In the museum called Reality

Feb11

by Jon Rappoport

February 11, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

You stroll through a museum.

Many rooms, many paintings.

You come upon a large landscape. Fields, cottages, hills, valleys, mountains rising in the background.

While other people move past it with a glance, you walk closer.

It’s lovely.

There, in the lower left-hand corner, you see the beginning of a narrow trail among a stand of pines. You wish you could…

A man is suddenly standing next to you. He’s smiling.

“Go ahead,” he says. “You can do it.”

Absurd. And yet…

You wonder.

“All it takes is conviction,” he says.

You look closer at that trail. Beyond the trees, there is a small cabin. It’s perfect.

And then…you’re walking along the trail. You can feel the soft earth under your shoes. You can smell the pines.

You walk faster, and in a few minutes you arrive at the cabin.

The door is ajar.

You enter.

One room. A bed, a small table, a chair, a fireplace.

On the mantle, there is a book bound in cracked leather. You walk over, pick it up, and open it.

You see drawings of a city. Crowded streets, people sitting in sidewalk cafes, cars, tall buildings. You can hear the noise on the streets.

It’s the kind of city you’d like to visit. There you would be free, unattached. You would walk and live as an unknown person. You would be a stranger, but no one would know that.

The cabin is gone. You’re exiting a ground-floor apartment in the city. You’re emerging on to a street with a briefcase in your hand.

You open the briefcase. In it are several file folders.

You see a sheaf of papers. They seem to be a report. The name of the author…you sense it’s your name.

You have a job. You think about it for a few seconds, and you realize you know where your office is. It’s up the street and over three blocks.

Suddenly, you’re sitting in that office. You look out the window. You’re a dozen floors above the street.

A woman walks in and sets down a cup of coffee on your desk.

She lays a key next to the coffee.

“This is the one you wanted,” she says. “I did a little research and found out it used to be a freight elevator.”

She walks out.

You pick up the key and examine it. It’s made of gray metal. There is a circle inscribed in it, and inside the circle is a square.

You stand up and walk out of the office, along a corridor, and through an exit. There on your left is a large set of double doors.

You insert the key into a hole and the doors open. You step in.

The doors close and you feel the elevator descend.

After a minute, it stops and opens. You step out. The doors close behind you.

You’re standing in a small room. On the walls, you see drawings and inscriptions, pictographs. Maps. Labyrinths. You see five, six, and eight-pointed stars. Animals. Circles containing squares. Other geometric figures. Numbers. Faces.

You turn back to the elevator. You look but you can’t find a place to insert the key. You try to pry the doors apart, but they won’t budge.

…Now, you feel as if you’ve been standing in that room for a very long time. You have memories of trying to decipher the drawings on the walls. You have memories of having almost succeeded, only to be stymied.

It seems you have a long history of having tried to decode secrets.

A man is standing next to you. He’s smiling. His face is familiar.

“I only encouraged you,” he says. “I’m no magician. I just gave you a little push. You supplied the conviction. That’s the main thing you have to understand.”

What does he mean?

A vague memory becomes sharper.

You were walking, a long time ago, in a museum. Yes.

And then you entered…something. And now you’re here.

Without thinking, you say, “There’s a rule against being bigger.”

He nods as if he understands perfectly.

“If I were to exit this place, this whole place,” you say, “I would be bigger. That’s not permitted. It’s a sign of…”

“Excessive pride,” he says.

“Yes,” you say.

“It indicates you’re trying to become ‘better than everyone else’. Which is a criminal offense.”

You think about his words. They spell out a rule, but who made the rule?

“Everybody who is here,” you say, “is smaller than they want to be?”

He smiles again. “That depends on what you mean by ‘want.’”

You repeat, “In this place, ‘bigger’ means ‘criminal.’ But who decided that?”

Then you realize you had a chain wrapped around your neck.

You reach up, and you can feel where the chain was. There is still an ache there.

The man is waiting. He’s looking at you.

“Why are you doing this?” you say.

“Doing what?”

He shakes his head.

He slowly fades out.

He was some kind of artifact. He was a construct that appeared out of your own voice and your own thoughts.

You made him.

You made him out of the scent of pines trees and the sound of water running through the forest and clouds and a desire whose substance you can’t quite fathom.

You sense you are betraying other people. That thought is made out of an old obsession to be like everyone else.

The obsession can become a life, a holy crusade.

But, you realize, it’s not your life or your crusade.

There is a soft explosion just behind your head.

You feel an impulse that is going to lift you off the floor.

And then…

You’re back in the museum.

You’re standing in front of the painting of the pine trees and the trail and the cabin and the fields and the mountains and the sky.

You’re trembling with relief.

A museum guard steps over to you.

“Are you all right, sir?” he says.

“Yes,” you say. “Yes, I’m fine.”

He nods.

You look into his eyes, and you see the small room just outside the elevator. That room is inside him.

“How about you?” you say.

His face flushes.

“Have a nice day,” he says.

“You, too.”

He starts to turn away, but then he doesn’t.

“Do you come to the museum often?” he says.

“I like the paintings,” you say. “I’m here several times a week. It’s a fine place.”

“Yes,” he says. “It is. I’ve wanted this job for a long time.”

“Why?”

“I’m protecting something important. I watch the people moving through the rooms and looking at the paintings. I watch them walk into the paintings…”

You nod.

He strolls away.

You continue to walk through the museum.

There are many paintings. Many entrances.

How many people are living inside those paintings? How many ever get out?

Jon Rappoport

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

Mind control and mind chaos: the troll and the non sequitur

Feb10

Mind control and mind chaos: the troll and the non sequitur

by Jon Rappoport

February 10, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

On a mass level, one of the most efficient methods of mind control is the creation of the non sequitur.

Non sequitur is Latin for “it does not follow.” In logic, this is a statement that doesn’t validly flow from previous assertions.

Example: “All presidents are crazy.” “Sam is crazy.” “Therefore, Sam is a president.”

Wrong. The final “Sam is a president” is a non sequitur.

In an education system where logic is absent, the student has no center. He drifts. He comes to rely on what other people tell him. He can’t think and reason for himself. He opts for ideas that seem superficially attractive.

In ordinary usage, this could be an exaggerated non sequitur: you’re parked in a lot outside a market, and a car hits you from behind. You get out and walk over to the driver and say, “Hey, you hit me.” And he says, “My sister was tested for tuberculosis and she’s clean.”

Or you write a piece about a medical drug recall, and a reader responds, “Jesus is the light of the world.”

These days, more and more people believe information is something you’re supposed to plug into at any level…and respond to with whatever comes to mind. This is the new logic.

As in the last example, non sequitur can issue forth from people who have an overwhelming agenda they refer to, no matter what the situation.

Example: “A last second-shot saved the LA Lakers from going down to another defeat.” And the response is, “When humanity rejects Islam, we will finally find peace.”

An online troll (see many comments sections all over the Net) has an overwhelming agenda or is being paid to distract people and lead them off course.

An example of this last might be: After an article about fraud at the Federal Reserve and several relevant comments, there suddenly comes, “All you conspiracy theorists are crazy Ron Paul followers. Money is money. Get over yourselves. Try leaving your mother’s basement.”

The troll hopes he’ll stir up enough animosity to take people away from the issue of fraud at the Fed, while painting Ron Paul as a nutcase.

If, in any situation, you take the bait and try to reason with a person who is entrenched in non sequitur, you waste your time and energy. It won’t work.

In Washington, non sequitur is SOP.

“Senator, we’re still waiting for answers about what really happened in Benghazi.”

“My boy, the whole Middle East and North Africa are tied together in age-old conflicts. It’s our job to untangle that mess, sort it out, and establish beachheads of Democracy.”

Say what??

In casual conversation at a party, where six or seven people are all talking at once and laughing, non sequitur is a hell of a lot of fun. But when it comes to grasping information, it’s about as useful as a spavined horse in the Preakness.

To which someone will reply, in perfect non sequitur, “Horses should never run at racetracks. It’s cruel.”

I once gave a talk about methods of analyzing information. I used, as an example, the Oklahoma Bombing case (1995). The responses from the audience were all opinions about the Bombing case. The people failed to connect with the real subject of the lecture because they weren’t aware there was such a thing as logic. For them, that was just some inexplicable icing on the cake.

They were products of the American educational system.

Television news is perfect non sequitur, in the sense that the anchor is paid to provide smooth transitions from one story to another unrelated story: “In the Middle East today, peace talks broke down again…a St. Louis housewife was shot in a drive-by…and did you know that some clothes dryers may not be safe…a body was found in a row boat off the coast of Virginia…it’s snowing in Florida…”

Turn a mind into a universal magnet that randomly picks up iron, wood, bits of paper, cigarette butts, orange peels, leaves, sand, mice, sugar, and shoes, it doesn’t matter what questions you present. The answers will be irrelevant.

This is a unique form of control.

Jon Rappoport

The Starfield Revelations

Feb9

By Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

Barack Obama and his allies have done everything they can to bring more people into the US medical system. Changing that system has never occurred to these politicians.

Like much of America, they accept the cliches and slogans about American medicine. “It’s the best in the world.” “People are being denied treatment.” “We must take care of our citizens.”

How about this far more accurate slogan: “Let’s force more Americans to die in the care of doctors.”

The American healthcare system, like clockwork, causes a mind-boggling number of deaths every year.

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when one of its most respected public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America. Starfield was associated with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

The Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, came to the following conclusions:

Every year in the US there are:

* 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

* 7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

* 20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

* 80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

* 106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000. That’s 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.

The Starfield paper can be downloaded freely (as a .pdf) from here (via www.drug-education.info). The paper is fully cited as Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world?. JAMA. 2000; 284(4):483-4. Dr. Barbara Starfield’s wiki page is here.

This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.

The Starfield study is the most disturbing revelation about modern healthcare in America ever published in the mainstream.

On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was rather perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this situation preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here are excerpts from that interview.

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

NO.

Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.)

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

What was your personal reaction when you reached the conclusion that the US medical system was the third leading cause of death in the US?

I had previously done studies on international comparisons and knew that there were serious deficits in the US health care system, most notably in lack of universal coverage and a very poor primary care infrastructure. So I wasn’t surprised.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

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

INTERVIEWER COMMENTS:

This interview with Dr. Starfield reveals that, even when an author has unassailable credentials within the medical-research establishment, the findings can result in no changes made to the system.

Many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs.

The buck stops there. If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable. The American people must understand that.

As for the other 119,000 people killed every year as a result of hospital treatment, this horror has to be laid at the doors of those institutions. Further, to the degree that hospitals are regulated and financed by state and federal governments, the relevant health agencies assume culpability.

It is astounding, as well, that the US Department of Justice has failed to weigh in on Starfield’s findings. If 225,000 medically caused deaths per year is not a crime by the Dept. of Justice’s standards, then what is?

To my knowledge, not one person in America has been fired from a job or even censured as result of these medically caused deaths.

Dr. Starfield’s findings have been available for ten years. She has changed the perception of the medical landscape forever. In a half-sane nation, she would be accorded a degree of recognition that would, by comparison, make the considerable list of her awards pale. And significant and swift action would have been taken to punish the perpetrators of these crimes and reform the system from its foundations.

The pharmaceutical giants stand back and carve up the populace into “promising markets.” They seek new disease labels and new profits from more and more toxic drugs. They do whatever they can—legally or illegally—to influence doctors in their prescribing habits. Many studies which show the drugs are dangerous are buried. FDA panels are filled with doctors who have drug-company ties. Legislators are incessantly lobbied and supported with pharma campaign monies.

Nutrition, the cornerstone of good health, is ignored or devalued by most physicians. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to attack nutritional supplements, even though the overall safety record of these nutrients is excellent, whereas, once again, the medical drugs the FDA certifies as safe are killing 106,000 Americans per year.

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the whole literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.

Jon Rappoport

Further comments on 9/11 and internet attacking

Feb9

Further comments on 9/11 and Internet attacking

by Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

After I posted my piece about molten metal at the World Trade Center, I received an unusually large number of emails offering explanations.

My article was simply meant to point out an anomaly: melting dripping steel at the WTC, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, in some cases long after the attacks, did not mesh with the official scenario about how the buildings came down.

Soon after September 11^th, 2001, I advised people to look at the explosion(s) itself, the impact, the profile of the damage, as one good starting point for investigation.

This was because I had done that in 1995, after the Oklahoma Bombing. It turned out that a truck bomb, exploded from the curb in front of the Murrah Building, could not have caused the pattern of damage that resulted.

Of course, after 9/11, numerous hypotheses about how the buildings had been taken down, were presented. This effort continues. It was thermite. It was cutter charges placed on columns inside the buildings. It was charges placed inside columns when the Trade Towers were originally built. It was mini-nukes. It was an energy weapon.

Because I am not, first and foremost, a 9/11 researcher, I reject none of these scenarios. I also know that with any hypothesis, trying to establish it with evidence can bump into facts not covered by the hypothesis.

“If hypothesis X is true, then how do you account for observations Q,R.S. And T. You can’t.”

It’s possible that more than one method of destruction was employed on 9/11. It’s possible that was done precisely to confuse independent researchers who would come along and try to develop one and only one explanation for how the Towers came down.

It’s also possible a multiple method of destruction was employed so that independent researchers would attack each other and accuse each other of lying, deceit, cover-ups, and so on.

If you read some of the back-and-forth among independent researchers, you’ll occasionally find these online attacks. They serve to drive people to distraction. They poison the atmosphere. They push people away.

It’s also possible that one and only one method was, in fact, used to take down the Towers—and I’m not talking about planes. But trying to establish what that one method was certainly isn’t helped by online attacks between these independents.

If you read independent research and then go to the comments sections, you’re really in the Wild West. People taking potshots at each other, name-calling, trolls changing the subject, etc.

In any major society-changing event, like 9/11 or the JFK murder, there will be false trails that dead-end. These trails are laid down by people paid to distract and divert. Yes, that makes things confusing.

“Let’s see. Is this a paid troll, or is it just a person whose highest aim in life is anonymously screaming at others?”

But no one said it would be easy. Keeping one’s eye on the ball (the actual investigation) is of paramount importance.

Investigation requires that certain bottom-line approaches are used. If you provisionally believe, for example, that the WTC was taken down by cutter charges placed in the buildings, and someone comes along and says, “But if that’s true, how do you explain the incredible amount of pulverized material found at the site,” you need to look at that. You need to determine a) if there was a tremendous amount of pulverized material, and b) if so, how it came to pass.

I’m just offering that as an example, not as the whole story. The whole story is quite complex.

You say, “What do we find at the WTC site after the 9/11 attacks? We find the following 21 things which seem to be important. What hypothesis can I frame about causation that will explain and account for those 21 things? Ah, here is one. Yes. Let me lay it out in detail…”

Then someone comes along and says, “Yes, but there are more than 21 important things. There are five more. Does your hypothesis account for them as well?”

And you need to consider that.

An independent investigator works from passion, but he also works from keeping a cool head.

In researching my first book (1988), AIDS INC. (included in The Matrix Revealed), I eventually decided there was no reason to conclude HIV caused what was being called AIDS. I had a number of reasons for that decision. But then I had to come up with an alternative explanation—and that explanation had to account for all the phenomena associated with AIDS.

I did that.

But of course, people came along and said, “Wait a minute, how about the hemophiliacs who are getting AIDS in their injections, how about Africans and green monkeys, how about the journal papers that say HIV is attacking T-cells…and so forth and so on.

These points were not always offered to me in the spirit of kindness and fellowship.

But I wrote them down and dealt with them, one by one.

And then, when I had covered the waterfront, my publisher went to press with the book.

And then, I was happy to ignore criticism (from independent researchers) if it was offered in bad faith… and as for mainstream critics who were parroting the official scenario, I attacked them mercilessly.

Jon Rappoport

The Reality salesman makes a house call

Feb9

The reality salesman makes a house call

by Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

In major media, there is always a potential Threat Level. Reporters feel it. Editors who assign reporters stories feel it. Even CEOs can feel it.

It happens when a story is about to break through containment and show the public that a cherished belief or institution is as phony as a three dollar bill.

Bells start ringing. Red flags go up.

Time to pull back. Time to lie. Time to pretend there is nothing to see.

If not, jobs will be on the line. Heads will roll.

The JFK assassination was that kind of story. 9/11 is that kind of story. The true statistic on medically caused death in America is that kind of story. Such stories are not permitted to be exposed in the mainstream. And by exposed, I mean “pounded on, ripped from stem to stern, day after day, revealing true conspiracies and heinous crimes.”

Instead, false fronts are erected. Cover stories are built and sold to the masses. A secret faith is kept.

There are so many false fronts in so many areas of life that, woven together, they form an overall picture of reality.

When people buy this picture, the price they pay is very steep. They sacrifice their capacity to invent their own futures. They lose touch with their own imaginations.

They live within a defined space that grows smaller as they grow older. They compromise their core freedom again and again. They train themselves to “fit in.” In fact, they become experts at fitting in, right down to what they will allow themselves to think.

They lose the desire to express their freedom. Their physical health suffers and deteriorates. Their energy drains away.

I’ve known several mainstream reporters who felt they were on the verge of a breakthrough in their work. They were investigating major stories that, when published, would punch a hole in the picture of mass reality.

These reporters felt like explorers who had found a buried treasure at the end of a long and arduous journey.

Then the bells went off and the red flags went up. Editors shut them down. The editors, said, “We can’t touch this one.”

So the reporters stopped in their tracks. They buried their files. They put themselves in harness.

This is what happens to many, many people in their lives. They suddenly sniff the air of real freedom and discovery. They climb out of the morass called consensus reality, and know why they are alive. And then they think, “What will happen if I break the pledge to remain a normal and average person? How will my friends and family and co-workers react?”

They pause.

Then they retreat. They adjust. They go back to their former role of fitting in. Their friends and family breathe a sigh of relief.

For a moment or two, a physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual crossroad had been reached. A person saw beyond the picture of ordinary reality. He saw huge open space. He knew he could act on the basis of an inner leverage that defied the laws of the material world. He knew there was a greater power within him.

But no…he wouldn’t take such a path. He would buy the reality created for him.

And then one day:

THE REALITY SALESMAN CALLS.

Step up, folks. This is a deal you can’t afford to miss. You know that thing you cling to like a drowning man in a turbulent sea?

It’s called reality, and I represent the company that manufactures it. I’m proud to say I’ve held this job for over a hundred thousand years. So as far as product knowledge is concerned, you just aren’t going to find anybody like me.

I’m here to tell you that reality is never anything more than rocks and bricks and concrete and steel. Reality is never anything more than a house and all the things in it, and the mementos you hold on to, to remind you of the past.

And in conjunction with that, I’m really selling…guess what?

A little thing called perception.

I’m selling How You See Things.

Because, no matter what time period you live in, it all comes down to that: how you see what’s in front of you.

And believe it or not, perception comes in different forms. My company makes the perception that endures. It’s the package you’re living with right now. It’s the down-to-earth here-it-is straight-ahead common-sense type. We call it: IT IS WHAT IT IS. That’s trademarked, by the way. IIWII. It is what it is.

IIWII was invented by a very smart guy whose name has been long forgotten. He was a flaming genius, and he realized something great. People would go for IIWII because it would lock them in.

Who wants to wake up on a Tuesday morning and suddenly see life in a completely different way? Who wants that kind of shock to the system?

IIWII is the most popular perception package in the universe, bar none. It has Reliability. Consistency.

All those centuries and epochs ago, when I was a rookie training for this job, the guys let me try on a whole bunch of different perception packages, so I could see what kind of competition I was up against.

I saw things I wouldn’t want to describe to you. Horrible things. And when I was given IIWII, our product, I felt like I was home.

IIWII gives you a stability you can count on for your whole life. And, believe me, that’s no small feat. We’ve built slow decay (SD) into the package, so things gradually deteriorate—because, think about it, do you really want that tree in your back yard to stay at one stage of growth forever? Do you?

IIWII is time-tested. It’s as solid as solid can be. It doesn’t break down.

But it does need vaccine boosters from time to time, and that’s why I’m here today talking to you.

Every twenty thousand years, we institute a planet-wide upgrade, just to make sure nothing goes wrong. And you’re all due.

Now, you could refuse, in which case you’ll have to take full responsibility for the ugly consequences, or you could do the right thing and just re-up. I have to tell you, our re-up rate is 99.859 percent. I’m proud of that figure.

By the way, the holdouts, the deniers, and the self-styled rebels? The governments of your planet keep close track of them. I feel obligated to let you know that. Without boosters, when your IIWII breaks down, you’re going to experience some things other people just won’t understand. And your governments will hunt you down and lock you up, or worse.

That’s not my doing, because I believe in the free market, but it’s part of my service to clue you into the whole picture.

Here’s the good part. You can get your vaccine booster now, during our pre-op special, by simply signing for it and taking the pledge, and continuing to pay a mere six percent of of your annual income for the rest of your lives. Which when you think about it, is nothing compared with what you’re getting. Again, reliability, and consistency.

In the small print, the pledge lays out a few details concerning IMAGINATION. This is for your own protection—because if you take imagination too far (and who knows how far that is, until it’s too late), you’ll set up what we call an interference field, which means IIWII will tend to malfunction. You don’t want that.

So here’s the contract and the pledge. Sign on the dotted line, and pay the fee, and we’re done.

Thank you very much.

I love you guys. Really, I do. I admire your tenacity and your willingness to stay with our package. Our company continues to prosper because of you. Visit the IIWII website and Facebook page and find out about upcoming picnics and vacation tours. We’re hosting booster events at thousands of locations.

If you don’t come to us, we’ll come to you.

We’ve got you on our list.

THE PLEDGE: “I promise not to mess with the perception package. When I take this vaccine that installs and boosts the package, I understand that I must report all suspicious activity to Central Planning. If I believe someone is operating outside the boundaries of the package, spewing strange ideas, defecting, I will report him or her promptly. If I myself stray, I will turn myself in and receive treatment. If not, I understand I will be hunted down like a dog. All hail to the IIWII perception package!”

The reality salesman knows what he’s doing. He makes a very good living. Secretly, he knows our perception of our own lives and futures is grossly limited by his product, just as our eyes can only see part of the light spectrum. He is aware of this.

He’s selling limitation.

He works for a set of controllers. The controllers have long since realized that the package they’re selling cements their hegemony and their power.

The one crack in their armor is our inner conviction that we can create new realities that go beyond what we ordinarily perceive.

And so they do everything in their power to indoctrinate us in a planetary cult of self-regulation, wherein we try to pull down “defectors” and rebels into a common swamp of acceptance and acquiescence.

In other words, the controllers need us to police ourselves.

And this is called Life.

It’s essentially a cartoon. Yes, it can be a vicious and nasty and inhibiting animation, but it’s a cartoon nonetheless, when is all is said and done.

Whether we sit still for it or break out is entirely up to us. It’s our choice.

Jon Rappoport

My introduction to Exit From the Matrix

Feb8

My Introduction to Exit From the Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

February 8, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

My first collection, The Matrix Revealed, laid out the nuts and bolts of The Great Game, and how it is played.

In Exit From the Matrix, I turn that card over and display what’s on the other side: the core of life-force, imagination, and creative power that knows no limits.

I’ve greatly expanded a repertoire of exercises and techniques you can practice every day to regain what is yours.

It represents some 15 years of investigation and research into what the individual is truly capable of.

It’s intensely practical. It contains more than 50 new exercises and techniques aimed at expanding the power, range, and scope of the imagination—along with very simple instructions on how to use these exercises.

Imagination is the buried key that unlocks the door that exits from the Matrix.

This collection also contains a presentation of the vital philosophy that underpins the limitless power of the individual. This is more than theory. It’s a guide to exiting from the Matrix.

From what is in EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, from the huge amount of material, I think you’ll see I’ve made no short cuts. In fact, I’ve done everything possible to go the extra mile.

You can order this new collection from my store, here.

Here is the list of my brand new audio presentations included in this collection:

* 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

* GREAT PASSIONS AND 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:

* A pdf of my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies

* A pdf of my book, The Ownership of All Life

* A long excerpt from my briefly published book, Full Power

* A pdf of my 24 articles in the series, “Coaching the Coaches”

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.)

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.

That road travels to more and more creative power, joy, and fulfillment.

During that great adventure, the individual experiences what has been labeled “paranormal” and “synchronistic” and “magical.” These words really don’t do us justice. They only hint at what we are and what we can do.

I put this collection together because it expresses, explains, and shows, in detail, how the individual can rediscover and reclaim his/her true power.

That process, that engagement, that life, is beyond solving problems. Our problems, at the core, exist only because we have “misplaced an infinity.”

Everything I’ve done and written in the past 20 years has been aimed, one way or another, at bringing back that infinity, seeing through the layers of disguise, and moving ahead on the sunlit road we all desire.

This is collection is for you, for me, for all of us.

We have, each one of us, an infinite life, lived in a world that is convinced it is bounded.

It’s time we dissolved that false contradiction.

Jon Rappoport

9/11 official scenario: what about the pools of melted metal?

Feb8

9/11 official scenario: what about the pools of melted metal?

by Jon Rappoport

February 8, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

I began by reading reports of melting dripping metal at the World Trade Center after the attack on September 11^th.

Some of these reports come from weeks after the attack.

This seemed quite strange.

Following links, I arrived to Dr. Steven Jones and his famous paper, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?”

Jones takes up this issue and much more. His paper is well worth reading.

Jones’ approach goes beyond the argument about whether the buildings collapsed because the steel construction melted or just weakened.

The molten pools of metal are the anomaly. They need to be explained. Jones is arguing that these long-lasting pools wouldn’t have resulted from burning jet fuel.

His conclusion, which he states needs further investigation, is that thermite charges were the cause of the pools. And why else would thermite be present in the buildings, except for the purpose of bringing them down?

I fully understand that all sorts of assertions have been made to explain the collapse of the buildings. And I’m sure people will write me with their assurances about what really happened on 9/11.

But in this article I’m simply pointing out that what appears to be confirmed observation of molten pools of structural metal from the WTC is a key.

Why? Because it cannot be explained or accounted for by the official 9/11 scenario.

Yes, there are other facts that can’t be explained by the official scenario. The molten pools are one important fact, and Jones takes it up. Here are quotes from his paper:

“We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7.”

“There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer, ‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6.)”

“…the observed surface of this metal is still reddish orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time — once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various materials entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any thermite cutter charges which did not ignite during the collapse could also contribute to the prolonged heating.”

Jones goes on to explain thermite reactions.

“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. [See Grimmer, 2004] Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting.”

“Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, which we call ‘thermate,’ will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report.”

“On the other hand, falling buildings (absent incendiaries such as thermite) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal; any particles of molten metal somehow formed during collapse will not coalesce into molten pools of metal!”

“The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams—then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology]) stated: ‘Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt.’ (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)”

“And in a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST states: ‘In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.’”

“None of the official reports tackles the mystery of the molten metal pools. Yet this is clearly a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis.”

“Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel: ‘The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true… The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was definitely not capable of melting steel.. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C — hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.’”

Jon Rappoport

Keep this in mind when they try to sell you a pandemic

Feb7

Keep this in mind when they try to sell you a pandemic

by Jon Rappoport

February 7, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Researchers are making noises about a possible new pandemic. One or more variations of bird flu. And of course, in all these ramp-ups, the bottom line is: get vaccinated.

The so-called pandemics train you to obey, so you’ll take all the shots they recommend for every disease, like a good little muffin.

“Seasonal flu? Pandemic flu? Meningitis? Hepatitis? Whooping cough? Measles? Polio? Martian Traveler’s Disease? Venusian Restless Leg? Gimme everything you’ve got. Inject me! Protect me!”

Here are few items to consider when the pandemic professionals start grinding out media warnings.

How many confirmed cases of the disease in question are there, at that moment? Ten? Fifty? A thousand? Out of a population of eight billion?

For example, as Peter Doshi pointed out in BMJ online, when the big push on Swine Flu started, in the spring of 2009, there were only 20 purported cases of Swine Flu. Twenty. (BMJ Online, v.339, b3471)

This is a pandemic?

The mere claim that “a novel virus,” never before seen, has emerged in humans is NOT a slam-dunk for a pandemic. Not by a long shot.

Swine flu was supposed to be one of those, and it was a dud. The number of deaths reported was far lower than the numbers traditionally reported for seasonal flus.

Number 2, how are doctors or researchers testing patients to confirm they have “pandemic flu?” This is a big issue. If, for example it’s antibody testing, they’re conning you straight out. Why? Because the presence of antibodies (a scouting component of the immune system) is not a sure sign that the person has been ill, is ill now, or will become ill.

Antibodies only indicate a person has contacted the virus in question. That’s it. And until the mid-1980s, when the science was turned upside down for no good reason, a positive antibody test was normally taken to mean the person’s immune system was healthy and had kicked out the virus.

If doctors and researchers are testing people for some purported pandemic virus using the PCR method, there are other problems. The PCR is a procedure that takes tiny, tiny fragments of organic matter from a patient and amplifies them, blows them up, so they can be recognized and read.

However, there is no sure-fire guarantee these fragments are really pieces of viruses. And if the original extraction of such organic material yielded so little from the patient, how on earth would one assume it was causing illness?

Which brings us to the next point. In determining whether a patient has some pandemic illness, and especially early in the game when researchers are still trying to figure out what’s going on, they need to actually isolate that virus from the patient and show it is present in huge numbers in his body. Otherwise, there is no reason to infer the virus is causing disease.

The purported cases of flu in patients could be coming from a number of different factors. A person might be ill as a result of: toxic chemicals, environmental or pharmaceutical; nutritional deficits; stress; parasites, etc.

The biggest issue is: the strength or weakness of that person’s immune system.

In devastated areas, where poverty, contaminated water supplies, starvation, lack of basic sanitation, and overcrowding are chronic, many germs can sweep through the population and cause death, because these people’s immune systems are shot, compromised, on the way out, and can’t defend against the germs.

The same germs, in an affluent area, would cause little harm.

The bottom-line is, to know what is making a person ill, you have to examine that person for many different factors. You can’t just say, “Well, we found a virus in him and therefore that’s why he is sick.”

That’s not science, that’s hype. That’s not research, that’s PR.

As the hype expands and health agencies like the CDC and WHO announce there are thousands of cases of pandemic flu and deaths, they don’t tell you how they’re counting.

That’s a gross omission. For instance, in the summer of 2009, the CDC stopped testing patients who walked into clinics and hospitals with generalized “flu symptoms.” The CDC just assumed they were all suffering from Swine Flu. CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson reported this fact and it caused a firestorm, until the story was cut off at the knees by the CBS news division.

You want to know what really happens when so-called flu patients are tested?

Here’s a quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.”

Boom.

Doshi then states: “…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

In other words, even if you believe in vaccines, even if you think they’re wonderful and the world would collapse without them, when it comes to the flu, things are not what they seem. 84% of supposed or suspected or diagnosed flu patients are falsely labeled. Even by loose conventional standards, they don’t have the flu. It’s a mirage.

Jon Rappoport

Vaccines-aluminum-autism: but don’t worry, go back to sleep

Feb6

Vaccines-aluminum-autism: but don’t worry, go back to sleep

by Jon Rappoport

February 6, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Christina England, writing at vactruth.com, has the story: “This Study Reveals Children are Being Vaccinated With Toxic Levels of Aluminum Causing Neurological Damage and Autism.”

Here are quotes from her article:

“A recent study conducted by Canadian scientists Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic revealed that the more vaccines that children receive containing the adjuvant [additive] aluminum, the greater their chance is of developing autism, autoimmune diseases and neurological problems in the future.

“In 2013, in their paper, published by Springer Science+Business Media, titled Aluminum in the Central Nervous System: Toxicity in Humans and Animals, Vaccine Adjuvants, and Autoimmunity, they revealed that during a 17-year period, the rates of autism had increased significantly in countries that had the most vaccinations containing the adjuvant aluminum.

“The researchers compared the number of vaccines recommend by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the period from 1991 – 2008 and the changes in the autism rates during the same period. They wrote:

‘The data sets, graphed against each other, show a pronounced and statistically highly significant correlation between the number vaccines with aluminum and the changes in autism rates. Further data showed that a significant correlation exists between the amounts of aluminum given to preschool children and the current rates of autism in seven Western countries. Those countries with the highest level of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines had the highest autism rates.‘”

Later in the article, we find a list of vaccines whose aluminum content is high: DtaP (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis); Hepatitis A; Hepatitis B (given to babies at birth); PedVaxHib (for meningitis); HPV; Pediarix (DtaP-Hepatitis B-polio); Pentacel (DtaP-Hib-polio); Pneumococcus. The list is not presented as exhaustive. Other vaccines may contain high levels of aluminum.

This correlation between aluminum in vaccines and autism is more than disturbing. But vaccine manufacturers and their government allies have a counter-argument ready at all times:

“Correlation alone is not enough. There may be other undiscovered causes for autism. And unless the exact series of events by which aluminum in vaccines causes autism is shown, the anti-vaccine case is dismissed and ignored.”

Then, if researchers provide some details for that chain of causation, the vaccine companies will say: “The chain is still incomplete. It has gaps. We need more details.”

And so forth and so on. Whenever new elements emerge demonstrating a causal chain, they will be rejected on the same basis: “Not enough. Still lacking. Imprecise.”

You should read about a researcher named Tyrone Hayes (twitter), who for years has been making a compelling case against the Syngenta herbicide/pesticide atrazine. At each step of the way, as Hayes exposes more of the toxic story, he’s told, by Syngenta and the EPA, “It’s not enough. You’re not demonstrating the causal connection between atrazine and human illness.”

On the other hand, when it suits them, researchers and government agencies will accept correlation and run with it. A most challenging example is the field of retroviral illness:

“Well, we don’t know everything about which cells in the body the virus is attacking. It’s hiding. It’s clever. It sits there for a long time, quiescent, and then it strikes. We do know that when people harbor the virus, they will eventually get sick…”

Pharma players and governments operate on both sides of the fence, adjusting their positions to mesh with their agendas.

They’ll say, “The correlation is overwhelming. We don’t need to know anything else.”

Or they’ll say, “Correlation is never adequate. You have to show each and every step in the causal chain of events.”

It’s a game. It’s a crime. And people are treated and suffer the toxic destructive consequences.

Oh, and one more thing. Aluminum is known to be toxic to the human body, especially when it’s injected. So whether you call its effects autism or Alzheimer’s or delayed development or a number of other names, what’s the difference?

Poison is poison.

Jon Rappoport

Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelley, and Salvador Dali

Feb5

Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelley, and Salvador Dali

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2014

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

Salvador Dali was one of the most reviled painters of the 20th century.

He disturbed Conventional Folk who just wanted to see an apple in a bowl on a table.

Dali’s apples and bowls were executed with a technical skill few artists could match—except that the apples were coming out of a woman’s nose while she was ironing the back of a giraffe, who was on fire. Sin! Mortal sin!

“It doesn’t go together! It doesn’t make sense! He’s Satan!”

Yet, these same Folk sit in front of the television screen every night and watch the network news. Elite anchors seamlessly and quickly move from blood running in the streets of a distant land to a hairdryer product recall to an unseasonal hail storm in Michigan to a debate about public policy on pedophiles to genetically engineered mosquitoes in Florida to a possible breakthrough in storing computer simulations of human brains for later recapture to squirrels gathering nuts in New Jersey.

Nothing surreal about this??

Cognitive dissonance, imprinted on minds that accept every flip and jip and fancy. Why not? It’s the news. It has to be normal.

The best of the best mind control is applied by the three major network anchors: Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer.

They don’t do it as well as Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, and Edward R Murrow once worked their magic, but they’re fairly good practitioners of the art. Brian Williams is the current champion.

Dan Rather was an interesting case. At one time, he was quite convincing. He was a “trusted voice.” But then he faltered and stumbled over the George W Bush military-service scandal, and he went down in flames. Even before that, you could see occasional cracks in his armor. He was questioning his own faith. He was flickering a bit here and there, like a doubting priest in the Roman Church who had no one to confess to.

When the elite anchor goes on air and digs in, he’s seamless. He could be transitioning from mass killings in East Asia to sub-standard air conditioners, and he makes the audience track through the absurd curve in the road.

Then there is the voice itself. The elite anchor has a voice that soothes just a bit but brooks no resistance. It’s authoritative but not demanding. Scott Pelley (CBS) is careful to watch himself on this count, because his tendency is to shove the message down the viewer’s throat like a surgeon making an incision with an icepick.

Pelley used to look down his nose at the great unwashed. He’s been working to correct that. He’s a high-IQ android who’s training himself to be human.

Diane Sawyer wanders into sloppiness, like a housewife who’s still wearing her bathrobe at 4 in the afternoon. She exudes sympathetic syrup, as if she’s had a few cocktails for lunch. And she affects a pose of “caring too much.”

Brian Williams is head and shoulders above his two competitors. You have to look and listen hard to spot a speck of confusion in his delivery. He knows exactly how to believe his act is real. He can also flick a little aw-shucks apple-pie at the viewer. Country boy who moved to the big city.

If none of these anchors could have “pulled the country together” after JFK’s assassination, it’s in part because that country doesn’t exist anymore. America doesn’t want a Cronkite daddy.

The vocal delivery of an elite anchor has to work minor poetic rhythms into prose. Shallow hills and valleys. Clip it here and there. Give the important words a pop. Make no mistake about it, this is hypnosis at work. Not the cheesy stage act with three rubes sitting in chairs, waiting to be made into fools by the used-car- salesman type waving a pendulum. This is higher-class stuff. It flows with certainty. It entrains and conditions brains. The audience tunes in every night to get their fix.

That’s the key. The audience doesn’t really care about content. They want the delivery, the sound, the voice of the face.

Brain Williams could do a story about three hookers getting thrown out of a restaurant by a doctor celebrating his anniversary with his wife, and it would come across like the Pentagon sending warships into the Gulf.

Diane Sawyer couldn’t. That’s why Williams’ ratings are higher.

Segues, blends are absolutely vital. These are the transitions between one story and another. “Earlier today, in Boston.” “Meanwhile, in New York, the police are reporting.” “But on the Hill, the news was somewhat disappointing for supporters of the president.”

Doing excellent blends can earn an anchor millions of dollars. The audience doesn’t wobble or falter or make distinctions between what went before and what’s coming now. It’s all one script. It’s one winding story every night.

Therefore, the viewer doesn’t need to think. Which is the acid test. If the ratings are high enough and the audience isn’t thinking, we have a winner.

Corollary: the audience doesn’t notice the parameters of stories, how they’re bounded and defined and artificially constructed to omit deeper themes and various criminals who are committing outrageous crimes that aren’t supposed to be exposed.

Brian Williams, with just a bit of his twanging emphasis, can say, “Today, pharmaceutical giant Glaxo was fined one-point-nine billions dollars,” but he can’t tie all the horrendous stories of medical-drug damage together in a searing indictment of the whole industry.

The audience needs to remain oblivious to this larger story. The anchor ensures and guarantees a clueless missing bottom line. That’s his job. That’s his underlying assignment.

It’s called, in intelligence circles, a limited hangout. You expose a piece of a crime, in order to transmit the illusion of guilt-and-justice, while the true RICO dimensions are kept out of view.

Elite anchors are the princes of limit hangouts. That is their stock in trade. Sell the illusion of justice while concealing the bulk of the iceberg that is under water.

The audience can watch and listen to hours of coverage on revolutions and counter-revolutions in the Middle East, but they can’t suspect that the US and NATO are funding terrorists dressed up as freedom fighters, in order destabilize and destroy nations in that region.

“More gunfire and explosions in the capital city today…”

Then there is a little thing called conscience. The elite anchor can’t have one. He has to pretend to have one, but it isn’t real.

Every year, the anchor covers dozens of scandals that are left to wither and die on the vine and fall down the memory hole, never to be seen again, except perhaps for a much-later task-force or commission report that equivocates and exonerates the major players.

The anchor has to deal with this. He has to develop memory loss.

In editorial meetings at his own network offices, if someone mentions trillions in government bailouts to banks, he can frown slightly and thus impart, “It’s stale, it’s old.”

And when it comes to the elites the anchor is pledged to? CFR, Rockefeller interests, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, government-allied Big Medicine, Globalism, and so on? Nary a damaging word will be said. Nothing to see, nothing to say. No problem.

Therefore, the viewing audience doesn’t suspect these controlling entities are doing anything wrong or, in some cases, even exist.

Conspiracy? “Aw shucks, I really do have sympathy for the people who dig up this stuff. And I’m not saying all of it is wrong, either. But you know, journalism is about plumbing for facts and verifying them. That’s the hard truth we have to face in this business. Going on the air with a possible this and a possible that is ultimately irresponsible. If we who present the news feel an occasional impulse to wing it, we have to rein ourselves in. Restraint is part of our job…”

Show these jokers a few devastating books by Anthony Sutton or Caroll Quigley and they’ll nod and say, “I did read that one in college. It was interesting but a little thin, I thought…”

The anchors project a sense they’re doing science. Gathering facts, verifying, testing, repeating the study again to see if it holds up, checking the checkers, confirming the sources, tailoring the assertions to make sure there’s no wandering off the well-researched path.

It’s part of the act.

The elite anchor has to impart the impression that he’s personally familiar with the events he’s reporting. That’s nonsense. He isn’t touching actual events with a ten-foot pole. He isn’t doing journalism himself. But the audience must think he is.

“Washington has been the scene of many battles. But the current tussle at the top of the fiscal cliff is becoming an exercise in outrage on both sides. Today, behind closed doors…”

Some anchors are managing editors of their own broadcasts. That means they sit around like newspaper editors and listen to lesser editors present the stories of the day. The anchors ask questions and pick and choose which pieces they’ll cover on the evening news, and they decide the sequence, but their hands never touch the events themselves.

It’s more illusion. A well-trained and literate high-school sophomore from Nome could go on air, with a decent haircut, and read the news.

But backed up by expert technicians, a good set decorator, and a pro make-up person, Williams, Pelley, and Sawyer will give you the kind of living fiction that has become its own genre.

The audience is delivered clues about what they are supposed to feel at every turn in the road, and they respond with their own unalloyed faith.

When Paddy Chaevsky wrote the definitive film about news, Network, he had his anchor, Howard Beale, break from the format and tell people to stick their heads out of their windows and shout, “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

Most people forget that Beale, with the highest ratings in news history, went on to host his own hybrid program, after the news division was turned over to the entertainment wing of the network. And this new show portrayed Beale as a kind of mesmerizing (wacko) priest, a religious figure.

The audience’s faith in the anchor was magnified.

Then, when confronted by a superior priest, Arthur Jensen, chairman of the holding company that owns the network, Beale learns that all of society is organized as one interlocked forever-corporation, and the universe itself wants it that way.

Beale succumbs and falls under Jensen’s spell. The anchor who hypnotizes millions of people every night becomes the hypnotized subject.

Today’s elite anchors have this dual aspect. They control minds and they also put themselves in a mind-controlled state, in order to believe in what they are doing. They don’t need an Arthur Jensen. It’s all self-inflicted. That’s one step better.

No need to censor stories from above. The anchors have a finely honed sense of what is permissible and what isn’t.

The mind-control flicker machine runs on its own.

In early human societies, the story teller was a principal figure. He wove the tribe’s experiences into a coherent whole, and built layers of cosmology. Story tellers formed an elite priest caste and spun official metaphysical doctrine.

Today, people feel the same need for narrators. The news anchors. Although these front men for the news no longer use metaphysics to control the masses, they do covertly obey the old rule: tell only part of story.

Guard the rest from public view.

In ancient times, the rationale for hiding key secrets was explained in terms of stages of privileged initiations into “the magic.” Today, millions of people are led to believe their news narrators are giving us everything there is. Other than their stories, there is nothing. So in this secular media religion, people believe they have only two choices: swallow the news reality, or face a cold vacuum.

Their bottomless need for a story teller survives.

But…

Comes the Internet.

And then the whole world turns upside down.

Jon Rappoport

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