What investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson told me about vaccines

by Jon Rappoport

February 10, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

“The complete failure of this year’s flu vaccine, even by conventional standards, is a major scandal at the CDC. To distract the press and public, we now have a fake epidemic of measles, and pressure to take the vaccine, take all vaccines all the time. This is called a psyop. Psyops build fake realities.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

As my readers know, I’ve written many articles about vaccines, covering: mandatory shots; the pseudoscience of vaccination; severe adverse effects; poisons in shots; disastrous vaccination campaigns, and so on.

This article is about something else. It’s about who is allowed to speak fully in mainstream media.

If truth were the objective of news, you would see reasoned debates between pro and anti-vax proponents on major networks—-but that’s a joke because no reasoned debates are permitted on any sensitive subject.

When it comes to vaccines, major media are all about “what doctors tell us.” If I may be so bold, who cares what doctors say?

Who cares?

Why are doctors a privileged class? Why do they get a free pass?

Let’s see…oh yes, it’s because government and drug companies back them up. The last time I looked, this has nothing to do with the truth.

It has to do with monopoly, though.

“I’m a doctor, and of course I’m pro-vaccine.”

“Welcome, Doctor, good to have you on the show.”

Or: “I’m not a doctor.”

“Sorry, you’re out.”

Or: “I’m a doctor, and I’m against vaccines.”

“You’re suffering from a mental disorder, Doctor, and you’re a traitor to your profession and a threat to the future of the human race.”

Media construct this premise: the pro-vaccine “experts” are truthtellers, and the people who question vaccines are “denialists.” That’s how the issue is framed. Ahead of time. On purpose.

The millions of brainwashed people who watch the news every night and genuflect and live inside that dream are content to believe “the good doctors.” They have to believe someone, because they have no opinion of their own. They don’t have the tools to form a reasoned opinion. If a doctor told them that four shots of bull sperm would protect their children from a virus floating in from the Orion Belt, they’d line up their kiddies at clinics and drug stores for the “free” jab.

An anti-vaccine reporter at a local TV station once told me she’d been labeled “trouble.” She wasn’t permitted to air any vaccine story, for fear that through word or gesture she might trigger a scandal.

Part of that scandal? Scores of viewers would contact the station and side with the anti-vaccine reporter. The execs knew those viewers were out there and were also “trouble.”

On August 27, 2014, a long-time researcher at the CDC, William Thompson, confessed in print that he and his colleagues had cooked a vital vaccine study to “prove” the MMR vaccine had no connection to autism…when in fact that was a lie. The vaccine did have a connection.

A media storm should have followed. A respected researcher coming out of the woodwork and saying, “I lied”? That’s a huge story for major media and medical media.

But? There was a virtual blackout on the story. There still is.

The vaccine establishment must be protected.

In the fall of 2009, Sharyl Attkisson, working at CBS News, blew the doors open on a huge Swine Flu scandal at the CDC:

The CDC, whose job it was to accurately report the number of Swine Flu cases in the US, had stopped counting. Stopped counting.

Why? Because the overwhelming number of blood samples from diagnosed or likely Swine Flu patients, coming back from testing labs, showed these people didn’t have Swine Flu or any flu.

That fact torpedoed the entire CDC propaganda- fear campaign aimed at convincing Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine.

So…Sharyl Attkisson’s effort to move this story from the CBS News website on to the national nightly-news television broadcast was shot down.

Here is a piece from a 2014 interview I did with Attkisson:

Q: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

A: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

Q: You’ve revealed serious problems caused by vaccines. Have you run into opposition as a result of covering these stories?

A: This is a long discussion but yes, it is one of the most well funded, well orchestrated efforts I’ve ever seen on a story. Many reporters, if not all, who have tried to factually cover this topic have experienced the same opposition as have researchers who dared to uncover vaccine side effects. Those who don’t want the stories explored want to censor the information from the public entirely, lest the public draw the “wrong” conclusions about the facts. The media has largely bought into the conflicted government, political and medical complex propaganda on the topic that marginalizes researchers, journalists and parents who dare to speak to the scientific facts they’ve uncovered or to their own experiences. It’s a giant scandal of its own.

Q: I know you’ve had problems with your Wikipedia page. What happened there?

A: Long story short: there is a concerted effort by special interests who exploit Wikipedia editing privileges to control my biographical page to disparage my reporting on certain topics and skew the information. Judging from the editing, the interest(s) involved relates to the pharmaceutical/vaccine industry. I am far from alone…

power outside the matrix

Does that tell you something about the way major media cover vaccine stories?

There is even more.

The staggering capper on this tale? Roughly three weeks after Attkisson’s Swine Flu revelations appeared in print, the CDC, obviously in great distress over the exposure, decided to double down. The best lie to tell would be a huge lie.

Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon)

The CDC had no facts or stats or lab tests to confirm ANY of their reported numbers of Swine Flu cases in America. So they said: 22 MILLION CASES.

But don’t worry. Be happy. Everything the government tells you about disease and the need to take vaccines is perfectly true.

Perfectly, absolutely.

Jon Rappoport

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

The space-time continuum called The News

The space-time continuum called The News

by Jon Rappoport

February 10, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“The news isn’t a just a thing, a person, a message. It’s a hallucination pretending to be real, as if a dreamer has suddenly risen and broken through the surface of the ocean, and now he can see the shore and the glittering buildings…and when he reaches the beach, he can walk into the city and actually watch very important people doing very important things all around him…and that’s supposed to be the up-to-the-minute news. But actually, it’s the reverse. The news is the dream, not the awakening.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Images sent over thousands of miles; well-lit anchors who seem alert to everything of importance taking place in our world; field reporters in far-flung places who pop up and respond instantly to the anchors…

—And, over and over, the same important faces of government leaders who, day after day, are “struggling to improve our destiny against great odds, against intransigent enemies of progress.”

All this is delivered in the space of a few minutes, each night, like clockwork.

The anchor can twist the truth, burn it, hide it, step on it, reverse it; it doesn’t matter. He performs those actions before he sits in his chair and the cameras roll.

If the US government hires, supports, and arms terrorists, the news can claim the government is doing everything possible to fight against terrorism—including installing a massive Surveillance State.

In 1927, Carl Jung wrote: “…the dream is the theater where the dreamer is at once scene, actor, prompter, stage manager, author, audience, and critic.”

But in the case of the news, the dream must come from an external place. It must come from a personage (the anchor) stamped with an official imprimatur.

There must be The Voice and it must narrate (invent, fabricate) the dream.

When this happens on a daily basis, most viewers sink so far into it they fully accept its parameters and remain enclosed.

The space and time of the news form their own continuum.

In this continuum, viewers are content to “take their dream-knowledge” from the anchor. This is considered safe. This is considered proper. This is considered reasonable. Knowledge comes to be thought of as always and forever coming from a place that is definitely not-self.

And that’s how individual power is replaced and hidden.

When I was a small boy, the stooge for official reality was one of the most respected men in America, Edward R Murrow. He seemed to be talking out of a dark vault. His somber tone, his serious intent, his moonscape rhythms offered doom, but always with a hint of light, because “he knew Justice and, therefore, it might still prevail.” He was the pope of hope.

I can still remember thinking, this is a show, it’s a good show, but it’s theater. I knew that, because in those days my friends and I played on fields of our own choosing, we were free, we made up our own rules and our own games, and we loved having that power.

And then at night, I found my imagination by reading novels about sea voyages and trips to other planets—and soon enough I realized the news was a story about power being everywhere I wasn’t.

It was a losing proposition, from one end to the other.

Fortunately, my other early education was conducted in a local pool room. People who were a lot smarter than I was taught me how to recognize a hustler.

Official reality is a cosmic hustler.

In Paddy Chayefsky’s 1976 film, Network, the unhinged news anchor Howard Beale tells his audience: “We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you….You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God’s name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion…”

As the Brian Williams front is crumbling, it’s important to understand what is really happening. Williams is the host and master of ceremonies of the space-time continuum called the News. That’s his job. And his viewers, at some level, understand it.

They enter that continuum every night, and the deal they make with Williams is: “You pretend to be honest and we’ll pretend to believe you.” That’s the ticket, the agreement, the price of admission. Once the deal is consummated, the audience willingly enters dream-fantasyland, in order to receive their dose of hypnotic trance. It’s the dose they want.

But Williams’ pretense of honesty, his side of the bargain, has been exposed, has been made public. The trance has been interrupted.

THE TRANCE HAS BEEN INTERRUPTED.

How does the audience enter a trance-space when there is now a large hole in it?

It’s like a devotee of a diet guru discovering the guru actually had his stomach stapled. The devotee still wants to genuflect at the feet of the guru, but it’s much harder now.

“I want to pretend the space-time universe of the news is more real than real, but now the host is wearing a clown mask and big fake feet, and he’s pumping up brightly colored balloons with helium…”

People who want a trance tend to become quite angry when their fervent wish is derailed.

So let’s not think the Brian William affair is a matter of truth versus lying. It’s about sticking a pin in the space-time enclosure called the News. It’s about the popping sound and the deflation of that universe.

“I just don’t know whether I can believe Brian Williams anymore.” No, no, no, no. That’s not it. It’s “I don’t know whether I can keep living in that world every night. I really want to. I do. But it’s harder to induce my trance…”

Of course, this isn’t a Brain Williams problem. It’s about consensus reality itself. If the interior little swinging pendulum and the soothing inner objective voice narrating “the collective stories of our time” shut down, what then?

What then? The return of the individual.

The individual, who beyond the layers of programming, was there all along.

Front and center stage.

His rational mind awake, his imagination and creative-force powering up.

This is exactly what the news is meant to bury in electronic narcosis. This is what the news is supposed to supplant, by constructing a parallel universe. This is the same perverse art that has launched religious and metaphysical cosmologies as old as time, cosmologies that place the individual inside a labyrinth whose exits disappear.

In 1978, in a speech titled, “How to Build a Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later, Philip K Dick offered this: “Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups…So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.”

The news is a strong pseudo-reality because it purports to describe what is actually happening in the moment. But no, it is a fabricated continuum, in which billions of people can be told the equivalent of: ducks are flying space ships to the moon, the price of condos on Jupiter is dropping, and Presidents keep saving our bacon.

Billions of people want to bathe their psyches in that invented place and rest and sleep there. This is modern space travel.

This is mind transportation from one world to another.

The staff and crew who assemble the nightly news understand this well. Enabling smooth transitions from one story to another, backing up the anchor whose voice-rhythms intone surety, switching from anchor in-studio to field reporters and back, they do everything they can to eliminate technical mistakes and, above all, guard against their nemesis:

Dead air.

Seconds of nothing.

This is also what a hypnotist avoids; anything that would cut the trance.

An anchor who can pull this off, while at the same time describing events that are disturbing, wins the big prize, the big check, and the big fame. He’s the modern version of the underworld ferryman Charon, carrying a billion souls across the River Styx every night.

Jon Rappoport

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

The elite television anchor: narrator of reality

The elite television anchor: narrator of reality

by Jon Rappoport

February 8, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“Millions of people have become little news broadcasters and anchors, relaying pictures and text about their parties, picnics, family gatherings, updating their breaking stories, narrating the story lines of their lives. All they need for a complete imitation of the networks is sponsors.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

It’s not only the content of news that is embraced, it’s the style, the manner of presentation—and in the long run, the presentation is far more corrosive, far more deadly than the content.

The imitations of life called anchors are the arbiters of style. How they speak, how they look, how they themselves experience emotion—all this is planted deep in the brains of the viewers.

Most of America can’t imagine the evening news could look and sound any other way.

That’s how solid the long-term brainwashing is.

The elite anchors, from John Daly, in the early days of television, all the way to Brian Williams and Scott Pelley, have set the tone. They define the genre.

The elite anchor is not a person filled with passion or curiosity. Therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be passionate or filled with curiosity, either.

The anchor is not a demanding voice on the air; therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be demanding.

The anchor isn’t hell-bent on uncovering the truth. For this he substitutes a false dignity. Therefore, the audience can surrender its need to wrestle with the truth and replace that with a false dignity of its own.

The anchor takes propriety to an extreme: it’s unmannerly to look below the surface of things. Therefore, the audience adopts those manners.

The anchor inserts an actor’s style into what should instead be a relentless reporter’s forward motion. Therefore, members of the audience can become actors shaping “news” about their own lives through Facebook.

The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience’s psyche that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect.

From their perch, the elite television anchors can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.

But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right. You can rely on us for that.”

This is the great PR arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold billions to convey that false assurance.

The elite anchor must pretend to believe the narrow parameters and boundaries of a story are all there is. There is no deeper meaning. There is no abyss waiting to swallow whole a major story and reveal it as a hoax. No. Never.

With this conviction in tow, the anchor can fiddle and diddle with details.

The network anchor is the wizard of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable, unimaginable truth.

The anchor is quite satisfied to obtain all his information from “reputable sources.” This mainly means government and corporate spokespeople. Not a problem.

Every other source, for the anchor, is murky and unreliable. He doesn’t have to worry his pretty little head about whether his sources are, indeed, trustworthy. He calculates it this way: if government and corporations are releasing information, it means there is news to report.

What the FBI director has to say is news whether it’s true or false, because the director said it. So why not blur over the mile-wide distinction between “he spoke the truth” and “he spoke”?

On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.

This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.

Essentially, the anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?”

All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion. These days, it’s Brian Williams—or it was, until his “conflations” and “misremembrances” surfaced.

The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor “great.” Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow. Huntley was just a touch too masculine, so they teamed him up with David Brinkley, a medium-boiled egg. Brinkley supplied twinkles of comic relief.

The cable news networks don’t really have anyone who qualifies as an elite anchor. Wolf Blitzer of CNN made his bones during the first Iraq war only because his name fit the bombing action so well. Brit Hume of FOX has more anchor authority than anyone now working in network television, but he’s semi-retired, content to play the role of contributor, because he knows the news is a scam on wheels.

There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”

Neutrality implies: this is a democracy; an anchor is no more important than the next person (and yet he is—another contradiction, swallowed).

Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re not like the cop shows; we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re like a responsible charity.

The anchor is the answer to the age-old question about the people. Do the people really want to suck in superficial cause and effect and surface detail, or do they want deeper truth? Do the people want comfortable gigantic lies, or do they want to look behind the curtain?

The anchor, of course, goes for surface only.

The anchor is so accustomed to lying and so accustomed to pretending the lies are true that he wouldn’t know how to shift gears.

power outside the matrix

At the end of the Roman Empire, when the whole structure was coming apart, a brilliant and devious decision was made. The Empire would proceed according to a completely different plan. Instead of continuing to stretch its resources to the breaking point with military conquests, it would attack the mind.

It would establish the Roman Church and write new spiritual law. These laws and an overriding cosmology would be dispensed, in land after land, by official “eunuchs.” Men who, distanced from the usual human appetites, would automatically gain the trust of the people.

These priests would “deliver the news.” They would be the elite anchors, who would translate God’s orders and revelations to the public.

By edict, no one would be able to communicate with God, except through these “trusted ones.” Therefore, in a sense, the priest was actually higher on the ladder of power than God Himself.

In fact, it would fall to the new Church to reinterpret all of history, writing it as a series of symbolic clues that revealed and confirmed Church doctrine (story line).

Today, people are believers because the popular stories are delivered by contemporary castrati, every night on the evening news.

If these castrati say a virus is threatening the world; and if they are backed up by neutral castrati bishops, the medical scientists; and if those medical scientists are supported by public health bureaucrats, the cardinals; and if the cardinals are given a wink and a nod by the President, the Pope; the Program is working.

And the news is spread to the people…

On September 24, 2014, the New York Times blasted out an article estimating that Ebola cases, worldwide, could reach 1.4 million in four months. Now, in February 2015, the same official sources who handed that figure to the Times report that, worldwide, Ebola cases have reached 23,000.

Not a problem. The television anchor can absorb and deflect all contradictions, as if they never existed. It’s another aspect of his little bit of magic.

Reality is a psyop.

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.

Stravinsky, Dali and the revolution of imagination

by Jon Rappoport

(To join our email list, click here.)

On May 29, 1913, in the Theatre des Champs-Elysees in Paris, a riot broke out.

After the curtain went up on the premiere of The Rite of Spring, it took only a few minutes for the tumult to begin.

Boos, hisses, catcalls, people throwing objects at the stage… The roar of the crowd quickly became so loud, the dancers lost their cues.

And the music. It was a whisper, a pounding scream, sheets of brass, harsh relentless rhythms breaking against one another, cliffs suddenly colliding and collapsing in the air.

The police arrived and shut the program down.

Stravinsky, at 28, had arrived on the world scene.

Never again would he compose music so challenging. Later in his life, after he had taken up a position as a champion of new classicism, he would conduct a recording of the Rite that was modulated to a bare shadow of its former self.

But the revolution had happened.

Much has been written about the premiere and the Rite. A great deal of programmatic explanation has been offered to “make sense” out of the piece of music: after all, it was a ballet with a plot, and the themes had to do with primitive ritual sacrifices in a fanciful pagan world.

You can also find scholarly work on the structure of the Rite, indicating a possible borrowed background of several Eastern European folk melodies.

Formidable creations of imagination are often diluted by referring the audience to other works and periods of time and influences—to explain the incomprehensible.

But the fact is, to absorb a work of imagination, one has to use his own imagination.

Since this is considered unlikely, pundits earnestly help us with step-down contexts, so that we can understand the work in pedestrian terms. In other words, so we can reduce it to nothing.

Fundamentally, it is its own world. It immediately and finally presents itself as a universe apart from easy references and tie-ins and links.

So when you listen to the Rite, you are, gratefully, alone with the music. In this regard, I recommend one recording. The 1958 Leonard Bernstein-New York Philharmonic, available as Sony SMK 47629. It’s the 1992 Bernstein Royal Edition. Le Sacre Du Printemps.

Bernstein, one of the geniuses of the 20th century, was no stranger to encountering imagination with imagination. And yet, as the conductor, he had no need to distort the score. If anything, he was more faithful to it and the composer’s great intent than any other conductor, past or present.

In 1912 and 1913, Stravinsky had composed the Rite in a reckless frame of mind. This did not mean he abandoned all he knew; it meant he wanted to show everyone how dim the perception of music had become. “To hell with all of them.”

He took the large orchestra and shredded the conventional relationships between its various sections. Instead, he made it an ocean in a storm. He crossed all lines. He crashed together old sounds and new sounds. He destroyed pleasant mesmerizing rhythms.

But there was nothing primitive about his undertaking. He made something new, something no one could have predicted.

As you listen to it, you may find one part of your mind repeating, this is not music, this is not music. Just keep listening. Five times, 50 times, 100 times.

There are artists like Stravinsky, like the Spanish architect Gaudi, like Edgar Varese, like the often-reviled American writer Henry Miller, like Walt Whitman (although Whitman has been grotesquely co-opted into a Norman Rockwell-like prefect), like the several great Mexican muralists—all of whom transmit an oceanic quality.

As in, The Flood.

There is a fear that, if such artists were unleashed to produce their work on a grand scale—and if the societal chains of perception were removed—they would take over the world.

This is the real reason there was a riot at the Theatre des Champs Elysees on May 29, 1913. Even though Stravinsky was presenting a universe of his own making, people instinctively felt that the music could spill over into the streets of Paris…and after that, where would it go? What would stop it?

Their fear was justified.

Our world, contrary to all consensus, is meant to be revolutionized by art, by imagination, right down to its core.

That this has not happened for the best is no sign that the process is irrelevant. It is only a testament to the collective resistance.

Who knows how many such revolutions have been shunted aside and rejected, in favor of the shape we now think of as central and eternal?

We are living in a default structure, the one that has been left over after all the prior revolutions have been put to sleep.

And still, it takes imagination and creating to give us what we have now. But often it is a harnessed imagination that accedes to a stolid esthetic that replaces daring and vast improvisation with classical forms and formats, long after their time.

We peek between the fluted columns to see what the future might hold. We speculate, for example, that information itself might be alive and might flow in from our own DNA to bring about a new cyber-brain step in evolution. Information? What further evidence do we need that our society is heading down a slope to the swamp?

If Rite of Spring and other works of that magnitude are information, a wooden duck on a doily is Shakespeare.

Mere information is the wood scrapings and the stone chips Brancusi swept up in his studio and put out in the alley. Information is the dried flattened tubes of paint Matisse disposed of with the old newspapers. Information is the heap of wires Tesla tossed in the garbage.

Information is the neutral boil-down left over after the artist has made his mark.

Creation is not neutral.

It flows out into the atmosphere with all its subjective force.

That is what happened on May 29, 1913.

And that is what evoked the mass fear.

Exit From the Matrix

The critics would have declared Salvador Dali a lunatic if he hadn’t had such formidable classical painting skills.

He placed his repeating images (the notorious melting watch, the face and body of his wife, the ornate and fierce skeletal structures of unknown creatures) on the canvas as if they had as much right to be there as any familiar object.

This was quite troubling to many people. If an immense jawbone that was also a rib or a forked femur could rival a perfectly rendered lamp or couch or book (on the same canvas), where were all the accoutrements and assurances of modern comfortable living?

Where was the pleasantly mesmerizing effect of a predictable existence?

Where was a protective class structure that depended on nothing more than money and cultural slogans?

Dali invented vast comedies on canvas. But the overall joke turned, as the viewer’s eye moved, into a nightmare, into an entrancing interlude of music, a memory of something that had never happened, a gang of genies coming out of corked bottles. A bewildering mix of attitudes sprang out from the paintings.

What was the man doing? Was he making fun of the audience? Was he simply showing off? Was he inventing waking dreams? Was he, God forbid, actually imagining something entirely new that resisted classification?

Words failed viewers and critics and colleagues and enemies.

But they didn’t fail Dali. He took every occasion to explain his work. However, his explications were handed out in a way that made it plain he was telling tall tales—interesting, hilarious, and preposterous tall tales.

Every interview and press conference he gave, gave birth to more attacks on him. Was he inviting scorn? Was he really above it all? Was he toying with the press like some perverse Olympian?

Critics flocked to make him persona non grata, but what was the persona they were exiling? They had no idea then, and they have no idea now.

It comes back to this: when you invent something truly novel, you know that you are going to stir the forces trapped within others that aspire to do the very same thing. You know that others are going to begin by denying that anything truly NEW even exists. That DOES make it a comedy, whether you want to admit it or not.

It is possible that every statement ever uttered in public by Dali was a lie. A fabrication. An invention dedicated to constructing a massive (and contradictory) persona.

Commentators who try to take on Dali’s life usually center on the early death of his young brother as the core explanation for Dali’s “basic confusion”—which resulted in his bizarre approach to his own fame.

However, these days, with good reason, we might more correctly say that Dali was playing the media game on his own terms, after realizing that no reporter wanted the real Dali (whatever that might mean)—some fiction was being asked for, and the artist was merely being accommodating.

He was creating a self that matched his paintings.

It is generally acknowledged that no artist of the 20th century was superior to Dali in the ability to render realistic detail.

But of course Dali’s work was not about realism.

The most complex paintings—see, for example, Christopher Columbus Discovering America and The Hallucinogenic Toreador—brilliantly orchestrated the interpenetration of various solidities/ realities, more or less occupying the same space.

I’m sure that if Dali were living today, he would execute a brain-bending UFO landing on the front lawn of the White House. Such a painting would envelop the viewer with simultaneous dimensions colliding outside the president’s mansion.

At some point in his career, Dali saw (decided) there was no limit to what he could assemble in the same space—and there was no limit to the number of spaces he could corral into the same canvas. A painting could become a science-fiction novel reaching into several pasts and futures. The protagonist (the viewer) could find himself in such a simultaneity.

Critics have attacked the paintings relentlessly. They are offended at Dali’s skill, which matches the best work of the meticulous Dutch Renaissance masters.

They hate the dissonance. They resent Dali’s mordant wit and rankle at the idea that Dali could carry out monstrous jokes in such fierce extended detail.

But above all, the sheer imagination harpoons the critics. How dare a painter turn reality upside down so blatantly, while rubbing their faces in it.

The cherry on the cake was: for every attack the critics launched at Dali the man (they really had no idea who he was), Dali would come back at them with yet another elaborate piece of fiction about himself. It was unfair. The scholars were “devoted to the truth.” The painter was free to invent himself over and over as many times as he fancied.

Dali was holding up a mirror. He was saying, “You people are like me. We’re all doing fiction. I’m much better at it. In the process, I get at a much deeper truth.”

Dali was the hallucinogenic toreador. He was holding off and skirting the charges of the critics and the historians. They rushed at him. He moved with his cape—and danced out of the way.

The principles of organized society dictate that a person must be who he is, even if that is a cartoon of a cartoon. A person must be one recognizable caricature forever, must be IDed, must have one basic function. Must—as a civilization goes down the trail of decline—be watched and recorded and profiled.

When a person shows up who is many different things, who can invent himself at the drop of hat, who seems to stand in 14 different places at the same time, the Order trembles.

(Fake) reality declares: what you said yesterday must synchronize absolutely with what you say today.

This rule (“being the only thing you are”) guarantees that human beings will resonate with the premise that we all live and think and work in one continuum of space and time. One. Only one. Forever. The biggest joke of all. The big lie.

Whatever he was, however despicable he may have been in certain respects, Dali broke that egg. Broke the cardinal rule.

He reveled in doing it. He made people wait for an answer about himself, and the answer never came. Instead, he gave them a hundred answers, improvised like odd-shaped and meticulous reveries.

He threw people back on their own resources, and those resources proved to be severely limited.

How harsh for conventional critics to discover that nothing in Dali’s education produced an explanation for his ability to render an object so perfectly on the canvas. It was almost as if, deciding that he would present competing circumstances inside one painting, he perversely ENABLED himself to do the job with such exacting skill, “making subversive photographs come to life.”

That was too much.

But there the paintings are.

Imagination realized.

Like it or not, Dali paved the way for many others. He opened doors and windows.

And the pressure has been building. The growing failure of major institutions (organized religion, psychology, education, government) to keep the cork in the bottle signals the prison break in progress.

More people understand that the veil is not really a veil of tears. It’s a curtain madly drawn across the creative force.

The pot is boiling. People want out.

Somewhere along the line we have to give the green light to our own creative power. That is the first great day. That’s the dawn of no coerced boundaries. Everything we’ve been taught tells us that a life lived entirely from creative power is impossible. We don’t have it within us. We should maintain silence and propriety in the face of greater official power and wisdom. We must abide by the rules. We must, at best, “surrender to the universe.”

But what if, when we come around the far turn, we see that the universe is us? Is simply one part of imagination? Is a twinkling rendition we installed to keep us titillated with dreams that would forever drift out of reach? What if it turns out that we are the perverse ones and Dali is quite normal?

What if we pop out of the fences of this culture and this continuum and this tired movie called planet Earth?

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.

Imagination is the key, Part2

Imagination is the key, Part 2

by Jon Rappoport

February 6, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

OutsideTheRealityMachine

“Imagination isn’t just a toy for children. It’s the vital lifeblood of human action that goes beyond the mechanical.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

By the dawn of the 20th century, it was clear that humans had finally liberated themselves from the overwhelming need to build myths.

By myths, I mean fanciful stories parading as truth. I mean stories that placed the individual as a small creature under the control of inexorable forces.

There was no longer a need to invent such stories, which were self-sabotaging.

There was no longer a need to invent the stories and then claim the stories hadn’t been invented at all.

To put it another way, humans could see their own imaginations were paramount—and they could create and invent in many directions.

This immense breakthrough was the result of centuries of struggle.

But, as it turned out, the old adage proved true: you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

Many, many, many people stepped back from the breakthrough. They retreated. They looked for old myths they could align themselves with and even worship. They went tribal. They sought “a revival of the past.”

They chose not to be what they were and are: artists. I use that word in the broadest sense. I’m talking about individuals who create new realities, new futures.

I’m talking about open, free, and unlimited human imagination—and the stunning amount of energy that is liberated when the individual makes his imagination the prow of his own ship.

Many people are content to view imagination as child’s play in a sandbox, a brief time of joy that needed to be offloaded in “maturity.”

The result? A sense of pervasive limitation. A focus on the mechanical and the repetitive. A dampening of the emotions. A reluctance to explore what lies beyond what is already known.

In other words, a lessening of life-force.

Exit From the Matrix

But imagination doesn’t go away and die. It never dies. It is always there, waiting. It can be tapped into and awakened at any moment.

And when it is awakened and deployed, it outdistances all negatives, all despairs, all mechanical neutralities. They melt down into the energy from which they originally came and become raw fuel for the fire of individual creation.

This fact of life needs no external cosmology to justify itself, no “universe” to grant permission to the individual, no beneficent force to provide an explanation. That metaphysical baggage (more myth-making) was the past.

Within the individual are all the faculties and eternalities. They were always there. They will always be there.

The magic is always there.

It sees “realism” and “it is what it is” and conventional psychology and philosophic materialism as a spectacular joke.

The magic has always been imagination.

Immortal.

JJon Rappoport

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

The psyop called Reality

The psyop called Reality

by Jon Rappoport

February 6, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

This article is an introduction to my 3 mega-collections: The Matrix Revealed, Exit From The Matrix, and Power Outside The Matrix. I invite you to read about these collections at the NoMoreFakeNews store.

“People want one story line. Smooth, with no fractures. So that’s what mind-engineers give them. Which tells you what the surrealists were doing. They were blasting the single plot line to pieces and rearranging the bits in fantastical ways. They were disturbing the trance. They were inventing new space and time.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Reality is a psychological operation.

At the most primitive level, “Reality” basically means some group has force, money, and access to fawning media. They can define what exists.

A psyop depends on being able to engineer one story line.

A psyop depends on selling one centralized story.

In the case of Ebola, for example, the whole unfolding storyline depended on selling basic assumptions: a) there was an unusual outbreak; b) the outbreak was caused by a single virus and nothing else.

These assumptions and the ensuing storyline were sold by major media, with no exceptions. There were no defectors.

If, tomorrow, the head of the CDC announced that no one had ever extracted the Ebola virus from a human being, isolated it, and seen it, he would be locked up in a psych ward.

He defected from reality, which is to say, the psyop.

If, tomorrow, the head of the FDA announced that GMO crops and the herbicide Roundup were a clear and present danger to the population of the world, and constituted a grave crime, he would be fired and blacklisted.

If, magically, overnight, you found yourself in possession of overwhelming force and a direct pipeline to elite media anchors and their bosses, you could tell your story about What Exists, and you would find millions of people believing you.

This is how reality works.

What would happen if the three major networks, each with considerable power, had come up with three vastly different versions of the Boston Marathon massacre?

CBS: “FBI and local police killed one terrorist and captured the other in what observers are calling one of the bravest days in the history of law enforcement in America.”

NBC: “After a violent gun battle on the streets of a great American city, during which a suspect in the Boston massacre was killed, an FBI source stunningly revealed they had ended the life of a cooperating informant. He put it this way: ‘The Tsarnaev brothers were recruited by a secret Bureau unit to plant the bombs. The plan was to blame the bombing on so-called patriots, but that fell through, so the Bureau exercised their only option. They put their informants front and center and blamed the whole thing on them’…”

ABC: “Today, the tragic loss of life and wounding of more than 180 persons at the Boston Marathon were, amazingly, were traced back to three pipe bombs in a CIA storage locker in Maryland…”

Suppose, in the midst of an uproar heard and echoed around the world, the networks stood by their contradictory versions of events and wouldn’t back down.

A massive blow would hit psyop-land. Centralized story? Poleaxed.

People wouldn’t know what to do. They expect one story line and they get three, from the highest hypnotic and influential media giants.

In a literal, though unconscious, sense, familiar time and space would begin to fall apart.

But actually, it’s far more surreal for the three major television networks to agree on the substance of every significant event than to come to radically different conclusions.

Unfortunately, people don’t see it that way. They don’t see that three behemoths dispensing the same information represents a highly unnatural state of affairs.

On this subject, here are a few notes from a work-in-progress, The Underground:

“Fractured reality is approaching like a huge wave. Defections from the ranks of consensus are exploding. Therefore, the spaces of the mind are changing. Those who are holding the fort are trying to minimize the effect. That’s why they’re staging more ‘crises’. Crises are magnets. They attract the mass, the collective, the reality-addicts, the joiners, the people who will buy official images and feelings pumped out of the central factory.”

“In a vast subterranean cavern of the unconscious, people are wishing an artist would step forward who can paint an apple so real it can’t be distinguished from an apple on a tree. That, hopefully, will put an end to all creation, invention, imagination. Then everyone can say, ‘Imagination at its highest point gives us nothing beyond what is already there, and we already have that.’”

“Group-ideas which are obviously foolish and depleting and destructive are relatively easy to reject. But group-ideas that seem to herald a better world are the big deceptions. These ideas, in a vacuum, may be attractive and interesting, but because they emerge from a group they are going to induce a deep trance, in the long run. That is the intention. Not ‘a better world.’”

“Bargain price! We’ll shave down your perceptual field so you can fit in with eight billion androids. You’ll never miss what you can’t see. Yes, folks, we’ll cement you into the limited spectrum, where all the action is. There is a sense of family in this reality. People liking people. We’re all in this together.”

“Asking someone to imagine what his mind would be like if it were missing its entire collection of consensus-ideas goes over like lead matzos balls at a Catholic communion.”

“Very few people care about the space, time, and energy of psychological propaganda. They think it’s just lies. It isn’t. It’s a parallel world.”

“Escaping from the psyop called Reality occurs in stages. But unless the escapee is inventing his own reality, much as a painter invents on a blank canvas, he’ll fall back into the op. He’ll exist in a kind of limbo, knowing something about the truth but never rising to a level of true power. And he’ll spend his years making excuses, pulling himself further down in the process.”

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.

Mind-control media: Brian Williams, fake science, and the reality egg

Mind-control media: Brian Williams, fake science, and the reality egg

Brian William caught in his own trap

Cracking the reality egg

Notes and thoughts

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“If you want a winning role, act like a scientist. Talk like a scientist. Imagine that everything you say is backed by a study published in a peer-reviewed journal.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Objectivity. What more could you want? What could be more objective than science? What could be less open to dispute? Who could be more authoritative than a scientist? What could influence public opinion more thoroughly than a whole group of scientists, an establishment of scientists, backed by the government?

Notice that when a news anchor takes an unimpeachable statement from a scientist, they both sound like scientists. The double whammy.

It impresses the rubes and yokels and even the well-educated viewers.

This is no accident.

It’s a system of persuasion.

I published this quote yesterday. Here it is again:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” —Marcia Angell, MD (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)

Essentially, Angell is saying that fraud dressed up to look like science is pervasive in official medical media.

So it is in the news business.

The veneer and the tone and pose of objectivity are a front, a con.

Take the breaking story of NBC’s Brian Williams, “the most trusted name in news.” He lied about being in a helicopter taking fire in Iraq in 2003. He admitted the lie yesterday, and in his confession he apparently lied again, giving the false impression that the helicopter right in front of his took the fire, when at least one soldier on the scene states that Williams’ helicopter wasn’t even in the same formation, but landed some time later.

The impact of Williams lying is magnified by his persona of objectivity, which is on display every night on NBC. The objective man was lying. He was making it up. He was faking it.

Consider the 2004 Pediatrics study which exonerated the MMR vaccine and claimed it was in no way connected to autism. Objective science. But last August, one of the authors of the study, William Thompson, a long-time researcher at the CDC, released a statement through his attorney, Rick Morgan, confessing that he and his co-authors had lied, omitted vital data, rigged the study, in order to give the vaccine a free pass.

An objective expert—a rank liar.

Centuries ago, when a ruling priest addressed an audience and shouted and pointed at the sky and warned of great danger and destruction, and told of curses, and laid out a path for appeasing the gods, he was considered an “objective authority.” He wasn’t accused of ranting.

Today, the appearance of scientific objectivity is the key. Whoever holds that key is considered an authority. Therefore, many, many people affect that pose. Especially in the news business.

In days gone by, priestly shouting was accepted as a truth-indicator and thus induced a trance. Today, the pose of science induces the trance.

Mainstream television news has staged itself as a “conveyer of science.” Because it works.

power outside the matrix

This is the reality egg: the pose and appearance of scientific objectivity. This is how the egg is built.

But here is the truth. The egg, the enclosed dome are being built for us by messengers who appear to be objective. They’re the narrators. They’re the news princes and the “scientists.” They’re the key actors.

They can mix image and word and algorithm and computer model to prove anything, and in doing so they can act as if they’re reporting facts—rather than building the egg.

The egg is there for one reason: to convince us that each one of us can’t invent his own open realities, to convince us that we can’t find ways to cooperate, as free and independent and powerful individuals, and crack the egg.

Their strategy and pose is failing. Badly.

Now that’s a news story.

That has legs.

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.

Breaking: CDC vaccine whistleblower given immunity to testify

Breaking—CDC vaccine whistleblower given immunity to testify

William Thompson free to describe vaccine-autism fraud at CDC to Congress

Vaccine wars heat up

Sold-out media line up to defend vaccines

by Jon Rappoport

February 4, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Patrick Howley (twitter) at The Daily Caller reports that William Thompson, CDC whistleblower, has been given immunity from prosecution, by the federal government, to testify before Congress about vaccine fraud at the CDC.

Cautionary note: so far, The Daily Caller is the sole source on this story.

On August 27, 2014, Thompson, a long-time researcher at the CDC, published a statement through his lawyer, Rick Morgan, admitting that he and colleagues at the CDC violated the protocol in a study on the MMR vaccine’s connection to autism.

The study, which was published in the journal Pediatrics in 2004, exonerated the vaccine, when in fact the study omitted vital data on a group of black babies who showed an increased risk for autism after receiving the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

Since he released his August 27 statement, whistleblower Thompson has maintained silence and has refused to talk to reporters.

Now it appears he’s ready to step into the light—if there is a Congressional hearing. That’s a big if.

Thompson is working with Florida Congressman William Posey. Posey serves on the House Science Subcommittee on Oversight.

A Congressional hearing could be explosive, if members of the Committee ask Thompson the right questions, probe deeply, and find out exactly how an arrangement was made, inside the CDC, to cover up the MMR vaccine’s connection to autism.

The study in question had several authors, two of whom—Frank Destafano and Coleen Boyle—are now high-ranking CDC executives in the area of vaccine safety.

If Thompson convincingly shows they were in on the fix, the whole business would explode and the CDC would be exposed as rank liars and threats to human health before the public.

On the other hand, if this is a one-day hearing, at which the testimony devolves into a boring he-said she-said proposition, and if the press barely takes notice, the outcome (and the truth) will rest entirely in the hands of alternative media.

No Congressional hearing has thus far been scheduled.

Another major CDC figure in this scandal: Dr. Julie Gerberding, former head of the CDC in 2004. Would she be subpoenaed to testify?

In 2004, whistleblower Thompson wrote her a letter, in which he warned her that he had sensitive and troubling data about the MMR vaccine’s connection to autism. He was shortly due to present the data at a major vaccine/autism conference.

Apparently, Gerberding didn’t answer the letter, and Thompson’s presentation was canceled.

***After Gerberding left the CDC in 2009, she ascended to the position of president of Merck Vaccines. Merck manufactures the MMR vaccine. Get the picture?

Interestingly, in December of 2014, Merck removed Gerberding from her august position and placed her in a new role, a role that never existed within the company before: executive vice-president for “strategic communications, global public policy and population health.”

Did Merck make this move to shield Gerberding, to protect her from a possible scandal tying her to the 2004 MMR-autism fraud at the CDC? If there is a Congressional hearing, will Gerberding be conveniently unavailable because she is overseas tending to her new international duties at Merck?

power outside the matrix

Meanwhile, as these developments play out, there is a political battle taking place re mandatory vaccination vs. parents’ right to choose whether to vaccinate their children.

Presidential candidates Chris Christie and Rand Paul have made statements supporting, to one degree or another, parents’ right to choose. The “medical experts” have invaded television news to slam these statements as grossly irresponsible.

These are the same experts who always answer the call when some element of the medical cartel is under threat of exposure. Their job is to provide cover, sound authoritative, and make medical critics into “dangerous people.” (see also Joe Biggs’s update.)

As I’ve documented over the years, these professional experts are actually sitting on a powder keg that threatens to blow the whole medical system sky-high. The issue, which must never be revealed.

Medically caused death and human destruction.

Here are a few citations and facts which remain state secrets, as far as major news outlets are concerned. Reading them, think about how much credibility the “medical experts” really have whenever they open their mouths about public health in ANY form:

Citation: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices:

“It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans.

Previously, I have documented that the FDA knows; because the FDA has a page on its own website that admits—without taking blame— 100,000 people are killed every year by medical drugs, and two million more people are severely injured by the drugs. (Go to startpage.com and search for “FDA Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions”)

And for the past five years or so, I have been writing about and citing a published report by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield that indicates 106,000 people in the US are killed by medical drugs every year. Until her death in 2011, Dr. Starfield worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her report, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, was published in the Journal of American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

Do an extrapolation: 106,000 people killed every year in the US by medical drugs=a MILLION deaths per decade.

Starfield didn’t stop there. She also attributed 119,000 deaths per year to mistreatment and medical errors in hospitals—bringing the annual total of US medically caused deaths to 225,000.

Here’s another study: April 15, 1998, Journal of the American Medical Association, “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.” It, too, is mind-boggling.

The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:

In a given year, in the US, 106,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs. Beyond that, 2.2 million hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.

The authors write:

“…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered.”

Roughly 1.5 million American soldiers have died in all wars in US history.

In any given 10 years of modern medical treatment? 2.25 million deaths (Starfield).

The Matrix Revealed

Consider how much suppression is necessary to keep the medical death-numbers under wraps.

Now think about these “medical experts” who appear on television news programs and assure the public that modern medicine is perfectly safe.

When they blithely state that vaccines only rarely cause problems of any kind, and when they state that vaccines have absolutely no connection to neurological damage in children, what is their level of credibility?

It may interest you to know that the US system of reporting severe adverse effects of vaccines is broken. There are no reliable numbers. That’s because the reporting is done by patients or doctors.

Barbara Loe Fisher, of the private National Vaccine Information Center, has put together a reasonable estimate:

“But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]

“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting [via VAERS]; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.

“Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, ‘Vaccine safety,’ Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]

“However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”

Now you have the background to assess what CDC whistleblower William Thompson may say if there is a Congressional hearing on CDC vaccine-autism fraud.

Thompson states that he was part of egregious lying in a published study.

Well, how in the world do you suppose the medically caused death-and-damage I’ve cited in this article is suppressed and covered up and papered over?

Every single medical drug and vaccine that creates the death and damage has been written about AND CALLED SAFE in at least one study published in a “reputable” medical journal.

Get it?

Rank fraud in published medical studies is everywhere. All the time.

Indeed, here is a devastating statement, from a doctor who has examined more published medical studies than any expert who shows up on television and spouts off about our perfectly safe medical system.

For two decades, she was the editor of one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” —Marcia Angell, MD (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)

Hello, Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, David Muir, Wolf Blitzer, Bill O’Reilly, Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, and all the so-called medical reporters for mainstream television and print outlets across America. Do you have the courage, brains, and will to cover and hammer on the biggest story of your lives—Medically Caused Death and Destruction?

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.

How the law of attraction fails and becomes brainwashing

How the law of attraction fails and becomes brainwashing

by Jon Rappoport

February 3, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“The focus on positive vs. negative thoughts is juvenile. It’s minor-league foolishness. And it leads people to obsess about their own minds. People aren’t passive magnets that attract and repel. That’s utter nonsense.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

The law of attraction is stated in two ways.

First, positive thoughts attract positive results in life, and negative thoughts attract negative results. This is mainly a descriptive overview. It doesn’t apply to people who consciously do something to change their own thoughts. It’s a “philosophic” basis for understanding why people get what they get in life.

Therefore, one assumes, if a hundred thousand people are dying of thirst during a drought, they brought that on by thinking a whole lot of negative thoughts.

People who advocate the law of attraction tend to dislike such examples. They sometimes hedge their bets by asserting that external events (e.g., a drought) are quite real and they never claimed otherwise.

This produces a blurry line between events that “just happen” independent of what people are thinking, and events which are the result of negative or positive thoughts.

The second version of the law emphasizes that people, by changing the nature of their own thoughts, automatically affect what they get in life.

Certainly, this isn’t achieved by a person entering his own mind like a surgeon with a scalpel, pruning away the negative. The interior landscape is far too large, the flows of thought are too mercurial, and quite often, what seems like a successful surgery later turns out to be a dud: the old excised thoughts return.

A frontal attack on thought is like trying to wipe out air.

But there are meditations and repetitive affirmations. Some advocates of the law recommend them. Focus on thinking about what you truly want. Clarify such thoughts. Repeat them to yourself over and over. Affirm them. Or concentrate on an object of desire.

Doing this in a dispassionate way hardly calls up very much energy. It’s about as effective as trying to move forward in an active ocean while sitting in a paper boat and paddling with a soup spoon.

What, though, happens if you really believe you can get what you want by thinking positively about it over and over, or by focusing on it?

In that case, the driving engine is that belief.

And this is a whole other territory. Suppose you ardently believe that by visualizing a purple rose sitting on a boiled egg, you will become rich? Suppose you believe that a pink bulldog dropping down from the sky holding the string of a large balloon will give you a new house?

The purple rose and the boiled egg and pink bulldog aren’t the vital components. What’s vital is the underlying belief.

Is belief enough? Will it carry the freight?

Exit From the Matrix

There is no blanket conclusion possible. It all depends on who is believing and how they are believing and with what power they are believing, and with what conviction, and with what passion, and with what “belief in their belief.”

I have seen, and you have, too, I’m sure, people who achieve remarkable things based on what they believe.

And it doesn’t matter whether they are engaged in “changing their thoughts from negative to positive.” The law of attraction itself is irrelevant.

Furthermore, people who hold very strong beliefs act on them. They don’t sit in a room and power up that belief-engine and wait for something to happen. They aren’t involved in some “snap-of-the-fingers” manifestation. They take massive and sustained action.

They live out their beliefs.

They create what wasn’t there before.

And in that act of creating, during a life lived, at some point along the line they experience remarkable collisions of events—the fancy label is synchronicity. People and situations come to their aid.

You could call that magic. You could call it oobladee. It doesn’t matter.

In large numbers of people, the ordinary notion of the law of attraction helps to make them passive. They wait. They think. They re-think. They spin wheels.

Some of them begin to believe they have to banish the negative, and this process leads them into confusion and discomfort of a high order, because it doesn’t work. Thoughts, untold numbers of floating random thoughts, are the wrong target. They’re a dime a dozen, and there are billions of dozens. Who cares?

The idea of purifying one’s own thoughts is a dead-end alley in the long run.

It becomes a fetish.

And those who preach the “philosophy” are, sometimes, merely interested in controlling the flock. The more androidal members of the flock will, now and then, say, “Did you hear about Bob? He’s in the hospital. Too many negative thoughts.”

On a political level, this degenerates into “we suspect Jones just had an incorrect thought.”

Living a creative life through and by imagination is a whole other process. It’s the major leagues. It’s the expression of life-force in a voice that tears away the curtain of consensus reality.

Inventing what otherwise would never be there.

This kind of life quite naturally, without effort, defuses trillions of sputtering thoughts because they don’t matter. Negative? Positive? Makes no difference. It’s a puerile distinction.

In living a life through and by imagination, one’s past, one’s experiences, feelings, thoughts, memories—they’re all fuel for the fire. In that fire, a soul forges what he will invent, what new reality he will make.

He doesn’t diddle around with “positive and negative.”

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.

Imagination is the key

Imagination is the key

by Jon Rappoport

February 2, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

OutsideTheRealityMachine

“Your past, everything that has ever happened to you, everything you’ve ever done becomes raw fuel for the fire of your imagination. That is the meaning of transformation. The past is no longer a problem. You invent futures that are no longer limited by the past.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Let’s say you live in a three-story house…but in all the years you’ve lived there, you’ve never gone upstairs to the second and third floors. You’ve spent the entire time on the first floor.

On the first floor, you’ve grappled with problems, made your stand, dealt with crises, planned your solutions.

Occasionally, you’ve had glimpses of something more, but that’s it. Glimpses.

The upper unused floors are imagination.

That’s where problems are transformed, where possibilities become so real they outdistance the normal terms in which problems are cast and thought about.

In truth, a whole new life is there for the taking, on the upper floors. An invented life.

One night at 4am, you wake up and realize those upper floors are yours. You go up the stairs. You look around and you see your own past, your own history—but now, all that material contains an added potential.

The potential to be recast, remixed, combined, dissolved, reshaped…or eliminated entirely. You see pure possibility stretching out in all directions. Waiting.

Waiting for you to invent.

The space of those upper floors can be changed. It can be expanded without limit.

Exit From the Matrix

It’s not the content of the future you’re seeing. It’s the possibility of inventing content.

This possibility is so pure, so alive, it overshadows questions and confusions.

You’re the painter with the blank canvas. The thrill of that fact goes beyond any adventure you’ve ever had.

The only question is, do you want this? Will you choose it?

No one can answer that question except you. But you can realize that, down through history, others have said yes. Others have launched themselves. Others have discovered that, as they moved on that road, their bedrock emotions underwent a transformation and their perception of life changed…

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.