“Stop arguing about the existence of the virus”

by Jon Rappoport

May 20, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

The headline of this article has become a battle cry among some “alternative journalists,” activists, lawyers, and doctors.

As my readers know, I’ve devoted considerable space, over the past two years, to presenting evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is a scientific fairy tale, a con, and the virus doesn’t exist.

So when I hear this battle cry, I’m motivated to mention a few significant points.

Let me start by countering the claim that debating the existence of the virus is wasting time.

Here’s a shocker. A person can do more than one thing at the same time. For example, he can expose/oppose the toxic vaccine. He can expose the murderous COVID treatments (ventilators, sedatives, antiviral drugs). He can expose using simple flu-like illness to create fraudulent COVID case numbers.

And he can ALSO expose the fact that the virus has never been isolated (discovered) or sequenced.

So highlighting the non-existence of the virus doesn’t rule out dealing with other vital concerns.

This may come as a surprise, but it’s even possible to go to court to challenge a vaccine mandate, while ALSO arguing elsewhere that the virus doesn’t exist. I know. Amazing, right?

Those alarmed by “the virus doesn’t exist” also say: making that statement leaves us open to being called whackos, and leaves us unable to convince people that all our other criticisms of the pandemic are true.

I would counter that in two ways. Millions of people already believe we’re whackos, even those of us who take a sacred blood oath that the virus is real.

And second, people going against the grain, when their vital issue is still in the budding stage, are always called nuts. Trust me, there was a time when criticizing vaccines made people look like total whackos in the eyes of the general public—and it took decades of fighting the consensus to bring that criticism into the open, where many people saw the truth about jabs.

Here’s another fun fact. The entire medical cartel thrives on the insane proposition—launched with fervor more than a hundred years ago—that people suffer from thousands of distinct diseases, each of which is caused by a single germ, which must be treated by a toxic drug and prevented by a toxic vaccine.

It is this great lie that that has killed millions upon millions upon millions of people.

Therefore, the very real question about the existence of viruses in general is more than a weird preoccupation.

Next, those who claim, “OF COURSE viruses exist,” don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. They’re merely PARROTING what they learned in school or what researchers baldly claim in studies.

“Well, all virologists can’t be wrong.”

Yes, Virginia, they can all be wrong. Just as vaccinologists can all be wrong about “the remarkable safety and efficacy of vaccines.”

Some of the OF COURSE VIRUSES EXIST people are new to the way blogs and videos work. They’ve never encountered commenters in any great numbers before. So when a few dozen committed people suddenly tell them they should examine their premises more carefully and consider what really goes on in virology labs, these OF COURSE people are annoyed and irritated. They don’t like being challenged on basic issues. They don’t like feeling that the floor might suddenly shift under their feet. So they turn on their arrogance machines.

So be it.

The issue isn’t going away. Nor should it.

Despite growing digital censorship, the internet is still the Wild West in certain respects. People are going to say THE VIRUS DOESN’T EXIST, and VIRUSES DON’T EXIST.

And foundations will shake.

Foundations of the medical cartel, and foundations underlying people’s cherished assumptions.

In any area of human life, there are conflicts between “this is strategy” and “this is the truth.” There always will be.

Trying to shortchange the truth or casually say the truth is a lie doesn’t work.

NO ONE who is reading this article has ever been in a virology lab and witnessed the step by step process of “discovering a new virus.” I find that stunning. And yet all sorts of people are quite ready to assert with great finality that they know all about isolating viruses.

If by chance, someone reading this article HAS actually been in a lab and “discovered a virus,” you can bet your bottom dollar he won’t let you or me in there with a full film crew and our outlier experts asking very pointed questions about each “scientific” move he makes, as he “isolates a virus.”

To which somebody might reply: “Well, I’ve never seen a car being made in a factory, but I drive one with full confidence.”

Yes, but when the “virus discovered in a lab” results in you or someone you love being dosed with a drug or vaccine that maims you or kills your family member, you damn well should want to get into “that factory where the car is made.”

But you can’t. They won’t let you…

…Despite the fact that, as I’ve documented many times, the US medical system kills, by a very conservative estimate, 225,000 people a year, or 2.25 million people per decade. [0]

Chew on THAT for a while.

Here is one of my articles on the subject of virus isolation:

—Dr. Andrew Kaufman refutes “isolation” of SARS-Cov-2; he does step-by-step analysis of a typical claim of isolation; there is no proof that the virus exists—

The global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”

But what if the virus doesn’t exist?

People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.

“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. It exists.”

I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1], and he provided his analysis in detail.

I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [2].

First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.

The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. Human cells, monkey cells, antibiotics, other chemicals, random genetic material.

The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup, because they’re dropped a mucus sample from a patient in the soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.

They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.

There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.

Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus.”

Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:

STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”

KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”

STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”

KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”

STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”

KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”

STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”

KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”

KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [3]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”

STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”

STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”

KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”

STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”

KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”

—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—

My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word “isolation,” is not occurring.

Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.

And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists, and you don’t have an isolated specimen of it?

Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 375 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [4]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?

The answer is no.

SOURCES:

[0] https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-primary-care-policy-center/Publications_PDFs/A154.pdf

[1] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

[2] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

[3] https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home.html

[4] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/category/covid/

Court OKs puberty blockers: medical con for the ages

May19

by Jon Rappoport

May 19, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ll expose the con.

First, the story:

Information Liberation: “Judge Rules Parents Have ‘Fundamental Right’ to Drug Kids With Puberty Blockers And Cross-Sex Hormones.”

The National Review: “U.S. District Judge Liles Burke… granted a temporary injunction to block the sections of the law banning prescription of puberty blockers and hormone medication, in response to a lawsuit.”

“Parents ‘have a fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children,’ Burke wrote in his opinion. ‘This right includes the more specific right to treat their children with transitioning medications subject to medically accepted standards’.”

“Burke explained that ‘the uncontradicted record [of] evidence is that at least twenty-two major medical associations in the United States endorse transitioning medications as well-established, evidence-based treatments for gender dysphoria in minors’.”

Can you see where this is going?

First of all, the Judge accepts the notion that there is a medical condition called gender dysphoria.

The DSM-5, the bible of the psychiatric profession, lists gender dysphoria as a “clinically significant distress or impairment related to a strong desire to be of another gender, which may include desire to change primary and/or secondary sex characteristics.”

Once you assume “gender dysphoria” is a medical-psychiatric condition, then the medical treatments—e.g., public blockers—naturally follow. Therefore, parents can OK these treatments for their children.

But is gender dysphoria a real condition?

If it is, then there must be a test for it. A physical test. Blood, urine, hair, genetic assay, brain scan. But there is no defining test. None.

Second, labeling something a disorder or a disease or a medical condition and giving it a name means nothing, unless you can point to a cause. A cause you can prove.

If you have no cause, you just have a list of symptoms, or thoughts or ideas or feelings going on in the mind and body of the patient. Gathering up these symptoms or thoughts and claiming they add up to a singular CONDITION is arbitrary.

No matter how many medical societies and drug companies want to claim otherwise.

There is no defining cause of “gender dysphoria.”

No defining test, no defining cause.

It’s all smoke.

The authorities say: “We have a singular condition called gender dysphoria. We have drugs to treat it (puberty blockers, hormones). Therefore, as with any other medical condition, parents can OK the treatments for their children.”

Wrong. Wrong on all counts.

It’s all smoke.

It’s a devious strategy, applying a fake veneer of medical legitimacy to a situation that has no proven medical basis.

If you had a vast social/political movement behind you; backed by elite medical groups and federal agencies; supported by schoolteachers and gullible idealistic blind insane parents; you could sell a judge the idea that a condition called PROTEIN DYSPHORIA is at the heart of many of society’s problems.

You could say, “Many adults, and especially children, are experiencing this condition. They want to stop consuming protein altogether, but traditional destructive habit patterns are being forced on them. This medical-psychiatric condition, PROTEIN DYSPHORIA, can be treated with drugs that block the desire to consume protein. There is no reason to stop parents from permitting their children to undergo this recognized and certified treatment.”

And the judge would buy it. Idiot that he is, he would cite medical authorities in his ruling.

The battleground for “gender dysphoria,” and all the implications that follow, has been marked out: IT IS MEDICAL.

You need to understand that.

That’s what’s going on here.

We’ve just had two years of the MEDICAL crossing over into political. It’s called COVID.

And that war (which is not over) was launched by predatory agencies and politicians and elites who claimed to be taking the medical high ground.

The strategy is not new.

As I’ve been writing and saying for 35 years, the medical cartel is the most dangerous cartel in the world.

Your strategy as a parent, as an interested party, as a citizen, as a human, on the issue of gender change and gender drugs, has to include:

“You claim gender dysphoria is a real condition, a real medical psychiatric condition. Prove it. Where is the defining test for it? Where is the proven cause? Don’t tell me what doctors SAY. Show me what they can PROVE.”

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

Jon Rappoport

Tik Tok Rolling Stone Nanny State—Johnny Depp, Amber Heard defamation lawsuit

May18

by Jon Rappoport

May 18, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

Censorship on parade. Because we must be protected from dangerous content.

At infowars, Paul Watson has the story:

“TikTok censored numerous viral videos alleging inconsistencies in Amber Heard’s testimony after the platform was contacted by Rolling Stone magazine.”

“…seemingly keen to stop the spread of embarrassing viral videos which portrayed Heard in a bad light, Rolling Stone contacted the platform complaining that the videos ‘glorified violence or suffering’.”

“One of the videos in question, which was later deleted by TikTok, featured two cats playing the roles of Heard and Depp.”

“’In the video, Heard’s testimony is reenacted by a cat in a blond wig, with the same cat in a black wig and a Pirates of The Caribbean bandana playing Johnny Depp,’ reports Reclaim the Net. ‘When the video starts, the cat playing Heard is lightly slapped using a finger’.”

“TikTok removed several videos it was alerted to by Rolling Stone journalists, claiming they violated the platforms policies against bullying and harassment, which does not allow ‘content that disparages victims of violent tragedies’.”

Excuse me, but the whole point of the court case is deciding WHETHER THERE WAS A VICTIM OF A VIOLENT TRAGEDY.

This is not ASSUMED, prior to the trial.

Apparently, Tik Tok missed that point.

Or possibly they and Rolling Stone have already adjudicated the case and I missed the memo.

There is also the issue of how dangerous two video cats playing Johnny and Amber actually are.

But PRIOR assumption/adjudication is the Big One, because these days, that is the preferred method of analysis. “We know what the outcome should be, so we don’t have to waste time getting to it.”

Depp and Heard and their incompetent lawyers made a stupid mistake. Rather than filing a case with a court, they should have gone directly to Rolling Stone and Tik Tok to make a ruling about the violent tragedy.

According to the same logic, independent journalists should send their articles to the new Government Disinformation Board before publishing them.

I could have saved two years and over 475 articles about the COVID fraud, by simply making proper inquiries, prior to posting. Actually, prior to writing.

“Dear Sirs and Madams and Other Genders: Here is a list of conclusions I’m making about COVID. Please let me know whether I should allow any of them to see the light of day. Your faithful servant…”

Bottom line: If you or I are considering making any statement about a favored class of purported victims, regardless of circumstances or context, we should consult a preferred authority first. To see whether we are disturbing an ongoing AGENDA.

Agenda=Truth.

As we all know.

And once we do know, we can couch our remarks in a way that endears us to everyone else who also knows, up front, what the outcome of a given event ought to be.

It’s a simple way to do business and succeed in the marketplace of ideas.

Closed ideas.

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

Jon Rappoport

Opioids, Obama, Congress: guilt-free criminals

May17

by Jon Rappoport

May 17, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ve covered this before. I’m not letting it go.

There are two routes for killer opioids like fentanyl that are flooding America, killing upwards of 35,000 people a year and addicting millions more:

The China route out of Wuhan, and US pharmaceutical companies engaging in trafficking.

There are several major pharmaceutical companies who’ve faced heavy exposure for their roles in the opioid criminal trafficking business. For example, Purdue, and Johnson & Johnson. A third one is (Mossad-connected) Teva.

Why can’t federal law enforcement stop all the US pharmaceutical companies who have been trafficking opioids?

Is there some secret we don’t know about? In fact, the answers are right out in the open. I had them confirmed, from a source inside federal law-enforcement.

But talk about “open—” the Washington Post laid out the sordid story in detail. AND AS USUAL, THERE WAS NO FOLLOW-UP. That’s how major media work. They have a piece of very ugly truth. They expose it. But then it mysteriously dies and is forgotten. In this case (opioid trafficking), a real follow-up would have led the public down into a Hell of evil influence, exerted by Pharma, on the US Congress. Buckle up.

A 2016 LAW SIGNED BY OBAMA SHACKLED THE DEA (DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION) IN ITS EFFORTS TO CRACK DOWN ON BIG PHARMA OPIOID TRAFFICKERS.

That law is the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2016, passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on 4/9/16.

And that is the federal government’s role in perpetuating and expanding the opioid crisis.

Honest agents inside the complacent DEA want to have the right to march into a pharmaceutical company headquarters and say, “We know you’re shipping millions of opioid pills to little pharmacies and clinics that, in turn, are selling the pills to street dealers. We’re going to freeze those shipments now, and we’re going to arrest your key executives.”

But that 2016 law raises the bar so high, the whole law-enforcement effort is hamstrung, throttled, and loaded down with legal complications.

In essence, the US Congress gave drug companies a free pass.

And no one in the Congress is admitting it or talking about it.

The Washington Post, on October 15, 2017, talked about it. The article was headlined, “The Drug Industry’s Triumph Over the DEA”: “In April 2016, at the height of the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history, Congress effectively stripped the Drug Enforcement Administration of its most potent weapon against large drug companies suspected of spilling prescription [opioid] narcotics onto the nation’s streets.”

“A handful of members of Congress, allied with the nation’s major drug distributors, prevailed upon the DEA and the Justice Department to agree to a more industry-friendly law, undermining efforts to stanch the flow of pain pills, according to an investigation by The Washington Post and ‘60 Minutes’…”

“The law [which was passed with an overwhelming YES count by both house of Congress] was the crowning achievement of a multifaceted campaign by the drug industry to weaken aggressive DEA enforcement efforts against drug distribution [pharma] companies that were supplying corrupt doctors and pharmacists who peddled [opioid] narcotics to the black market. The [drug] industry worked behind the scenes with lobbyists and key members of Congress [to pass the 2016 law], pouring more than a million dollars into their election campaigns.”

“The new [2016] law makes it virtually impossible for the DEA to freeze suspicious narcotic shipments from the companies, according to internal agency and Justice Department documents and an independent assessment by the DEA’s chief administrative law judge in a soon-to-be-published law review article. That powerful tool [freezing opioid shipments] had [previously] allowed the agency to immediately prevent drugs from reaching the street.”

The Washington Post article mentioned there was an attempt to reach Obama (who had signed the law) and obtain his comments. The effort failed. Obama kept his mouth shut.

EVERYONE IS NOW AWARE OF THE LAW’S HORRENDOUS IMPACT. WHY DOESN’T THE CONGRESS REPEAL IT?

The fact that no one is stepping up to the plate with a repeal is proof that multiple parts of the federal government are, in fact, tacitly supporting the opioid crisis and its devastating impacts on human life.

Failure to act swiftly amounts to collusion in Death by Opioids.

President Obama, the Congress, and key officials within the Justice Department and the DEA are all guilty.

If you speak to people who have a naïve and lasting faith in the good will of political leaders, they will probably tell you that the heinous 2016 law I detailed above was “an unfortunate mistake.” The members of Congress “didn’t know what they were voting for.” And somehow, that lets everyone off the hook. Really?

Congress has known what they voted for (if indeed they were all ignorant back in 2016) for the past six years. SO WHY HAVEN’T THEY REPEALED THE LAW? Why haven’t they remedied their “error?” Why have they let untold numbers of people die for years while staying silent?

Why hasn’t the whole Congress risen up to squash the “mistake?” They could do it in an hour. Obviously, they don’t want to admit their prior guilt. They don’t want an investigation which, if done with even a vague imitation of honesty, would expose some of their members as WILLING AND KNOWING COLLABORATORS IN DEATH.

They don’t want to admit that the pharma campaign money they take is sufficient inducement to fake a blindness to the death they’re assigning to their own constituents and people all over America.

On the condition of anonymity, an insider with intimate knowledge of the opioid crime network spoke with me. He is not a participant or a criminal. He has spent years exposing the network.

My initial question was: how could a corrupt little pharmacy or medical clinic in a small town, in the middle of nowhere, sell, as reported, a MILLION opioid pills a year?

Here is the answer my source confirmed: a criminal doctor or doctors are writing 75-100 opioid prescriptions a day like clockwork; “patients” are flooding in from all over the country (many of them flying in once a month); they are sold the opioid prescriptions, and either fill them right there in the clinic, or take them to a friendly pharmacy.

These patients are actually dealers. They return home and sell the pills to addicts.

Where do the small clinics and pharmacies obtain the huge number of opioid pills? From distributors. These are legitimate companies. They may distribute all sorts of medicines. It’s their business. They know they are committing egregious crimes.

Where do these big distributors obtain their opioid pills? From pharmaceutical companies who manufacture them.

The manufacturers and the distributors have an ongoing relationship. They know exactly what they’re doing. They know the bulk of the product is going into “street sales.”

The distributors and the manufacturers are drug traffickers.

There is no doubt about this. No one is “making a mistake.” No one is in the dark. No one is being fooled.

When the DEA tries to clamp down on opioid manufacturers, this is not a sudden action, as some manufacturers try to claim. The DEA has already made several prior visits and has tried to convince the manufacturers to stop what they’re doing—to no avail.

I suggested to my source that the opioid distributors and their suppliers, the pharma manufacturers, have a “nudge and a wink” relationship. He quickly told me it was far more than that. He left no doubt in my mind that these relationships are undertaken and maintained with full knowledge about the trafficking enterprise these partners are engaged in.

He pointed out that the 2016 law referenced above, passed by Congress, radically changed the conditions under which the DEA could immediately freeze huge and obviously criminal shipments of opioids.

Before imposing a freeze, instead of simply showing that the (criminal) shipment poses an IMMINENT threat of death or grave harm to users, the DEA now has to demonstrate there is an IMMEDIATE threat.

This word game means the DEA must establish that people could die, not next week or next month (imminent), but “right now” (immediate). If this seems logically absurd and intentionally perverse, it is. Obviously, “immediate” is designed to give rise to back and forth debate, legalistic challenges, long court postponements—and ultimately a straitjacket preventing decisive actions against opioid distributors and manufacturers.

The Washington Post reached out to Obama, who signed the 2016 law, and his then Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, the highest law-enforcement officer in the nation. The DEA is organized under the Attorney General and the Dept. of Justice.

Both Obama and Lynch “declined” to discuss the law. Naturally.

Who played a central role in crafting the law and pushing it through Congress?

The Post: “Deeply involved in the effort to help the [drug] industry was the DEA’s former associate chief counsel, D. Linden Barber. While at the DEA, he helped design and carry out the early stages of the agency’s tough enforcement campaign, which targeted drug companies that were failing to report suspicious orders of narcotics.”

What??

Barber worked against the drug industry while employed by the DEA, and then he left the Agency and turned around and attacked the Agency.

The Post: “When Barber went to work for the drug industry [he now works for Cardinal Health], in 2011, he brought an intimate knowledge of the DEA’s strategy and how it could be attacked to protect the [drug] companies. He was one of dozens of DEA officials recruited by the drug industry during the past decade.”

“Barber played a key role in crafting an early version of the legislation [the 2016 law] that would eventually curtail the DEA’s power, according to an internal email written by a Justice Department official to a colleague. ‘He [Barber] wrote the…bill,” the official wrote in 2014.”

The opioid crime network extends to Congress, former (if not present) DEA employees, medical-drug distribution companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and Obama, who signed the horrendous 2016 law.

It then includes medical clinics and pharmacies and prescription-writing doctors.

The murderous network is addicting, maiming, and killing Americans in huge numbers.

—This is war against life. Launched from China and Mexico; launched from major pharmaceutical companies and their distributors.

And of course, given the policy of open borders, the US government has been inviting the enemy to float right into America with so much tonnage of fentanyl that, despite drug seizures, no one can stop the flow.

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

Jon Rappoport

The Drudge Report effect: a dumpster of social engineering and mind control

May16

by Jon Rappoport

May 16, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

In reporting on the Buffalo shooting, Drudge prints a series of headlines at the upper left of the page:

* Buffalo shooter targeted Black neighborhood…

* Was inspired by racist theory underpinning global carnage…

* Scene like Armageddon…

* Terrified shoppers jumped in freezers…

* Gov. calls for social media crackdown; ‘Instruments of evil’…

* Copycats becoming deadlier… Grim chronology…

* UPDATE: One dead, multiple injured in CA church shooting; Taiwanese congregation…

The key phrases are “inspired by racist theory underpinning,” and “social media crackdown.”

The whole point is convincing people to believe in the INCITEMENT narrative, when it comes to free speech:

“You see, we have to limit what people can post and write and say, because OTHER PEOPLE will be inspired by words to commit evil and violent crimes.”

This is the preferred method of social engineering and mind control these days.

Of course, it’s selective. No “liberal” in his right mind would suggest that leaking the Supreme Court opinion to overturn Roe v Wade incited people to gather at Justices’ homes to try to try to intimidate the Court. Of course not.

But racist posts online incited a white man to commit mass murder of black people in Buffalo. Sure. Right.

Taking the incitement narrative further, we’re supposed to blame the content of online racist posts for the mass murder, instead of focusing on the single shooter himself and saying he is solely responsible for the murders he committed.

Because putting responsibility on his head takes away the effect of the social engineering con.

We have to clamp down hard on social media and censor until the cows come home—to prevent mass murders. That’s what we’re supposed to believe.

Of course, any language in any context can be blamed for inciting someone else.

You write a series of tweets—and a few months later, a print-out of the tweets is found in a locker along with 6000 pages of other material; and the locker was rented by a man who just killed six shoppers in a mall—so you’re guilty of inciting.

Drudge goes for the tabloid effect. He could have posted links to any number of statements about free speech and the Constitution recently posted by authors…but where is the lurid payoff in doing that?

Here’s the picture you’re supposed to see: out there in the country, there are hundreds of men just waiting for the verbal trigger that will set them off. Without those triggers (posts, tweets), they would NEVER cause harm. It’s the triggers that are the problem. The triggers must be eliminated. Censored.

That’s what you’re supposed to see and believe, instead of realizing that a few men out there are already inclined to commit mass murder, and come hell or high water, they’ll FIND a reason to go on a rampage. And no amount of censorship will stop them.

And guess what? This is exactly the situation that applies to rabid censors. No matter what, they will find a reason to impose censorship on the population. They’ll find a reason, and it will align with their political and social agendas.

That’s called reality.

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

Jon Rappoport

Buffalo mass shooting—say what?

May16

by Jon Rappoport

May 16, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

8PM, ET, Saturday, May 14.

White shooter, black victims. Shooter had composed racist manifesto.

OK, let’s start with the news report.

AP: “A gunman opened fire with a rifle Saturday at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, in what authorities called a ‘hate crime and racially motived violent extremism,’ killing 10 people and wounding three others before being taken in custody, law enforcement officials said.”

“The suspect was identified as Payton Gendron of Conklin, about 200 miles southeast of Buffalo in New York state, two law enforcement officials told The Associated Press…The suspect was being questioned Saturday evening by the FBI, one of the officials said.”

The FBI was on the scene in two seconds. Both the Governor of NY and the President were “being kept abreast” of breaking developments.

Labeling the mass shooting a hate crime allows the FBI to jump in. That’s a subject for another article, or a book. My point here is:

What about the US cities where murders are served up for breakfast every day?

Getjerry.com: “Your odds of being the victim of a violent crime in Chicago are 1 in 103…according to the New York Times, it’s only seventh in the nation when it comes to murder rates, edged out by cities like St. Louis, New Orleans, and Baltimore.”

Any reasonable person would conclude that violent crime in these cities is out of control. Local law enforcement can’t or won’t deal with it.

When THAT is the case, the US Dept. of Justice has every right to step in and take over.

But it doesn’t.

It only makes a move in a one-off situation like Buffalo, because…hate crime.

The last time I looked, a person who is dead on a floor or a street, as a result of a bullet, is exactly the same degree of dead, whether the bullet was fired by a specific kind of hater or a more general hater.

And, of course, Buffalo gives the FBI and the DOJ a chance for a photo op. Don’t discount that.

In the top murder cities in America, if you could go in and do an honest poll of residents—particularly mothers—in key neighborhoods where gunfire is daily background music— and if you could get honest answers, you’d discover these residents would prefer ongoing active FBI engagement to FBI one-offs every five years. The residents would prefer ANY law enforcement that makes the streets safer.

But who cares about what the residents care about?

They’re the last people to ask.

Instead, we need government bureaucrats to supply all the answers, and politicians to make hay out of hate crimes, and “spokespeople” for the inner-city residents to take center stage. And news media to climb on board and blame Trump or Tucker Carlson.

We need experts to tell us the difference between hate crimes and ordinary murder, and we need them to educate us about systemic racism as the cause for crimes committed by black men.

The black VICTIMS of the black men’s crimes are of NO concern. They’re sacrificed on the altar of “exposing racism at the heart of American life.”

That’s the social contract. Focus no attention whatsoever on the black victims. Instead, explain the black killers’ “true motives”—which, according to experts, are completely beyond the killers’ control.

Dept. of Justice RICO (continuing criminal enterprise) prosecutions of murderous inner city gangs? Out of the question.

In 2021, Philadelphia had 521 murders; New York, 443; Los Angeles, 352; Indianapolis, 246; Chicago, 739. And these numbers were reported with at least three weeks left in the year.

But as far as the FBI and the DOJ are concerned, these numbers and these very real dead people don’t count. The agencies don’t show up in those cities, they don’t do photo ops, they certainly don’t put their own officers on the streets. They don’t push aside local officials who are obstructing local police from doing their jobs.

No. They’re going to Buffalo.

The rest of the time, they’re muttering under their breaths, “Black people killing black people is what black people do, there’s nothing we can do about it.”

This is what the political LEFT is saying.

So don’t bullshit me with Buffalo.

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

Jon Rappoport

Exit From The Matrix: The Individual returns to his creative fire

May15

by Jon Rappoport

Through my articles and my Matrix collections, I have one goal: bringing individuals back to their very capable minds, back to their own formidable power, their own imagination, their own creative force, their own deep desires and purposes.

When I began NoMoreFakeNews.com 21 years ago, I wasn’t sure how many people could handle this message. But I decided to find out. I’ve been pleasantly surprised, to say the very least.

If there is a tradition I have been adding to, all these years, it is early Tibet—before the priest class moved in and took over. The magicians and their students were engaged in an enterprise of extraordinary dimensions.

My research revealed that this tradition was initiated, some 1400 years ago, by teachers from India, who came to Tibet after being expelled from universities for their radical views.

These teachers rejected the content and cosmology of all spiritual systems.

They essentially stated that such metaphysical “pictures” of existence were creative inventions—

And that the true subject for study, contemplation, enlightenment, and, above all, exercise was the individual creative impulse itself—

Creative power, imagination, and invention, at the level of the individual.

The Tibetan exercises were fashioned to expand individual creative power without limit.

In that tradition, and for these modern times, I developed hundreds of imagination/creative techniques. More than 50 of these are offered and explained in my collection, Exit From the Matrix.

Here are the contents of my collection, Exit From The Matrix:

First, my audio presentations:

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

* EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* 50 IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* FURTHER IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* ANESTHESIA, BOREDOM, EXCITEMENT, ECSTASY

* ANCIENT TIBET AND THE UNIVERSE AS A PRODUCT OF MIND

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

* PARANORMAL EXPERIMENTS AND EXERCISES

* CHILDREN AND IMAGINATION

* THE CREATIVE LIFE AND THE MATRIX/IMAGINATION

* PICTURES OF REALITY AND ESCAPE VELOCITY FROM THE MATRIX

* THIS WOULD BE A VERY DIFFERENT FUTURE

* MODERN ZEN

* THE GREAT PASSIONS AND THE GREAT ANDROIDS

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

* Mind Control, Mind Freedom

* The Transformations

* Desire, Manifestation and Fulfillment

* Altered States, Consciousness, and Magic

* Beyond Structures

* The Mystery and Magic of Dialogue

* The Voyage of Merlin

* Modern Alchemy and Imagination

* Imagination and Spiritual Enlightenment

* Dissolving Stress

* The Paranormal Project

* Zen Painting for Everyone Now

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

* Expression of Self

* Imagination Exercises for a Lifetime

* Old Planet, New Planet, New Mind

* The Era of Magic Returns

* Your Power Revealed

* Universes Without End

* Relationships

* Building a Business for Success

I have included an additional bonus section:

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

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

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

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

And these audio seminars:

* The Role of Medical Drugs in Human Illness

* Longevity One: The Mind-Body Connection

* Longevity Two: The Nutritional Factors

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

The Matrix Revealed: The trick behind Occult systems

May14

by Jon Rappoport

It should be obvious to readers who’ve been with me for a while that I attack delusion in more than one place. Political systems, medical systems…and so-called spiritual systems.

That’s because I happen to believe in legitimate limited government, healing, and the unbounded life of the individual spiritual being.

Occult systems, which propose they have a hidden secret at the core, which will be revealed after a long and exhaustive search, are, at best, deluded, because they are concealing CONTENT.

By content, I mean information, knowledge, pattern, some facet of what already exists. This is a dead-end.

There is nothing wrong with truthful information. But….

Suppose we had a secret society called The Inner Core Flame X42. And we sold our members on the idea that, after a series of ascending initiations, they would arrive at the X, the secret of secrets.

Well, what could X be? Some nugget of information, some formula or phrase or fact or made-up fact about existence that is supposed to solve problems and enlighten consciousness.

But consciousness is dynamic. It isn’t a key looking for a lock.

Consciousness is dynamic because it creates. It creates new realities.

It isn’t primarily a container for What Is, for what already exists.

If there is a secret about consciousness, that’s it. IT CREATES.

So no matter what X we cooked up, it would become obsolete, of minor value.

Humans are ripe for buying an X because they are trained, and train themselves, to place the highest value on What Already Exists.

That’s mind control par excellence.

Occult systems deliver what controlled minds expect, and that’s why they’ve flourished. That’s the only reason why.

But there is another way.

When a person sees the “artistic” blow-by-blow creation of these power structures, in progress—rather than the finished product—an entirely new consciousness arises.

“If they can create Reality for me, I can create my own.”

“If they are artists, I can be an artist, too—but in an entirely different direction.”

The Matrix ceases to be a monolith. It is revealed as an ongoing weave, and one can see the process at work.

Then, one’s own insight operates on behalf of liberation.

A person can actually see how he cooperates in the progression of accepting “the weave.”

And he sees other options.

Therefore, as I put together The Matrix Revealed, I made sure to show Matrix as a work in process, an ongoing enterprise, a work of art, as it were, that can be dismantled—as a person takes another road of his own.

This is vital. It transforms victimization into inspiration.

In my work, I was assisted by interviewees who profoundly understood all this.

Here are the full contents of my mega-collection The Matrix Revealed. You can order it here:

Here are the contents of The Matrix Revealed:

* 250 megabytes of information.

* Over 1100 pages of text.

* Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also included:

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

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

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

This work is all about reinstating individual power, above and beyond what the Matrix implies and stands for. It is about insight, yes—but it is also about liberating one’s consciousness from the habit of accepting life on the terms by which it is given to us.

Thought and action can align themselves with Matrix, or they can strike out in a far more adventurous and galvanizing direction. A thrilling direction unique to each individual.

Jon Rappoport

Associated Press, sign up for my 1st Amendment seminar, you idiots

May13

by Jon Rappoport

May 13, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

This is a one-time offer to the Associated Press. My weekend seminar on free speech and the meaning of the 1st Amendment can be yours, for the low, low price of $10000000000000000000000000. Cash up front.

In a recent piece about Elon Musk, AP offers this stunner:

“Musk boasts that he’s acquiring Twitter to defend freedom of speech. But he has long used the platform to attack perceived foes who dare to disagree with him.”

Let’s see. If Musk really believed in free speech, he would refrain from responding to his critics, right? That’s what FREE and SPEECH mean, right?

Or Musk would write, “I differ from you in my assertions, but thanks for responding. Everything is relative.”

If Musk really believed in free speech, he would send each of his critics a check for $10,000, to prove how tolerant he is.

Musk: “Dear GruffDog2: I acknowledge your disagreement with my recent statement about space travel. If you sign an affidavit swearing that you’re a member of an underserved community, I’ll increase my check to $15,000.”

If Musk really believed in free speech, he would never ever attack (in print) someone who disagreed with him. Because THAT would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. This is what AP is declaring.

Perhaps this is what AP is saying: “Hey, man, this dude Musk is the richest dude in the world. So the whole thing is unfair. The deck is stacked against the poor victim who disagreed with him. See, when Musk tweets, the page automatically lights up and glows, but when the little victim dude tweets, the page is dark.”

I’ve reached out to AP with this interpretation, but their office of self-justification hasn’t gotten back to me.

However, some unknown person at AP did send me this: I dug up a 1795 statement penned by James Madison: “Our work launching a new nation means nothing unless we realize that FREE SPEECH really focuses on the comment a person makes when he disagrees with a prior person’s statement. If the prior person THEN disagrees with the first disagreement, he is taking things too far. His speech is not protected. He can be stripped of all his assets and sent to prison for the rest of his life. Or he can be shot at dawn.”

I relayed that response to the offices of Joe Biden and Barack Obama. Biden immediately returned a terse remark: “I approve of this message. Vote for me.”

Obama stated: “The 1st Amendment doesn’t cover misinformation. No one has the right to misinform. The Constitution is a living document, and I continue to interpret it for you. My cronies and I define misinformation in our weekly updates. No one has the right to be wrong. The world is too dangerous a place to permit wrongness. For example, the NSA informs me you’ve written a piece mocking my family for living in our beachfront mansion on Martha’s Vineyard, since we affirm the imminent threat of climate change and drowning of all coastlines. However, you’re wrong; because I say so. I hereby fine you $1000000000. My people will be in touch to provide you with account and routing numbers.”

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

Jon Rappoport

Why I’ve been writing about Yellowstone at substack

May12

Why millions of people are watching Yellowstone

by Jon Rappoport

May 12, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

15 million people watched Episode 1 of Season 4 of Paramount’s smash-hit cable series, Yellowstone.

This is populism television—a tidal wave out of nowhere.

There are several factors involved. The main one is:

A family is determined to keep its land—the biggest ranch in Montana—against all odds. Against all attempts to take the land by: the state government, a gigantic corporate land developer, an Indian tribe, a psychopathic killer and his hired guns.

The ranching Dutton family will go to any lengths to keep the land.

This suddenly resonates with millions of viewers.

No other television series in history, based on the premise of holding on to private property, has provoked such passion.

What’s going on?

Americans have come to a crossroad and they know it.

The government and its allies want to gobble up private property and end it. This is the inevitable outcome of the Parent State in action. This is also Globalism in action. This is, yes, one of the pillars of Socialism, Communism, and Marxist philosophy—the outlawing of all private property.

The tactics for achieving this goal are many. Outright seizure, crippling property taxes, a welter of regulations making private ownership far more risky and difficult.

Yellowstone pulls no punches. No episode goes by without the producers shoving the issue of private ownership in the faces of viewers.

And viewers respond. They see who the good guys and the bad guys are.

Of course, reviews in the press don’t hammer on this issue of private property incursion and destruction. They acknowledge the popularity of the series, but they don’t try to explain it. Well, they wouldn’t. Because the issue is too hot to handle. Much too hot.

At the end of Season 4, rancher-daughter Beth Dutton schools an idealistic environmentalist on the biggest threat to the Montana environment: the corporate developer, Market Equities, who intends to build a new ugly modern consumerist city for rich tourists on the beautiful landscape—an airport, highways, hotels, casinos, condo complexes, ski resorts, etc.

Market Equities’ notion of private property has no connection to basic family ownership of land. It’s impersonal. It’s a factory operation. It’s a partnership with the state government, a job creator, a tax collector. It’s a non-stop bulldozer. It’s Vegas, brutally injected into eternal hills and valleys.

And along with this “modernization,” Yellowstone also puts front and center the rise of the “modern citizen,” shallow, perky, politically correct, clueless, petty, nasty under the surface, completely cut off from the land and its moral values and traditions. Beth Dutton is the relentless exposer and slayer of this new citizen.

If ever a fictional television series could cross over into real life and spawn a greater resistance to foul, elite, giant destruction of private-ownership, Yellowstone is it.

I can only hope the upcoming Season 5 doesn’t back down an inch from the previous 4.

There’s another thing Yellowstone is doing. It’s highlighting a stark competition and war been one side and another, played out on the land of Montana. Yes, COMPETITION, yet another traditional American value that has been attacked, downplayed, befouled, and accused of being inherently UNFAIR.

Hence, trophies for children who merely participate in sports. “Here, Jimmy, you tried to kick the ball four times last season and missed three times, so accept this plastic statue and know we all love you, and don’t ever bother thinking about who the best athletes on the team are. There is no best.”

Sports put the lie to that. Sports, which more and more people are taught to hate, endure. They’re stark. They’re real. They’re built to decide who wins. The nightly news doesn’t turn sports into a mush of indeterminate he said he said. The scoreboard doesn’t turn 101-87 into a tie.

Even with all the corruption surrounding and infecting sports, they survive. On the field. Where it counts.

Kids learn to deal with it. They find out they can get better if they work harder. There is a ladder of attainment, and they can climb it. Or they can try to fake it and fail. Excuses don’t succeed. Complaining doesn’t succeed.

Parents can console their children after a loss, but if they try to rip the heart out of a sport in order to “save their kids,” the whole proposition backfires. Weakness takes over.

The world can’t be made fair by trying to strip away talent and effort and the desire to achieve and the commitment to work. The world can’t be made fair by trying to submerge these basics. It can only be made into an idiot’s circus and a government overseer-bureau and a peer-pressure reduction of language and a massive toleration of stupidity.

In a society where the Glob and the Group and the Know-Nothing and the Pussified and the Obedient Little Fascist are promoted as The Good, the ultimate resistance comes from The Individual.

That’s what I’m speaking of and writing to.