FBI terrorists among us: the 1993 WTC Bombing

FBI terrorists among us: 1993 WTC Bombing

The mind-boggling role of the Bureau

by Jon Rappoport

July 29, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

There seems to be a rule: if a terror attack takes place and the FBI investigates it, things are never what they seem.

Federal attorney Andrew C McCarthy prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing case. A review of his book, Willful Blindness, states:

“For the first time, McCarthy intimately reveals the real story behind the FBI’s inability to stop the first World Trade Center bombing even though the bureau had an undercover informant in the operation — the jihadists’ supposed bombmaker.

“In the first sentence of his hard-hitting account, the author sums up the lawyerly — but staggeringly incomprehensive — reason why the FBI pulled its informant out of the terrorist group even as plans were coming to a head on a major attack:

“’Think of the liability!’

“The first rule for government attorneys in counterintelligence in the 1990s was, McCarthy tells us, ‘Avoid accountable failure.’ Thus, when the situation demanded action, the feds copped a CYA posture, the first refuge of the bureaucrat.”

That’s a titanic accusation, coming from a former federal prosecutor.

Yes, the FBI had an informant inside the group that was planning the 1993 WTC bombing that eventually, on February 26, killed 6 people and injured 1042.

His name is Emad Salem, a former Egyptian Army officer. Present whereabouts unknown. Yanking Salem out of the group planning the Bombing was a devastating criminal act on the part of the FBI.

But there is more to the story.

On October 28, 1993, Ralph Blumenthal wrote a piece about Emad Salem for the New York Times: “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast.” It began:

“Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer [Emad Salem] said after the blast.”

Continuing: “The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer [Emad] said.”

The FBI called the “plan” off, but left the planners to their own devices. No “harmless powder.” Instead, real explosives.

The Times article goes on: “The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City’s tallest towers.”

This is a shockingly strong opening for an article in the NY Times. It focuses on the testimony of the informant; it seems to take his side.

Several years after reporter Blumenthal wrote the above piece, I spoke with him and expressed my amazement at the revelations about the FBI—and wondered whether the Times had continued to investigate the scandal.

Blumenthal wasn’t pleased, to say the least. He said I misunderstood the article.

I mentioned the fact that Emad Salem wasn’t called as a prosecution witness in the 1993 WTC Bombing trial.

Of course, why would the Dept. of Justice bring Salem to the stand? Would they want him to blame the FBI for letting/abetting the Bombing?

Again, Blumenthal told me I “didn’t understand.” He became angry and that was the end of the conversation.

I remember thinking: Is there anything under the sun the FBI can be held accountable for…because letting the bomb plot go forward…what else do you need for a criminal prosecution of the Bureau?

Here is an excerpt from one of those tapes Emad Salem made when he was secretly bugging his own FBI handlers. On this phone call, he talks to his Bureau friend John. Others have claimed this is an agent named John Anticev. The conversation is taking place at some point after the 1993 WTC Bombing. The main topic is Salem’s fees for services rendered as an informant. He apparently wants more money. He also wants to make sure the Bureau will pay him what they’ve agreed to. During the conversation, Salem suddenly talks about the bomb. His English is broken, but his meaning is clear enough. When he finishes, his Bureau handler John just moves on without directly responding.

Salem: “…we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the DA and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case!”

According to Salem, there was a bomb, it was built under FBI and “DA” supervision, Salem himself built it, and it exploded.

Questions remain. Did Salem literally mean he built the bomb? Or was he claiming he successfully convinced others to build it? As a provocative agent for the FBI, did Salem foment the whole idea of the WTC attack and entrap those who were eventually convicted of the Bombing? Without his presence, would they have planned and carried out the assault? Was the truck bomb set off under the North Tower the only weapon? Were there other bombs? If so, who planted them?

But the role of the FBI is clear enough. They aided and abetted, and at the very least, permitted the 1993 attack on the Trade Towers.

The 1993, 1995 (Oklahoma), and 2001 bombings in the US were used to expand and justify the coercive power of the State over the population.

Needless to say, we are living with that legacy.

As well, we are living with a government which claims that people who question official scenarios are themselves potential terrorists.

As further evidence that terror attacks which the FBI investigates are not what they seem, the only accused bomber who got away in 1993 was Abdul Rahman Yasin.

A May 31, 2002, CBS News article comments on the fact that one of its “60 Minutes” stars, Lesley Stahl, had just interviewed Yasin in an Iraqi “facility.”

The article states, “Yasin was picked up by the FBI a few days after the [1993 WTC] bombing in an apartment in Jersey City, N.J., that he was sharing with his mother. He was so helpful and cooperative, giving the FBI names and addresses, that they released him…Yasin says he was even driven back home in an FBI car.”

Yasin flew to Iraq, lived for a year without interference, but then was placed in one of Saddam Hussein’s prisons.

The FBI released Yasin outright in the wake of the devastating WTC attack because he was so helpful?

If so, quite possibly, like Emad Salem, he was already on their payroll.

Finally, to complete the surreal picture, consider that Ralph Blumenthal’s shocking 1993 article in the NY Times about Salem, harmless powder, real explosives, the FBI pulling Salem out of the bomb plot and thus allowing it go forward…none of this prompted any major news outlet in America to launch its own investigation of these matters.

They simply parroted Blumenthal’s findings for a brief day, stepped back, and forgot about the whole business.

They moved on to other stories, other headlines, other distractions.

They let the FBI off the hook.

And the Department of Justice? They prosecuted no one at the FBI.

Pressing forward with an investigation, the NY Times could have made Watergate, by comparison, seem like a Sunday Boy Scout picnic. Over a period of months, they could have pried dozens of rats out of hiding places and gotten them to talk.

They could have expanded the scandal to tsunami proportions, and in the process, sold hundreds of millions newspapers.

But success, in those terms, isn’t part of the Times’ equation, or the equation of any major press outlet. They would rather shrink and drown in a sea of red ink.

They’re on the government and corporate team. They’re playing that game. Ultimately, they’re the “us” and everyone else is the “them”.

In this case, they had to stop the exposure, after letting Blumenthal off his leash for a day or two. They had to pull back and pretend nothing had happened.

The FBI wasn’t really guilty. Of course not, because if they were, the whole federal colossus might start to unravel, disintegrate, and fall into the Potomac.

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

Hillary Clinton backs GMOs to the hilt

Hillary Clinton backs GMOs to the hilt

by Jon Rappoport

July 28, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

The Times of San Diego reports on Hillary Clinton’s keynote speech to biotech heavy hitters, at the recent BIO International Convention.

The headline is: “Hillary Clinton Cheers Biotechers, Backing GMOs and Federal Help.”

Hillary professes worry that biotech companies are moving their operations out of the US. The answer? Federal subsidies, of course:

“’Maybe there’s a way of getting a representative group of actors at the table’ to discuss how the federal government could help biotechs with ‘insurance against risk,’ she said.”

In other words, stay in the US, carry out as much research as you want to, and we’ll knock down lawsuits, pay you for your failures, and support you when you lie and claim your results are positive and pose no risk to human health.

Perfect.

The Times of San Diego continued:

“She [Hillary] said the debate about GMOs might be turned toward the biotech side if the benefits were better explained, noting that the ‘Frankensteinish’ depictions could be fought with more positive spin.”

Yes, we need more spin. And with Hillary, we can count on it. Here’s the quote from her speech:

“I stand in favor of using [GMO] seeds and products that have a proven track record…There’s a big gap between the facts and what the perceptions are.”

So true. The media/government fostered perception is that GMO crops are wonderful, whereas the fact is they’re a dangerous failure. (If you need a starter course, refer to gmwatch.org and read the whole site from end to end, including archives.)

In her speech, Hillary cited drought-resistant GMO crops as an example of a breakthrough she championed as secretary of state.

However, in the Union of Concerned Scientists report, “High and Dry,” we have this: “Biotechnology companies such as Monsanto have held out the promise that genetic engineering can…[create] new crop varieties that can thrive under drought conditions and reduce water demand even under normal conditions….

“Though the mid-2000’s saw a surge in field trials for crop varieties with engineered drought tolerance traits, as of 2012 only one such variety—Monsanto’s DroughtGard [corn], containing the engineered gene cspB—had been approved by the USDA.

“The results so far paint a less than spectacular picture of DroughtGard’s effectiveness: USDA analysis of data supplied by Monsanto show that DroughtGard produces only modest results, and only under moderate drought conditions at that. The report estimates that cspB corn would increase the overall productivity of the U.S. corn crop by only about one percent. And DroughtGard does not improve water use efficiency.”

In other words, the whole drought-resistant GMO crop promise is proving to be a dud.

Of course it is, because the strategy of injecting a genetic element that will make crops continue to live in a waterless environment is like pretending plant photosynthesis can thrive in a perpetually dark cellar. It’s a straight-out con, a billion-dollar hustle.


power outside the matrix


But Hillary happens to be a willing partner in the hustle.

And her speech in San Diego sent that clear signal to the biotech community: Elect me and we’ll work it out. I’ll control the cash. You’ll issue the fake results. We’ll hit new highs.

She would uphold the tradition of Presidency as the seat of unconscionable deception.

Equally important, she’d be the first woman President whose family was teetering on the edge of applying for food stamps. Had to throw that one in there.

Are the Republican any better on the GMO issue? Of course not. Bipartisan support for GMOs is as firm as a rock, from which both blood (decimation of human health) and money can be squeezed.

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

Outrageous coverup of 1995 OKC Bombing continues

Outrageous coverup of 1995 OKC bombing continues

by Jon Rappoport

July 27, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Utah attorney Jesse Trentadue claims his brother, Kenneth, was killed during interrogation, in federal custody 19 years ago, because Kenneth resembled the “other suspect” in the OKC Bombing case, John Doe #2.

The FBI claims Kenneth, with “41 wounds and bruises (according to AP),” committed suicide.

Attorney Trentadue states there was another man with Tim McVeigh at the scene of the Bombing on April 19, 1995—and it wasn’t his brother.

The FBI claims McVeigh was alone.

To settle this issue, in 2009, as AP reported, the FBI finally gave Trentadue some security tapes from buildings near the Murrah Federal Building. Magically, the tapes were all blank just before and after the Murrah Building was blown up at 9:02AM on 4/15/95.

Now, Trentadue has filed a FOIA suit against the FBI. He wants more tapes. A trial begins Monday.

The FBI claims it can’t find more tapes.

Everybody connected to the OKC bombing case knows there is another reason the FBI is tap dancing and lying:

Actual video footage of the Murrah Building falling would show the fabled truck bomb didn’t cause the damage to the Building and didn’t kill 168 people inside.

Video footage would show a straight-down demolition-type collapse. Meaning: charges placed on the columns did the true damage.

In 1995, while investigating the Bombing, I interviewed 4 explosives experts, and they concurred that the force of an ANFO truck bomb would have dissipated rapidly in the open air and failed to create so much destruction.

More importantly and specifically, the profile of the damage (which columns remained, and which fell) excluded the possibility that a bomb in a truck was the weapon.

Some columns closer to the famed Ryder truck stayed up; other columns farther away went down.

Shortly after the Bombing in 1995, I spoke to a reporter at the Daily Oklahoman. She said she’d interviewed a man who’d seen the Murrah Building collapse. He told her it went straight down, demolition-style.

I managed to reach this witness. He said he didn’t really see the Building go down.

I got back to the reporter. She was furious. She told me she had his statement in her notes. “I’m not making this up,” she said.

I also interviewed Hoppy Heidelberg, a grand juror in the OKC Bombing case. He told me he’d tried to persuade the prosecutor to call bomb experts as witnesses, but he was flatly turned down.


The Matrix Revealed


In 1995, anti-federal-government sentiment was rapidly spreading across America. Then, in the wake of the Bombing, President Bill Clinton gave a landmark speech. He basically told Americans they should come home to the government, the destruction of a federal building and the killing of 168 people was a heinous act that proved the real attitude of these “anti-government” groups. But security would be restored.

The speech was heralded as a “return to order and confidence.” Major media coverage of popular opposition to federal power receded.

From 1995 on, Americans who asserted federal power had expanded far beyond Constitutional boundaries have been labeled as potential terrorists.

9/11 took that accusation to a whole new level:

“The central government is always right. Those who say it’s fundamentally wrong are dangerous and/or mentally ill.”

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

A more profound form of acceptance

A more profound form of acceptance

by Jon Rappoport

July 26, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

The voice spoke. No one in the room knew where it was coming from. But they had heard it many times.

“The basic purpose of mass mind control is the creation of passive minds. Educated, uneducated, it makes no difference. The objective is passivity. Another word for that is acceptance.”

Silence.

The chairman said, “Let’s remember this, people, as we engage in our deliberations today. Our goal is to sell lies, yes, we all know that. But ultimately, what we are peddling is inertia. All roads lead there. All stories have that ending.”

Murmurs of agreement.

The officer in charge of the destruction of imagination rose and gave his report.

“Well, 678 museums have closed in the last year, owing to lack of funds. So we’re good there. A survey of booksellers and their inventory reveals a 26% dropoff, and what remains is mostly pap and crap. Education is heading straight for the bottom. 23% of high school graduates can read. 2% can write a page of coherent text. Explosions of one kind or another now constitute 6% of the content of all films released to the public, up from 4.7% last year.”

Nods of approval.

The chairman asked, “What about the Glob Project?”

A woman raised her hand and spoke.

“Working from detailed NSA surveillance records, our committee estimates that 37% of the population is now in Melted Cheese territory. They no longer think of themselves as individuals. They conceive of their existence solely as group members. Our goal for next year is an ambitious 50%. The Church of Government presently has 87 million people on its rolls. Of those, roughly 77 million attend Sunday services at home on their screens. Here’s an interesting statistic. Last year, 90 thousand people took part in street demonstrations and protests. 88.8 thousand belong to some group.”

“Yes,” the chairman said. “Encouraging. However, I’m concerned about…” He stopped. He struggled to recall what he was going to say next.

The others in the room looked around. They felt as if they were sinking into a swamp.

“This is pleasant,” one of them said.

Someone chuckled.

Whenever these brief events of amnesia occurred, the result was Cheese Melt.

A few minutes later, the people in the room were rolling around on the floor. They rolled together in one lump on the carpet, sighed with relief, and fell asleep.

A new voice spoke. A voice that had never been heard before.

“Who are you?” it said. “What are you? Do you think you’re so unusual, so different? You’re falling victim to your own strategy. You’re sinking deeper and deeper. What makes you believe you’ll ever wake up? Do you really think you’ll develop a group mind that’s capable of coherent thought? How passive can passivity become before it turns into base organic matter? A sludge at the bottom of the well.”


power outside the matrix


The people in the room suddenly woke up.

This time, instead of resuming their seats and shaking away their cobwebs, they were seized with fear.

They began shrieking and running around.

Finally, they stumbled out of the room, down the hallway, and out on to the street.

Empty silence.

There was no one on the street.

“We’re alone!” the chairman shouted. “Alone! We’re dead!”

They spent the rest of the day desperately searching for people. They looked in office buildings, in apartments, in parks. No one was there.

At dusk, the officer in charge of the destruction of imagination sat down on a park bench and bowed his head and wept.

He opened his eyes and saw a teardrop strike the sidewalk, and he heard a small groan.

He got down on his hands and knees and put his ear to the pavement.

This time, he heard giggling. It spread out across the concrete.

A voice whispered, “We’re all here.”

He leaped to his feet.

This is where they went. They all turned into…

A more profound form of acceptance.

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

Foundation of Mass Mind Control

Foundation of mass mind control

by Jon Rappoport

July 25, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

My newest collection, Power Outside The Matrix, contains a lengthy writer’s tutorial. Aside from practical advice, I stress what freedom means to a writer, what it really means in terms of available energy.

And one thing it means: symbols, as they are received and understood by the culture, are a way of shaping, channeling, and ultimately draining away energy.

Let’s start here: symbols have meanings because someone assigns those meanings.

Despite common belief, symbols aren’t tagged with meanings in some cosmic way that precedes humans’ presence on the scene.

Of course, various groups would like to believe otherwise. They want you to react to symbols as if they were permanent, eternal, unavoidable, engraved in stone.

This is the objective of all cosmology: “It’s the way things are, get used to it, accept it, the universe is built in this fashion, there’s nothing you can do about it, remain passive, don’t rebel, comprehend what is given to you.”

It’s how priest classes have always operated. They paint a mural and try to get everyone to prostrate themselves before it.

They say, “This symbol is evil, avoid it and reject it. This symbol is good, praise it.”

Humans will take it to the bank. They’ll go so far as to presume God decided which symbols stand for evil and which stand for good. Naturally, they have an inside line on God’s motives and intents.

Then we have those who argue that certain symbols have meaning created by a collaboration of “collective consciousness.” And this, they claim (“woo-woo”), is very, very powerful.

Yes, it’s powerful if you don’t reject it. It’s powerful if you believe that collective consciousness contains some sort of magic. It doesn’t. It’s just another version of consensus reality.

Some people cling to the idea of the boogie man. They swim in it. They derive their moral stance from it. They depend on it. Without it, they wouldn’t know what to do. And that’s exactly why they claim symbols of evil are inherent and forever and horrible: they wouldn’t know what to do if they abandoned the notion. They’d be lost. Utterly lost.

Therefore, they grotesquely pump up the concept that some symbols are dangerous and can only be dispelled by other symbols.

The truth is, for the individual, symbols are whatever he wants to make of them. He’s free to turn them upside down, inside out, drain them of all meaning, add new meaning, slather them with mayo and mustard, grill them with cheese, pave the driveway with them, hang them from the rafters, step on them, toss them in the garbage, hurl them out of apartment windows, snort them up his nose.

What other people might think about all this is supremely irrelevant.

Society always wants to parade an ever-increasing column of symbols past the populace and define them.

Mass mind control focuses on two elements: image and feeling.

By linking the two primary elements (this is a form of symbol-making), it is possible to short-circuit thought and “cut to the chase,” when it comes to enlisting the allegiance of huge populations.


Two seemingly unrelated events spurred my interest in mass mind control.

On the evening of April 12, 1945, I listened to a radio report on the death of Franklin D Roosevelt. I was seven years old.

I became upset. I didn’t know why. I was angry at my own reaction.

Forty years later, I pulled into a gas station near my apartment in West Los Angeles. I got out of my car and took the cap off my gas tank. I looked to my right and saw Tony Curtis sitting in his car. I was shocked.

A few days later, I began making notes under the heading of “image-emotion cues.” At the time, I had just started working as a reporter, writing articles for LA Weekly. I knew next to nothing about mind control, MKULTRA, Soviet psychiatric gulags, Chinese re-education programs, or US psychological warfare operations.

But because I had been painting for 25 years, I knew something about the power of images.

I remembered my first exhibition of paintings in LA, at my friend Hadidjah Lamas’ house. We had hung my work in her large living room and dining room. Hadidjah had enlisted the services of a friend who had videotaped me painting in my studio, and at the exhibition she set up a television set out on her patio and continuously played the videocassette.

People came through her front door, almost automatically walked through the house to the patio, as if guided by an unseen hand, and watched the video; then they came back inside and looked at the paintings.

They would stop at a painting and say: “That picture was in the video!” “ You see that one? It was in his studio!”

My first note on “image-emotion cues” was, “Investing an image with importance. Projecting emotion into an image.”

Projecting emotion into a newspaper image of the president, FDR. Projecting emotion into the screen image of Tony Curtis. Projecting emotion into a video of a painter working in his studio.

When people encounter an image, when they invest it with importance, they project feeling into the image—and this all happens in a private sphere, a private space.

If this didn’t happen, there would be no way to control populations through images. It wouldn’t work. It all starts with a person setting up his own personal feedback loop that travels from him to an image and back again.

Coming out of World War 2, US psychological warfare operatives knew they could turn their skills to political purposes. They had just succeeded in making Americans believe that all Japanese and German people were horribly evil. They had been able to manipulate imagery successfully in that area. Why couldn’t they shape America’s view of a whole planet that lay beyond personal experience?

They could and they did. But the power to do that emanated from the fact that every person invests images with feeling. That’s where it really starts.

I had seen the 1957 film, Sweet Smell of Success, a number of times. I admired it. Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis gave tremendous performances. When, decades later, I saw Curtis sitting in his car at that gas station, I was “working from” the emotion I had invested in his onscreen image. It produced a sense of shock and paralysis for a few seconds.

Other people might have rushed up to Curtis and asked for his autograph. With me, it was shock, cognitive dissonance. Ditto for the death of FDR. I was working off newspaper pictures I’d seen of him, and the feeling I’d invested in those presidential images. Other people, when FDR died, went out into the street and hugged their neighbors and wept openly. For me, it was upset and shock and anger.

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with investing emotion in images. It can be exhilarating. It can be uplifting. As a painter, I know this in spades. Putting emotion into images can, in fact, vault you into a different perception of reality.

But on the downside, it can also take you into lockstep with what media operatives want you to experience, second-hand.

We focus to such a degree on how we are being manipulated that we don’t stop to consider how we are participating in the operation. And our own role is clear and stark: we invest images with feeling.

So how does one individual’s projection of feeling into an image become a uniform projection of the same feeling into one image, by millions of people? How does what one person invests privately become mass mind control?

Through external instruction or cues.

Why does this work? Why do millions of people fall into line?

Because they don’t realize they started the whole ball rolling themselves. All they know is: images are connected to feelings.

If they knew they were the real power in the whole operation, if they knew they were investing feelings into images all day long, if they could actually slow down enough to see how they do this….then they would be far less prone to taking instruction about what feelings they “ought to” invest in second-hand images.

Hypnotherapist Jack True unceremoniously put it to me this way: “If a dog could analyze how he got from eating meat to drooling at the sound of a bell that came at feeding time, he could stop drooling.”

I would add: If Chris Matthews could analyze how his own voluntary investment of feeling in the image of Barack Obama sends a tingle up his leg, he could stop tingling.

We see images of people rioting all over the Middle East. We see burning flags and crowds outside embassies. We’re supposed to invest our own anger into those images. Outrage. Or joy, depending on the narrative the television networks are selling.

We see an image of miles of flat farmland and wheat waving in the breeze. We’re supposed to invest that image with feelings of happiness and pride.

Nowhere are we told we can back up a step and realize that we are the ones who begin the whole process, by projecting feelings into images. Any images.

Imagine a thought-experiment. You’re watching your computer screen. It holds an image of a tall blue vase. With purpose, you project the feeling of joy into the vase. Then you project the feeling of disgust. Then, fear. Then, worry. Then, pleasure…on purpose.

The objective is to gain some measure of consciousness about an unconscious process.

When I was 19, I was sent to a trained expert in New York to take a Rorschach (ink-blot) Test. I was displaying signs of what would now be called Oppositional Defiance Disorder.

The expert said he wanted me to tell him everything I saw in each ink-blot. I took him at his word.

An hour later, I was still working on the first blot. I was describing everything from bats and owls and chickens to space ships and buckets of hidden treasure in caves.

Well, I was cheating a little. I wasn’t really describing what I saw. I was imagining. I was taking off from what was on the page and improvising. This was outside the bounds of the Test.

The expert was seething. He was sweating, because he had many other blots to show me, and it was late in the afternoon, and he was looking at spending the entire evening with me. Finally, he held up his hand and put an end to the Test.

I wasn’t playing his game. Among other sins, I wasn’t investing dumbed-down feelings in the images. Therefore, my choices of “what to see” in the blots expanded greatly.

When I go to a museum, I like to watch people stand in front of abstract paintings. Many of them are stumped. They’re trying to figure out what feelings they “are supposed to” project into the painting. They’re looking for “instruction,” and there isn’t any. They’re asking for mind control, and they’re not getting it.

Fanaticism of any kind begins with individuals projecting feelings into images. This is harnessed by leaders, who then choose the images and direct which feelings are permitted. The tempting prospect for the follower is: participation in a drama that goes beyond what he would ordinarily experience in life. This is bolstered by the idea that what he is doing is moral.

In the 2012 election season, people on the left were urged to project messianic feelings into images of Barack Obama. People on the right were cued to invest feelings of pride, hope, and “tradition” into images of Mitt Romney. On both sides, it was principally images that were presented. The real candidates weren’t actually experienced.

Since Vietnam, shooting wars have been more difficult to sustain among soldiers. “In the old days,” feelings of hatred could be projected into images of enemies that included civilians, so overtly killing everybody on foreign soil was easier to accept. Now, soldiers are taught “enemy combatant” and “civilian” are two different images that require the injection of two different feelings.

Here at home, police and military are taught, more and more, to invest feelings of suspicion into images of American civilians. This is an acceleration of mass mind control for law enforcement.

The astonishing number of civilians who participate in government and corporate surveillance of the public, through technological means, learn to invest “dead empty feelings” into images of citizens, as if these targets are nothing more than ciphers, units.

The recent bizarre instances of police detaining and questioning parents who allow their children to play unsupervised reveal another accelerating trend. These confrontations start with neighbors snitching on the parents. The neighbors have learned to invest feelings of panic, suspicion, and anger in images of “free children.”

In all these cases, there is no real experience. It’s all second-hand. It’s all feeling-projected-into-image.

In the medical arena, countless advertisements and news stories are geared to convince people to invest feelings of trust in images of doctors. The suggestion, “Ask your doctor if X is right for you,” is framed as the solution to a little problem. The problem is set this way: Drug X is wonderful; drug X has serious adverse effects; what to do? Solution: ask your doctor; trust him; he knows.

As the class of victims in society has grown by leaps and bounds, including any group that can organize and promote itself as needing help or justice—going miles beyond the people who really do need assistance—citizens have been trained to invest feelings of sympathy and concern for all images of victims everywhere, real or imagined. This, too, is mass mind control.

Pick an image; invest feelings in it. Facts don’t matter. Evidence doesn’t matter.

We shouldn’t leave out a peculiar twist on the feeling-image op. The very people who are portrayed, image-wise, as objects for us to invest feelings into, take their cues from this game as well: doctors act like the doctors on television; gangsters acts like gangsters on television; FBI agents and cops act like law-enforcement officers on television. They’re roped in, just like everyone else.

You’ve heard people say, So-and-so celebrity has become a caricature of himself. Well, that’s what it means. The person has projected massive feelings of approval into an image of himself—often an image shown on television.

As a society, we can go on this way until we become a horrific cartoon of ourselves (we’re already there), or we can step back and discover how we invest emotion into images, and then use that process to pour feeling into visions of our own choosing and invent better futures.

Since the dawn of time, leaders have portrayed themselves as gods. They’ve assembled teams to promote that image, so their followers could project powerful emotion into the image and thereby cement the leaders’ control and power.

The game isn’t new. Understanding the roots of it within each individual could, however, break the trance of mass mind control.

During the first West Nile “outbreak” of 1999, I spoke with a student who had just dropped out of medical school. He told me he’d been looking at electron-microscope photos of the West Nile Virus, and he suddenly realized he was “supposed to” invest feelings of fear in those images.

Somehow, he broke free from the image-feeling link. He was rather stunned at the experience. His entire conditioning as a medical student evaporated.

Parents all over the world are having the same experience vis-a-vis vaccines. They realize they’re supposed to invest fear in images of germs and disease, and they’re also supposed to invest feelings of hope and confidence in images of needles and vaccines. They see the game. They’re supposed to ignore evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. They’re supposed to remain victims of mass mind control.

But they’ve awakened.

We’ve all been taught that what we feel is always and everywhere out of our control. These feelings are simply part of us, and we have to act on them. The alternative would be to sit on them and repress them and turn into androids, robots.

This is simply not true. There are an infinite number of feelings, and as strange as it may sound, we can literally invent them.

This, it is said, is inhuman. It’s a bad idea. It’s wrong. It would lead us to “deserting the human community.”

Nonsense. That’s part of the propaganda of mind control. If the controllers can convince us that we’re working from a limited map of emotions and we have to stay within that territory, they can manipulate that limited set of feelings and trap us.

(The power of art is that it shows us there are so many more emotions than we had previously imagined. We can be much freer than we supposed.)

The synthetic world of mind control and the handful of feelings that are linked to images is what keeps us in thrall.

The natural world—the world of what we can be—is so much wider and more thrilling and revealing.

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

Film, consciousness, and mystery

Film, consciousness, and mystery

by Jon Rappoport

July 25, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

There is more mystery in two minutes of David Lynch’s Inland Empire (trailer here) than in all American films produced in the last 50 years.

The first films ever made registered like dreams with audiences, and they were made with that idea in mind. (Watch Un Chien andalou (1928), by Spanish director Luis Buñuel and artist Salvador Dalí, here.)

Mystery. A priceless commodity which has no market.

I’m not talking traditional suspense, which depends on beginning, middle, and end, and clues sprinkled on the way to a satisfying resolution. That is organized mystery, a contradiction in terms.

The opposite of organization isn’t chaos, although many people believe it is. In the hands of filmmakers like Orson Welles (The Trial, Touch of Evil), Jean Cocteau (The Blood of a Poet, Beauty and the Beast), Luis Bunuel (Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie), and David Lynch (Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire), the opposite of organization is mystery; an atmosphere.

Word, image, character, motion, rhythm, tempo—somewhere in the films another previously unknown reality takes over. There are no labels for it.

Society is not attuned to it. People dedicated to living ordinary lives hate it.

“Well, he should have started the story with the theft. Then we would have known what he was talking about. And if he’d given the wife a few extra scenes, her relationship with her son would have been obvious, and the climax would have made sense…”

Organization.

Cut things down to their essentials. Sharpen the focus. Make the audience track with the storyline. Unequivocally deliver the punchline. Sell it.

In other words, eliminate any shred of mystery.

Perhaps someday, Hollywood will be able to make a film that transmits itself in two seconds, like an injection. The sequence of imparted emotions will substitute for content. Sensation A, followed by sensations B. C, D, E, and F. Done.

“I thought it was tremendous. How about you?”

Consciousness, freed from the web of social consensus, is hungry for mystery, a fluid in which gesture, language, and motion explore and invent the impossible; what could never be lived before.

To achieve a simulacrum, a vapid imitation, audiences will sit in a theater and watch “dream-buildings” collapse (Christopher Nolan, Inception), or some kind of assembly-line time-slipping “tour de force” (Cloud Atlas, Tom Twyker, the Wachowskis).

A person committed to an ordinary life will take an occasional leap and look at Possibility in the form of popcorn surrealism.

Film was supposed to be about something else, but it became chopped steak and cars and toasters and invading machines. In the early days, a few yutzes moved out to LA from New York and became moguls of schlock. Which their PR machines sold as culture.

The improvised Citizen Kane, Touch of Evil, and The Trial aren’t even stories. No need. They’re a walking talking series of low-angle black-and-white photographs of astral locales the usual kind of film noir can merely hint at.


Exit From the Matrix


By the time David Lynch reaches Inland Empire in his career, he’s doing a ballet of gesture, each movement advancing, with gills, through a bone-muscle-flesh undersea city of corruption only he could have come upon.

Cocteau used living paintings and papier mache as his medium; human characters were driven by impulses in dreams, from which they never awakened.

For all of Stanley Kubrick’s films, it was in Barry Lyndon where, for a minute here and a minute there, the audience was finally and ecstatically delivered whole to another time; the sensuous rooms of the 18th- century Lyndon estate in England. Mystery realized.

“A film is – or should be – more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what’s behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.” (Stanley Kubrick)

“A film is a ribbon of dreams. The camera is much more than a recording apparatus; it is a medium via which messages reach us from another world that is not ours and that brings us to the heart of a great secret. Here magic begins.” (Orson Welles)

“The image it [cinema] once held for us all, that of a dream we dreamt with our eyes open, has disappeared. Is it still possible that one thousand people might group together in the dark and experience the dream that a single individual has directed?” (Federico Fellini)

“Fortunately, somewhere between chance and mystery lies imagination, the only thing that protects our freedom, despite the fact that people keep trying to reduce it or kill it off altogether.” (Luis Bunuel)

In the journey into fertile mystery, you go knowing you’ll dispense with your navigational instruments. You’ll find new stars. You’ll follow and at the same time spontaneously draw another map. This is what consciousness wants, not the tired archetypes and cartoons of other minds. And when you come back, you’ll be refreshed, whole, and able to watch, with some degree of interest, people sculpt themselves into units of a highly organized cosmos.

The true power of film has just begun to be tapped.

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

“We lost contact with the plane.” Really?

“We lost contact with the plane.” Really?

by Jon Rappoport

July 24, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Today—Air Algerie Flight 5017, from Burkina Faso to Algiers crashed, according to “officials.”

Some of these officials state contact with the plane was lost an hour after takeoff.

You can probably remember similar statements about other doomed flights: lost contact. Wasn’t that the case on 9/11?

“Lost contact” appears to cover all available means of communication. Nothing on radar screens. Radio inoperative. No transponder signals picked up.

In this day and age, with a blizzard of technology available to track and surveil, what is going on?

Commercial jets have only one transponder? Isn’t it possible to embed dozens of GPS-type devices at various points in the craft? And wouldn’t those devices report a plane’s location, no matter how far it strayed off course?

Even underwater? Isn’t the US Navy able to keep tabs on its own submerged submarines?

So either we are looking at an international scandal, in which modern tracking technology is not being fully applied to commercial planes…or officials are lying when they say: lost contact.


The Matrix Revealed


Assuming cutting-edge tracking tech is, without public knowledge, being used on modern commercial jets, do hijackers have the ability to jam all signals emanating from the planes? If so, passengers would like to know.

“Attention, passengers. Before boarding this flight, you should realize only one transponder is being deployed. Although the device, plus radar, plus radio will help track your location, there are dozens of other devices we could use to make sure we know where you are. Unfortunately, the manufacturer has not yet installed them. Consult the 800 number on your ticket. Feel free to contact the manufacturer and make inquiries.”

If the NSA can simultaneously tap every phone in America, somehow I think they can track a giant jet, if they want to. Unless perhaps, these planes are still using a primitive communication apparatus from the 1950s.

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