, because censorship is actually the guiding principle.

“We will tell you everything you need to know and exclude everything we decide you shouldn’t think about.”

In other words, the brain-Cloud hookup is major media to the nth degree. Piles of nonsense, deception, omission, lies, and official stories. Mind control.

No need for tech giants like Google and Facebook to de-list, hide, and warn about “dangerous information.” It will be erased.

If that’s a miracle, it’s diabolical.

The brain-Cloud connection would constitute a Reality Machine in action, turning out reams of fabricated falsities, thereby building a landscape of perception which is a self-referential bubble.

You would see the shapes of a society that has been created for you.

Estimates of the approaching power of computers are based on their capacity to process information; nothing more. It’s absurd to infer a computer that can process faster than the human brain will be possessed of greater truth. Is a plane whose payload is bombs more truthful than a Piper Cub?

No, something else is going on here. The preposterous “utopia” of brain-computer merge is a front and a cover for the agenda of turning humans into machines. In that regard, the brain would be the Holy Grail. Make it into a slave that produces a chosen reality of perception and thought…

At that point, the individual would go the way of the dinosaur. Which is the whole point of technocracy.

As I keep saying, in any plan that seeks to encompass the whole human race, the individual is the wild card. He has the capacity to see through false realities; and more than that, he can, on his own, invent new unforeseen realities of startling dimensions. This power may be latent, but it is there.

Some 50 years after my collaboration with an extraordinary healer in New York, Richard Jenkins—whom I write about in my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies—I assembled my collection, Exit From The Matrix. This mega-collection contains many imagination exercises designed to acquaint you with your latent power, first-hand. When practiced on a daily basis, they can help bring your creative impulse front and center, and can help you unleash your creative power. This is the underlying goal of all my work. (Note: The Secret Behind Secret Societies book is included in the Exit From The Matrix collection).

Life on Earth has been distorted through many lenses over time; and the latest of these lenses involves the promotion of technology to impart the idea that humans can “evolve to a higher stage” by merging their brains with computers.

This is a sham.

Computers can offer us many things; but deeper perception of the truth by automatic reflex, and increased creative power via stimulus-response, are not on the list.

The rejection of that future is a cardinal necessity.

Here are the full contents of Exit From The Matrix:

First, my audio presentations:

* INTRODUCTION: HOW TO USE THE MATERIALS IN EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* 50 IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* FURTHER IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* ANESTHESIA, BOREDOM, EXCITEMENT, ECSTASY

* ANCIENT TIBET AND THE UNIVERSE AS A PRODUCT OF MIND

* YOU THE INVENTOR, MINDSET, AND FREEDOM FROM “THE EXISTENCE PROGRAM”

* PARANORMAL EXPERIMENTS AND EXERCISES

* CHILDREN AND IMAGINATION

* THE CREATIVE LIFE AND THE MATRIX/IMAGINATION

* PICTURES OF REALITY AND ESCAPE VELOCITY FROM THE MATRIX

* THIS WOULD BE A VERY DIFFERENT FUTURE

* MODERN ZEN

* THE GREAT PASSIONS AND THE GREAT ANDROIDS

Then you will receive the following audio seminars I have previously done:

* Mind Control, Mind Freedom

* The Transformations

* Desire, Manifestation and Fulfillment

* Altered States, Consciousness, and Magic

* Beyond Structures

* The Mystery and Magic of Dialogue

* The Voyage of Merlin

* Modern Alchemy and Imagination

* Imagination and Spiritual Enlightenment

* Dissolving Stress

* The Paranormal Project

* Zen Painting for Everyone Now

* Past Lives, Archetypes, and Hidden Sources of Human Energy

* Expression of Self

* Imagination Exercises for a Lifetime

* Old Planet, New Planet, New Mind

* The Era of Magic Returns

* Your Power Revealed

* Universes Without End

* Relationships

* Building a Business for Success

I have included an additional bonus section:

* My book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies (pdf document)

* My book, The Ownership of All Life (pdf document)

* A long excerpt from my briefly published book, Full Power (pdf document)

* My 24 articles in the series, “Coaching the Coaches” (pdf document)

And these audio seminars:

* The Role of Medical Drugs in Human Illness

* Longevity One: The Mind-Body Connection

* Longevity Two: The Nutritional Factors

(All the audio presentations are mp3 files and the documents and books are pdf files. You download the files upon purchase. There is no physical ship.)

What has been called The Matrix is a series of layers. These layers compose what we call Reality. Reality is not merely the consensus people accept in their daily lives. It is also a personal and individual conception of limits. It is a perception that these limits are somehow built into existence. But this is not true.

What I’ve done here is remove the lid on those perceived limits. This isn’t an intellectual undertaking. It’s a way to open up space and step on to a new road, with new power.

Jon Rappoport

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

Home School Excellence

Mar2

Home School Excellence

Logic & Analysis

by Jon Rappoport

March 2, 2018

I have been a supporter of home schooling for many years. There is one overriding reason: the quality of the education can exceed, in many cases, what is offered in public or private schools.

There are, of course, other reasons. For example, parents who are dedicated to educating their own children will take part in a great adventure. Although the experience will present many challenges and struggles, the potential rewards are enormous on several levels.

With all this in mind, I offer an advanced Logic & Analysis course to home-schooling parents and to parents who provide extra tutoring after the regular school day.

These well-shaped courses will present vital material on the art and skill of LOGIC.

In most schools, the subject of logic has been lost. Therefore, the ability to analyze written and spoken material has faded into obscurity.

During my 30 years as a reporter, I’ve run into hundreds and hundreds of claims in which evidence has been lacking. I’m talking about vague, partial, and fragmentary evidence being accepted as complete.

To put it another way, people argue for a particular position, and in support of that position, they offer proof which isn’t really proof.

When you understand and can apply logic, you see through this false proof quickly.

Once upon a time, there were textbooks which listed 15 or 20 traditional logical fallacies, and students were taught how to spot those fallacies in any argument or presentation. Such students became very confident in their own analytical skills.

However, as public education descended into a stagnant pool of political correctness, fraudulent graduation rates, and “new values,” logic was diluted and discarded. It was considered an enemy of preferred group-think.

In addition to this disintegration, many bright students (more than ever) were being drawn into law schools, where they learned that any side of any issue could be compellingly argued—by the practice of twisting logic into knots.

When I was a college student, I was lucky to study under a professor who taught very rigorous courses in logic. I found myself in possession of tools I could use in any course.

I’ve now developed materials that are effective for teaching logic and analysis. These courses do not challenge faith or personal conviction. They are designed to enable a bright student to take apart a written text, an argument, a visual presentation—and discover whether it is valid, whether it truly makes sense, whether it has holes in it.

These courses teach the traditional logical fallacies, offer many sample passages and exercises, quizzes, tests, and simple teacher’s manuals and daily lesson plans.

The Logic & Analysis course is included in my Matrix Revealed collection. I have seen other people offering school courses that are amazingly expensive. I undercut those levels by a wide margin.

Let’s face it. We are living in a world where the notion of individual freedom and power are under attack. Sustaining that freedom involves knowing how to deal with propaganda designed to make us into confused collectivists. When young people possess the know-how and the confidence to see through these shams, they are equipped to succeed.

Here are the contents of 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.

* 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.

* 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.

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

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

Mar1

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

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.

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

Jon Rappoport

Flashback: creating a genetically altered human

Mar1

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Combing through my files, I came across a piece I’d written in 2011 about genetic alteration. But my piece referred to experiments done much earlier, in 2001.

Given what happened in 2001, one can only imagine how far scientists have now gone in tinkering with DNA—openly, and in secret.

From The Telegraph, Sep.27, 2001, “Boy’s DNA implanted in rabbit eggs,” written by Roger Highfield:

“Scientists in China have inserted a boy’s DNA into empty rabbit eggs and grown hybrid embryos, it is reported today. A team at the Sun Yat-Sen University of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, are trying to overcome a practical limitation…In some of the 100 or so successful transfers to a rabbit egg stripped of chromosomes, an embryo developed to the morula stage, [which is] the compact ball of cells that forms after about three days of development. For stem cells to be isolated, the embryos must be coaxed into developing further.”

Also in 2001, there was another, far more ambitious experiment:

BBC Online (May 4, 2001): “Scientists have confirmed that the first genetically altered humans have been born and are healthy.”

“Up to 30 such children have been born, 15 of them as a result of one experimental programme at a US laboratory [the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey]…”

“Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year-old children confirm that they contain a small quantity of additional genes not inherited from either parent.”

“The additional genes were taken from a healthy donor and used to overcome their mother’s infertility problems.”

“…The additional genes that the children carry have altered their ‘germline’, or their collection of genes that they will pass on to their offspring…[Note: This means the new abnormal configuration of genes will spread out into the general population, over time, with unknown effects.]

“Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers say that this ‘is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children.’”

The superhighway into a genetically designed future isn’t just a science-fiction fantasy. Stones on that highway have already been laid down.

This is how the op proceeds:

Out front, scientists say they are curing infertility and other medical problems by genetic alteration—and many scientists believe this is the only purpose of the work. But behind that, something else is happening:

Wholesale gene alteration to invent different and new types of humans.

This is the technocrats’ Holy Grail. A society in which different classes of humans are assigned to different levels of work and living.

Lee Silver, an eminent molecular biologist at Princeton, has written a book, Remaking Eden (1998), about the future of gene science in society. This is how he views the future just over the horizon:

“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—[will] all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class…”

“Naturals [who aren’t genetically altered] work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.”

“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.”

“Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of repro-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”

As shocking as Lee Silver’s assessment is, it’s mild when put up against the pronouncement of Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

That’s quite an “innovative” definition of scientific responsibility.

And note that Gregory Stock is also talking about new “life forms” that are combinations of biological and technological elements—bio-machines.

Give the current state of genetic science, and the inflated claims of competence, you can be sure that many thousands of hit-and-miss experiments are being carried out. It’s trial and error. One can only imagine some of the grotesque “errors.”

Behind all this is the assumption that human beings are deficient; they need alteration; as composed, they are woefully insufficient to take their place in the new world order.

Which is why I’m posting this piece—because we are seeing yet another vector in the attack on The Individual. As I’ve maintained for the past 35 years, there is nothing wrong with the individual, except his reluctance to recognize his own power and his own capacity to envision his best future and pursue it with commitment.

In full bloom, the individual is not only adequate, he is dynamic and majestic.

Understanding this is the “adjustment” we need to make.

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

Jon Rappoport

The fear of success

Feb28

The fear of success

by Jon Rappoport

February 28, 2018

This is an idea that gained traction in the so-called New Age movement: people weren’t succeeding in life because, secretly, they were afraid of succeeding. The idea was hailed as a major breakthrough in understanding human psychology. Pundits presented the insight with a aura of smarmy, smug, self-satisfaction: “Of course, I’m beyond the fear, but many of you little people aren’t.”

However, the idea itself has meaning. For example, success carries with it the implication of BECOMING KNOWN. For some people, this is verboten. “No, I don’t want others to know who I am. I would rather be a spectator and watch people step out of the shadows and ‘go public.’ Let them absorb the consequences.”

Spectatorship is, of course, one of the enduring trends of the modern era. Learning something useful, which a person then applies to his own life, takes a back seat to being entertained and stimulated. Passively.

The fear of success also embodies the risk of failure. “Suppose, with full commitment, I pursue my vision of what I want to create in the world—and it doesn’t work out? Suppose people don’t want to accept what I create?” This reservation is nothing new. The man who invented the wheel probably considered it. But it didn’t stop him. Today, he might be diagnosed with Oppositional Defiance Disorder.

People are adroit at inventing all sorts of ways in which their nascent enterprise might crash and burn. They’re experts in that arena. They can generate 50 different varieties of fear around the possibility of success. Conclusion? “I choose to be a watcher. Entertain me. I’ll find all the adrenaline I can there.”

In the new culture of victimhood, the fear of success is transformed into: no one has a right to succeed. By doing so, he must be cheating and lying and deceiving the rest of us. “Success” is a dirty word. We are all equal, and equally disabled. We all have mental disorders. It takes courage to admit having a brain malfunction that needs treatment.

Psychiatry and Big Pharma have taken this notion and promoted it to the skies. There are now 300 officially certified mental disorders, and every one of them requires dosing with drugs.

Take a look at government, at legislators and the armies of bureaucrats sitting in their offices. How many of them ever started their own businesses? What attitude would you expect them to have toward individuals who have, who have made a success of it?

The fear of success embodies the idea that a person doesn’t have power. Once THAT pernicious notion has taken hold, the game is over. “Of course I’d like to launch my own enterprise, but I don’t have what it takes to do that. I don’t have the spark I need. There is nothing I can tap into. Maybe I have a genetic flaw…”

And yet, so far, in many countries, the free market has not been utterly destroyed. There is still room for the individual to strike out on his own and build an enterprise that reflects his best vision. Success is still possible, as long as the person doesn’t downgrade it in his own mind.

HOW DO I FEEL is another modern barrier to success. This unproductive question is brought to the foreground. “Well, if I don’t feel inspired at the prospect of creating something in the world, if I feel doubtful or afraid or reluctant, I should take these as signs that I’m not ready to ‘go out on my own’.”

Such feelings are a dime a dozen, and their presence actually means NOTHING—unless people have been trained to believe they’re important and crucial. Yes, trained. As in, indoctrinated. This is the Age of Psychology, and feelings have become gods.

The therapist asks the patient, “And how do you feel about X?”

A proper answer would be: “I feel you’re making a living by inflating the importance of my emotions to the point where I’m going to become an eternal patient, always and forever judging my own status by looking at random feedback from my own mind…and thereby paralyzing myself.”

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the New Age version of this “feeling quandary.” It’s: “I’m waiting for the Universe to give me permission to move forward with my plans.” “The Universe will give me a sign when it’s time.” “If things didn’t work out, they weren’t meant to be.” These are truly wonderful rationalizations. The person invokes a connection WITH THE WHOLE UNIVERSE to explain his inaction. On the one hand, he can relate intimately to all of space and time, and on the other hand, he can’t get off the couch. Brilliant.

Beyond all the elements of the fear of success—I could offer a whole host of homilies to encourage creative action. But the decision comes from the individual himself. It comes from whatever he needs and can put together, in order to make that decision. The reasons to launch are his own. They don’t belong to anyone else. He doesn’t need to consult anyone. He doesn’t need “collective agreement.” He doesn’t need consensus. He needs himself.

As Thoreau famously wrote: “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.”

You could call this bravery, you could call this courage, but it is simply self-reliance—once in a different age, heralded as a virtue.

Long before SELF-INDUCED inability was promoted and placed on a pedestal.

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

Jon Rappoport

The world on trial: will Globalism/Socialism win?

Feb28

The world on trial: will Socialism/Globalism win?

by Jon Rappoport

February 28, 2018

These words—Socialism and Globalism—are a mystery to most people. What do they mean? Why do they matter?

They matter because, behind the mask, they indicate massive centralized power at the top of the food chain. They aren’t “movements on behalf of the people.” They aren’t “humanitarian solutions to our problems.”

The massive power I refer to consists of governments, mega-corporations, banks, foundations, and technocrats working together, colluding, cooperating, planning a future of control over the world population.

Before he was killed in the shoot-down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 (1983), Congressman Larry McDonald stated: “The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control… Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.”

Rep. Louis T. McFadden, Congressional Record, 72nd Congress, 1st session, June 10, 1932; McFadden served as Chairman of the United States House Committee on Banking and Currency: “Mr. Chairman, when the Federal Reserve Act was passed the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here which would make the savings of an American school-teacher available to a narcotic-drug vendor in Macao. They did not perceive that the United States was to be lowered to the position of a coolie country which has nothing but raw materials and heavy goods for export. That Russia was destined to supply man power and that this country was to supply financial power to an international superstate—a superstate controlled by International bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.”

THAT is Socialism/Globalism. It isn’t a revolution by and for “the downtrodden.”

To get a flavor of what would happen to the United States under such a system, read on:

SCENE: COURTROOM OF THE FUTURE

THE ROOM IS EMPTY, EXCEPT FOR THE PROSECUTOR AND THE JUDGE.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, is there a representative of America here today?

Judge: No need to look for one. We can proceed.

Prosecutor: Very well. I wish to say that the country known as America was always a fiction.

Judge: Why?

Prosecutor: Because borders are artificial and arbitrary.

Judge: Indeed. Who set them? It was all rubbish.

Prosecutor: Second, why should any separate nation have the right to exist? We now understand we are all one planet, one nation if you will.

Judge: I appreciate you bringing that up. It’s been decades since anyone with half a brain believed we could carve up planet Earth into separate sovereign countries. With one planet, under one leadership, there can be no more wars.

Prosecutor: And third, the fiction called America was designed to maximize individual freedom and the individual’s control over his own life. This is an unworkable and heinous concept. It led to massive inequalities. Now, every citizen is equal and contributes to the whole.

Judge: Of course. I work for you, you work for me, and we work for everyone. “Everyone all together”—that is our framework. Worldwide production of goods and services, and their allotted consumption, are regulated from Brussels. No one stands out.

Prosecutor: Our global leaders in Brussels are unidentified. No names or pictures are released. The cult of personality is finished.

Judge: After all, if you are using the awesome power of artificial intelligence to regulate the actions of seven billion people, why do you need to become known and famous? You’re doing basic organization. You’re a manager, a technologist.

Prosecutor: This thing called America had a document called the Constitution. Jurists constantly referred to it. Over time, it became an annoyance and a major impediment to progress. How can you pay legal homage to centuries-old concepts when conditions are constantly changing and improving? The human mind itself is evolving.

Judge: Putting the Constitution in mothballs was a major victory for us.

Prosecutor: America eventually reached a point where many “special needs groups” made their demands known. That was a signal more extensive government services were required. Why even call the country America? We were a social-justice construct, part of a global phenomenon.

Judge: In order to fulfill needs properly, the great corporations and government had to close ranks and merge. There was no other way. Thank goodness, it was the end of the free market and capitalism and all that clap-trap. Small businesses went the way of the dodo bird. Every person now has a job, and that job is performed under the aegis of the government-corporate nexus, as a civil employee, in service to EVERYONE.

Prosecutor: Sir, I petition this court to officially declare America defunct.

Judge: Motion granted.

Prosecutor: I further request that, since we have progressed far beyond the point of thinking of ourselves as a separate nation, there is no need to mark this occasion with a ceremony. It would be counter-productive. The former capital, Washington DC, is already shorn of its monuments and is basically a National Security Agency data-storage facility. Let us merely notify Brussels that a verdict has been rendered. They will enter it in their computers and that will be the end of it.

Judge: I agree. It is so ordered. Thank you for your service.

Prosecutor: This is my last case. I’ve just received a notice that I’m being assigned as a first-tier manager at the new Utah public works complex.

Judge: Congratulations. What are they doing there in Utah?

Prosecutor: Building a huge training facility for UN peacekeepers. It’s a ten-year project. Quite remarkable. It will house several hundred thousand people from all over the world.

Judge: Marvelous. We must keep the peace…

You could say this scenario is science fiction. And for the moment, it is. But for how long? If you’re old enough, think back to what life was like in America 35 years ago, 50 years ago. And then think about what life in America is like now. Tremendous changes have taken place, on many fronts. If a person living in the US 50 years ago were suddenly rocketed into 2018, he would be staggered by what he saw and heard.

This is how the future happens. To the people living through it, the changes, year by year, seem incremental. But they aren’t.

Unless the freedom and primacy of the individual survive, the courtroom scene above could happen—and most people would take it in stride.

Make no mistake about it, the individual IS the target. He is the unpredictable wild card in the deck. The technocratic planners know their algorithms don’t work when there are too many independent individuals. So they must rub them out and make them willing “units” on the planetary chessboard.

I write for the individual. I always have, and I always will.

My daily articles, at bottom, are meant to educate and empower the individual; and my three Matrix collections are a much further leap in that direction.

The fundamental power of the individual is creative. This power is rarely, if ever, tapped in the education system. Why? Because the power is all about the individual being able to create the future he most profoundly desires.

Many, many individuals doing just that would crack the foundations of the Globalist/Socialist plan.

Individual creative power IS the vaunted “philosopher’s stone” the ancient alchemists were seeking; that power IS the goal of centuries of struggle to liberate the individual from monarch and priest-class tyrannies; that power is what the founding of the American Republic was all about.

Because that power is what freedom is for.

Freedom is the platform and the space from which the individual launches his best and deepest vision. He makes that vision fact in the world.

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

Jon Rappoport

The individual on trial

Feb27

The individual on trial

by Jon Rappoport

February 27, 2018

THE SCENE: COURTROOM OF THE FUTURE

A PROSECUTOR ADDRESSES THE JUDGE. THE DEFENDANT IS WAITING FOR THE VERDICT IN A JAIL CELL FAR FROM THE TRIAL.

PROSECUTOR: Your Honor, I have a document written by the defendant.

JUDGE: Why do you present it here?

PROSECUTOR: Because it reeks of ideals which the State does not support. It speaks of the individual.

JUDGE (choking on his coffee): The individual? That old tune? I thought we’d gotten rid of it. Read it to me now.

PROSECUTOR (reading): “As always, I return to the individual.

“Without him, there is no meaning to civilization or the future.

“It was once established that society and civilization existed to liberate him, to remove the shackles of the State from him, so he could pursue his own destiny. This victory was massively opposed by combines, monopolies, and cartels, who seek control over populations.

“It is now up to the individual to stake out his own territory, his own power, his own virtue.

“In doing so, he can settle on little ambitions or great ones. He can develop his mind as a seeking instrument of penetration, or he can absorb himself in shallow ideas. He can make his way along huge trails of adventure, or he can occupy himself with ordinary details of a huddled and mundane life.

“To say these choices are his is obvious. But he has to make them.

“He can imagine and envision tiny advances, or he can view great ascendance.

“He can go down with any number of small ships, or he can build a vessel for himself that will take him across an ocean of invention.

“He can discover what he already knows, or he can create new knowledge.

“He is building the reach of his own spirit, or he is living in a welfare state of mind.

“He is discovering the immortal impulses that reside beyond the language of the crowd, or he is trapping himself in the crowd.”

JUDGE: Treasonous, to say the least. The author is obviously psychotic. Where did he get such ideas?

PROSECUTOR: I do not know, sir.

JUDGE: It must have been the Russians.

PROSECUTOR: I hadn’t considered that. Yes, it must be so. Of course.

JUDGE: We’ve caught them at this before. They recruit dupes and being them under their control. They’re trying to undermine our way of life.

PROSECUTOR: I recommend a life sentence for the defendant.

JUDGE: A life of silence in an institution. It is so ordered.

PROSECUTOR: Perhaps we could turn him.

JUDGE: Make him into a double agent? I’ll leave that to the psychiatrists. If they believe they can achieve it, they could set him adrift in our cities and let him attract others to his cause. He could help us identify enemies.

PROSECUTOR: A brilliant idea, Your Honor.

JUDGE: Do you remember names like George Washington, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson?

PROSECUTOR: Vaguely.

JUDGE: They were Russian spies who tried to subvert the United States at the birth of the nation. They spread vile ideas and fake news to the people.

PROSECUTOR: Fake news? That’s a capital crime.

JUDGE: Indeed. It took our leaders many years to discover the plot.

PROSECUTOR: Thank goodness we now have a strong court system.

JUDGE: The loopholes have been eliminated. Next case!

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

Jon Rappoport

World famous psychiatrist says: more psychiatric drug treatment means more mass shootings will happen

Feb27

World famous psychiatrist says: more psychiatric drug treatment means more mass shootings will happen

by Jon Rappoport

February 27, 2018

Listen to this man. You’d better listen.

His name is Peter Breggin. He is a world famous psychiatrist. He has been called the conscience of his profession.

Here is an excerpt from his bio:

“Peter R. Breggin MD is a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and former Consultant at NIMH [National Institute of Mental Health] who has been called ‘The Conscience of Psychiatry’ for his many decades of successful efforts to reform the mental health field. His work provides the foundation for modern criticism of psychiatric diagnoses and drugs, and leads the way in promoting more caring and effective therapies. His research and educational projects have brought about major changes in the FDA-approved Full Prescribing Information or labels for dozens of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs. He continues to education the public and professions about the tragic psychiatric drugging of America’s children.”

“Dr. Breggin has authored dozens of scientific articles and more than twenty books, including medical books and the bestsellers Toxic Psychiatry and Talking Back to Prozac. Two more recent books are Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime and Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and their Families.”

“Dr. Breggin has unprecedented and unique knowledge about how the pharmaceutical industry too often commits fraud in researching and marketing psychiatric drugs. He has testified many times in malpractice, product liability and criminal cases, often in relation to adverse drug effects…”

Here is an explosive excerpt from Dr. Breggin’s recent column at Mad In America: “Psychiatrist Says: More Psychiatry Means More Shootings”:

“In the early 1990s, a federal court appointed me to be the scientific expert for all of the combined product liability cases that were brought against Eli Lilly throughout the country concerning Prozac-induced violence, suicide and crime. Since then I have been involved in many cases in which judges and juries, and even prosecuting attorneys, have determined that psychiatric drugs have caused or substantially contributed to violence. For a lengthy list, see the Legal Section on my website [www.breggin.com].”

“In 2003/2004, I wrote a scientific review article about antidepressant-induced suicide, violence and mania which the FDA distributed to all its advisory committee members. This took place as the FDA Advisory Committee members prepared to review new warnings to be put in the Full Prescribing Information for all antidepressants.”

“In my peer-reviewed paper [about the effects of antidepressants], I wrote: ‘Mania with psychosis is the extreme end of a stimulant continuum that often begins with lesser degrees of insomnia, nervousness, anxiety, hyperactivity and irritability and then progresses toward more severe agitation, aggression, and varying degrees of mania.”

“In words very close to and sometimes identical to mine, the FDA one year later required the manufacturers of every antidepressant to put the following observations in the Warnings section of the Full Prescribing Information:”

“’All patients being treated with antidepressants for any indication should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, and unusual changes in behavior, especially during the initial few months of a course of drug therapy, or at times of dose changes, either increases or decreases. The following symptoms, anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania, have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric’.”

“These adverse drug effects—including agitation, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, akathisia, and impulsivity—are an obvious prescription for violence. Akathisia, which I also described in my article, is a psychomotor agitation that is strongly associated with violence.”

“The FDA Medication Guide for antidepressants warns clinicians, patients and families to be on the alert for the following:
• acting on dangerous impulses
• acting aggressive or violent
• feeling agitated, restless, angry or irritable
• other unusual changes in behavior or mood”

“This list (above) of antidepressant adverse effects from the Medication Guide should make clear that antidepressants can cause violence.”

“The FDA also acknowledges the risk of both psychosis and aggression from the stimulant drugs used to treat ADHD…”

“In the study of violence reports to the FDA, any predisposition toward violence in the patients themselves was largely ruled out because some of the most violence-inducing drugs were not psychiatric drugs, and were being given to a more general population. Some of the violence-inducing drugs were antibiotics, including Lariam (Mefloquine), which Sgt. Robert Bales was taking when he slaughtered 16 helpless, innocent villagers in Afghanistan.”

“[The authorities] do not foresee that the psychiatric strategy for treatment will sometimes lead to tragic outcomes like the school shootings. Nor do they realize that the overall evidence of harm from psychiatric drugs is infinitely greater than the evidence for good effects, as scientist Peter Gøtzsche has confirmed in Deadly Psychiatry and Organized Denial.”

“Calling for more spending on mental health and on psychiatry will make matters worse, probably causing many more shootings than it prevents.”

“Not only do psychiatric drugs add to the risk of violence, but psychiatric treatment lulls the various authorities and the family into believing that the patient is now ‘under control’ and ‘less of a risk.’ Even the patient may think the drugs are helping, and continue to take them right up to the moment of violence.”

“Even when some of their patients signal with all their might that they are dangerous and need to be stopped, mental health providers are likely to give drugs, adding fuel to the heat of violent impulses, while assuming that their violence-inducing drugs will reduce the risk of serious aggression.”

NOTE: DR. BREGGIN ISSUES THIS WARNING: “Most psychiatric drugs can cause withdrawal reactions, including life-threatening emotional and physical reactions. So it is not only dangerous to start psychiatric drugs, it can also be dangerous to stop them. Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done carefully under experienced clinical supervision. Methods for safely withdrawing from psychiatric drugs are discussed in Dr. Breggin’s book: Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families.”

My comments: The tragedy of many mass shootings—many more than are highlighted by the press—is mirrored by the tragedy of psychiatric drug treatment.

Overwhelmingly, psychiatrists bury their heads in the sand, as they continue to dose patients with compounds that cause horrendous effects, including violence.

The psychiatric solution to mass shootings—more diagnosis and more drugs—becomes the cause for increased shootings.

Many mainstream reporters are aware of this, but they are constrained from telling the whole truth. Their media outlets are relying on pharmaceutical advertising for their very existence.

Legal authorities make it very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain information about which psychiatric drugs shooters were taking before they went on their rampages. Case in point, Sandy Hook, 2012—the (purported) killer, Adam Lanza, had been under psychiatric treatment. But an assistant attorney general for the state of Connecticut stated that the list of Lanza’s meds would not be disclosed, because that “can cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.” Better for patients to keep taking those drugs—and then some of them will violently go off on innocent persons.

In conversations with attorneys over the years, I’ve been told that judges, police officers, and prosecutors avoid the “psychiatric drug issue.” They don’t want to touch it. After all, friendly psychiatrists are part of the legal system. They often testify at trials. Further, “medical experts” will lash out and go on the attack against law enforcement if an attempt is made to link a violent crime to the effects of psychiatric drugs. (Dr. Breggin has managed to break through this code of silence. He is one of the only psychiatrists who has been able to testify in court about the true effects of psychiatric drugs.)

At the federal level, lobbyists for drug companies are crawling all over Washington DC. They exert an astonishing level of influence on law makers and bureaucrats. The issue of psychiatric drug-induced murder is obviously not on the list of permitted issues for open and extensive discussion.

Then there is the FDA. This is the agency tasked with approving every medical drug as safe and effective before it can be released for public use. The FDA will never admit its decisions have been fueling mass shootings across America. The Agency views the pharmaceutical industry as its partner. Placing warnings on informational drug inserts (as described above by Dr. Breggin) easily escapes the attention of psychiatric patients. Doctors who prescribe the drugs may or may not read those warnings. Even if they do read them, the drugs are THE solution to “mental disorders.” Very few doctors will seek other means of treatment.

The public is in the middle of a psychiatric plague. Learning the truth is the first step forward.

After that, we MUST preserve the right to refuse medication.

Freedom and life itself hang in the balance.

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

Jon Rappoport

Guns: the one-size-fits-all solution is no solution

Feb26

Guns: the one-size-fits-all solution is no solution

by Jon Rappoport

February 26, 2018

The novelist William Burroughs once wrote: “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.”

The overwhelming number of people who own guns in America aren’t killers. Anyone can, with a little digging, discover where most of the guns crimes are happening—and that’s where law-enforcement should focus their efforts. Trying to disarm the whole country is not only unworkable, it’s targeting the wrong people.

A one-size-fits-all strategy is the work of bureaucrats in a tyranny.

Vaccinate everyone—despite the fact that, by definition, those who are vaccinated should be automatically protected from those “germ carriers” who aren’t. And by the way, research shows that vaccinated people shed (spread) the viruses for which they’ve vaccinated.

Diagnose millions of people with a whole set of standardly defined mental disorders, despite the fact that every individual is unique and different. And by the way, there are NO defining diagnostic tests for ANY official mental disorder. No blood, saliva, urine tests. No brain scans. No genetic assays.

Educate millions and millions of schoolchildren in public government schools by programming them with the same set of “progressive” values, as if they’re all identical automatons in need of mind control.

Carry out wall-to-wall surveillance on the whole population, as if that is the only way to spot a small number of terrorists.

Go to war against major segments of a whole country (e.g., Afghanistan), as if that is the only way to root out a small number of terrorists.

Instead of searching out and vigorously prosecuting mega-corporations (with long jail sentences for executives) who actually pollute and poison the soil, water, and air, assume that the business of America is business across the board, and ignore the “side effects.”

And conversely, when the bureaucracy is rendered so thin it can’t adequately screen and vet the huge number of immigrants rushing into America, promote a policy of open borders so everyone can come in (because “they’re all good people”)—thus reflecting the values taught to the young in government schools. And say this is the meaning of America.

Surveying this list and adding your own examples, you might conclude that entrenched centralized power is actively trying to destroy the country.

And then many people would think you’ve gone off the rails.

And magically, those are the same people who’ve been given a lifetime of indoctrination in the policy of one-size-fits-all, because such a policy is humane and good and serves a brighter future for all, for everyone, for the Collective.

Amen.

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House policy analyst

Feb26

Virus fakery: my conversation with a White House policy analyst

by Jon Rappoport

February 26, 2018

There are a number of cases in which a virus is said to be the cause of a disease—but the evidence doesn’t stand up.

I first realized this in 1987. I was writing my book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century.

Robert Gallo, who claimed he had found the cause of AIDS, hadn’t done proper work. From everything I read, he claimed to have discovered HIV in a low percentage of AIDS patients he had studied.

He should have been able to isolate HIV in virtually every patient.

Then there was the fact that the most popular tests for HIV, the Elisa and Western Blot, were fatally flawed. They could register positive for a whole host of reasons that had nothing to do with HIV.

And no one had found sufficient quantities of HIV in humans to justify claiming it caused any kind of illness.

My own research into the so-called high-risk groups revealed that the “AIDS” immune suppression in those groups could be explained by factors other than a virus.

(Note: All my research at that time assumed HIV existed. Since then, several researchers, including the Perth Group, have made compelling arguments that the existence of HIV was never demonstrated.)

As I was winding up the final draft of AIDS INC., I spoke, off the record, with a well-known and well-respected mainstream virologist at a large US university. I expressed my conclusions about HIV.

He spoke, first, about the difficulties in making an absolute decision about a virus as the cause of a disease.

I brought the conversation back to HIV.

He paused. Then he repeated that he couldn’t go on the record. I asked him why.

He said HIV was a subject fraught with problems. Politics were involved.

He said he and his colleagues were taking a pass on getting into a dispute about the virus. They were aware that the science was shaky. They just didn’t want to go near it. They might enter into other arguments about other kinds of research, but as far as they were concerned, HIV was off-limits.

His obvious implication was: careers were on the line.

Attacking HIV as the cause of AIDS could result in blacklisting.

He stopped short of saying HIV wasn’t the cause of AIDS, but it was clear he had seen enough to know there were major holes in HIV science.

This was a man who had no interest in unconventional points of view. He was an orthodox researcher from A to Z. He wasn’t a rebel of any kind. And yet he readily admitted to me that the whole AIDS research establishment was proceeding on a lack of proof.

Exposing this fact would go far beyond the usual definition of a scandal. The result would be a volcanic eruption, if, say, a dozen respected virologists told the truth.

After we finished our conversation, I understood something about consensus reality. It contains elements about which people can argue in public—but then there are other elements which are completely out of bounds, which can never be refuted in a mainstream setting.

Why? Because if certain lies are exposed, they initiate a contagion of doubt and insight that spreads to the whole complex inter-structure of what people take to be reality.

Great curtains are torn away. Pillars are cracked, and fall. Images which are taken to be absolute and unchanging distort, dissolve, and blow away in the wind.

A week after AIDS INC. was shipped to bookstores, in 1988, my friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True, told me a copy of the book was on its way to Russia in a diplomatic pouch.

I asked him how he knew. He shrugged and said he had a few connections.

Of course, I’ve never heard anything back about the Russian response to the book, but I find it interesting that, in America, my publisher and I never made any headway in connecting with government officials.

There was one exception. In 1987, I had a conversation with James Warner, a White House policy analyst. The interview was published in the LA Weekly.

Warner had serious doubts about the HIV theory of AIDS, and would arrange a White House conference on the issue. Pro and anti HIV scientists would be permitted to speak at length.

At the last minute, the conference was cancelled.

Here are a few brief excerpts from my conversation with Warner. As a White House analyst, his comments are explosive:

Warner: The government really hasn’t fulfilled its role in providing good information [on AIDS]. We just may not know enough. With AIDS, we’re dealing with a syndrome, not a disease. We may see a patient who has a genetic defect that’s causing his immune deficiency [instead of HIV being the causative agent]. I’m not satisfied we know all we think we do, by any means.

Rappoport: Robert Gallo, Max Essex, people like that, were the field commanders in the NIH [National Institutes of Health] war on cancer in the 70’s. They lost that war. So why are they in charge of AIDS research now? It seems odd that we don’t have other people running the show.

Warner: If ever I’ve been tempted to believe in socialism, science has disabused me of that. These guys [at NIH] assume that it’s their show. They just assume it.

Rappoport: Peter Duesberg, a distinguished molecular biologist at Berkeley, has said that HIV does not cause AIDS. Have you asked people at NIH what they think, specifically, of his arguments?

Warner: Yes. I’ve been told that Peter Duesberg’s refutation of HIV has been discounted by the scientific community. I was given no explanation as to why. I was very offended. No evidence was presented to me. Just that Duesberg had been ‘discounted.’ That’s absurd. It’s not a scientific response to dismiss Duesberg as a crank.

Rappoport: The definition of AIDS in Africa is now becoming synonymous with starvation. They’re saying the three major symptoms are chronic diarrhea, fever, and wasting-away. Weight-loss. It certainly makes a perfect smokescreen for the
aspect of hunger which is political [and intentionally maintained] – just call it AIDS.

Warner: I had not considered that. There is a program to make Africa self-sufficient by the year 2000. This could certainly hinder that activity. You know, I was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. I experienced weight-loss of eighty pounds. And when I came home, I was suffering from a form of dysentery that you could call opportunistic. A number of us were. We didn’t have AIDS.

—end of interview excerpt—

In this current political atmosphere, a White House analyst wouldn’t dare go on the record with comments like these.

Rigid consensus must be maintained, at any cost.

Truth is beside the point.

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

Jon Rappoport