Breakthrough: true populism in the age of instant time

Breakthrough: true populism in the age of instant time

What a populist would do in 2016 and beyond

What the “real Bernie and Trump” show could be

by Jon Rappoport

March 8, 2016

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

“In this age, populism, if it existed, could connect with the population every day. The wildly popular populist leader would crack the egg of propriety and give blow-by-blow Web accounts of his struggles with the oligarchy, in detail, in his car, outside meeting rooms, on staircases, at home, in his office, on the street, in restaurants; everywhere, speaking to millions of people each time…” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

This is about what a true populist could be in this era of instant unstoppable media and, therefore, instant time.

I’m talking about an understanding of moment-by-moment connection with the population, which is now possible on a grand scale, owing to the internet and the devices which connect to it.

To grasp the implications, you must conceive of one wildly popular person up against forces which absolutely deny the interests and desires of millions of people.

And the leading question is: what should he do, when suddenly thrust into the spotlight, having gained considerable influence—knowing that enormous forces are arrayed to stop him?

A true populist says, for example: no bad trade deals. Translation: stop Globalism in its tracks. Nullify its trade treaties, the cornerstones of its cathedral. Negate them. Destroy them.

If he really meant it, if he was intent on achieving the goal, by whatever means, against some of the most powerful men on the planet, and if he began that journey, in talks, in meetings, in conferences with members of Congress, with US trade representatives, with Washington insiders—

When should he go back to the people, his people, his supporters, and let them know what is happening? When?

The usual pattern is: behind the scenes, for a few months, he tries to turn the oil tanker of State around, he fails, he reports the failure in mildly irritated language during one or two press conferences, and he moves on to other issues. But a real populist now…

Would be going on webcasts to millions of people, his people, giving them updates, explaining his struggle, listing the barriers, pointing out who is building those barriers, how they are obstructing the will of the people…in vivid detail…creating a massive uproar.

This is populism on a scale never envisioned before. It would constitute a staggering breakthrough.

It would shred business as usual in Washington.

A true populist leader would accept the fact that working through usual channels, to bring about stunning changes, is a loser. The enemy is entrenched. The enemy controls the landscape. The enemy controls the machinery.

Where is the populist’s strength coming from? Only one place: the people who are supporting him. So he has to go back to that well, over and over again. And now he can. Live.

“You wanted me to get your jobs back. That’s why you rallied behind me. I want to get your jobs back. I’ve explained why these trade treaties are destroying jobs at home. Now I’m trying to move the rock up the mountain. A few hours ago, I had a meeting with Senator Smith, a staunch defender of the treaties. It went nowhere. I want to tell you what he said, because, in his eyes, you don’t count. Only big corporations count. This is what happened…”

And three, five, ten million people are watching and listening.

And that’s just today’s report.

Tomorrow, or three days from now, there’ll be another blow-by-blow talk about who is blocking people from getting their jobs back.

Imagine it. Think about it. This is the hero’s journey, in real time, detouring around the controlled media. And yet…

The media would respond:

“Hey, Mr. Populist, we just watched your latest webcast. Hell of a show. Maybe you’d like to do your next Report to the People on our network. I mean, you had six million viewers at midnight. Unbelievable. You were sitting in your car, right after your meeting with the Secretary of Commerce. We could do that. Sit in your car, and we’ll beam you to our audience…”

No, I’m not necessarily talking about Donald Trump. Whether you like him or hate him—not the issue here. I’m talking about any person who, for whatever reason, gains the support of millions of people, because he wants to restore something to them, something they once had, something that was taken away from them by the wolves, something they had earned—and now it’s gone. Like jobs. Something basic that no one can argue about.

A real and true populist, in this age, would keep going back to his people—and he could. Live, at any moment, day or night. He would have to.

He would put a level of pressure on his enemies that has never existed before.

“Well, people, as you know, Congressman Jones introduced a bill today that would cancel four giant trade treaties and take the US out of the trap it’s been in for the last 25 years. It would bring giant corporations home from foreign lands. They would re-open their factories here. Your jobs would come back. Under ordinary circumstances, this bill wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of passing. But we aren’t in ordinary circumstances anymore, because I have you and you have me. So let me tell you about the committee where this bill is going to meet its first big roadblock. I just got out of meeting with the head of the committee. This is exactly what happened…It’s a tragedy and travesty…”

“I want to ask you people a question tonight. What would happen if I, as President, decided to cancel all those trade treaties? Myself. With one stroke of the pen. By executive order. What would happen to me and to you and what would the Congress and the press do? I’m asking you. Is it a crime to give you your jobs back? Would somebody try to put me in jail or impeach me? Would they dare, with all of you behind me? Would they?”

“Some of you are telling me they’re going to shoot me. You’re warning me. I have to ask you this. With all of you behind me, do you really think they’d try? They may be crazy, but they aren’t stupid. Don’t you think they know what would happen?”

What I’m painting here isn’t only a different concept of media. It’s a different concept of political time. Time intervals.

Instead of six weeks or three months between general and vague reports and updates, the populist telescopes time. He shrinks the intervals. He makes his reports to the people every week, every few days. If he’s compelling, if he presents vivid details and names and events—instead of the usual hash of high-flying nonsense—he invents a new medium. A new way of connecting.

All right, take the two candidates in this year’s Presidential race who seem to be populists—Bernie and Trump—and forget for a moment whether they’re real or fake, sincere or con artists, ordinary politicians or a different breed. Forget that for the moment. Imagine what could happen if, between their usual speeches and interviews and debates, they went to the Web for live streaming every few days, building and building their audiences, and not just in the US, but globally.

Suppose, for example, they both had good research teams who assembled extensive dossiers, chapter and verse, on the misdeeds and crimes of Hillary Clinton…and suppose they hammered on that dossier mercilessly in Web broadcasts. Chapter and verse. “This is specifically what you’d be getting if you elected Hillary. This is who she is. This is exactly what she’s done.”

Or: “Let me tell you about American jobs. This is exactly what happened to them. This is who did it.” Night after night. Chapter and verse.

Or: “Let me tell you something about one of those giant trade treaties. NAFTA. Listen up. Once it was passed, US companies could flood Mexico with cheap corn. And they did. Mexico had a lot of corn farmers. Guess what? All that NAFTA cheap corn put 1.5 million Mexican corn farmers out of business. Guess what they did and where they went, all those farmers. A lot of them came up across the border into the US. That’s something you won’t hear about the immigration problem. Come on. Wake up. These Globalist trade treaties are destructive in a lot of ways…”

Fireside chats via the Web. “Hi, everybody. Last night we had nine million people watching, as I sat here by my fireplace and talked about medical care in this country. Tonight, we predict it’s going to be 20 million on the Web, all over the world. So I want to explain how the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. That’s right. You should know about this. Everybody should know about this. I have the reports in front of me. I’m not making this up. Chances are you know someone who has been affected, who has died, or one of their family has died. This affects everybody. The US medical system kills 2.25 million Americans per decade. Can you believe it? Where are the media in all this…”

On and on. The Trump Web blasts. The Sanders Web blasts. Night and day.

Obama could be doing this. Hillary could, too. But do they really have what it takes to keep going back to the well, to their people, and making a visceral impact? Or are they just too mired in lies and tired worn-out generalities—in which case, the rebound effect would be increasingly negative, as they bore their audiences to death.

Some of you are thinking about what might happen if a crazy and vicious populist made use of this approach. Of course. No one claims the world is without risks. There are always risks. This isn’t Rainbow Village with marshmallows and ice cream. Some of you are convinced that all politicians, no matter what they say, are already bought off and are merely props in the grand show. So? That doesn’t preclude the possibility of a new person suddenly coming on the scene who hasn’t sold his soul. The future isn’t already written. Claiming it’s a closed book is an attitude that works for the cemetery and the grave and little else.

Imagination, courage, and intelligence never go out of style. No matter what anyone says.

Taking the internet to a new level is THERE. Waiting.

exit from the matrix

Here’s a variation on a tune that’s been tried before—but with a new sense of spontaneity and urgency:

“Hi, folks, it’s me again. In case you’ve been living under a rock, and some people are, because the economy has gone down the toilet, I’m a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I understand we have about 25 million people watching tonight. I just got off the 15 Freeway in Southern California, outside Rancho Bernardo, and as you can see, I’m standing in a 7-Eleven. I was just chatting with a guy named Frank, who works behind the counter here. Frank, what did you do before this job?”

“Well, I had quite a few jobs. But at one time, I was a line supervisor in a factory that made shoes. A lot of us were fired.”

“Why? Why were you fired?”

“Because the company went belly up. They couldn’t handle the competition. Companies in the US were going overseas to make shoes and bring them back here. Real cheap.”

“Do you know how they were able to pull off that scam?”

“Sure. They don’t have to pay a tax, when they bring the shoes back in. That’s called free trade, right? Well, it put me down. It put my family and me down on our backs. So we had to pull up stakes and move from state to state looking for work…”

“Is this a set up? Did my people search you out here at the store?”

“Hell, no. You just came in to buy a beer. We started talking.”

“Well, this is why I’m going to trample all over the treaties that made you lose your job. I didn’t need to search you out. I meet people like you all the time. So let me run down how this free trade thing works, and who the Globalists are. You’re sure you’re not an actor, Frank?”

“I’ll call my wife and kids and they’ll come over here and tell you what I’m telling you. Here’s my driver’s license. I’ll give you the name of the man who owned the shoe company. You can call him up. He’ll tell you the same thing. You can check him out. He went bust. He’s in Florida now, trying to sell real estate.”

“A whole lot of people will be checking you out tomorrow, Frank. They’ll want to say we’re making all this up.”

“Let them. If they want to, I’ll show them my bills. They can pay them and see if they’re real…”

“Okay, Frank, get your family over here. Why not? I do want to talk to them. And call your old boss at the factory. We’ll put him on the line, too. Meanwhile, I’ll talk about David Rockefeller and the Globalists, and his intellectual sidekick, Brzezinski. It’s quite an interesting story. Brzezinski once said independent nations are finished. He said banks and corporations are running things now. I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s what the American people want. Let’s expose this whole operation down to its shoes…”

That’s just one night of populism in America. For 20 million people.

Getting the picture?

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.

Exclusive: an interview with fired Professor James Tracy

Free speech at an American university? Or not?

James Tracy responds to questions about his firing, and about press reports of events that have swirled around him.

by Jon Rappoport

March 7, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Why was he fired? I mean, why was he really fired? What did he do? What did he do to bring this down on himself? He must have done something wrong…Wait. Are you saying he was fired because he exercised his natural right to free speech? He spoke freely? That’s it? That’s all? No, I can’t believe that. He must have said something that I would disagree with—in which case, he should have been fired. I feel better. He said something I disagree with. He should be fired. What right does he have to say something that makes me feel uncomfortable? That crosses the line. I have a right not to feel uncomfortable. Isn’t that the most basic of all rights? Isn’t that written in the Constitution?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

What happened to Professor James Tracy?

Here is what the NY Times had to say (“Florida Professor Who Cast Doubt on Mass Shootings Is Fired,” 1/6/16):

“MIAMI — A Florida Atlantic University professor who suggested in blog postings and radio interviews that the 2012 massacre of children at Sandy Hook Elementary and other mass shootings were a hoax designed by the Obama administration to boost support for gun control was fired Tuesday.

“James F. Tracy, 50, a tenured associate professor of communications at the Boca Raton university, has repeatedly called into question the authenticity of recent mass shootings, including the slaying of churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., and office workers in San Bernardino, Calif. In his blog postings and radio interviews, Mr. Tracy has said the Newtown massacre may have been carried out by ‘crisis actors’ employed by the Obama administration.”

Here are a few more news quotes about Tracy:

Orlando Sun-Sentinel op-ed (“Tenure be damned, Professor James Tracy embarrasses FAU,” 12/17/2015):

“In our view, academic freedom is not a license to do or say whatever you want, consequences be damned. So we welcome the termination proceedings begun against Tracy this week by FAU, a university he continues to embarrass with his ‘didn’t happen’ conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter, the Boston Marathon bombing, the San Bernardino shooting and other mass attacks.”

The Washington Times (“Florida Atlantic University moves to fire professor who questioned Sandy Hook,” 12/18/2015):

“Florida Atlantic University moved Wednesday to fire a professor who has faced calls for resignation after claiming the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a staged drill that the community benefitted from financially…The school said in a release on its website that School of Communication and Multimedia Studies professor James Tracy was served Wednesday with a notice of termination, to which he has 10 days to respond.”

And then we have this from the Daily Beast (“This Professor Trolled Sandy Hook Parents—And His University Wants Him Gone,” 12/17/2015):

“James Tracy, who taught a course chock-full of conspiracy theories at Florida Atlantic University, reportedly harassed parents of a Sandy Hook child, demanding proof of his death… Florida Atlantic University announced on Thursday it planned to fire tenured professor James Tracy for allegedly harassing parents of the victims of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary that left 20 children and six adults dead… After years of Tracy stating that the massacre was a government conspiracy, the professor reportedly sent a certified letter to Lenny and Veronique Pozner demanding they prove that their deceased 6-year-old, Noah, ever existed. When the family notified the police of the harassment, Tracy responded on a ‘Sandy Hook Hoax’ Facebook page, claiming that the family had ‘made out very well for itself financially’ from the tragedy… That was enough for the university to take action.”

Here is my interview with James Tracy. Let’s read, at length, what he has to say:

Q: Did you harass Lenny and Veronique Pozner about their son, Noah?

Absolutely not.

In March of 2015, Lenny Pozner, acting on behalf of his “HONR Network,” filed a copyright infringement claim with Automattic, the ISP and parent company of WordPress.com, where my blog, Memory Hole, is housed. Pozner/HONR Network demanded that I take down an image that Pozner purports to hold copyright ownership in. This well-known photograph, purportedly of [Lenny’s son] Noah Pozner, was voluntarily provided to the press by the Pozners in December 2012 following the Sandy Hook massacre event and has since been reproduced millions of times in print, electronic, and online media throughout the world.

An identical photo of Noah Pozner also appeared in December 2014 in the wake of a school massacre in Peshawar Pakistan, purportedly representing a child victim in that shooting. I wrote an article in January 2015 on the re-emergence of this image and included the photo in question. Even the BBC eventually acknowledged how the photo first appeared following the 2012 Newtown massacre. When Automattic/Wordpress presented me with Pozner’s takedown request it remarked that my inclusion of the photo in the post constituted “fair use” under US copyright law, which provides for republication of copyrighted material for the purpose of “commentary or criticism.” Nonetheless, I removed the photograph from my blog, and responded to the allegations, referencing free speech concerns and asking for documentation and evidence supporting Pozner’s copyright claims. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any journalistic outlet that has ever attempted to accurately report this.

I should note that by early 2015, Lenny Pozner had become infamous within the alternative media community for filing blatantly frivolous infringement claims. Pozner’s objective appears to be to shutdown any commentary or criticism of the controversy surrounding his son’s death, as alleged. To contest such claims, anonymous bloggers and YouTubers must divulge their legal identities. Pozner and his HONR Network associates then use this identifying information to stalk and harass Sandy Hook researchers, going so far as to contact their family members, neighbors, and employers, to suggest these researchers are emotionally harming Sandy Hook victims’ families. But there’s nothing unlawful with such study and criticism. On the contrary, it is Pozner and his group who are involved in unlawful stalking, harassment and defamation. This very harassment and defamation of myself reached a crescendo with the Sun-Sentinel’s December 10 publication of an article by Lenny and Veronique Pozner entitled, “Sandy Hook Massacre 3rd Anniversary: Two Parents Target FAU Conspiracy Theorist; FAU Professor Taunts Sandy Hook Parents.”

Q: How do you view free speech and the 1st Amendment, in light of what is happening to you?

Free speech and academic freedom are closely intertwined. When school officials at FAU [Florida Atlantic University] initially expressed their concerns about my blog in 2013, I explained to them that if I could not practice my constitutional rights during my personal time, then my right to academic freedom and professional autonomy on the job is likewise threatened. This is the case for university faculty at FAU and throughout the country. The American Association of University Professors and The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education supported my stance in letters of protest to school officials when FAU first attempted to discipline me for my personal blogging in March of 2013. Regardless of the lies told by the Pozners and their media allies, I don’t think there’s any question given what has transpired that FAU has acted wrongfully, and in violation of its own principles of academic freedom, institutional tenure and my constitutional rights.

Q: On what basis did the University fire you?

FAU’s contention is that I failed to file “outside activity” forms for my personal blog. In January of 2013, they made the same request and at that time I explained that such endeavors are personal and protected by the First Amendment. The administration fell silent for 34 months, and then abruptly resurrected this unconstitutional basis as cause for termination in late December 2015. For their exact “reasoning”, see FAU’s Notice of Termination, dated January 6, 2016.

Q: Before this situation finally blew up, you must have known you were on a collision course with the University. What were your thoughts about that?

I had no idea that university officials would so brazenly violate the well-established principles of academic freedom and my constitutional rights. In 2014, a new president, John Kelly, was recruited from Clemson University and installed at Florida Atlantic. His administration was characterized to me by one senior FAU faculty member as the most anti-faculty administration in thirty-plus years. This administration has proceeded to discipline or threaten with discipline several faculty who’ve made public pronouncements that Kelly and his inner circle disfavor.

In September 2015 the Kelly administration attempted to effectively eliminate tenure by implementing a controversial post-tenure review process that faculty eventually caught wind of and protested. I also reported on that episode.

See James Tracy, “Academic Freedom Threatened in America: The Policy of Post Tenure Review,” Global Research, September 20, 2015.

Q: In a similar vein, people must have been telling you, in the past few years, that you were treading on dangerous ground, relative to job security. How did you respond?

I can’t recall any colleague suggesting that I was in danger of being disciplined, much less being stripped of tenure and fired. I was confident that tenure and the First Amendment still had meaning at FAU. I was obviously proven wrong.

Q: Do you believe your present situation is a test case for academic freedom in America?

Absolutely—for academic freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. All of these protections exist so that faculty and citizens can examine, research, and publicize the potential malfeasance and wrongdoing of those in power. As some academics and journalists have come to realize, however, is the unwritten code guiding what topics can actually be addressed. Political assassinations and similar events are often deemed suspect and off-limits.

I think this is strongly-rooted in the misleading yet almost uniformly adhered to notion that we live in an “open society,” a mythic pluralism overseen by properly functioning political institutions inhabited by fair-minded political leaders and bureaucrats, all of whom have our best interests at heart. Of course, universities are a central part of this mythic democratic order. Researching such difficult subject matter calls the legitimacy of this system into question. At the same time controversial and poorly-understood topics are exactly what tenure and academic freedom exist to foster and protect.

Q: Is anyone at your University defending you?

I have maintained contact with most of the colleagues I’ve come to know in my thirteen years at FAU. They understand how I have been defamed in the press and recognize the grave injustice of the termination. Yet not nearly enough people have condemned the FAU administrators’ action, particularly the egregiousness of their conduct. As noted, some faculty clearly fear retaliation, and rightly so. Others both at FAU and elsewhere have simply bought the disinformation the news media have circulated without examining the facts, which is the most painless and convenient course of action.

Q: What would you say to people who believe your claim about Sandy Hook is completely absurd?

You can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into in the first place. Most challengers of my analyses and criticisms of unbelievable official narratives have not even attempted to explore the evidence researchers and journalists have presented through alternative media. It’s much easier to shoot the messenger, particularly when the messenger is framed as an insensitive deviant, and refrain from critical thinking.

Q: Playing Devil’s advocate for a minute—it’s one thing to espouse a controversial view in a college classroom, but when grieving parents feel pain because you’re going after them, all bets are off, and your University has a right to terminate you, on the basis that you’re crossing a moral line and bringing shame to the institution.

I didn’t “go after” anyone, even though that’s how the legacy news media chose to present and cultivate the controversy. In the immediate wake of FAU’s public announcement that it was poised to terminate my employment on December 16, 2015 the media assumed that I was being fired because of my public comment and letter to Pozner’s HONR Network. Yet the administration fired me on a technicality that cannot warrant the termination of any tenured faculty member, particularly one such as myself who since 2002 has established an impeccable record of research, teaching and service at FAU. I contend that I merely sought the truth, did my job and engaged in constitutionally protected activities. I did not bring shame on FAU. The disclaimer on my blog specifically states that I don’t speak for FAU. In fact, FAU has brought shame to itself by violating long standing principles of academic freedom, and by violating constitutional rights that it is supposed to safeguard and protect.

Q: There is going to be a University hearing, at which you’ll defend yourself against job termination? What shape do you anticipate that hearing will take?

In January 2016, I dropped the faculty union-appointed attorney and hired a counsel of my own choosing who I believe will be a stronger advocate. While I cannot discuss any case details or specifics, it is my understanding that any legal action will be directed at those who have violated my constitutional rights, and I have the right to a trial by jury. This is how the proceedings will take shape, unless a Court determines that I am entitled to relief as a matter of law without a trial.

Q: Here are several questions together; sort them out in whatever way you want to: How do you separate the right to free speech, the right to express your conclusions about Sandy Hook, from the content and substance of your conclusions? What’s the primary issue here? Did your University fire you because you’ve expressed a very controversial view, or because you’ve become embroiled in a conflict with the Pozners?

George Orwell once remarked, “At any given moment there is orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this or that or the other, but it is not done. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in highbrow periodicals.”

I maintain that the primary issue is FAU violated my constitutional rights, which exist to provide the basis for rational argument and exchange, and protect “unorthodox” views, which with the benefit of hindsight often demonstrate their significance. According to the U.S. Supreme Court: “The hallmark of the protection of free speech is to allow “free trade in ideas”–even ideas that the overwhelming majority of people might find distasteful or discomforting.” (Virginia v. Black 2003)

Regardless of how the FAU administration dressed this matter up I don’t believe there’s really any question that I was fired for exercising my constitutional rights.

Q: If your tenured employment is re-established there, how will you go forward?

A perfect definition of an intellectual slave, in my view, is someone who recognizes truth but fears to publicly acknowledge or affirm it. I would very much wish to have my job back. Yet if this were achieved I would remain concerned about efforts by school officials and others to infringe on my constitutional rights and harm me for standing up for my rights, as well as the rights of others.

Q: Do you believe there are people trying to avoid the issue of free speech and academic freedom in your situation? Do you believe they’re shading this controversy and mischaracterizing it, in order to invent other reasons for firing you, so they don’t have to face the question of freedom head-on?

The fact that FAU administrators have chosen to fire me on pretextual grounds is ample proof that they must at all costs avoid the questions of academic freedom and free speech.

Q: Have you looked for help where you thought you might get it, only to be ignored or rejected?

I want to thank those who have stood by me and shown their support. I think it would be best to leave it at that.

—After receiving Tracy’s answers to these questions, I sent him a few follow-up questions. Here is the rest of the interview:

Q: I understand the Pozners claim you questioned, or doubted, or denied that their son died during the Sandy Hook School shooting. Is that correct?

Yes, this is what the Pozners claim in their December 10 article published by the Sun-Sentinel.

Q: Did you ask the Pozners for proof that their son died, that he wasn’t still alive?

My correspondence was not sent to Lenny and Veronique Pozner, but was rather directed to the business address of Lenny Pozner and his HONR Network. The letter requested written verification of Pozner’s identity, his ownership of the copyrighted image, and evidence of the image’s origin. In other words, I asked for Lenny Pozner to back up what he swore to be true under penalty of perjury in his copyright infringement complaint against my ISP and website. This is the specific passage from that letter:

I have reason to doubt the good faith nature of your March 22, 2015 DMCA copyright infringement claim. An action with such potential weight to stifle free speech needs the utmost scrutiny. I am therefore requesting written evidence of the following from you:

1. Proof of your identity via copy of a government-issued document, such as a state driver’s license or passport.

2. Proof of your relationship to the deceased party, Noah Pozner, whose alleged photograph appears in the image in question referenced above.

3. Proof of your ownership of said image via a signed and notarized statement from a qualified and licensed forensic expert substantiating your legal ownership of said image, including the date and time of the image’s capture.

The text of the letter is available here: “HONR Network, ‘Lenny Pozner’ Fall Silent on Copyright Infringement Claim”.

Very few publications chose to provide this important context. Instead, they collectively reinforced the much more sensational yet erroneous notion that I made an out-of-the-blue request for “proof that their son died.”

Q: Could you describe the position you’ve taken regarding the Sandy Hook school shooing?

My position from December 2012 has been that the corporate news media never did their job in reporting the Sandy Hook massacre. We now know without any doubt that the actual event differed greatly from what the American public have been told, and as with most poorly-understood terror events the media never backtracked to further investigate the case and admit their “errors” in reportage, some of which now appear to have been intentional. If Americans are going to have an honest debate and possibly endorse policy changes further compromising the Second Amendment such an exchange needs to be based on facts rather than on the media disinformation that’s created a mythology of misplaced fear.

Q: Just to clarify, your letter to Lenny Pozner’s HONR group was essentially asking him to verify he was who he said he was; that he was the father of Noah Pozner; and that the photo of Noah was owned by him. These requests were part of your investigation into the Sandy Hook shooting. You were trying to establish whether the shooting actually took place or was a staged hoax in which no one died. Correct?

Yes, that’s correct.

—end of interview—

My opinion:

Florida Atlantic University is a Florida state institution. It is an extension of state government. Therefore, its decisions about free speech and limits are government decisions. The government is telling a tenured professor he went too far in speaking and writing freely. It fired him.

It entered the dark regions, where morbid dislike for someone else’s reasoning process takes precedence over his right to speak and write.

It’s as if the University said: “You can write this. You can write that. But over here, you can’t write that. No. We don’t like that. It reflects badly on us and, well, we just don’t like it. So we’re going to find a reason to fire you. We’re going to find a reason that doesn’t attack free speech per se, because that, too, would reflect badly on us. We’re not that stupid. So we’ve put our people on the case. How can we fire you on some technicality? How can we appear to be neutral? How can we nail you, while appearing to be as calm and neutral as a surgeon operating on the brain of a stranger?”

This is what bureaucracy does. It likes doing it. It wants to limit free speech. It’s tired of free speech. It’s an annoyance. And worse, free speech can expose the nature and the actions of the bureaucracy.

Free speech is untamed. Free speech can even, God forbid, employ reasoning and evidence and actually make a formal argument, and attempt to establish a case. People “have to be cured of that practice.” It’s dangerous to the State.

The State wants all debate to occur within a chosen context. Outside those boundaries, debate should be belittled. It’s “conspiracy theory.”

power outside the matrix

Well, here is a theory. If one college in America had the balls to defend one of its own who is expressing a very unpopular view—if one college made that call and stood by it and loudly attacked anyone who tried to impinge on that freedom…who knows what might happen? Who knows how the tide might turn? Who knows how many people might wake up?

You know, suppose something like this happened instead of what has happened:

“As president of Florida Atlantic University, I wanted to bring Professor Tracy here today to give us a complete presentation of his views and his position on the Sandy Hook school shooting. He has now done that, for the last three hours, in front of five thousand people and the press. I thank him for that. There is no ‘we’ here. I’m not going to tell you what ‘we, the University’ think of all this. I’m not in the business of making ‘we’ pronouncements when it comes to research and conclusion. I don’t care what anyone thinks or believes or concludes about Professor Tracy’s stance. He has made his case. If any person or group thinks they can come at this University now and demand we censure Professor Tracy or fire him, be ready for war. I hold up the First Amendment of the Constitution. It’s not just a shield. It’s a sword. I will use it. And you won’t like what it does to you. Somewhere, people have to make a stand for the law and what the law embodies and refers to—which is the natural right of the individual to speak freely. This University is that place. Right now. If you can’t tell the difference between what you think of what someone else is saying and his right to say it, without interruption or censure, you are socially and politically insane. You need help, and the help should come in the form of education. This University is in that business. We are that island. If you want a war on that subject, bring it. But I warn you.

“Don’t screw with me. I’ll crush you.”

You know, something like that. Something we really need.

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.

Deeper truth for millions of people: the substance of reality

Deeper truth for millions of people: the substance of reality

by Jon Rappoport

March 5, 2015

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

There are many people who have discovered that the Information Chiefs on this planet are lying to them. They have discovered more: these lies are stitched together, day by day, to form a series of images and meanings, in a kind of continuously running movie—

And this movie is called Reality.

Many people have discovered this. Based on experience, I would say millions of people out there know this.

They don’t know the names of all the Information Chiefs or the names of the men behind them. Nor do they know all the techniques of propaganda that are being deployed. But they know enough.

They don’t know all the names of the groups and secret societies to which the Reality Makers belong, but they know enough. They’ve seen the movie and identified it as a movie.

They have not fully considered that these Reality Makers are artists. Perverse artists who are trying to monopolize the production of What Exists.

This is an important clue. Why? Because it suggests that other kinds of art and artists exist, who can do something else, who can perform an end-run around the central movie of reality and invent their own movies—their own highly individual and unique and powerful movies of exceedingly different Realities.

This fact leads to an explosive insight.

No matter what its content is, One Central Reality is an illusion. It is always the result of an attempt to attain a monopoly.

And then another insight follows. No one is excluded from the status of Artist. No one.

Every person, every individual is capable of creating his own movie and entering it into the world. This is the bottom-line meaning of decentralization of power.

It does not engender chaos. It emboldens individuals. Free Artists can relate to one another. They can see one another’s production of Reality. They can interact. They can finally put aside shallow social conventions and deepen their insights.

In order for this profound kind of decentralization to occur, people have to become artists by tapping into and deploying their imaginations to the fullest degree possible.

And let me clarify one point: individuals making their own movies of reality are also inventing their own futures, the futures they most deeply desire. This is one of the most important facts about human existence freed from its chains.

This is why I spent a number of years developing exercises that would increase the range, scope, and power of imagination. These exercises are contained in my second collection, Exit From The Matrix.

exit from the matrix

Here are the contents of this collection:

First, my new 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 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.

How to Become More Intelligent

How to Become More Intelligent

by Jon Rappoport

March 4, 2016

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

These are preparatory notes I made while putting together my third collection, Power Outside The Matrix. I recommend looking into that collection.

“They say the devil is in the details. There are several ways to interpret that statement. For me, it’s always meant that making a case for the truth and uncovering lies involves analyzing specifics. You drill down deeper into the specifics of lies and you uncover new and exact falsehoods, not merely general ones. You uncover incorrect patterns of reasoning—again very specific work.”

“Analyzing specifics makes you smarter.”

“Dealing with very specific details puts you in an elite class, but this class has nothing to do with advantages of birth. You earn it. You come to see true datum and false datum, while others dither about generalities. Bloviating about generalities is easy. You can repeat them over and over.”

“More and more, education is about generalities. Vague ones. Slogans. Phrases that express values. Less and less, education is about analyzing information. Analyzing information, chapter and verse, paragraph by paragraph, makes you smarter. You can feel your own intelligence escalate. You can feel your confidence rising.”

“Patterns and flows of reasoning can be tracked back to original assumptions and premises. When you can do that, you can turn an assumption into a series of questions. Answering these questions makes you smarter. For example: “The virus has been linked to Disease X.” That is used as an assumption, from which many conclusions come. But what does “linked” mean? What does it mean specifically? Does it rely on tests? What tests? How are they done? Are they reliable and useful, or useless and misleading? Answer these questions and you have a grip on analysis that makes you more intelligent. You’re beyond the usual bantering and bickering and wild-blue-yonder speculations. You’re grounded. You have more power.”

power outside the matrix

“Seeing the thought-traps other people are swimming in also makes you more intelligent. You’ve earned your way out of those traps. You’ve dug deeper. You’ve identified more false details and more false assumptions. You know that. You see that. And now you can begin to devise ways of freeing people from the traps. That, too, makes you more intelligent than you were. This has nothing to do with patting yourself on the back until your arm breaks. It has to do with learning how to analyze information in the age of disinformation.”

Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation is one section of Power Outside The Matrix.

Jon Rappoport

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

In 1993, Noam Chomsky delivered the Zika secret

Dear reader, I’ve been telling you the truth all along. Now we go even deeper.

More often than we suppose, a piece of forgotten history illuminates the present moment like a stroke of lightning above the landscape.

by Jon Rappoport

March 4, 2016

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

In December of 1993, Noam Chomsky published an article in Z Magazine titled, “The Clinton Vision.” Chomsky was actually discussing US foreign policy in the Western hemisphere since 1945. He focused on Brazil.

He spoke of the US takeover of that country, and how under guise of spreading democracy and the free market, the real operation was control of land, resources, and labor—ruled by a corrupt Brazilian oligarchy in turn managed by a US government-corporate nexus.

Workers in the northeastern area of Brazil were subjugated to a life of misery, the most obvious sign of which was extreme, generation-to-generation malnutrition.

Read this 1993 Chomsky quote carefully. In the midst of his analysis, a small section will jump out and grab you by the throat, given your knowledge of what has been happening in Brazil lately, during the so-called “Zika crisis”:

“Brazil is far and away the most important country in Latin America, firmly under US control since 1945, when it became a ‘testing area for modern scientific methods of industrial development’ applied by US experts…It is a country with enormous resources that should be the ‘Colossus of the South,’ ranking alongside the ‘Colossus of the North,’ as predicted early in the century. It has had no foreign enemies, and benefited not only from careful US tutelage but also from substantial investment. It therefore shows with great clarity just what the US can achieve in ‘enlarging the free community of market democracies’ under conditions that are near ideal.

“The successes are real enough. Brazil has enjoyed a very high growth rate, which conferred enormous wealth on everyone except its population — apart from the top few percent, who live at the standards of the wealthiest Westerners. It is a sharply two-tiered society. Much of the population live at a level reminiscent of Central Africa…the UN Report on Human Development ranked this rich and privileged country in 80th place, alongside of Albania and Paraguay. In the northeast, Brazilian medical researchers describe a new subspecies: ‘pygmies,’ with 40% [actually 60%] the brain capacity of humans, thanks to severe malnutrition in a region with fertile lands, owned by large plantations that produce export crops in accord with the doctrines preached by their expert advisers. Hundreds of thousands of children die of starvation every year in this success story, which also wins world prizes for child slavery and murder of street children — in some cases for export of organs for transplant, according to respected Brazilian sources.”

The source Chomsky is using for his medical assessment of children’s brain capacity is Isabel Vincent (Life a struggle for Pygmy family, Globe & Mail Toronto, December 17, 1991, p. A15.)

Vincent wrote:

“A diet consisting mainly of manioc flour, beans and rice has affected [northeastern Brazilian laborers’] mental development to the point that they have difficulty remembering or concentrating. Fully 30.7 per cent of children in the Northeast are born malnourished, according to Unicef and the Brazilian Ministry of Health. . . Brazilian medical experts have known of undernourishment in the country’s poorest region for more than two decades, but they confirmed only recently the existence of a much more startling problem — a severe lack of protein in their diet that is producing a population of Brazilian Pygmies known by some medical researchers in Brazil as homens nanicos. Their height at adulthood is far less than the average height recording by the World Health Organization and their brain capacity is 40 per cent less than average [emphasis added]. . . . In the poorest states of the Northeast, such as Alagoas and Piaui, homens nanicos comprise about 30 per cent of the population. . . Much of the Northeast comprises fertile farm land that is being taken up by large plantations for the production of cash crops such as sugar cane.” [Note: Chomsky and Vincent omit the add-on effects of a full range of toxic pesticides, some of which are banned in other countries because they are too poisonous.]

Children born with 40% less brain capacity. Does this sound like microcephaly, the “new outbreak” which has received so much publicity, and which has been attributed to the Zika virus?

Yes, it sounds very much like it. Microcephaly=children born with smaller heads and brain impairment. For decades in northeastern Brazil: children born with 40% less brain capacity who never grow to normal body size.

Are you following me? I hope so.

There is nothing new about what is happening in Brazil. Various types of brain damage in children have been endemic for a very long time.

Researchers there, and at the World Health Organization, are fully aware of this. At the moment, they’re using the cover story of “Zika virus” to obscure the truth. To obscure the causes. To obscure the criminals. It’s business as usual.

In previous articles, I’ve demonstrated that Zika has never been proved to cause microcephaly or any other kind of neurological damage. In fact, researchers so far have managed to prove (without admitting it) that Zika is not the cause.

As the literature clearly states, any insult to the developing fetal brain can cause microcephaly. Looking for one cause is non-science.

There is no recent sudden appearance of birth defects in Brazil.

Zika does not cause birth defects.

It’s a mask to conceal the truth.

This truth can be traced in many places. In parts of Africa, for example, grinding poverty, malnutrition and starvation, contaminated water supplies, lack of basic sanitation, overcrowding, toxic medical treatments, stolen land, and pesticides combine to twist and destroy human life.

The men in charge, locally and far away, have purposely maintained the population in this state—and whenever they have felt the need to divert attention from the truth, they’ve concocted a medical cover story: a virus, a sudden “outbreak”—such as Zika.

“It’s out of our control. A tragedy. The best doctors are working to find a cure…”

On and on it goes.

power outside the matrix

As I’ve written many times, the best cover story is a medical story. It appears to be neutral, scientific, apolitical, non-partisan. And the best medical cover story of all is a virus.

People salute it and tremble in its promoted presence.

The virus is the fairy-tale of the devil in the Church of Biological Mysticism.

So now you know. This piece of World Health Organization hyper-fiction about Zika, about a new outbreak of microcephaly, about something never seen before, caused by a virus (that has never done harm to humans since its discovery in 1947)…it’s all a pernicious ruse to hide the facts on the ground.

Without knowing it, of course, Chomsky, 23 years ago, shot a gaping hole in the current “Zika crisis.”

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.

The free individual returns from the dead

The free individual returns from the dead

by Jon Rappoport

March 4, 2016

Freedom isn’t merely an idea. When an individual feels and knows he is free, all sorts of changes take place, even on a physical level:

Brain function increases and quickens. Endocrine levels optimize. The cells of the body awaken to a higher degree, and energy output rises.

From the point of view of the free individual, things are upside down. It is HIS power that is primary, not the monolithic corporate State’s.

From his point of view, what does the social landscape look like?

It looks like: THE OBSESSION TO ORGANIZE.

If you want to spend a disturbing afternoon, read through (and try to fathom) the bewildering blizzard of sub-organizations that make up the European Union. I did. And I emerged with a new definition of insanity. OTO. The Obsession to Organize.

OTO speaks of a bottomless fear that somewhere, someone might be living free.

People tend to think their own power is either a delusion or some sort of abstraction that’s never really experienced. So when the subject is broached, it goes nowhere. It fizzles out. It garners shrugs and looks of confusion. Power? Are you talking about the ability to lift weights?

And therefore, the whole notion of freedom makes a very small impression, because without power, what’s the message of freedom?

Every which way power can be discredited or misunderstood…people will discredit it and misunderstand it.

And then all psychological and physiological and mental and physical and emotional and perceptual and hormonal processes undergo a major downward shift, in order to accommodate to a reality, a space in which the individual has virtually no power at all.

It’s my aim to change all that. This is the basis of my work, and it has been, for the past 30 years.

That’s why I authored my three Matrix collections. Here are the contents of my third collection, Power Outside The Matrix:

power outside the matrix

Here are the particulars. These are audio presentations. 55 total hours.

* Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation (11.5-hours)

* Writer’s Tutorial (8.5-hours)

* Power Outside The Matrix and The Invention of New Reality—creative techniques (6.5-hours)

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

* The Third Philosophy of Imagination (1-hour)

* The Infinite Imagination (3-hours)

* The Mass Projection of Events (1.5-hours)

* The Decentralization of Power (1.5-hours)

* Creating the Future (6-hours)

* Pictures of Reality (6-hours)

* The Real History of America (2-hours)

* Corporations: The New Gods (7.5-hours)

I have included an additional bonus section:

* 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 (and how to analyze them). 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.

* A 2-hour radio interview I did on AIDS in Dec 1987 with host Roy Tuckman on KPFK in Los Angeles, California.

* My book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies

(All the audio presentations are mp3 files and the books are pdf files. You download them upon purchase. You’ll receive an email with a link to the entire collection.)

This is about your power. Not as an abstract idea, but as a living core of your being. This is about accessing that power and using it.

Jon Rappoport

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

Trump: why the elite media were completely wrong about his chances

Trump: why the elite media were completely wrong about his chances

by Jon Rappoport

March 2, 2016

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

Because they live in a bubble of their own making. That’s why.

And in that bubble, everything about America is manageable. Things can get worse, but then they get better. Money is tight, then it’s loose. Employment figures drop, then they rebound. Wars start, and then they end.

Looking at the country and the population through the wrong end of the telescope, these media creatures feel themselves positioned high above the madding crowd. To them, phrases like “street smart” and “savvy” are the closest they get to anything real.

Occasionally, they remark that people are restless “out there” and looking for a change—as if Obama, with his massive slogans, somehow supplied that need for eight years and solved the whole problem for a while. As if the problem was simply a psychological kink that needed to be worked out.

So naturally, these down-their-nose puffed-up media morons didn’t notice that “things” were actually getting worse, the employment figures were being cooked, month after month, the Globalists with their trade treaties were stealing the whole economy, and had been for decades. Naturally, they didn’t notice that a normal political “correction” wasn’t going to fix America. They didn’t notice that, in a nation where, at minimum, 40 million immigrants already live, people were getting tired of being told they had to be more generous and let the southern border of the US swing open and stay open, or be labeled outright racists. The media puffballs didn’t appear to notice that the political Left was becoming more comfortable with the idea that all private property (except their own) was some sort of crime and ordinary straight-ahead non-crony capitalism was another crime, and earning a living on one’s own was yet another crime, because entrepreneurs and small-business owners “didn’t build that.” They didn’t notice, in other words, that the Left was nudging political discourse and public opinion and “morality” in the direction of funneling more and more of the population into the arms of the central government, as a permanently dependent class. Or if they did notice, they assented to it, because it was trendy and “humane.” They didn’t notice that huge swaths of America were sick and tired of overwhelming federal authority. They didn’t notice that the overwhelming majority of gun owners weren’t shooting people, and resented being lumped in with killers, and objected to efforts to squeeze their 2nd Amendment. Nor did the media morons notice that large elements of the population weren’t buying into psychiatric mental disorders or pop psychology as a way of life in a kinder gentler (drugged) society, but instead were determined to live their own lives with forward-looking energy. The media morons failed to notice that the attack of political-correctness creatures was being sloughed off and laughed off by increasing numbers of people who had no intention of censoring themselves.

Therefore, it shouldn’t have come as a surprise that Donald Trump, whom the media created as a cartoon of final judgement (“You’re fired!”—The Apprentice), would start firing all sorts of people in real life, with success.

But it did come as a surprise.

Because the media puffballs couldn’t imagine that a loose-talking devil-may-care-character would emerge on the scene and speak to the needs and frustrations of so many Americans—and bypass them, the media kings.

It was unthinkable.

Even worse, some Americans who didn’t agree with Trump and didn’t believe he was for real were still liking him, simply because he was cutting across the grain, he was talking back to media and telling them where to get off.

He was violating secrets of the media temple, matter-of-factly saying vaccines could cause autism, and promising to pin the blame for 9/11 on the real killers. He was refusing to go along with the gun-control crowd. He was blowing up the acceptable garble called political discourse. He was talking dismissive smack at his Republican opponents and at Hillary. He was saying the Globalist trade treaties were national sabotage and economic suicide.

He was his own media outlet.

And his ratings were soaring.

After Super Tuesday, he hit the top of the charts.

Exit From the Matrix

“But we’re the town criers. We announce the news to the townspeople. We take our orders from the princes and kings and spread their messages. We’re the eyes and ears and mouths of the public. We set the boundaries. We determine priorities and proprieties. We’re the civilized ones. We maintain order. We re-invent language. We decide what can be debated. We choose the representatives of each side. We own the space of The Discussion.”

Not today.

Trump—fake or real—has given the people a clue.

It doesn’t have to be the way it was.

A cowboy can parachute out of the top of his own tower, and as he descends past his financed and re-financed and formerly bankrupt suites—talking, always talking—as he floats past the mafia-controlled concrete of his structure—talking, always talking—he can broadcast a code to the frustrations of millions of unknown people; and they will respond, because the very media that has been hating them all these years is, somehow, wriggling and moaning at the end of the cowboy’s whip.

The media should have known this was coming, but the media never knows. Pale and dead, it imitates a world of its own making.

Exposed, that’s all it has.

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.

If a sane person took over Trump’s body

If a sane person took over Trump’s body

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2016

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

Body snatchers. Body switchers.

For the moment, for the purposes of argument, let’s say Donald Trump is a crazy son of a bitch. He doesn’t mean what he says. He doesn’t remember many things he says. He won’t really try to enact his promises if he’s the next President. Or (if you hate what he stands for), he will try to make those promises stick.

Now, let’s imagine a sane person could take over Trump’s body. Boom. A person who actually means what he says, who’s prepared to give his all, who cares about people, etc. Would that person keep any of Trump’s current rhetoric? Would he retain any part of Trump’s message?

In other words, if we could separate Trump the man from what he’s been saying, does any of it make sense? Does any of it, in fact, challenge the men who’ve really been running this country for a long time? Does any of it make them turn red, choke, spit, and fall down in the street?

Well, here are a few quotes from a recent Weekly Standard editorial, “Selling America Short,” by Max Boot and Benn Steil. Both authors are senior fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Steil is the CFR’s director of international economics, as well.

The CFR is the US home of Globalism, Inc.

No, the Weekly Standard authors aren’t choking and spitting (in public), they’re keeping their cool, but they aren’t happy:

“Start with trade policy, the area that, along with immigration, seems to exercise him [Trump] the most. One of America’s greatest accomplishments in the early postwar era was the creation of a rules-based international trade regime.”

“Governments stuck by this trade regime even through the recent financial crisis and recession. Trump, however, says he is prepared to abrogate America’s commitments, citing nothing more than the pretense that our importing more than we export is evidence of ‘cheating’ by foreign governments…As for the recently concluded 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, not yet ratified by Congress, Trump has condemned it.”

Yes, indeed. These trade treaties (GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, etc.) are the cornerstones of the Globalist cathedral. NAFTA, for example, allowed the massive export of cheap US corn to Mexico, put 1.5 million Mexican corn farmers into bankruptcy, and led some of those farmers to come across the border in the immigration wave.

The mainstream press doesn’t pound on that story.

The trade treaties have allowed US manufacturers to: shut down their factories here, throwing huge numbers of Americans out of work (including workers in inner cities); and set up those factories in countries where the going wage is three cents a day.

Then the products made abroad come back into the US as exports—without tariffs. That’s how the corporate scam works. That’s the only way it can work. And the cheap exports drive US competitors, who were hanging on by their teeth, into failure.

Perfect. Who could possibly oppose this marvelous operation?

Trump.

But he’s crazy, he doesn’t mean what he says, he’s a maniac.

Fine.

Who, of estimable character, will pick up this sword? Rand Paul? Gone. His father, Ron? Gone. Ralph Nader? Not present.

Who will run for President and assert, in no uncertain terms, that he’ll smash those trade treaties to bits, come hell or high water, regardless of prior agreements?

Bernie Sanders?

Yes, he opposes the trade deals. But does he have what it takes to a) win the nomination, and b) win the Presidency, and c) go to the wall, unilaterally declaring the trade treaties null and void, creating a planetary uproar, and bringing the whole house down?

Because that’s what it will take. No Congress is going to pass a law retracting the treaties. No government agency is going to rise up on its hind legs and revolt. No Supreme Court is going to cancel a treaty.

The US economy could fail completely and fall into abject ruin—and still no government entity would budge.

Bernie Sanders would never go way out on a limb and unilaterally declare trade treaties null and void.

These pundits and “fellows” and directors, who occupy little thrones at Globalist press outlets and think tanks and foundations and nonprofits? Suddenly—let a flood of analysts from overseas arrive, as “exports,” as “products,” “without tariffs,” snatching their jobs for far less money and putting them out on the street. Then, let’s find out how these newly unemployed Globalist experts feel about “free trade.” Let’s hear them scream about “America first.” Let’s see them foam at the mouth.

Let’s watch these intellectual goons hit the crazy-panic button and develop new theories about what America needs, when their self-interest is actually threatened, for the first time.

When they’re in the same position as US factory workers.

When they can feel the heat and the breath of disaster snuggling up against them in the night.

Some people believe Trump is a Mussolini. Well, there are a lot of Mussolini’s running around defending Globalism, as it purposely cuts the knees from millions of US jobs—thus creating an economically decimated country and a decimated planet.

An economically decimated planet is easier to command, from above. Which is the Globalist wet dream.

exit from the matrix

There is a crazy loose-talking cowboy running for President who seems to understand at least a part of this plan. And says he’ll torpedo it, no matter what. He now has a straight shot at winning the nomination.

He’d be running against a candidate who, in her wildest dreams, would never think of backing off one inch from Globalism Inc. If she isn’t lying through her teeth every day, she isn’t happy. If, every morning, there isn’t another foreign country to destabilize and drive into failed-nation status, she isn’t happy. As President, at last ensconced in the Oval Office, with The Power, she would cackle with mad glee, and take out her long list of old enemies against whom she intends to wreak final revenge.

If Trump is a Mussolini, what is she?

If you believe Trump is an unhinged lunatic, then there are two lunatics running against each other for the Presidency of the United States.

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.

Super Tuesday: vote fraud looming? Flashback: Prop 37

Super Tuesday: vote fraud looming? Flashback: Prop 37

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2016

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

“There was the famous 2010 experiment, in which a team from Ann Arbor, Michigan, offered to hack the District of Columbia’s voting system. They broke in and reversed the count in the mayoral election. They also fabricated absentee votes from overseas and canceled out the real votes.” — Jon Rappoport

For the Republicans, 12 states and 661 delegates are up for grabs in the Primaries today. Trump is favored to rack up major wins.

If he doesn’t, and if instead Rubio (the GOP Party bosses’ choice) suddenly emerges, look for vote fraud.

As Paul Watson (Infowars) reported this morning, people in Travis County, Texas, have called KLBJ radio to report their votes for Trump were changed on the touch screens: Rubio’s name came up. That would indicate an intentional programming alteration.

There are obviously several ways to achieve vote fraud: reprogramming machines; reprogramming the transfer process, during which vote-counts from multiple machines are combined and added up; reprogramming an even later stage, during which combined vote-totals are merged at a higher level and reported to a wire service (e.g., AP) and/or the vote registrar in the state where voting is taking place.

Dovetailing with this level of fraud, we have the early premature calls of victory issued by television networks, who usually obtain their information from wire services. These quick calls can act as a cover and a diversion, to dampen the possibility that anyone will challenge the result of the election.

To break this down further, here is my article, from November, 2012, on the California Prop 37 scandal. Prop 37 attempted (and failed) to win voter approval for mandating GMO labels on food:

“Did Prop 37 Really Lose Or Was It Vote Fraud?”

Hold your horses.

On election night, not long after the polls closed in California, the announcement came: Prop 37 was losing. A little while later, it was all over. 37 had gone down to defeat.

But is that the whole story? No.

As of 2:30PM today, Thursday, November 8th, two days after the election, many votes in California remain uncounted.

I tried to find out how many.

It turns out that the Secretary of State of CA, responsible for elections in the state, doesn’t know.

I was told all counties in California have been asked, not ordered, to report in with those figures. It’s voluntary.

So I picked out a few of the biggest counties and called their voter registrar offices. Here are the boggling results:

Santa Clara County: 180,000 votes remain uncounted.

Orange County: 241,336 votes remain uncounted.

San Diego County: 475,000 votes remain uncounted.

LA County: 782,658 votes remain uncounted.

In just those four counties, 1.6 million votes remain uncounted.

The California Secretary of State’s website indicates that Prop 37 is behind by 559,776 votes.

So in the four counties I looked into, there are roughly three times as many uncounted votes as the margin of Prop 37’s defeat.

And as I say, I checked the numbers in only four counties. There are 54 other counties in the state. Who knows how many votes they still need to process?

So why is anyone saying Prop 37 lost?

People will respond, “Well, it’s all about projections. There are experts. They know what they’re doing. They made a prediction…”

Really? Who are those experts?

For big elections, the television networks often rely on a private consortium called the National Election Pool (NEP). NEP does projections and predictions. Did NEP make the premature call on Prop 37? So far I see no evidence one way or the other.

NEP makes some calls for the television networks, but NEP is composed of CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, and AP. It could hardly be called an independent source of information for those networks.

NEP has AP (Associated Press) do the actual vote tabulating, and NEP also contracts work out to Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International to do exit polls and projections based on those polls.

Edison Media Research did the exit polls in the state of Washington for this Election Day. How? They surveyed 1493 people by phone. Based on that, I assume they made all the projections for elections in that state, even though there is no in-person voting in Washington, and voters can submit their ballots by mail, postmarked no later than Election Tuesday. So how could Edison know anything worth knowing or projecting about mail-in ballots on election night?

Both Edison Research and Mitofsky were involved in the 2004 election scandal (Kerry-Bush), in which their exit polls confounded network news anchors, because the poll results were so far off from the incoming vote-counts.

So if NEP did the premature Prop 37 projections that handed Prop 37 a resounding loss, there is little reason to accept their word.

We’re faced with a scandal here. An early unwarranted projection against Prop 37 was made, when so many votes were still uncounted.

Those votes are still uncounted.

Why should we believe anything that comes next?

—end article—

Then, a month later, on December 10, 2012, I wrote this:

Food Democracy Now is weighing in on Prop 37 vote fraud, having discovered that the California Secretary of State, in charge of all elections in CA, has stopped posting updates on the ongoing vote count.

From November 6 all the way to up to December 4, these updates were posted daily on the Secretary of State’s website. Then…blackout. No more updates.

Maybe it has something to do with this: On December 4, YES ON 37 votes climbed over the six-million mark: 6,004,628. Food Democracy Now reported it. Then, suddenly, the YES ON 37 votes reversed!

That’s right. They went back to the previously reported number: 5,986,652.

This is apparently a new wrinkle in vote counting. You can not only add votes, you can go backwards. You can lose 18,000 votes with the flick of a wrist or the blink of a digital operation.

Now you see 18,000 Yes votes, now you don’t.

The latest Food Democracy Now article on vote fraud mentions a team of independent statisticians, who have found “statistical anomalies” in the largest voting precincts of nine CA counties, including LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Alameda, and Orange.

To anyone who has followed this debacle of an election, it’s clear that Prop 37 suffered a stunning setback in the early vote reports, on election night. No on 37 jumped out to a huge lead, shortly after the polls closed. Then, Yes on 37 began making up ground.

So it’s likely fraud occurred in that early period.

Also worth noting: I previously wrote about the Secretary of State’s “top-to-bottom” review (2007) of all electronic voting systems then in use in CA. This review discovered fatal flaws in all four systems…but then three of those systems were re-approved for use, after being disqualified. I see no clear evidence that the flaws were fixed.

The top-down review mentioned that Alameda County (one of the counties the team of statisticians is now studying for fraud) had purchased voting machines that turned out to be counterfeits. They had been advertised as legitimate, but they weren’t.

I’m told the Yes on 37 campaign is alert to Food Democracy Now’s charges of fraud, and they are considering a petition for a recount. We’ll see.

Of course, no recount will expose electronic fraud unless very talented experts can examine the full range of electronic systems now in use in CA.

—end of December 2012 article—

This should give you a flavor of vote fraud at work.

On the surface, it’s all vanilla. But as you dig down, you find rotting material.

power outside the matrix

Finally, in December, 2012, I wrote this:

I tracked the early media call against Prop 37, on election night, to its most probable source, the Associated Press (AP).

AP, the giant wire service, is officially a non-profit owned by 1400 member newspapers, who use its services and also contribute articles. However, as everyone knows, the newspaper business in America is dying. Its bottom line is sitting in a lake of red ink, and the lake is sitting in an ocean of red ink.

That means these newspapers, and the corporations who own them, have been re-financing their very existence with loans, and loans to pay off earlier loans. That means banks.

Now you’re getting into the oligarchy that owns this country.

—And what that oligarchy wants; what they want to win, and who they want to win…

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.

The Matrix Revealed: Nature of the Covert Op

by Jon Rappoport

I’ve written a number of different introductions to my mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed.

In this brief one, I want to sketch the basis of the covert op.

Every major covert op has the same concealed objective: “defeat the enemy and thereby gain more control.”

But control over what?

Beyond the usual answers, the root answer is: “control over the mind.”

Why? Because if perception and thought can be channeled, directed, reduced, and weakened, then it doesn’t matter what humans do to resist other types of control. They will always go down the wrong path. They will always operate within limited and bounded territory. They will always ignore their own authentic power.

I’m talking about power that exceeds the “normal” and “average” ability to influence the stream of cause and effect.

The “prison” of cause and effect is a concept that is floated as part of the basic covert op to convince people they are small, diminished, and at the mercy of larger forces.

But underneath it all, humans have the capacity to “jump the chain” and become, as it were, “first causes.”

And not in some minor way.

Unfortunately, the popular view of how this can be accomplished is often rooted in New Age notions: the instantaneous fix; the Disneyesque manifestation; the “surrender to the universe.”

These are psy-op versions of the real thing, floated as part of the overall covert op to engage the gullible among us.

“Jumping the chain” is actually a matter of reversing the op. In other words, instead of accepting the mural of reality that has been created for us, each person creates his own.

This, dare I say it (yes, I do), is a heroic enterprise. And by heroic, I mean: without surrender. Without compromise.

Beyond the covert op, every human has the capacity to act in ways that change the flow of time, the architecture of space, and the sources of energy.

The degree to which an individual believes this is impossible mirrors his acceptance of the basic covert op on planet Earth.

When people speak about “hope for all of us,” they rarely refer to the power of the individual, but that’s where it starts. With the individual. Unchained.

The Matrix Revealed

Here is a description of my collection, The Matrix Revealed:

Let me start with the nuts and bolts of this product. It is large in scope.

* 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 a CD to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

* 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 tests for diagnoses, and the invention of disease, the understanding of which is, now and in the future, vital to our correct perception 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:

* EILLIS 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 beyond-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages.

* Then there are several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix, including recent conversations. 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 documents and books are pdf files, and the audio presentations are mp3 files. You download the files upon purchase. An email will be sent you with a link to all the materials.)

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.

Beyond The Matrix is true individual power.

Despite all the illusions, it has always been there.

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.