by Jon Rappoport

October 30, 2012



No, I’m not talking about Hurricane Sandy. I’m talking about something much more widespread.


If you haven’t realized it already, kids these days are growing up with the full knowledge that victims get ahead. Therefore, they have to find and hone and polish a story that will serve them well in life.


It could be anything from ADHD to Bipolar to “my parents got divorced, what do you expect?”


It’s not just about telling a story, either. They have to live out at least part of it, to gain cred.


So the kid steals. Or he throws tantrums. Or he gets bad grades in school, on purpose. Or, in certain circles, he pulls a trigger and somebody dies.


In the mental health department, he has 297 official mental disorders to choose from. It’s a banquet.


You can say the kid is too young to really know what he’s doing, and the parents and teachers and doctors are to blame, and that’s partly true. But unfortunately, the kid is, in fact, doing it. He is constructing a victim myth for himself. Later in life, he’ll find more sophisticated cover stories, and at some point the chickens will come home to roost. He’ll deteriorate as an adult, it won’t be pretty to watch.


Every once in a while, when a reader decides I haven’t been sufficiently sympathetic to victims, he’ll write and remind me of all the people in the world who are screwing over other people. Screwers like the government, the corporations, the big non-profit foundations, the banks, the generals, the intelligence agencies, the 20 families who own the planet, the secret societies, the doctors, the insurance companies, the right wingers or left wingers…


I have no problem with that. As a reporter, I’ve been covering these criminals for the past 30 years.


But I also know that self-made victims (as opposed to the people who are really being trampled on a daily basis) will blame major criminals to keep themselves weak and powerless. It’s a con. It’s a game.


Yes, this is an unpleasant subject. It’s also a basic element of human psychology, untouched by “mental-health professionals.” These pros feed off of, and in fact create, victims by the truckload. It’s good for business.


Several times, in print, I’ve called the 21st century the Century of the Brain. Ultimately, researchers want to say everyone is a victim of his own brain, and chemicals need to be applied to cure the inherent problem.


But on the other side, we now have many, many able-bodied people who are looking for an out. They’re looking for an acceptable way to predict and explain their failure and obtain freebies and sympathy.


Since the beginning of this election season, I’ve been saying that both candidates are shills for big government. We can go back many, many decades and then come back up the line and see that the federal government has been spreading like a fungus. It’s more than alarming.


However, it’s interesting that this election has been framed, as a story, about personal initiative and responsibility versus dependence and victimhood. This shows that people still think about these things. The amnesia and narcosis aren’t total. Not yet.


But at this rate, unless some fundamental change occurs, there will come a day when even the legend of personal liberty and responsibility will die out. At that point, a presidential election will look like an overt fire sale. It will be one set of freebies for victims versus another set.


Do you want the Democratic flat screen and car or the Republican Hawaiian vacation and the buttock implants?


The presidential debates will consist of competing late-night infomercials.


Parents who can afford it will be hiring victim consultants to tutor their little darlings, so they can choose stories that, later in life, will land them the most freebies.


Amidst the protests and uproar, the government will decide that every child, no matter how little money his parents make, deserves a civil servant to advocate for him and promote and shape his future as a disabled creature.


This is precisely what’s happening now in the mental-health arena. Last week, I reported on psychiatrists who are dispensing ADHD drugs to children in low-income neighborhoods, to effect “social justice.”


Since these MD morons assume the drugs actually do improve school performance over the long run, they want to close the gap between poorer and richer kids.


You see, it’s already SOP in middle-class homes to seek out shrinks who will make ADHD diagnoses for their privileged kids and give them the “performance-enhancing” drugs before crucial exams.


This must not stand, say the shrinks. No, the poorer kids deserve their (toxic) Ritalin and Adderall, too. You can’t pretend to be a victim in Shaker Heights or Scarsdale unless you can be exactly the same kind of victim in Watts or Southside Chicago.


By that logic, if little Jimmy who lives on Park Avenue can wear a $500 helmet whenever he leaves the house, in case a couch falls out of an apartment window and hits him on the head, then a child who is growing up in a ruined neighborhood in Detroit should also have the same quality of helmet. For free.


If little Jimmy can receive 55 doses of vaccines by the time he’s six, so he can be poisoned by the load of chemicals and contaminants in the shots, then his little opposite in Harlem should be allowed to get the same 55 doses for free.


If a white newborn baby, who is injected with the Hepatitis B vaccine before he leaves the hospital, can be “protected” against a disease transmitted only through sex or IV street-drugs, then a black baby should have the same protection.


Indisputable logic in an insane society.


So polish your kids’ victim tale. Many goodies await.


In the future, if victimhood and dependence on government are universal, there’ll be no need to have people around who make a good living on their own. Since dependence is a more basic goal, why bother? Just put a cap on maximum allowed salary and profit.


What we now call the safety net will become the only net.


I recall two kids I grew up with. This was back in the stone age, when things were quite different. These two boys shared several features. They were very smart. They wore thick glasses. Physically, they were very uncoordinated. During every game, they were placed off to the side, where they’d do the least possible damage.


They were, at times, razzed mercilessly. From the blank paralyzed expressions on their faces, they didn’t take it well. It was quite painful to them. I think there were moments when they became absolutely desperate, but they didn’t voice it. They just stood there and took it. No one came to their rescue. It was bad.


If then were now, these two boys would be diagnosed, at the very least, with clinical depression. Because they seemed, at moments, abstracted and detached, they might be labeled ADHD as well.


And with psychologists on hand to “draw out their feelings,” they would be encouraged to think of themselves as victims.


They would get SSRI antidepressants and perhaps Ritalin. The SSRIs might push them over the edge into suicide. If not, they might be given powerful anti-psychotics (neuroleptics), like Haldol or Risperdal. These drugs cause motor brain damage.


But because they lived and grew up in a more “primitive age,” they made it through. And they became quite successful in later life.


They escaped the victim trap. As children they were treated cruelly, but they escaped.


Here is a modern child who didn’t. This story is related by Dr. Peter Breggin, the author of the classic, Toxic Psychiatry.


Roberta was a college student, getting good grades, mostly A’s, when she first became depressed and sought psychiatric help at the recommendation of her university health service. She was eighteen at the time, bright and well motivated, and a very good candidate for psychotherapy. She was going through a sophomore-year identity crisis about dating men, succeeding in school, and planning a future. She could have thrived with a sensitive therapist who had an awareness of women’s issues.


Instead of moral support and insight, her doctor gave her Haldol. Over the next four years, six different physicians watched her deteriorate neurologically without warning her or her family about tardive dyskinesia [motor brain damage] and without making the [tardive dyskinesia] diagnosis, even when she was overtly twitching in her arms and legs. Instead they switched her from one neuroleptic to another, including Navane, Stelazine, and Thorazine. Eventually a rehabilitation therapist became concerned enough to send her to a general physician, who made the diagnosis [of medical drug damage]. By then she was permanently physically disabled, with a loss of 30 percent of her IQ.


“…my medical evaluation described her condition: Roberta is a grossly disfigured and severely disabled human being who can no longer control her body. She suffers from extreme writhing movements and spasms involving the face, head, neck, shoulders, limbs, extremities, torso, and back-nearly the entire body. She had difficulty standing, sitting, or lying down, and the difficulties worsen as she attempts to carry out voluntary actions. At one point she could not prevent her head from banging against nearby furniture. She could hold a cup to her lip only with great difficulty. Even her respiratory movements are seriously afflicted so that her speech comes out in grunts and gasps amid spasms of her respiratory muscles…Roberta may improve somewhat after several months off the neuroleptic drugs, but she will never again have anything remotely resembling a normal life.”

This is the kinder, gentler society. This is care and share. This is prevention and intervention. This is It Takes a Village. This is “we’re all in this together.” This is the land of the victim.

For this, we are told we have to give up old-fashioned notions of self-reliance and independence as brutal remnants of a bygone era.

It is not only the pharmaceutical juggernaut that seeks to make profit from the manufacture of victims. The street-drug business also needs people to enshrine victimhood as their defining identity, which is exactly what happens when a person becomes addicted to meth or heroin or cocaine crack.

The Mexican-US border remains wide open because the tonnage of street drugs must flow. It has nothing to do with “concern for victim immigrants.” That is just the cover story. The drugs must move so the banks that launder drug money can stay afloat. (See Former Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson’s article, “Drug Cartel, Terrorists, and Banks,”)

There are two sides to this basic coin. One, people make themselves into victims. Two, government-corporate-syndicate-propaganda forces encourage victimhood. It’s big, big business.

Finally, I’d be remiss in failing to point out the rising trend in “victims claiming they’re not victims.” Many of these people assert this revelation happily, as if they’ve just discovered buried treasure in their back yards. It’s astonishing. I’m talking, for example, about women who opt for “prophylactic” mastectomies.

There is no diagnosis of cancer at all. The women choose to have one or both breasts removed to “minimize their later cancer risk.”

A study done in New York State inferred that, among all mastectomies performed, the percentage of prophylactic mastectomies rose over a decade by about 250%.

Well, I could have thought of myself as a victim, but I realized I was doing a really good thing. I was, in my own small way, a hero. I want all women to know about their options…”

Look for this joyous self-mutilation trend to accelerate in the coming years. It will be accepted as blandly as these preventive breast surgeries are now.

Last year, nine hundred perfectly healthy Americans had their legs removed in operating rooms. They opted for the amputations to make a statement. If some people somewhere can’t walk, neither can I…”

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com


The War Against Imagination

by Jon Rappoport

October 25, 2012


I could begin by saying that the compulsion to vote for one of the two major presidential candidates is a failure of imagination, a failure to see clearly other long-range possibilities for the transformation of American politics…and that would be true.

But it’s only a tiny corner of the overall war against imagination.

And that war is being waged by propaganda experts, yes, in a massive way, but the true war is being waged by individuals in their own minds. This is the basic fact, and to overlook it is to surrender our future.

Why? Because the repression of imagination downgrades the essence of what the individual human being is.

That repression brings us ever closer to the day when orders from our leaders will be obeyed without hesitation, because we can only envision the choices they construct for us.

Take A or B. Of course, it turns out that our freedom and power are mortgaged by either choice. And since the prospect of imagining C through Z and beyond is dimly perceived, we acquiesce. We say A or we say B.

And we pay the price.

Imagination is the capacity to invent realities that don’t currently exist, that have never existed.

Along with imagination comes the courage to implement those invented realities, to make them FACT in the world.

We can blame all sorts of people and institutions for our failure of imagination, but that doesn’t change our situation one iota. It only postpones the day when we take the reins of our own destiny.

I’ll take this one giant step further. We don’t really know what we’re capable of until we live through and by imagination. Then and only then do we come into our own. Then and only then do the blinders fall away from our eyes. Only then do we begin to experience our true power and how far it extends.

I’m now talking about the individual. I’m referring to what has been called talent, high IQ, paranormal ability, magic. These and other terms have been used to describe the effect of living through imagination.

It may be hard to see this, because we have been looking at life through the wrong end of the telescope. We see ourselves struggling to reach up to a level we seem to know very little about. But this is backwards.

The truth is, there was a time when each of us knew what it meant to live through and by imagination. We were there. And when we were there, we understood perfectly. We understood because living through imagination was the most natural thing in the world. It was like breathing.

It still is, but we have managed to cut ourselves off from that knowledge, from that intimate knowing. And so we profess ignorance. Which is like a bird walking across a beach and wondering whether he’ll ever be able to fulfill his dream of flying.

Along with my work as an investigative reporter, imagination has been my main area of focus over the past 25 years.

To use the metaphor of alchemy, in which terms like Quintessence and Philosopher’s Stone and the Fifth Element were discussed, imagination is Quintessence. Imagination is ultimately the thing that surmounts a state of endless internal conflict in which nothing is ever finally decided.

Imagination can and does employ all the energies that are normally devoted to competing sides in a state of conflict. Imagination takes those energies as raw fuel for its fire and transforms them into the substance of vision and the creation of new realities in the world.

Although people tend to think of imagination as a toy for children, it is actually, when used and experienced intensely, a means for vaulting up to a whole new level of living…at which point a person gains access (magically, it seems) to information and capability that was never present before.

But in fact, this new level of living is entirely natural. It was always there. It was simply hidden and and buried and isolated under a welter of cover stories generated by the person himself.

Just as conspirators float cover stories to hide their operations, the individual conspires against his own power by floating cover stories to explain his diminished capability.

Trying to unravel and expose and catalog each personal cover story, and “get to the bottom of the whole thing,” is a fruitless task. It only digs one in deeper. This was the mission of psychology, and it has failed in the most profound ways.

The starting point is imagination itself. It raises all boats. It relieves us of the need to do exploratory surgery on all the roadblocks that might be holding us back.

As I’ve written before, the centuries-long struggle to liberate humanity from central authority, and establish individual freedom as the overriding principle of existence, was step one. Step two was deciding what freedom was for.

The answers we provided, while useful, were incomplete.

Freedom is for imagination. Freedom is the only platform from which limitless imagination can be launched.

Imagination creates new futures. Larger and more thrilling futures.

Most of all, imagination is the road along which the individual regains his natural power and joy, and attains what was always his.

Imagination cures amnesia about immortality.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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



OCTOBER 24, 2012. We want to know what exists. We want to know it at the bottom of the sea and out in the stars and within our own minds and in realms outside the normal channels of perception. Of course we want to journey to those places and find out what’s there.


We search for design and pattern and structure and system, in order to reach the highest kind of knowledge about existence.


We need to add a different platform.


Design, structure, system, and shape are not the end of the voyage. They are objectives that serve lesser goals. They are real and very useful and fine and good—but they are limited.


People who are obsessed with What Exists don’t see that. They think the structure and system are the grandest end-points.


This obsession is a deep part of human programming. When operating at full-bore, it obscures the farther shore.


It absorbs people with magnetic force.


It limits power.


When the goal of discovering-what-exists takes over to the point of obsession, it forms a mesh of reality that surrounds us.


It is the meta-program that allows the matrix to have strength.


It is the input that keeps the whole matrix humming.


It’s interesting to reflect on those three famous Matrix films, and how they disintegrate step by step, from the discovery of the reality-prison—and the rush of adrenaline which ensues—on to the mindless war—as if that kind of struggle will actually free anyone.


The collapse of the storyline mirrors what happens when the impulse to see through to the Final Structure tries to continue past that point: there is nowhere to go.


Why? Because the heroes are really only armed with the all-consuming desire to uncover What Exists. Beyond that, they are clueless.


There is something about that voyage that degrades like an element with a very short half-life. It sputters out. The heroes revert back to older, more basic programming. Fight, conquer territory, defend, attack.


One: the thrill of profound discovery. Two: then the feeling of vacuum and confusion. Three: then the reversion back to primitive hatreds. With that sequence—now you are talking about the real Matrix.


In the arena of genetic research, there is the hope that, someday, we will find a gene which will somehow “wake up” all the dormant circuits in the brain—and then we will gain back fantastic insight and power. But based on what scientists have so far unearthed, is there any reason to believe this? Or is it just one more illusion which propels us forward on the voyage of discovery?


Literature, plays, films, and television are littered with stories that contain a mystery—and at the end comes the payoff, when the mystery is solved, when we find out What Exists.


For a moment, the audience is absorbed, and then there is the let down.


It’s as if a voyage through a rich forest suddenly ended in a vacuum, in a Nothing.


As long as the secret and the mystery can be prolonged, as long as What Exists can be postponed, you have the audience with you. But when the solution is revealed, all you have is the thirst for another mystery. “Tell us more! Tell us another one! Give us another puzzle!”


An ancient manuscript, an unexplored cave, a probe sent to a distant planet…there is a powerful desire to come to the punch line…and then…boredom edges in.


I once had a conversation with a modern guru in the field of self-improvement. He is a very successful author and lecturer. At one point, he said, essentially: You know, I have nothing left. I’ve written these books, I’ve told my audiences what they need to know. They keep wanting more. The next book, the next lecture. I’m tired. I don’t have any more secrets. They don’t really want to know what works in their lives. They want stories. They want the thrill of the hunt for the next big thing. But when they get it, I can see them go over the edge into depression…


It’s a paradox. People want to massage a secret, they want it to be solved and yet, when it’s solved, they don’t care anymore. But if you give them a real secret, one that doesn’t resolve, one that challenges them in a different way, they throw up their hands and give up. They claim they “don’t understand.”


Several years ago, I went to the Vatican, to the Sistine Chapel, to see the Michelangelo fresco. I sat in the room with several hundred other visitors. We all craned our necks, looking at the famous ceiling. I’m sure that for many of those people, it was the fulfillment of a dream: to finally witness the greatness of one of the most famous works of art on the planet.


Afterwards, outside in the corridor, I watched them leave. What I saw on their faces was a neutrality tinged with boredom.


The mystery was solved. They had seen the thing in person, finally. They had found out What Exists. It was the end.


I’m sketching here the anatomy of The Voyage to Discover What Exists.


It is one of the great enduring passions. But it has a vast and gaping downside. The payoff melts into a sagging passivity. “Well, that’s over. What’s next?”


Remember the Mike Nichols film, The Graduate? In that middle-class drama, the young Benjamin goes to extreme lengths to win Elaine, the daughter of Mrs. Robinson. He storms into Elaine’s wedding; she deserts her fiancee. Outside the church, Ben and Elaine catch a bus and take their seats in the back. As the film ends, Ben just sits there. He has captured the prize. He stares vaguely at nothing. No joy. Only a blank.


Here is a statement attributed to Nobel Laureate Albert Szent- Gyorgyi (1937 Prize for Physiology and Medicine): “In my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am now retracing my steps…”


Something that appears so right and so real and so entrancing, the attempt to nail down What Exists, has such a strange result.


What is going on?


How many seekers after the grand conspiracy behind all conspiracies become bogged down in their own journey, especially after they believe they have the answers to their ultimate questions? How many travelers along this road decide their findings add up to a portrait of a hopeless locked-down future, from which no one can escape—and then give up the whole enterprise in disgust and disillusionment?


How many people will fall into a weary swamp after December 21, 2012 (the fabled end of the Mayan calendar), passes and the revelation, the secret they have been chasing, doesn’t yield up the kind of personal illumination they were counting on?


Many years ago, a friend told me about a UFO cult that had existed somewhere in the Midwest, in the 1920s. The leader informed her followers that a great ship was coming to take them all away to a better place, a wonderful planet. The date and time were set. The leader had been receiving instructions from alien ET guides.


On this basis, all the members of the cult sold their houses and belongings (as if money would be useful on Planet X?). On the appointed date, the group was sitting in room, waiting for the ship to arrive. After several delays, the leader emerged from another room and said the UFO guides had just told her they weren’t coming after all, because the catastrophe that was supposed to decimate Earth had been sidetracked and avoided.


So there they were, sitting in a room, all dressed up with nowhere to go (and nowhere to live).


The result? The effort at recruiting new members expanded, and the cult grew! The leader told them a new story about what was coming in the wonderful years ahead—a new mystery was in progress.




What Exists is, on a significant level, the greatest con game ever invented.


Everyone wants to chase down WHAT EXISTS and reveal it.


If Jesus really survived the crucifixion or was never hung on the cross, and escaped the Middle East, and if he married and had children, and if those children had children, and if that bloodline still exists…


Ten or 20 years after this “great secret is exposed”…how many of the millions of people who were originally galvanized by it still care or think about it….it’s old hat…we want another story…tell us another story….


Well, here is a different story:


The human being was placed in a universe that appeared to beg for discovery of its secrets.


The die was cast. Humans would forever try to satisfy that hunger.


They would never suspect there was another way. They would never graduate, through a fundamental shifting of gears, up on to another echelon.


They would never guess that you have to game the system that is rigged to defeat you.


You have to turn the con around.


If things (life) are designed to subvert you…BECOME A DESIGNER.


If What Exists proves to be an endless labyrinth, landing you, finally, back at the starting gate…INVENT WHAT EXISTS.


If reality is created to gobble you up in a voyage for answers and solutions…CREATE REALITY.


Turn the tables.


Move beyond only discovering What Exists, and recognize that voyage was the primary reason you kept yourself in the dark about your own creative power.


Understand, once and for all, that every system is another version of What Exists…they are murals you attach yourself to like barnacles on a ship.


Freedom is the platform from which imagination can spread out infinitely.


The universe is waiting for imagination to revolutionize it down to its core.


…I call them the SOB People. In this case, SOB stands for State of Being. You may recall that the verb “to be” and all its forms is labeled “the state of being” verb. It expresses no action.


It’s about Is. It’s about What Exists.


The SOB People love What Exists. They pray at that altar every day.


The SOB People look at imagination as an activity like the re-arranging of deck chairs. For them, nothing new ever occurs. Invention merely puts together what is already known. Invention takes ideas and images and fits them together in different ways. The present is only a redistribution of the past.


They are married forever to What Exists. They stake out their territory there. “Nothing new under the sun.” They take pride in this view. They think it makes them very wise.


Actually it deteriorates their lives and energy one drop at a time.


In their graves and beyond, they keep mouthing, “What Already Exists, What Already Exists, What Already Exists.”


A conversation with an SOB Person can be like talking to a meat grinder. When you emerge at the other end, you want to jump into a pool and drown.


Teachers in writing classes and seminars often tell their students, “Write about what you know.” This pearl has stalled large numbers of aspiring authors. I would tell them, “Write about anything you want to—especially what you don’t know.”


From the perspective of ordinary reality, imagination is all about what is impossible. If that sounds like a koan, chew on it for a while.


Imagination is that faculty that can raise the dead.


Imagination can give rise to the spontaneous creation of what has never been before.


Imagination shifts the whole emphasis of living from the discovery of What Exists to the creation of something new, a new reality(ies).


Imagination decimates the entire library of human programming.


With imagination, you aren’t buying a story; you’re inventing countless numbers of stories.


But this invention isn’t just aimless ruminating—you create something new, you express something new, and you propel it into the world.


Without that, you float in a sea of gauze.


Of course, there is fear of the New.


People think something terrible might happen if they invent something new. Their friends might ridicule them. The whole universe might suddenly collapse. Their minds might shred.


This is where human programming really bites hard. This programming assumes and asserts that, with enough voyaging, with enough discovery, one can find the Ultimate, one can find “everything that needs to be found.”


Whereas the truth is: you can create infinitely.




Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com


DHS=Doesn’t Have Squat

by Jon Rappoport

October 22, 2012


Your big-government-at-work scores again.

In 2003, Congress began pouring money into a program of fusion centers. These 70 outposts, scattered across America, were supposed to coordinate federal, state, and local efforts to gather counter-terrorism intelligence.

You know, to protect America against al-Qaeda.

The lead agency in this program is the US Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS).

Now the Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations has issued a chilling report on how this has worked out. Buckle up.

First and foremost, the report indicates that DHS has claimed certain fusion centers exist that don’t exist at all. This should give you a clue about what we are dealing with.

So how is fusion center #32 doing?”

Pretty good.”

Really? Fusion center #32 doesn’t exist.”


Here is the exact statement from the Committee: “…DHS officials asserted that some fusion centers existed when they did not.”

The Committee also found that DHS hid their own “evaluations highlighting a host of problems at fusion centers and in DHS’ own operations.”

Or in plain language: a) we screw up big-time; b) we cover it up.

But even with all this lying, surely the fusion centers produced useful intelligence, right?

…the Subcommittee investigation could identify no DHS reporting which uncovered a terrorist threat nor could it identify a contribution such fusion center reporting made to disrupt an active terrorist plot.”


It gets even worse. For the period between April 1, 2009, and April 30, 2010, a third of all fusion center reports weren’t even published for use by DHS or other US intelligence agencies. Why? Because the reports often “lacked any useful information or potentially violated department guidelines intended to protect Americans’ civil liberties or Privacy Act protections…”

In fact, the Committee found, DHS launched an internal review of its own actions that specifically infringed on citizens’ privacy and civil liberties, but the review was extended in time, in order to conceal “most of the troubling reports” and keep them “from being released outside of DHS…”

Translation: a) we violate citizens’ Constitutional rights; b) we cover it up; c) we investigate our own cover-up; d) we conceal our own cover-up.

As the capper on the Committee report, Congressional investigators discovered that “DHS required only a week of training for intelligence officials before sending them to state and local fusion centers to report sensitive domestic intelligence, largely concerning US persons…”

Meaning: incompetent raw DHS employees are deployed to accuse US citizens of being terrorists or aiding terrorists.

Feel safer now?

The Matrix Revealed

The bumbling stumbling fusion centers may actually be evidence of something far more sinister: the real mission of DHS is not intelligence at all, and never was. Instead, DHS was tasked with creating its own army, to be equipped with hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo, guns, tanks, and the like. The “gathering of intell” is just a cover story for its ongoing war on the American people.

You can read the Committee report at:


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com




by Jon Rappoport

October 20, 2012



An old professor of mine once told me that the purpose of learning was to “escape.”


He said that insight was the experience which would lead you beyond a system that was trapping your mind.


He gave a very interesting informal lecture to a group of us about the dawning age of science. He put us at the threshold of the great change, when people began to realize that science was real, that it worked.


So,” he said, “imagine you’re living then. You absorb some of this new scientific method, and the more you think about it, the more you see that superstition is a skin you can shed. It’s quite a discovery.


You track this new thing called science, you roll it around in your mind, you grasp what the experimental method is, and you suddenly break through. You reach a new level. You don’t need all those superstitious habits anymore. You can look with clearer eyes.


At that point, you’re awake. I hope you understand this is the purpose of learning, to make that breakthrough. That’s why learning is a serious thing. It’s not just a game.”


Fifteen years later, spurred by several articles on American politics, and some comments from an American original, Karl Hess, I came to one of those threshold moments: If people on the political right moved far enough to the right, they’d see the insanity of big government and its embrace with big corporations. If people on the left moved far enough to the left, they’d see that big government and its corporate partners were solidly and unalterably against individual freedom.


And then, those people who had gone far enough in their chosen left or right directions “would meet around the back of the barn.” I believe this was a phrase Karl Hess used.


At that moment, the whole left-right division crumbled in my mind.


I was “out of the system.”


To one degree or another, in one way or another, many Americans catch a glimpse or a full-on view of this false political dichotomy. When they do, they wake up.


Then comes an election season. Two actors take the stage and run for president.


The veil that was lifted drops again. The people who woke up go back to sleep. The freedom of escaping the system now looks dangerous. “This time,” in this election, the issues are just too important. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option. And so on and so forth.


If there were a few hundred thousand citizens packed together at the back of the barn, their ranks quickly thin out. People flee so they can vote for one of the two actors.


They re-enroll in the system.


I thought I wanted freedom. But now I realize how foolish that was.”


Here is my image: there are three men on a modest boat at sea. A lefty, a righty, and a neutral. Things seem to be going well. It’s a nice cruise. The boat keeps slowing down, but not to worry. It’s still moving, and the weather’s fine.


Then one morning, just after breakfast, the neutral is walking on the deck and he sees…something different. In a second, he realizes what he’s seeing has been this way since the outset of the trip, only now, for the first time, he’s noticing it.


The lefty is chopping holes in the boat with an ax. So is the righty.


The neutral begins yelling. He tries to take the axes out of the hands of these lunatics, but he isn’t strong enough.


Finally, the lefty and the righty stop chopping and come over to him. They begin talking in reasonable voices. They tell him that the boat is in danger, yes, but not for the reasons he, the neutral, believes.


No, the lefty is the problem. No, the righty is the problem. They tell him there is a very serious debate here, and he, the neutral, has to choose sides, because the survival of all three of them is at stake. That’s the true situation.


In other words, “for the good of all,” the neutral has to reject what he was just seeing with his own eyes. There was no chopping. There were no axes. Water isn’t pouring into the boat.


Hmm, the neutral thinks. There are two of them and there is one of me. They are the majority. Nothing can change that. Two against one.


But the two of them are opposed to each other. I have to cast the deciding vote. I have a grave and important responsibility.”


The neutral was awake, but he didn’t wake up.


So he goes back to sleep, and in his haze he listens the arguments of the lefty and the righty. At first, they sound like gibberish. He struggles to make sense of them.


Eventually, he figures out why their assertions seem so garbled. He’s seeing into their true character, and he can separate what they’re saying from their actual intentions. He can see the deception. He can watch the words float by like absurd little balloons.


So, accepting his new responsibility, the neutral shuts down that part of his own perception that can assess character. He turns it off. Instead, he just concentrates on the words.


That’s better. Now the words have some degree of meaning. He can “score” them. He can put THESE words into THIS category and THOSE words into THAT category. Better.


Yes. Much better.


Of course, the neutral doesn’t notice that his eyes are closed and he’s snoring. He doesn’t register that. As water continues to pour into the boat, he’s hearing the words and he finds them interesting, even intriguing.


He believes he’s getting a grip on what politics are all about.


The whole point of emerging from the hypnotic tunnel of deception is to stay emerged. That’s called progress. To go back and hide in same tunnel is counter-productive, to say the least. It’s self-induced narcosis.


For millenia, what we now call the controlled media have brought populations under their spell and put them into a trance that defines reality. For the first time in the history of planet, we are seeing new truth-telling media come to the fore in an explosive way.




One thing is certain. The old ways of creating positive action, based on the truth, are changing.


It’s up to people everywhere to imagine new ways and implement them. Imagination is another item which has been put in the deep-freeze for a long time. It is thawing.


Don’t assume that knowing the truth is paralyzing. It’s only paralyzing if you can’t invent ways to use it. Don’t wait around for a message to float out of the clouds. Don’t say, “But now that I’m awake, what do I do?” That’s a close cousin to surrender, and it’s a precursor to going back to sleep.


Don’t whine, don’t complain. INVENT. IMAGINE. CREATE.


Conceive of innovative ways by which you can effectively take this emerging consciousness/truth/wakefulness and make it work.


This isn’t the old model, where you sit around and hope someone will come up with a really great idea. This isn’t I’M A VICTIM, TELL ME HOW TO SAVE THE WORLD. This isn’t any of that crap.


This is going light years beyond watching two phony clowns on television telling you why they should be president.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com




by Jon Rappoport

October 19, 2012



Crowley, the presidential debate moderator on Tuesday night, has just been given a coat of Teflon by her CNN boss.


In an extraordinary move, CNN managing editor Mark Whitaker sent an email to all his staff with an unequivocal message: don’t mess with our Candy.


Whitaker’s statement effectively squelched the possibility that any CNN reporter would take Crowley to task for siding with Obama on the Libya situation, during the second presidential debate.


Let’s start with a big round of applause for Candy Crowley for her superb job under the most difficult circumstances imaginable,” Whitaker wrote.


End of controversy at CNN.


You can read Whitaker’s full email here:




I contacted a well-known national news reporter at another network, who stated he’d never encountered such a blatant piece of in-house censorship in his years of work.


Whitaker has circled the wagons at CNN, and from this moment forward, it’s “Candy is the greatest” or shut up.


Obviously, Whitaker makes no distinction between Crowley’s job as a CNN reporter and her work as presidential debate moderator. The CNN corporation must be protected.


Perhaps Whitaker should have passed his reporters some cash with a curt “loose lips sink ships” and have done with it.


Back in 2008, when he was NBC’s Washington bureau chief, Whitaker exercised the same “objectivity” during an interview with Andrea Mitchell. He commented on the McCain campaign: “Obviously, it’s true that they don’t want to talk about the state of the economy…”


In a 2009 piece for the Washington Post, Whitaker engaged in a sophomoric examination of Obama’s first year in the White House, explaining the president’s problems as the result of a dislocated childhood. Obama’s decision to impose rigid order on his life was a defense against the chaos of his upbringing, but wasn’t effective as a strategy in the rough-and-tumble world of Washington politics. Really. Yawn. Sob.


It would make things a lot more interesting and easy if Whitaker just came out and said, “Vote for Obama.”


But people like Whitaker get their jobs in the news business in part because they know how to carve the news up delicately and serve it selectively. They’re adept at weaseling, in other words.


That’s why it’s surprising that Whitaker just emailed that heavy bomb to his staff. Nothing subtle there. In fact, in an example of prime buffoonery, Whitaker claimed that Crowley gave Obama more air time than Romney in the debate because Obama talks more slowly.


I see. So now we’re measuring out fair and balanced minutes on the basis of…the…candidates’….cadence. What happens in 2016 if one of the parties runs a candidate who utters six words a minute? Does he get a full 90 minutes to enunciate his positions? What happens if a candidate takes a question and just stares blankly at the audience for a minute or two while trying to come up with a suitable lie? Is that subtracted from or added to his allotted time?


CNN is a sinking ship because people are waking up to the fact that its veneer of objectivity is simply a cover for ugly liberalism; just as FOX’s brass-band front is a cover for “all big corporations are good corporations.”


As they say about an athlete, “He’s juicing.” Both networks (all major networks) are on a steroid roll, claiming to handle news with meticulous concern for facts, while on a massive hustle to get over on the public with their covert political preferences.


Turns out, in this case, Candy Crowley and Whitaker are operatives for the Left. Their moves are those of rank amateurs. I know pool rooms and card rooms where their act would be laughed out of existence in about two minutes.


With these two bumblers, the word transparency takes on new meaning.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com




by Jon Rappoport

October 18, 2012


As stories of innovative cancer treatments have spread over the years, they’ve been distorted numerous times. We end up with either unalloyed praise or across-the-board denial.

Treatment X was curing people like crazy.”

Treatment X cured no one and killed many patients.”

Sometimes, the truth lies in the middle ground. However, no one should assume a new treatment that shows promise will be tested, or tested honestly, by the powers-that-be. For the most part, the cancer industry considers these therapies threats to its power and money. The objective is to defame them, destroy them, render them unavailable.

Here is an illustration of how a promising cancer treatment can be buried. The following information comes from Daniel Haley’s brilliant book, Politics in Healing: The Suppression and Manipulation of American Medicine.


Haley recounts how a 1991 clinical trial of the innovative and “alternative” cancer medicine, hydrazine sulfate (HS), was rigged.

Rigged to fail.

A promising medicine, HS had shown good results in trials at Harbor/UCLA hospital and in Russia. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) felt obligated to test the drug. But there was a catch.

The drug’s discoverer, Dr. Joseph Gold, had found that HS could provoke very dangerous effects if patients were taking other drugs, especially tranquilizers. Several warnings were given to NCI before it began its test. The warnings were explicit. Patients could DIE if they were taking tranquilizers.

It turned out that none of the NCI patients were warned about this. It turned out that 94% of those patients were in fact on tranquilizers.

Barry Tice, an investigator for the US General Accounting Office (GAO), looked into the NCI trial of hydrazine sulfate after it was over. He called Dr. Gold and told him he had found a “smoking gun.” There was an internal NCI memo which showed that NCI was well aware of the problems involved in the drug combinations (and had ignored them).

But the GAO did not back up Tice, its own investigator. The final GAO report on the NCI clinical trials of hydrazine sulfate simply accused NCI of sloppy bookkeeping.

In the June 1995 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, a letter from the NCI was published. The letter stated that NCI had omitted mentioning, in its own published account of its cancer study, that 94% of the patients had been on tranquilizers. But this letter did NOT mention how dangerous that situation was; it looked like NCI was simply admitting to a technical and unimportant mistake. A clerical error.

So what did happen to the patients in the NCI hydrazine sulfate study?

In his book, Politics in Healing, Dan Haley reports that all the patients in the study died.

The drug, hydrazine sulfate, a competitor for chemotherapy dollars, was eliminated.

Was this story splashed across the front pages of major newspapers in America? Did the “great men” of television, those holy anchors, insist on covering it with the emphasis it deserved? Of course not.

The story was originally unearthed and published in Penthouse, by reporter Jeff Kamen, who should have won a Pulitzer for it, but won nothing.

And NCI has a rule that none of its patients in clinical trials can have their names revealed.


There is more to this incredible story. Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione’s wife, Kathy Keeton, who was the founder of Longevity, a magazine that was part of the Guccione empire, was diagnosed with “galloping breast cancer” in 1995. She was given 6 weeks to live.

She refused chemotherapy and became a very high-profile case of a person taking hydrazine sulfate instead.

She also chose radiation to reduce one of her many tumors, a growth around her bile duct. Dr. Gold said the dose of radiation should be small, because hydrazine sulfate would enhance the effect of the radiation. But the radiologist gave her the full dose instead, burned her liver and caused later scarring.

Overall, Keeton recovered. In fact, a year after her predicted death date, her cancer was in full remission. The hydrazine sulfate was a remarkable success.

Guccione ran ads in Penthouse, asking for families of the dead victims in the NCI experiment to come forward and join a class-action suit against NCI.

Guccione estimated there had been 600 victims in the NCI clinical test.

In October 1997, Kathy Keeton went into a major and well-respected NY hospital for surgery. From all accounts, this operation had nothing to do with cancer. Amazingly, complications occurred. She died.

Most of America assumed she had succumbed to cancer. Further “proof” that hydrazine sulfate did not work.

Predictably, the FDA got into the act. On April 23, 1998, the agency raided a distributor of hydrazine sulfate, Great Lakes Metabolics, in Rochester, Minnesota. In 2000, the FDA shut down the company that supplied hydrazine sulfate to Great Lakes, and Great Lakes went out of business.

In 1996, when hydrazine sulfate (HS) was still very much in the public spotlight, Dr. Gold stated he received 20 phone calls in one day from doctors at Sloan Kettering, the world’s number one center for toxic chemotherapy research and treatment. These doctors wanted to obtain HS on the sly for their patients. Gold stated that roughly 2/3 of the patients were from the doctors’ families. And six of these doctors had refused to give HS to other patients at Sloan Kettering. The phrase, scum of the Earth, comes to mind.

Author Haley offers a dozen patient testimonials re HS. They are anecdotes, to be sure, but they are remarkable.

Example: “Oncologist report in today. No cancer anywhere, after two and a half months on HS and vitamins/minerals and supplements. They have no idea where cancer went.”

Example: “Seven weeks on hydrazine sulfate. Brain and lung lesions disappeared.”

Example: “I purchased some HS for my sister a few weeks ago. Too early to tell, but she went from near death at the hospital on chemo to a campground some place, with a fishing pole.”

HS studies at Harbor/UCLA and in Russia did not cure everyone, not by a long shot. There are questions about those protocols too, because ordinary foods like raisins are incompatible with HS—and who knows what the patients were fed. At least one later HS study reported no benefits to patients, and some serious harm.

More notes on HS (hydrazine sulfate)…

One session of conventional chemo costs enough to pay for 10 years of treatment with HS.

In 1973, a doctor with a terminal Hodgkins patient approached Dr. Gold for help. Gold recommended a dosage level. In a few weeks, the patient was up and around, not dead. By October of 1973, 1000 patients in the US were on HS.

Dean Burke, head of cell chemistry at NCI, said in 1974 that HS was “the most remarkable anticancer agent I have come across in my 45 years experience in cancer…this material is so cheap because it is made by the trainload for industrial purposes.”

In September 1973, Sloan Kettering (SK), the most prestigious cancer center in the world, started an HS study on terminal patients. The lead physician, Dr. Manuel Ochoa, had agreed to give each patient 60 mg a day for 3 days and then 60 mg 3 times a day after that—but Dr. Gold learned Ochoa was changing the protocol drastically—he was giving 1 mg the first day, then 2 mg the next day, and so on, building up to a top of 30 mg—except in some cases he actually gave patients 120-190 mg a day—brutal overdoses.

In 1975 SK announced HS was worthless.

Dr. Gold then did a study for Calbiochem, a drug company. 70% of 84 patients gained weight and had less pain. HS was, in fact, designed to alleviate wasting away in the first place. 17% of the patients showed tumor regression or a stabilization of their condition for one year.

In 1975, Russian researchers published two positive study findings on HS.

In 1976, the American Cancer Society (ACS) put HS on its dreaded blacklist of “unapproved” cancer treatments. ACS neglected to mention it owned 50% of a competing and highly toxic cancer drug, 5FU.

By 1978, the FDA was cracking down on HS. 5000 patients in the US were on the medicine. The FDA falsely stated that HS caused bone marrow toxicity. In fact, conventional chemo—approved by the FDA—destroys bone marrow.

Jeff Kamen, the reporter who got the HS story out in Penthouse? Here is how he became interested in the first place. His mother Erna came back from cancer with HS. She gained 23 pounds and was doing much better. Then her doctor convinced her to stop HS and go on another experimental drug. In five days, she was dead.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com




By Jon Rappoport

October 16, 2012



Was Barack Obama handed the Jimmy Carter script from day one of his presidency?


Both men were political amateurs who came out of nowhere. They were tutored and mentored by the radical Globalist, Z. Brzezinski, who became Carter’s national security adviser and Obama’s informal but vital foreign policy consultant.


Obama and Carter are both creatures created by David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission. Carter’s administration was rife with TC members, and of the 87 TC members who live in the US, Obama appointed 11 of them to key posts.


Carter’s political downfall was the Iran hostage crisis. One of Obama’s major perceived failures has been his handling of “the nuclear weapons crisis” in Iran.


During Carter’s term, an attack on the US embassy started the Iranian hostage crisis. During Obama’s term, the flashpoint was an attack on the US embassy in Libya. Both events made the sitting presidents look weak and ineffective.


In truth, the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the ascendance of the Ayatollah was engineered by Carter, who ordered the restraining of the Shah’s secret police and troops, in the face of “student protests” against the Shah. It was Iran’s “Arab Spring.”


In a similar manner, Obama has promoted phony Middle East “popular democratic uprisings” and the overthrow of ruling strongmen in that region.


Both presidents injured their standing by blandly observing rising oil prices on their watch. They promoted humility and fairness in dealing with major oil-producing nations, sending a signal that gasoline at the pump was not a crucial issue.


In truth, they welcomed higher prices. Carter was hell-bent on his “religious” policy of conservation and asceticism, and Obama wanted to make expensive alternative energy finally cost-effective and competitive with oil.


Carter and Obama launched rhetoric about “a new kind of honorable politics,” a messianic call for greater “social justice” in both the domestic and foreign-policy arenas. As a result, both men were perceived as “weak.” Carter then fell to the “stronger” Ronald Reagan. Obama is running against the “stronger” Mitt Romney.


Obama and Carter both promised sweeping change that would take place immediately after their inauguration. For Carter, it was a (specious) comprehensive energy plan that would free Americans from dependence on foreign oil. For Obama, it was the (specious) stimulus that would put millions of Americans back to work. Both men vastly overplayed their positions, and both men failed utterly.


It’s hard to imagine either man wanted his grand plan to succeed. It’s much easier to conclude that both men wanted to diminish America.


Interest rates played a central role in both presidencies. For Carter, it was crippling escalation. For Obama, it has been massive manipulation to keep rates extraordinarily low. The result in both cases has been a significant degradation of the dollar and rising prices of goods.


Obama and Carter became intimately involved in Afghanistan. For Carter, it was about undermining the Soviet war there, and the training and arming of Arab proxies to attack Soviet troops. Obama has extended the Bush war in Afghanistan, and he has armed Arab proxies to launch wars in the Middle East (made to look like home-grown popular rebellions).


Both men have faced crises that involved their secretaries of state. Cy Vance resigned when Carter ordered a mission to rescue the 53 Americans held hostage in Iran. Now, Hillary Clinton, embroiled in the disaster in Libya, has “taken responsibility” for it. At this moment, whether she will resign is an open question. But both Vance and Clinton chose their strategies to subtly point fingers at the presidents they were serving. In Clinton’s case, she was essentially saying, “Somebody around here has to stand up and take the blame, and since Obama won’t, I will.”


The most powerful similarities between Carter and Obama, though, relate to their bosses, the Trilateral Commission. This is the least-talked-about key.


David Rockefeller created the TC 40 years ago. Its purpose then and now? The erasure of sovereign nations and the establishing of a single global management system.


Carter and Obama submitted to that influence. They pretended they were independent, innovative, unique political figures possessed of a vision that would, finally, transform Washington and business-as-usual politics in America.


They both played the “innocence” card. They came into power promising unique change. They both used religious speech to bolster their claims. They both paraded themselves as humanitarians, first and foremost, who had somehow skirted the corrupt vetting process for presidential candidates.


They both knew this was a lie.


To ensure there is no misunderstanding, a comparison between the stances of Reagan and Romney would provide equally disappointing content.


It’s all about script. The “strong” (Reagan and Romney) were put in place to provide contrast to the “weak” (Carter and Obama).


It’s the old whipsaw effect. “You didn’t like that president? Well, here is an entirely different one.”


Meanwhile, the federal government, like a fungus, grows. It encompasses and steals more power, as the monopolistic two-party system fortifies the dark canopy under which the fungus can thrive.


The real message to the American people, from the top of the power ladder, is: “You can vote for X, or you can vote for X.”


Faced with that rank insanity, the public consciousness spins its wheels in place and tries desperately to invent fairy tales in which one of those Xs is really a Y. But it isn’t.


It’s all about the script.


That’s why even one vote scrawled on a piece of paper in an alley at midnight, for a man like Ron Paul, means more than 30 million taps on a touch screen for X or X in three weeks.


Barack Obama is the first black Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was the first white Barack Obama. Mitt Romney is the first Mormon Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was the first Hollywood Mitt Romney.


It’s all about the script.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com




By Jon Rappoport

October 15, 2012



We’re so much more sensible now. We don’t live our lives as much as we arrange them and organize them. B follows A. D follows C. We take our medicine and our shots because the doctor says so.


We’re careful, because accidents happen.


We don’t say what’s on our minds a lot of the time, because other people might pass that on, and who knows? We might get into trouble.


But once upon a time, when we were young, we were free. We didn’t take any shots and when we got sick we recovered. We were stronger than kids are now. We didn’t ask for much protection and we weren’t given much, and we survived.


There was no talk about the needs of the group. When we went to school, we weren’t told about ways we could help others. That was something we learned at home. We weren’t taught about The Planet. Instead, we learned to mind our own business, and it wasn’t considered a crime.


When we played games, adults weren’t hovering or coaching every move we made. We found places to play on our own, and we figured it all out. There were winners and losers. There were no plastic trophies. We played one game, then another. We lost, we won. We competed. Losing wasn’t a tragedy.


There were no childhood “conditions” like ADHD or Bipolar, and we certainly didn’t take any brain drugs. The idea of a kid going to a psychiatrist would have been absurd.


People were who they were. They had lives. They had personalities. They had eccentricities, and we lived with that.


There was far less whispering and gossip. There were fewer cliques. Kids didn’t display their possessions like signs of their identity. A kid who did was ignored, even shunned.


Kids never acted like little adults. They didn’t dress like adults. They didn’t want to be fake adults.


Our parents didn’t consult us about what we wanted. We weren’t part of the decision-making process. They didn’t need us for that.


We weren’t “extra-special.” We weren’t delicate.


No one asked us about our feelings. If they had, we would have been confused. Feelings? What’s that? We were alive. We knew it. We didn’t need anything else.


We could spot liars a mile away. We could spot phonies from across town. We knew who the really crazy adults were, and we stayed away from them.


We didn’t need gadgets and machines to be happy. We only needed a place to play. If you wanted a spot to be alone, you found one, and you read a book.


There was no compulsion to “share.”


School wasn’t some kind of social laboratory or baby-sitting service. We were there to learn, and if we worked hard, we did. Teachers knew how to teach. The textbooks were adequate. Whether the books were new or old didn’t matter.


Kids weren’t taught how to be little victims.


Sex was a private issue. You were taught about that at home or not at all. You certainly didn’t learn about it in school. That would have been ridiculous.


Some of us remember being young, and now, we still have that North Star. We still don’t take our shots and medicines. We still don’t take every word a doctor says as coming from God. We still know losing isn’t a crime or an occasion for tragic theater.


We still know how to be alone. We still think gossip and cliques are for morons. We still feel free. We still want to live, and we do.


We still resent intrusion on our freedom, and we speak up and draw the line. We still like winning and competing. We still like achieving on our own.


We can spot self-styled messiahs at a hundred yards.


As kids, we lived in our imaginations, and we haven’t forgotten how. It’s part of who and what we are.


We aren’t bored every twelve seconds. We can find things to do.


We don’t need reassurances every day. We don’t need people hovering over us. We don’t need to whine and complain to get attention. We don’t need endless amounts of “support.”


We don’t need politicians who lie to us constantly, who pretend we’re stupid. We don’t need ideology shoved own our throats. Our ideology is freedom. We know what it is and what it feels like, and we know no one gives it to us. It’s ours to begin with. We can throw it away, but then that’s on us.


If two candidates are running for office, and we don’t like either one, we don’t vote. We don’t need to think about that very hard. It’s obvious. Two idiots, two criminals? Forget it. Walk away.


We don’t fawn, we don’t get in other people’s way. We don’t think “children are the future.” Every generation is a new generation. It always has been. We don’t need to inject some special doctrine to pump up children. We remember what being a child is. That’s enough.


When we were kids, there was no exaggerated sense of loyalty. We were independent. Now, we see what can be accomplished in the name of obligation, group-cohesion, and loyalty: crimes; imperial wars; destruction of natural rights.


It didn’t take a village to raise a kid when we were young, and it doesn’t take one now. That’s all propaganda. It panders to people who are afraid to be what they are, who are afraid to stand up for themselves.


We don’t feel it’s our duty to cure every ill in the world. But it goes a lot further than that. We can see what that kind of indoctrination creates. It creates the perception of endless numbers of helpless victims. And once that’s firmly entrenched, then magically, the endless parade of victims appears, ready-made. When some needs have been met, others are born. The lowest form of hustlers sell those needs from here to the sky and beyond. They make no distinction between people who really can use help and those who are just on the make.


We didn’t grow up that way. We don’t fall for the con now.


When we were kids, the number of friends we had didn’t matter. We didn’t keep score. Nobody kept track of the count. That would have been recognized in a second as a form of insanity.


As kids, we didn’t admire people simply because other people admired them. That was an unknown standard.


We were alive. That was enough. We were free. That was enough.


It still is.


When we were young, we had incredible dreams. We imagined the dreams and imagined accomplishing them. Some of us still do. Some of us still work in that direction. We haven’t given up the ghost just because the world is mad.


The world needs to learn what we know. We don’t need to learn what the world has been brainwashed into believing.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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.



Bombshell: Mind-control engineers now drugging children for “Social Justice”

by Jon Rappoport

October 11, 2012


It’s the latest thing. Psychiatrists are now giving children in poor neighborhoods Adderall, a dangerous stimulant, by making false diagnoses of ADHD, or no diagnoses at all. Their aim? To “promote social justice,” to improve academic performance in school.

The rationale is, the drugged kids will now be able to compete with children from wealthier families who attend better schools.

Leading the way is Dr. Michael Anderson, a pediatrician in the Atlanta area. Incredibly, Anderson told the New York Times his diagnoses of ADHD are “made up,” “an excuse” to hand out the drugs.


We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid,” Anderson said.

It would be hard to find a clearer mission statement from a psychiatrist: mind control.

A researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, Dr. Ramesh Raghavan, goes even further with this chilling comment: “We are effectively forcing local community psychiatrists to use the only tool at their disposal [to “level the playing field” in low-income neighborhoods], which is psychotropic medicine.”

So pressure is being brought to bear on psychiatrists to launch a heinous behavior modification program, using drugs, against children in inner cities.

It’s important to realize that all psychotropic stimulants, like Adderal and Ritalin, can cause aggressive behavior, violent behavior.

What we’re seeing here is a direct parallel to the old CIA program, exposed by the late journalist, Gary Webb, who detailed the importing of crack cocaine (another kind of stimulant) into South Central Los Angeles, which went a long way toward destroying that community.

It is widely acknowledged, and admitted in the Times article, that the effects of ADHD drugs on children’s still-developing brains are unknown. Therefore, the risks of the drugs are great. At least one leading psychiatrist, Peter Breggin, believes there is significant evidence that these stimulants can cause atrophy of the brain.

Deploying the ADHD drugs creates symptoms which may then be treated with compounds like Risperdal, a powerful anti-psychotic, which can cause motor brain damage.

All this, in service of “social justice” for the poor.

And what about the claim that ADHD drugs can enhance school performance?

The following pronouncement makes a number of things clear: The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard):”Stimulants [given for ADHD] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”

So the whole basis for this “social justice” program in low-income communities—that the ADHD drugs will improve school performance of kids and “level the playing field,” so they can compete academically with children from wealthier families—this whole program is based on a lie to begin with.

Meddling with the brains of children via these chemicals constitutes criminal assault, and it’s time it was recognized for what it is.

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841]. Adderall and other ADHD medications are all in the same basic class; they are stimulants, amphetamine-type substances.

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

  • Paranoid delusions
  • Paranoid psychosis
  • Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
  • Activation of psychotic symptoms
  • Toxic psychosis
  • Visual hallucinations
  • Auditory hallucinations
  • Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
  • Effects pathological thought processes
  • Extreme withdrawal
  • Terrified affect
  • Started screaming
  • Aggressiveness
  • Insomnia
  • Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
  • Psychic dependence
  • High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
  • Decreased REM sleep
  • When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
  • Convulsions
  • Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

In what sense are the ADHD drugs “social justice?” The reality is, they are chemical warfare. Licensed predators are preying on the poor.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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.