Ebola, Monsanto, James Holmes: basis of psyops

by Jon Rappoport

November 6, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

“People have to have immediate updates on stories of the day. It’s an addiction. And for an addict, his own state of mind is far less important than finding his next jolt. He only knows Need. And the last thing he wants to consider is that, at bottom, he is inventing that Need.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Reality is a psychological operation.

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

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

A psyop depends on selling one centralized story.

In the case of Ebola, the whole unfolding storyline depends on selling basic assumptions: a) there is an outbreak; b) the outbreak is caused by a single virus.

As you can see, these assumptions and the ensuing storyline are being sold by major media, with no exceptions. There are no defectors.

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

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

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

If, tomorrow, the governor of Colorado announced that the shooter(s) in the Aurora theater was not James Holmes, he would be run out of office and possibly locked up in a psych ward.

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

This is how reality works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

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

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

“Group-ideas which are obviously foolish and depleting and destructive are relatively easy to reject. But group-ideas that seem to herald a better world are the big deceptions. These ideas, in a vacuum, may be attractive and interesting, but because they emerge from a group they are going to induce a deep trance, in the long run.”

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

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

The James Holmes Batman-murder psychiatric circus

The James Holmes Batman-murder psychiatric circus

by Jon Rappoport

April 28, 2014


This article is not about all the contradictions and inconsistencies in the official story of “the Batman murders” at the Aurora Theater. This article is about the use of psychiatry in the judicial system.

Judge Carlos Samour has ordered James Holmes to undergo a second sanity review. Holmes’ lawyers are appealing that order, so once again, everything is on hold.

Holmes has already entered a plea of insanity, meaning he committed the murders but was crazy at the time. And he’s already had one sanity review in a hospital. But the Judge didn’t like that review, and neither did the prosecution. Why? No one is permitted to say, but it’s obvious the prosecution is upset because the first review concluded that Holmes was/is insane….unable to tell right from wrong.

The prosecution wants the case to end up with a guilty verdict and the death penalty, not with an insane Holmes assigned to a prison hospital as a psychotic.

The Judge wants the second sanity review to focus tightly on whether Holmes was sane or insane on the night he “killed people in the theater.”

So how do psychiatrists decide that question?

In order to do so, they have to go through Holmes himself.

Is Holmes now sane? Can he look back and provide an accurate account of his state of mind then?

“Well, I’m quite sane now, and I can see I knew right from wrong then.”


If Holmes is sane now (whatever that means), why should he admit he was sane then and risk dying at the hands of the State? If he’s sane now, he’ll say, “I was crazy that night. I couldn’t tell right from wrong.”

How do the psychiatrists navigate through that?

If Holmes is insane now, whatever he remembers about that night in the theater should be automatically discounted and ignored.

But psychiatrists, with their pseudoscience, have a reputation to uphold. They have to make it seem as if they know what they’re doing. They have to pretend their word games and their diagnoses are connected to the reality of the mind.

That isn’t the case, of course. No official diagnosis of any so-called mental disorder has a defining test to back it up. It’s all a hoax.

Eventually, after their second sanity review, psychiatrists will enter an opinion with the court. They’ll claim that some sort of objective analysis was done on Holmes, bypassing his fractured mental state. They’ll sell their snake oil to the Judge.

And he’ll buy it, because psychiatric reviews are part and parcel of the modern judicial system.

The bottom line? Aided by the sold-out political establishment, the men who really want to control the destiny of this country are using psychiatry and the “mental health” system to create a Police State.

“Everybody has a mental disorder, and must be treated.”

UPI is now reporting that 1 out of every 13 schoolchildren between the ages of 6 and 17 is on a prescription psychiatric drug. These drugs, all of them, are toxic. They sedate the brain. They initiate out-of-control hyper-manic states. They scramble neurotransmitters. The SSRI antidepressants, in particular, push people over the edge into violence; suicide, homicide. Holmes himself was under psychiatric care prior to Aurora.

These drugs are chemical warfare, eating out the population from the inside.

James Holmes is a poster boy for the mental-health system.

“If only his disorder had been caught sooner, if only he were treated, we could have avoided the tragedy in Aurora.”

Therefore, children must be screened and monitored from an early age, diagnosed, and dosed with drugs.

Whether Holmes’ second sanity review comes back with the finding that he was insane in Aurora, the story-line has already been set in concrete: he was suffering from a mental disorder. That fits the overall agenda. That promotes the necessity of psychiatry judging and running the minds of every person.

Freedom dictates the opposite.

power outside the matrix

Some of you may be wondering about my statement that psychiatry is a pseudoscience based on nothing more than arbitrary fantasies.

Here is just a bit of the evidence for that assertion:

Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for 3 years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”


That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.

Finally, at the end of the Wired interview, Frances flew off into a bizarre sojourn:

“Diagnosis [as spelled out in the DSM-IV] is part of the magic…you know those medieval maps? In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here’…we have a dragon’s world here. But you wouldn’t want to be without the map.”

Translation: Patients need hope for the healing of their troubles; so even if we psychiatrists are shooting blanks and pretending to know one kind of mental disorder from another, even if we’re inventing these mental-disorder definitions based on no biological or chemical diagnostic tests—it’s a good thing, because patients will then believe and have hope; they’ll believe because psychiatrists place a name on their problems…

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with science. Or healing.

Here is a smoking-gun statement made by another prominent psychiatrist, on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]

Without intending to, Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession.
So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.

These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.

Dr. Barkley employs a corrupted version of logic in his statement to the PBS Frontline interviewer. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. If a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have psychiatry at all, our whole profession would rest on nothing—and that is patently absurd, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”

That logic is no logic at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.

Psychiatry is a pseudoscience. A fake.

Jon Rappoport

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




by Jon Rappoport

July 22, 2012



Two witnesses have come forward to add new information on the Batman murders. One states that a man inside the theater took a cell phone call, then walked to an exit door, and then the shooter appeared from that direction. The other witness states he saw a gas canister come from a direction where the shooter wasn’t. Both witnesses sounded credible.


Now we also have what police are calling an email threat directed at them demanding the release of James Holmes. The email came from the computer of a student who worked with Holmes at the University of Colorado Denver. Cops state they have interviewed this student.


The question is, will these leads come to anything? As I wrote yesterday, law enforcement generally operates on the basis of arresting and prosecuting a prime suspect and ignoring other evidence.


An examination of the Oklahoma City bombing case reveals how egregious this practice can become. In that instance, there was an intentional ignoring of at least 10 other suspects, beyond McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier. The whole investigation was rigged.


Will that happen here? What uncomfortable truths might await a pursuit of other possible shooters/accomplices in the Batman murders?


I’ve learned to accept the possibility of ANYTHING. If it’s a deep operation it will contain false trails, multiple trails. The whole idea is to dead-end investigators and make them give up. The classic example is the JFK assassination. Pick your perps: the Mob, Fidel Castro, Cuban exiles, LBJ, other Texas oil men, Russians, the CIA, etc.


The job of the media is to “normalize” these crimes. Lone shooter, no accomplices, crazy kid, had access to guns, troubled childhood, “mystery of the psyche we’ll never understand,” mind distorted by video games, “I always thought he was a nice person,” “he kept to himself.” These and other mantras are repeated over and over again until they become a perverted status quo.


Then the pundits come over the hill and offer their assessments. We’ve got to get people’s guns, we’ve lost a sense of community, if they hate you love them back, come together, let the healing begin, the parents were detached, what signs should we look for to prevent this from happening again, our culture of violence.


These absurd comments also form a web of familiarity that surrounds each and every “inexplicable crime.”


Meanwhile, if the crime was truly a deep op, the FACTS of the event are well hidden, and if anyone dares to suggest something out of left field, the status quo blankets him and covers him up.


So let me propose something out of left field. I’m not saying I have any evidence for this. I’m merely saying the Batman murders could have actually been designed in a way that challenges the common notion of reality. And if some clandestine unit inside the CIA or the military or a private contractor were behind this, they would have done everything in their planning to make it appear that this crime was just like every other similar crime, like a school shooting.


Okay. Let’s start with a premise. James Holmes didn’t kill anybody. He was the Oswald, the patsy. When the actual shooter, a pro, exited from the theater, the pro met several of his operatives and Holmes, who was already in a psychotic state, owing to brain drugs and other mind-control vectors. The weapons that had been fired in the theater were given to Holmes, who was already doused with gun residue. The pros left the scene. The cops arrested Holmes, who had been instructed to inform the police that he was the killer and he had his apartment rigged with explosives. Of course, Holmes himself never rigged his apartment. The pros had done that.


No no no no no no no. Couldn’t have happened. Completely absurd.


Yes, absurd by normal standards. Absurd in light of the status quo that envelops every one of these crimes. Which is the whole point. No one has a prayer of making such a wild speculation stick.


That’s the way you design an op of this magnitude: so that the real truth can’t be believed by anyone.


When you float such an “absurd” premise, people say, “You have no evidence to support that.”


True. But neither do I have evidence to explain how an unemployed student bought $18,000 worth of equipment to prepare his crime. Neither do I have evidence to explain how he built and rigged an array of sophisticated explosive devices in his apartment, based on training in neuroscience, which, the last time I looked, is an unrelated field.


Let’s go back to the Oklahoma bombing for a minute. The FBI assured one and all that a mixture of fertilizer and fuel oil, wired up in containers, housed in a Ryder truck, took out a quarter of the Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995. Open and shut.


Until General Ben Partin offered a detailed analysis of the columns in the building that stood and fell after the explosion, proving that the profile of damage could not have been caused by ANY kind of bomb in the truck. Instead, you had to be talking about devices planted on the columns themselves, triggered from a remote place.


Is that far-out enough for you? I also found a witness to the explosion. A reporter for the local paper gave me his name. She told me he had described the building coming straight down, as if by an implosion. I talked to him. He denied this characterization. I went back to the reporter. She was angry. She said she had his description in her notes.


I could go on and on with numerous examples of crimes that were actually ops designed to look like something else. Millions of pages have been written about 9/11. Enough said there.


But consider a massacre that occurred quite close to the theater where the Batman shootings took place. The year was 1999. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, two young students, walked into their high school and began shooting people. They killed 12 students and one teacher, and injured 21 others. Then they committed suicide. The national outcry was enormous.


Would it surprise you to learn there were 101 witnesses who claimed there were more than two shooters?


Let’s suppose that’s an inflated figure. Let’s say only 30 witnesses were sure they saw at least one other shooter. How in the world did law enforcement get away with claiming they had solved the case? How did the media manage to ignore all those witnesses?


Don’t take anything for granted in the Batman murders.


When the whole issue of gun ownership in America is at stake, many ops can be mounted to influence public opinion, media, and politicians in the direction of blacking out The Second Amendment.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.