Sandy Hook: how television takes your guns

Sandy Hook: more television brainwashing using guests as fodder

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Somebody has to write about these things. Since I’ve worked as a reporter for 30 years, I know enough about how the game is rigged.

I’m talking about the big mass tragedies. Sandy Hook, the Aurora theater, Hurricane Sandy, Katrina.

Many of the interviews with survivors are done on the spot, with no prep. But the biggest interviews are done in a television studio or a home, by a recognized anchor. The setting is arranged beforehand and lit well. A mood and a framework are established.

The guests are prepped by one of the producers before they go on-air. This is where the brainwashing occurs. A potential conflict needs to be resolved. The network has its agenda and the guest has his.

The guest is swimming in a welter of emotions, in the wake of the tragedy. A family member has died. The environment of the storm or the murders is still chaotic.

The network wants to “edit” these feelings, “to convey something specific.”

The producer says to the guest, “What we want to do here is let our audience know how special your daughter was. How wonderful a person she was. We realize, of course, that you’re grieving. We understand and honor that. We do. In this interview, we really want to give you a chance, though, to tell the world what a special girl she was. Talk about her life, her interests, her hobbies, how she was thought of by the family and by friends at school. Honor her memory…”

Now, this may be the last thing on the guest’s mind. This grieving mother may be feeling angry, outraged. She is feeling absolutely desolate. She is feeling lost. Given the opportunity, she would express these feelings.

But this is not what the network or the anchor wants. The “program” at the moment involves “reflection on the happy moments of the child’s life.” It’s part of the pre-set storyline.

At this moment, for this grieving mother, the happy moments are the farthest thing from her mind. But who cares? She’s just fodder for the network’s agenda.

And if the producer is skillful enough, he can gently convince the mother that she should devote four minutes of commercially sponsored national television to “a celebration” of her dead child’s life.

Suddenly, it makes sense to the profoundly confused, profoundly searching mother. Yes. Why not? Why not go along with the program? She’ll have a video clip about her wonderful daughter forever. A scrapbook memory.

Under no circumstances, of course, will the producer or the anchor permit the mother to go on camera and show outrage and anger. That’s verboten. That cuts too close to the bone. That doesn’t fit the mandatory sequence of horror, shock, loss, grief, healing, resolution, celebration of a life lost.

The whole sequence is artificial. It’s imposed. It’s orchestrated. It’s a stage play, produced in great part through interviews with guests who have suffered loss and who are “real.”

Except they’re not. They’re programmed to deliver what the networks want.

And behind all this? Behind the mandatory spooled-out story line, which takes days to reveal in full, on television? The concealed anomalies and lies and contradictions in the commission of the crime and the ensuing cover-up.

The network story line hides as much of that as possible.

This is why the interview-prep is so important. Here is where the guests, before they go on camera, are nudged into the right slot, are shown what to focus on, are brainwashed into doing something they would never do.

Programming guests is a skill. Networks need people who can do that well. They have them. They pay them.

Anchor: I understand your daughter liked to make airplane models. Did you think that was unusual?

Mother: Well, at first we did. But she was good at it, and she enjoyed it so much, we became very enthusiastic about it. My husband introduced her to a buddy of his from the Air Force, and Cindy went up in a jet.

Anchor (smiling broadly): Really? A jet?

Mother: When she came home, she was overjoyed.

Anchor: Did she want to become a pilot?

Mother (laughing): For a few days. But her love of making models led her to want to be an artist. Our son is a graphics person. He taught Cindy to make computer pictures of our whole extended family. (laughing) We have lots of cousins and aunts and uncles. Cindy put their pictures all over the house. She knew everybody’s names when she was four…

Completely wacko. But that’s what the television audience sees and digests and accepts. And the anchor moves it right along. A fabricated story. Intercut, of course, with Cindy’s pictures and Cindy smiling and playing and drawing and sitting at the computer.

And when the dust settles and the mother is being chauffeured home from the interview, her mind wanders and she begins to think about the revenge she wants to visit on the killer of her daughter. As many good mothers would. But it’s too late. She’s already had her four minutes on television. She feels like a fool, but it’s too late.

She’ll never get to say to Diane Sawyer, “You know, Diane, I wish somehow I was there at the school, and I had a gun, and I shot that killer dead.”

No, that will never happen.

And mothers across America, who are feeling that they, too, would have wanted to be there, in the school, if their child was in mortal danger, and would have wanted to have a gun and shoot the killer dead to protect their child at all costs…those mothers will be, to a significant degree, reprogrammed by the Diane Sawyer interview, and they too will begin thinking of the happier times and the old days and the smiles and the laughter.

This is how a handful of television interviews with skillfully prepped guests can make all the difference in the world. Especially, in the case of Sandy Hook, when gun ownership is now at stake. Do I have to draw a picture for you?

Because, admit it, if you were the father or mother of a child who was murdered, wouldn’t you have at least a few serious thoughts about revenge? Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you think about the .45 you have in the closet upstairs?


The Matrix Revealed


Television, though, teaches you what to feel.

If after watching a number of these tragedies play out on television, you are completely reprogrammed into some grotesque version of “love everybody all the time and forgive everything,” and you need an outlet, a way to vicariously and subconsciously experience what you REALLY feel, you can always:

Go to the movies. The movies give you a different slant. You can be Mel Gibson killing people to get his kidnapped daughter back. You can be Charles Bronson wiping out street scum to avenge the loss of his wife. You can be Stallone or Arnie. You can roam the countryside spilling blood at every street corner.

The movies give you vicarious license to destroy evil. Television news takes it away.

It’s called the whipsaw effect, and it’s modern mind control, and it puts you in the “excluded middle,” where nothing happens and you remain locked up and passive.

Where the powers-that-be want you to remain.

Have a nice, nice day.

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

Prometheus, the artist who opened the prison door

Prometheus, the artist who unchained humanity

by Jon Rappoport

December 28, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Through what mirror are we looking at ourselves in these ancient tales?

The Prometheus story makes absolutely no sense unless we acknowledge there is a reason for rebellion. But not just any rebellion. One man assaulting the supernatural mountain of the Olympians to steal fire, escape, and bring it back to man is more than audacious, if the Greek poets invented the pantheon of gods and their aerie in the first place.

In that case, the theft of fire is an acknowledgment that power is returned home.

We invented the gods. Now we re-invent ourselves.”

Down through blood-soaked history, the priest class has said, “No, that is too much. That is hubris. Pride goeth before a fall. Don’t think too much of yourselves. Be humble. Submit. Through us, you can connect to the greatest force in the universe, but you must do it in the prescribed ways.”

PS: “Drop a few coins in the basket for the privilege.”

What is the fire Prometheus stole? What power does it signify? The power of money? Of position? Of control over others? Of domination? Is it the power to hypnotize? To make binding and cruel laws? To deceive? To claim divine right? To enslave? To impose limits? To blind the masses?

What Prometheus retrieved was what had been forgotten and surrendered by humans: their own power to imagine and create. The true fire.

We are the artists.

Imagine what might have happened if Freud had plumbed the Promethean myth for his nascent psychology, instead of the Oedipal tale.

No, no, no,” our leaders say. “We can show you example after example of what happens when humans believe they have power. It always ends in horror. There is no way out except through obedience to the external Truth we peddle.”

Religion is frozen poetry. The poets began by writing outside the boundaries of the tribe, and the priests appointed themselves the sacking editors.

They hammered and cut and polished the wild free poems into tablets and catechisms and manuals of stern disapproval. They gathered up workers to build the temples where the new laws would be preached and taught. They established the penalties for defection. They staked an exclusive claim to revelation.

Prometheus wasn’t a thief. The priest-class were the thieves.

They established the false and synthetic universal centrality of myth disguised as revelation, and they sold it, and they enforced it, and they prepared a list of enemies who were threatening the Law of Laws.

And all that raw material, which they stole? It came from the poets. It came from the free and boundless creation of artists.

So Prometheus was setting the record straight. He was cracking the system like an egg. He was bringing imagination back where it belonged.

Of course, in the ancient myth, he paid a high price for his actions. But that’s merely more propaganda. The high priests write that retribution-ending on every story springing from freedom. They call the punishment by various names, and they naturally claim it is brought down by hammer from the Highest Authority. They work this angle with desperate devotion.

Prometheus was the liberator. He was the Chinese painters of the Dun Huang, the Yoruba bead artists, the Michelangelo of David, the Piero della Francesca of Legend of the True Cross, the Velazquez of The Maids of Honour, the Van Gogh of Irises and lamp-lit Arles, the Gauguin of Who Are We, the Yeats of Song of the Wandering Aengus, the Dylan Thomas of Fern Hill, the Walt Whitman of The Open Road, the Henry Miller of Remember to Remember, the Orson Welles of Citizen Kane, the Lawrence Durrell of The Alexandria Quartet, the de Kooning of Gotham News.

He was Tesla and Rife and Dr. William Koch.

Wherever individual human imagination was launched as the fire, Prometheus was there.

Of course, he wasn’t. He was the story we told ourselves about what we could do. That story is meant to remind us that all centralized collective vision is a fraud. It may not begin that way, but sooner or later, it becomes a gargantuan slippage into narcosis of the soul.

Prometheus is the story we tell ourselves to remember the line between what the individual can learn and what he can create, and how many horses have been pulled up to that line and refuse to cross it and drink from the wells of imagination.

Prometheus is the story of a recapture of what we are. We may have buried the understanding deep in our psyches, but it is there. How many ways we try to refuse it!

We huddle in groups and pretend all progress flows from the mass. We diddle and fiddle with this limit and that limit. We adjust and make more room for the Average. We build machines to think at a higher level than we can. We watch theatrical spectacles of “new hybrid humans.” We proclaim healing virtues and forget about what the healing of the spirit might actually entail, what revolution, what vital energies, what leaps of imagination, what assertions of our inherent power.

We keep thinking of peace, when peace means, as defined by the “wise ones,” the death of the soul. Their peace is what is left over after the war of the creative human has been surrendered without a single burst of energy being fired.

Their peace is syrup poured over the possibility of dynamic action. Their peace is submission to some Glob of “universal consciousness.” Their peace is a column of grinning idiots guarding a self-appointed tower of learning. Their peace is the survival and organization of damaged goods. Their peace is: “if it is meant to happen, it will.” Their peace is: the universe decides, we oblige. Their peace is a cosmic junk-heap.

Followers, little messianic morons, throng to their temples. Candles are lit, ceremonies are enacted, glazed-over joy is celebrated.

From this mob of singing castrati, Prometheus emerged, untangling himself from wet strands of delusion, resignation, and fear. He soared. He advanced. He took back our basic and vital character. He breathed crackling energy into bloodstreams. He tore away Central Authority from its perch.

From the Promethean perspective, Reality is waiting for imagination to revolutionize it down to its core.

This is not an invitation to manipulate and tinker. On the contrary, it’s a call to make Dream into Fact, again and again, without end.

Beyond systems. Beyond structures. Beyond authoritative teaching.

For most, imagination lifts the outer layers of desire and expresses a minor operation in a minor field of engagement. A flicker of a breath here, a struck spark there, and it’s done.

At that point, exhaustion sets in. People lean back and resume their precious expectation of 24 frames per second of emotional rescue from a vacuum.

Hope clings to, and is managed by, what happens on a screen.


The Matrix Revealed


But under massive boredom, energies churn in subterranean caverns. Where will those rivers run for the next thousand years or thousand incarnations?

What would create an internal revolution?

What would start the water wheels spinning and the torrents surfacing?

How would creation begin?

On that Promethean question rests the fate of every civilization, past, present, and future.

Every thread, atom, quark, and wavicle of this Matrix is imbued with the impression that “what already exists” is superior to what the individual can now invent. The causal chains of history seem to produce the present and the present seems to produce the future. Somewhere, we are told, there is an ultimate state of mind to which we can attain: a house we can move into. Once we take up residence, everything is settled. We have won.

These are the grand deceptions. These are the illusions of the Matrix.

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

Sandy Hook: Aleister Crowley, interview freak-show, police audio

Sandy Hook: Aleister Crowley, interview freak-show, police audio

by Jon Rappoport

December 28, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

I’ve been listening to a stream of police dept. audio during the initial response to the Sandy Hook shooting.

This link has most of its action in the first four minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8uVR7TifS

At roughly 2:38, a police voice says: “Party in custody.”

Then at 3:49, “We have a suspect down.”


This next link, for me, was somewhat clearer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E-Ix_aaDhg

Starting at roughly 3:13, there are relevant police comments:

A teacher reports two shadows running past the building past the gym.”

They’re shooting.” (??)

Yeah, we got ‘em.”

They’re coming at me down Kurt’s (sp) Way!”

Got ‘em (?)…proned out.” (at 5:34)


We get the distinct sense there are multiple shooters.

Whoever is proned out, whoever is in custody, whoever is “coming at me,” whoever is down…we don’t know what happened to them.

Reporters on the scene have, as far as I know, provided no information, and neither have police. The suspects have disappeared down the memory hole.

Then we have these television interviews with families of the victims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VizQGl8bu8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmdXR3TtOvM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddF6UzgoPiY

It’s astounding. Parents are smiling. They’re actors from Central Casting? One thing is for sure. They’re androids, if you measure their responses against reports of what happened in the Sandy Hook School.

And as androids, they’re only matched by the TV reporters who are interviewing them.

If you’re tempted to say the parents and family members are in shock, or they’re reacting to being on television, forget it. Their attitudes don’t match a massacre by any stretch of the imagination.

Is Sandy Hook/Newtown a Stepford Village? Are these people all programmed to be pleasant and accommodating No Matter What?

It’s about as bizarre as the purported video footage of the Aurora theater during the shootings there this summer. As people exit the lobby and come out on to the street, there is no sign of blood and no one is coughing from the reported tear gas inside the theater.

With these Sandy Hook parents, we’re looking at a level of conditioning in which Being Nice can completely overwhelm even the murder of one’s own child.

Tears? Not one person in these interviews has actual tears running down his or her face.

One of the fathers, Robbie Parker, has had his interview played and replayed all over the planet on YouTube, and you can watch him smiling and grinning, for all the world looking like he’s just been appointed CEO of a company he works for…and then he steps to a podium to make his statement, and as one poster succinctly describes it, “gets into character.”

This isn’t just an internal event. You can watch Parker huffing and puffing and pushing himself into what he thinks is a tragic and grief-stricken state of mind. He does it so badly you wonder why no one in the room calls him on it. It’s beyond strange. Yet reporters later talked about Parker “struggling through tears and suffering to make a heartfelt statement…” The reporters are just as deranged as Parker is.

This boggling show isn’t confined to Sandy Hook. A commenter below a Deseret News article on Parker replied: “Brave young father, wise to forgive early and choose to move forward—nothing can be gained by dwelling on what cannot be changed.”

At times, watching these interviews, I wondered whether the parents had been conditioned to believe, in the face of ANYTHING, that good and nice children all take a choo-choo train to heaven and there is nothing to regret about their murders at all.


The Matrix Revealed


In an earlier article, I pointed out that, indeed, at 1hr:58 of The Dark Knight Rises, Gary Oldman, talking about an impending attack on “Strike Zone 1,” is pointing to the words “Sandy Hook” on a map in front of him. These are the only legible words on the map.

By happenstance, the production designer of Dark Knight Rises, Nathan Crowley, is related to the infamous British black-magic legend, Aleister Crowley, who was sometimes called The Great Beast 666.

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/An-arousing-display-at-the-Met/8583

In an interview, Nathan said, “Yes, Aleister Crowley is a direct relative, he’s my grandfather’s cousin, but we were never allowed to even mention his name because we were a very Quaker family.”

Nathan is also the production designer of Lady Gaga’s video ad for her perfume, Fame.

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/ad-day-lady-gaga-fame-142761

In terms of “the dark side,” the full 5:41 version of the video-ad makes Dark Knight Rises look like a Disney cartoon by comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az1-oLmxhHQ

But not to worry. What happened at Sandy Hook was exactly as the major media portrayed it, and nothing more. Sure. You bet.

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

Murder in the medical Matrix: the FDA

Murder in the medical Matrix: the FDA

by Jon Rappoport

December 27, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

I have to begin this article with a bow in the direction of a remarkable site, SSRI Stories. There you will find a huge assembly of media articles documenting the death and destruction wrought by psychiatric drugs. In particular, read the index:

http://ssristories.com/index.php

It previews the whole picture. It connects the dots.

Keep in mind that all the indicted psychiatric drugs have been approved by the FDA as safe and effective.

Over the years, I’ve written much about the the FDA. I thought I’d assemble a small fraction of it in one place, to reveal what this federal agency is really all about and why it should be dismantled, amid a blizzard of prosecutions and convictions for negligent homicide and, yes, murder.


HIDDEN IN PLAIN VIEW

by Jon Rappoport

May 18, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The day of the Smoking Gun has arrived.

The discovery of a page, on the FDA’s own website, proves the FDA is fully aware that:

the drugs it certifies as safe have been killing Americans, at the rate of 100,000 per year.

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/DrugInteractionsLabeling/ucm114848.htm

The FDA website page is currently available under the heading, “Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions.”

The FDA takes no blame, no responsibility for its own actions, and yet it admits the death statistics are accurate.

As an investigative reporter, I have been tracking and writing about pharmaceutically-caused deaths for 10 years. I have, on numerous occasions, cited Dr. Barbara Starfield’s report in the July 26th, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, in which she presents the figure of 106,000 deaths per year, in America, as a direct result of these drugs. I have claimed that the federal government and, in particular, the FDA, are aware of these numbers.

And now the page on the FDA’s own website confirms the death toll. Yet, nowhere do we see the FDA taking one shred of responsibility for this ongoing holocaust.

Holocaust? Add up the figures. Medical drugs cause 100,000 deaths in America every year: that means a million Americans are killed every decade.

Understand this very clearly. No medical drug in America can be released for public use until and unless the FDA states it is safe. The FDA is the agency that makes every such decision on every drug. The buck stops there.

Yes, the FDA has a “special relationship” with the pharmaceutical industry. Yes, the FDA utilizes doctors on their drug-approval panels that have ties to the pharmaceutical industry. But, in the end, it is the FDA official seal that opens the gate and permits a drug to be prescribed by doctors and sold in the US.

In all my research on this medical-drug holocaust, I have never found a case in which any FDA employee was censured, fired, or criminally prosecuted for the killing effects of these drugs.

That is a track record Organized Crime would be proud of, and the comparison is not frivolous.

On this FDA website page that has just come to light, the FDA also readily admits that deaths from medical drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in America, ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile fatalities.

The FDA website page also states there are 2 million serious adverse reactions (ADRs) from the ingestion of medical drugs, annually, in the US. When the FDA says “serious,” they aren’t talking about headaches or slight dizziness or temporary nausea. “Serious” means stroke, heart attack, neurological damage; destruction of that magnitude. Therefore, per decade, that adds up to 20 million ADRs. 20 million.

Examining these figures for death and debilitation, can you find any comparable crime in the American landscape? And yet the major media have been silent. This is the kind of story that could make Watergate look like a Sunday-school picnic. If a paper like the New York Times let loose their hounds to relentlessly explore the horror, I assure you that, in time, doctors and medical bureaucrats and even drug-company employees would come out of the woodwork with confessions, and the resultant explosions and outcries would shake the medical/pharmaceutical foundations of America and the planet.

But these major media outlets are an intrinsic part of the Matrix that protects and sustains the crimes and the criminals. It isn’t just drug-advertising profits that keep the leading newspapers and television networks silent. It’s collusion to protect “a revered institution”—the medical system.

Also at stake is Obamacare. The connection is vivid and unmistakable. Millions more Americans, previously uninsured, will be drawn into the system and subjected to the very drugs are killing and maiming people at such a horrific rate.

Where has the US Department of Justice been all these years? Is there any way, under the sun, that a million deaths per decade can be excused? Is there any way the FDA and the drug companies can float safely in the upper atmosphere of privilege, while the concept of justice retains any meaning? Where are criminal prosecutions?

The revelations of ongoing knowledge to be found at the FDA website page stagger the mind. Here is yet another implication: what about all the studies on drugs that are published in prestigious medical journals, month after month? These studies unequivocally claim the drugs are safe. What level of fraud must exist for such peer-reviewed studies to attain the false status of medical fact?

Perhaps this quote from Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, will clarify that aspect of the scandal:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

(Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009)

Meanwhile, the FDA pursues an agenda of attacking nutritional supplements, and the latest federal regulations classify these supplements as “potentially dangerous”—despite the fact that supplements have a record of safety that is astonishing.

It is time for these murderous government crimes to end. It is time for all responsible parties to be brought to justice, to real justice. It is time for the public to realize that 100,000 people dying every year in the US, because they take medical drugs, is the equivalent of 33 airliner crashes into the Twin Towers, every year, year after year.

It is only necessary for Department of Justice officials to climb into cars and drive down the road to the headquarters of the FDA and start making arrests, on a charge of negligent homicide. At minimum.


ANOTHER SMOKING GUN: THE FDA VS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

By Jon Rappoport

June 12, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

If you worked for a federal agency that was killing people at the rate of 100,000 a year, every year, like clockwork, and if you knew it, wouldn’t you feel compelled to say or do something about it?

At the FDA, which is, in fact, killing Americans at that rate, no one has ever felt the need to step forward and speak up.

Let’s shift the venue and ask the same question. If you were a medical reporter for a major media outlet in the US, and you knew the above fact, wouldn’t you make it a priority to say something, write something, do something?

I’m talking about people like Sanjay Gupta (CNN, CBS), Gina Kolata (NY Times), Tim Johnson (ABC News), and Thomas Maugh II (LA Times).

And with that, let’s get to the latest smoking gun. The citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because THE FDA CERTIFIES, AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, ALL THE DRUGS THAT ARE ROUTINELY MAIMING AND KILLING AMERICANS.

Previously, I have documented that the FDA knows; the FDA has a page on its own website that admits 100,000 people are killed every year by medical drugs, and two million more people are severely injured by the drugs. (Google “FDA Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions”)

And for the past five years or so, I have been writing about and citing a published report by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield that indicates 106,000 people in the US are killed by medical drugs every year. Until her death last year, Dr. Starfield worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her report, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, was published in the Journal of American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

Since the Department of Homeland Security is working its way into every nook and corner of American life, hyper-extending its mandate to protect all of us from everything, why shouldn’t I go along with Janet Napolitano’s advice: SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING.

This is what I see and this is what I’m saying. Maybe DHS would like to investigate the FDA as a terrorist organization.

How many smoking guns do we need before a sitting president shuts down the FDA buildings, fumigates the place, and prosecutes very large numbers of FDA employees?

Do we need 100,000 smoking guns? Do we need relatives of the people who’ve all died, in the span of merely a year, from the poisonous effects of FDA-approved medical drugs, to bring their corpses to the doors of FDA headquarters?

And let me ask another question. If instead of drugs like warfarin, dabigatran, levofloxacin, carboplatin, and lisinopril (the five leading killers in the FDA database), the 100,000 deaths per year were led by gingko, ginseng, vitamin D, niacin, and raw milk, what do you think would happen?

I’ll tell you what would happen. SEALS, Delta Force, SWAT teams, snipers, predator drones, tanks, and infantry would be attacking every health-food store in America. The resulting fatalities would be written off as necessary collateral damage in the fight to keep America safe and healthy.

But you see, the routine deaths of 100,000 Americans a year, after the FDA has certified the drugs are SAFE, isn’t a recognized political issue. It doesn’t play in a debate between Romney and Obama. It isn’t perceived as a left-versus-right, liberal-versus-conservative topic.

Such is the power of the medical cartel. All those phony stories in the press, reported dutifully by so-called medical reporters? The stories about maybe-could-be-possible-miracle breakthroughs just over the horizon of state-of-the-art research? Those stories are there to obscure the very, very hard facts of medically-caused death on the ground.

The buck stops at the FDA.

It’s quite something to behold. But here is the situation. No medical drug in the US can be released for public use unless and until the FDA says it is safe and effective. That’s the rule. Therefore, if the FDA is spitting out drug approvals month after month and year after year, and if the drugs are routinely killing 100,000 people a year and maiming two million more, which adds up to a million deaths per decade and 20 million maimings per decade, and if the FDA and the federal government are doing nothing about it, even though they know what’s going on, then you have a holocaust. Murder. Not accidental death. Murder.


The Matrix Revealed


WHEN MASS MURDER BECOMES ACCEPTABLE

by Jon Rappoport

May 23, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Five days ago, I broke a story about the FDA. On one of its own web pages, the agency admits that medical drugs kill 100,000 Americans a year.

Of course, none of those drugs would have reached the public, if the FDA had ruled them out as dangerous. The FDA is the single entity responsible for certifying medical drugs as safe and effective. On its web page, the FDA neglected to mention that fact.

Imagine this. You go to an FBI web page and read the following: “Murders committed by FBI agents are the third leading cause of homicides in America every year.”

Wouldn’t that set off alarm bells? Wouldn’t there be a public outcry? Wouldn’t the the press go crazy with the story?

Yet somehow, the FDA gets away with its crimes, its homicides. There are no alarm bells, no arrests, no hearings, no public statements, no press reactions, no shakeups at the Agency.

It’s a miracle.

As I’ve been saying and writing for a decade now, the power of the medical cartel is gigantic.

When I was running for a Congressional seat from the 29th District of California, in 1994, and during my participation in the Health Freedom movement of that period, I insisted we had to take the attack to the FDA. We had to make their crimes public.

I was told by the people who were leading the charge for Health Freedom that priority had to be given to passing a law that would protect us all from attacks on nutritional supplements. Then, when we had that law, we could think about going after the FDA.

Well, we got the law, which only gave us temporary protection, and afterward there was no “going after the FDA.” It was suddenly a dead issue.

I remember the people who said, “Don’t attack the FDA.” I remember their attitudes, their faces, their words. They were not my friends, and they weren’t your friends. Some of them were yuppies selling “let’s be nice” New Age sentiment. A few were most likely plants who had infiltrated the Health Freedom movement to water it down.

Various liars sell their lies through various strategies.

I assure you, there are doctors out there who know the statistics on medically caused death in the US. They know about the drugs that kill. They know what’s going on. They know the FDA is accountable. They remain silent. They feel no pressure to make a public statement. They’re living under the umbrella of protection provided by the government and the press and the medical system. These doctors are silent witnesses to ongoing mass murder. Just as the FDA is a silent witness to its own mass-murdering practices. And of course, the doctors write the prescriptions for the drugs.

Obama, Bush, Clinton; none of these men have indicated the slightest awareness of the “problem.” Did they know? Do they know? Just as I predicted, correctly, that the FDA knows, I say these men do know. They prefer to remain silent as well. They don’t want to touch this genocidal crime. They don’t have the character or the courage.

Presidents and deans of medical schools know. Teachers at these schools know. Pharmaceutical executives know. Medical researchers know. The CDC knows. The World Health Organization knows. Editors and reporters at major press outlets know. The DEA knows. The US Dept. of Justice knows.

And now, a growing segment of the Internet knows. Will this story, finally, build into an irresistible roar? Or will it again sink back into the shadows?

A Matrix of hypnotic effect and cognitive dissonance is the obstacle. People find it extremely difficult to believe that a federal agency, in broad daylight, year after year, countenances and sustains the unnecessary deaths of 100,000 people.

People find it extremely difficult to believe that, were such a story true, they would not have heard about it already.

People want to believe that a crime of this boggling magnitude would already have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

People want to believe the secular religion known as Medicine is devoted to healing in all its forms.

People want to believe that, since doctors can put accident victims back together in one piece and can set broken bones and temporarily reduce inflammation, the practice of medicine must be uniformly successful across the board.

To shatter all these firmly held conviction in one fell swoop is too much for many people to absorb.


FDA DRUG REVIEWER: “ONE FDA MANAGER THREATENED MY CHILDREN”

by Jon Rappoport

August 14, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

In a stunning interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Cavanagh, exposes the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10524-former-fda-reviewer-speaks-out-about-intimidation-retaliation-and-marginalizing-of-safety

Cavanagh: “…widespread [FDA] racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation.”

I was threatened with prison.”

One [FDA] manager threatened my children…I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”

Cavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency who insisted that the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn’t part of the FDA culture, and Cavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.

What was his covert task at the FDA? “Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs.” In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.

Cavanagh’s revelations are astonishing. He recalls a meeting where a drug-company representative flat-out stated that his company had paid the FDA for a new-drug approval. Paid for it. As in bribe.

He remarks that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the effects of nerve gas, “actually increased the lethality” of certain nerve agents.

Cavanagh recalls being given records of safety data on a drug—and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.

Read the entire landmark interview for yourself and see what the FDA really is. We are not dealing with isolated incidents of cheating and lying. We are not dealing with a few isolated bought-off FDA employees. The situation at the FDA isn’t correctable with a few firings. This is an ongoing criminal enterprise, and any government official, serving in any capacity, who has become aware of it and has not taken action, is an accessory to mass poisoning of the population.

Twelve years ago, the cat was let out of the bag. Dr. Barbara Starfield, writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, on July 26, 2000, in a review titled, “Is US health really the best in the world,” exposed the fact that FDA-approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans per year.

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-barbara-starfield-medically-caused-death-in-america/

In interviewing her, I discovered that she had never been approached by any federal agency to help remedy this tragedy. Nor had the federal government taken any steps on its own to stop the dying.

Should we tread daintily when we know the federal agency responsible for drug safety is allowing 100,000 people to die every year? This is murder. It’s not really negligent homicide, not when it keeps happening. It’s murder. It’s on the order of a Nazi war crime.

Try this image: you are a gatekeeper. Your job, on the first day of every year, is to unlock the gate and leave it open, so people can pass through. But you know that, when you open the gate, 100,000 people who pass through will die in the following year. Yet, every January 1, you keep opening the gate.

That’s what the FDA is. That particular gatekeeper.

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 artist against the system

The artist against the system down through time

By Jon Rappoport

December 24, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Whatever his medium, the artist stands outside the group and group’s slogans.

If the group is living in Tuesday, he is living in Friday.

He sees invention everywhere, even in the faces that float by on the street. He sees their theatrical roles and the messages that are written on their lips before they speak.

He sees the preposterous crises that are concocted to lead to revelations that never come. Populations walk through one gate after another, deeper into an internal slavery that knows no limit.

The artist sees one genuine emotion after another parlayed into flashes of cheap sentiment.

In midst of all this, the artist doesn’t surrender. Nor does he only observe. Nor does he only point out the lies.

He CREATES.

He always has.

The artist opposes the most popular trends of the moment.

The trend now, under various guises, is the Collective.

We need to realize that the Collective, no matter how it is defined or shaped or covertly hidden, is seeking to marginalize the person who imagines and creates new realities.

The artist is able to spot the Collective. He opposes it.

This opposition can’t be settled and resolved with some absurd “rainbow philosophy” that pretends to include everybody. It can’t be dismissed or merged in a melting lump of happy-happy cosmic cheese.

Those pseudo-philosophers who speak about consciousness as if it were one all-embracing ocean, within which we are merely tiny and ineffectual drops of water, have already developed a convenient amnesia about the artist.

Down through time, in the face of every spiritual system devised by the priest-class, the artist has said no. Instead, he has built his own worlds. He has lived the life of imagination, immune to the latest and greatest “New Age.”

He has asserted his power.

This is the natural mantle worn by the person who invents, imagines, improvises, creates: power.

Power that is apart from the group.

The artist not only sees, with great clarity, the mindless brain-dead gatherings of Collectives; he not only sees how they are built; he not only sees how they import “the highest ideals” to flesh out their slave-programs and objectives; he not only rejects all this; he creates something entirely different.

He invents worlds of his own. Many worlds.

The artist proliferates. He doesn’t reduce.

The artist isn’t looking for the “one thing” that will unite us all under a banner of harmony. He knows all such harmonies wear out and are eventually co-opted to produce mass hypnosis.

The artist rebels. In rebelling, he reveals the uniqueness of the individual. He doesn’t pay lip service to this uniqueness. He demonstrates it.

The artist destroys the Matrix, over and over.

Whether in art, science, philosophy, healing, or any other field of human endeavor, the person who lives by and through imagination creates new realities. As the artist, he challenges the status quo on every level.

This isn’t a superficial undertaking. It isn’t an attempt to “do something pretty and nice.” It isn’t part of “being a good citizen.”

The Collective is a fungus that seeks to swallow up people and nations. It enlists the highest-flying ideals as a cover. It sweeps away resistance with what seems like the most honorable of intentions.

Humanity on this planet has been undergoing a transformation into one ten-billion-member cult. You can find its leaders just by listening to their voices and their sentiments. They all come from the same manual.

This is really war by other means.


The Matrix Revealed


In the dying days of the engorged Roman Empire, which had squandered its capital through wars of conquest, it was decided that these other means were necessary. And so the Roman Church was invented. It would employ all the idealisms of past ages.

It would actually produce an unprecedented version of mind control as the weapon of conquest.

And today, we have “the Global outlook.” This is the silky cover for drawing in populations to a perverse dream of unity for all.

We will harmonize the world.”

This is exactly the kind of program the artist has always rejected.

The artist says: there are an infinity of worlds, and they can exist side by side; artists create them.

When that message is lost, we lose what we are and enter into amnesia.

ROBOT OR FREE?

There are some people who hear the word CREATE and wake up, as if a new flashing music has begun.

This lone word makes them see something majestic and untamed and astonishing.

They feel the sound of a Niagara approaching.

They suddenly know why they are alive.

The creative life is about diving in. It’s about a kind of transformation that shreds programming and gets down to the energy of the Fire.

Most people don’t want to travel to that grand arena because they have been trained like pets by some sector of this society to be good girls and boys.

The creative life isn’t about little changes done in little penguin steps. It’s about putting your arms and your mind around Deep, Big, and Wide Desire. It’s about making that Desire come to life.

99% of the world has been trained like rats to adore systems. Give them a system and they’re ready to cuddle up and take it all in. If they have questions, or if they want to argue, it’s about how to tweak the system to make it a little better. And with every move they make, they put another blanket over the Fire Within.

They sleepwalk through life and say yes to everything.

Maybe you once saw something truly free that didn’t care about consequences, and it blew you into tomorrow and turned on your soul’s electricity for an hour.

Maybe you’re sick and tired of bowing and scraping before a pedestal of nonsense.

CREATE is a word that should be oceanic. It should shake and blow apart the pillars of the smug boredom of the soul.

CREATE is about what the individual does when he is on fire and doesn’t care about concealing it. It’s about what the individual invents when he has thrown off the false front that is slowly strangling him.

CREATE is about the end of mindless postponement. It’s about what happens when you burn up the pretty and petty little obsessions. It’s about emerging from the empty suit and empty machine of society that goes around and around and sucks away the vital bloodstream.

People want a certain level of defined comfort, and they want to BELONG TO SOMETHING.

I want to belong. It’s my reason for being. It’s my hole card. Therefore, I’ll sit on my imagination, so it won’t take me out beyond this thing I want to attach myself to.”

The propaganda machines of society relentlessly turn out images and messages that ultimately say: YOU MUST BELONG TO THE GROUP.

Day after day after day, year after year, the media celebrate heroes. They inevitably interview these people to drag out of them the same old familiar stories. Have you EVER, even once, seen a hero who told an interviewer in no uncertain terms: “I got to where I am by denying the power of the group, by denying the propaganda that says we all have to BELONG.”

Have you ever heard that kind of uncompromising statement?

I didn’t think so.

Why not?

Because it’s not part of the BELONGING PROGRAM, the program that society runs on to stay away from the transforming power of IMAGINATION.

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 “glue” that makes us all average, normal, and clueless

The “glue” that makes us all average, normal, and clueless

by Jon Rappoport

December 23, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Tragic events, crises, threats are designed to capture our minds and hold us in a state of emergency, whether or not such a state is officially declared by our august leaders.

This “glue” is one aspect of the Matrix.

And of course, when events seem to threaten our very existence, these leaders are all too eager to enact responses and solutions that make the original crises pale by comparison.

We couldn’t be blamed for defining “solution” as “whatever is worse than the problem.”

In this sordid mix, what part of ourselves is being held down? What capability are we unwilling to exercise? What does fear keep us from doing?

It’s obvious that freedom takes a hit. We become more cautious about exercising our freedoms. However, freedom isn’t just an idea or an empty condition. Freedom implies power. Individual power.

If it didn’t, who would care one way or another about freedom? Who would make an issue out of it?

If each one of us didn’t have power, freedom would be no more than a fairy tale with which we could amuse ourselves.

The exploration of power is not something you’ll find in a school or in the workplace or in a community group. It’s a kind of taboo. People don’t talk about it.

Not talking about it makes as much sense as writing a book about the sun and neglecting to mention it gives off heat.

The repressed conversation about power is a cultural artifact. We’re somehow led to believe it’s impolite to bring up the subject. It’s self-aggrandizing. It runs against the grain of appearing humble. It seems to legislate against the mandatory premise that “we’re all in this together.”

What does this taboo conceal?

Power is the capacity to imagine and create.

Rather than being about “the truth,” power is about inventing new truth, in the sense that, when you create, you bring something into the world that wasn’t there before.

After a great artist or scientist makes imagination into fact, others then gather around and analyze the truth of what has just appeared. But the cardinal happening was the invention itself.

Even more important was the capacity to make imagination into fact.

Power.

Flowing from freedom.

This is what crisis and threat and tragedy seem to blanket with despair. But that is an illusion.

Nothing can happen in this world that changes or diminishes your inherent power, unless you decide it does.

Staged crises are also an example of power. They are perverse art flung up on the screen of our perception, designed to make us feel we have to give in. Give in to what? To the sacrifice of our own capacity to imagine and create reality.

Somebody else made reality for me.”

That idea is also the hallmark of hypnosis. The subject, in a trance, accepts what is already real as the final summing up of his life. His only job is to adjust his actions to the world as it is.


The Matrix Revealed


There are many examples. Look at the mesmerizing tonnage of legend launched to convince the population of ancient India that the caste system was a cosmological necessity, given the rules of universal justice and the regulations governing reincarnation.

This “spiritual system” was, finally, a cosmic fascism. It was a work of art designed and managed by the aristocratic and priest classes, to cement their control over the population. In other words, these rulers invented a reality for the masses that thereafter commanded:

We made reality for you. Your job is now to live inside it.”

Likewise, in recent centuries, the rise of science was twisted and extrapolated into its own legend: materialism.

There is nothing beyond particles whirling in space. That’s it. That’s what is real, everywhere. You live inside this idea. Adjust. Reject any thoughts that don’t mesh with it.”

And against all this is, if we want it, freedom. Power. The individual capacity to imagine and create reality.

How far does this power extend?

Life on planet Earth appears to mandate against any far-reaching exercise of creative power. That, too, is an illusion.

There are no limits.

The whole repeating covert op of tragedy, tragedy, tragedy, grieving, grieving, grieving, coming together, healing…the whole endless and repeating ceremony is put there to assure us that we are little creatures with nowhere else to go but Acceptance. This, we are told, is our only option for redemption.

This idea has been sold in the marketplace of spiritual commerce since the dawn of time.

It’s a straight-out lie. It’s told, again and again, to serve rulers.

And rulers want to make sure that the number of creatively powerful individuals is kept to a bare minimum. Otherwise, the single monolithic reality they have invented and sold would shake and fall apart.

Drowned in a multidimensional triumph of many powerful individuals creating many brilliant and simultaneous realities.

That is the true unalloyed meaning of an open society.

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

When dreaming breaks through the chains of mind control

When dreaming breaks the chains of mind control

by Jon Rappoport

December 22, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

This article is based on many interviews I did with the late hypnotherapist Jack True. Jack was my friend and colleague. He helped me publish my first book, AIDS INC. We later worked together to research dimensions of mind control.

Jack invented a number of brilliant techniques he used with his patients. He stopped doing traditional hypnotherapy when, as he put it, he realized patients “were already in a hypnotic state when they first walked through the door.”

So Jack was in the business of de-hypnosis. How incredibly different this was from diagnosing people with fiction mental disorders and then dispensing toxic drugs to them.

One of Jack’s most powerful techniques involved having patients, after they were in a light neutral trance, invent dreams.

They already do it while they’re sleeping, “ he said. “Why not have them do it when they’re awake?”

Dreaming while asleep is one of those times when people can break the chains of their internal programming.

People see reality through filters. They automatically and subconsciously use feelings, ideas, preconceptions to perceive reality. This is programming.

Utilizing such filters, people construct “story lines” to describe reality. These stories tend to follow well-worn paths. They repeat.

People become bored. They look for a new surprise to give them a jolt of adrenaline that will carry them past their old stories.

Dreams crack the egg of familiar stories. Dreams don’t have to obey any normal notions of plot line. A dream can cut off a developing story and jump to an entirely different scene. It can break the laws of physics. It can bring in new characters from nowhere. It can contradict itself.

Our dreams let us know that we want to liberate ourselves from familiar and well-worn and ordinary and tiresome patterns. But in dreams, we don’t simple think about liberation. We experience it. We escape the matrix.

Unfortunately, people are often so predisposed to interpret their dreams that they miss the essence of them: a dream is an adventure; it’s a ride out beyond the structures that narrow life.

Dreaming is also a clue that we have the inherent power to move beyond our programming, our filters, our artificially chronic perception of reality.

A few of Jack’s patients, the ones he had invent dozens and even hundreds of dreams in his office, experienced what people like to call paranormal phenomena. Jack didn’t use that label. He said it implied an “extra talent.”

Everybody can ‘do paranormal’ because it’s part of what we are,” he said.

One patient he worked with for six months, a dyed-in-the-wool engineer, discovered he had a “peculiar knack.” Among his wide circle of friends, several were suffering from arthritis. He could “focus on them” and alleviate their symptoms, to the point where two of them stopping taking medications.

Through interviews, I verified this was so.


The Matrix Revealed

JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet, is featured in THE MATRIX REVEALED. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages. That is just a faction of what THE MATRIX REVEALED has to offer.


I asked Jack’s patient how he did this.

I found I could ‘see into space,’” he said. “I could look into what seemed like a series of different spaces in their bodies. It made no rational sense to me, but I went with it. In these spaces, there were various colors. I began to sort them out. Certain shades of color were signs of debilitation. So I homed in on them and found threads that were wrapped in knots. I undid the knots.”

Needless to say, this analysis of disease doesn’t match any conventional picture. But the Jack’s patient was motivated to follow his intuition, and it bore fruit.

He told me, “The idea of overlapping spaces was something I’d tried to toy with as an engineer. But I couldn’t get anywhere. I couldn’t find the mathematics or the experiments to make any progress. The idea that I could actually see these spaces was something that never entered my mind. When all of a sudden I could see them, I rejected the whole thing at first. But I went back to it. I decided it was legitimate.

The spaces looked like overlaid pieces of film. Eventually, I could see them separately. That’s when the colors showed up.

Occasionally, when I’m sitting in my office looking out the window, the scene out there separates into different spaces. It’s as if the space we all recognize is actually composed of elements. We settle on the resolution of those elements and see it as one [continuous] thing.”

Much like projecting separate frames of a film transmits the impression of continuous motion?

Not exactly,” he said. “It would be more like projecting a dozen separate films, one on top of another, at the same time, on to a screen. The audience sees, somehow, one resolution produced by all the films.”

A hologram?

If a hologram,” he said, “is essentially a lot of information that generates a three or four dimensional coherent picture, then what I’m describing is not quite the same thing.”

I told him about a drawing I once did. In my studio, on a table, I had a sheet of white paper. Whenever I did ink drawings, I laid a new sheet over that basic sheet, which stayed there for several months.

One day, I looked at the “under-sheet,” and I saw three faces. They were composed, as it were, of leftover marks that had bled through from all the drawings I’d been doing. The faces were floating among hundreds of other ink-marks.

At first, I thought the three faces weren’t real. I was just “making them up.” So I took a large marker pen and filled in everything on the under-sheet except those three quite detailed faces.

Lo and behold, the faces were there. They were very distinct. I showed them to several friends and they saw them immediately.

Jack’s patient said, “Yes. That would be more like it. The drawings you’d been doing were ‘other spaces.’ They overlapped on that one under-sheet. And then you had three faces, you had a resolution created by many different overlapping spaces. That’s a pretty good analogy.” [A better analogy these days would be image layering, using computers.]

I asked him why he thought Jack’s technique had enabled him to sprout this new capacity to see separate spaces and help several people with arthritis.

Jack had me invent dreams. All sorts of dreams. I created the dreams myself. Jack wasn’t making suggestions. After a couple of months, I began to believe in what I was doing.”

Believe?

I felt my own creative power,” he said. “And the reality of what I was creating, the dreams, looked to me like they were worlds of their own. Something clicked. I felt a shift. When I was motivated to help my friends, I found I could.”

There is a connection here to an ancient Tibetan practice, in which the student is directed to make a very specific “mental image” of a character and hold it in place for a long time. That’s a shorthand description of the practice.

The student may work many months or even years on this project. If he succeeds, he becomes aware that the physical universe is a product of mind, at which point he is able to change reality (AKA telekinesis, manifestation).

Jack’s patient was aware of this Tibetan practice. “I thought of it as a legend, a myth. I don’t think of it that way anymore.”

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 Starfield Revelation

 

The Starfield Revelation: The grave extent of medically caused death in America

By Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every year in the US there are:

12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

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

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.

2.5 MILLION PEOPLE KILLED PER DECADE.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

NO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Matrix Revealed


INTERVIEWER COMMENTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Five questions you should ask about your destiny

Five questions you should ask about your destiny

by Jon Rappoport

December 21, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

How you look at your life, what you do in life, where you go in life, and with whom…all these decisions are wrapped up in what you think about your destiny.

Granted, this isn’t a subject that pops up on the radar of most people. But you aren’t most people.

The subject of destiny has been defined by various cultures and religions since the dawn of time on this planet. Answers have been supplied. These answers are accepted for a period, and then new cultures and new answers appear.

But such collective solutions aren’t necessarily yours. You have to make your own inquiry. And in the end, you decide.

So here are five crucial questions to ask yourself.

One: Is my destiny determined by forces outside myself?

Two: Do I choose my own destiny?

Three: Is my destiny the result of some combination of my own choices and outside forces? If so, how does this “collaboration” work?

Four: Is my destiny inevitably wrapped up in the future of others?

Five: Is my destiny unique to me, apart from the future of others?

In the West, this spirit of inquiry emerged in the Dialogues of Plato, who presented conversations between his former teacher, Socrates, and citizens of Athens.

For the most part, Socrates chose abstract qualities like Justice and Piety to open his conversations; as in, what is Piety? What is Justice? What is the Good?

Now, in the second decade of the 21st century, we are faced with a crisis which threatens to obliterate our civilization. Although I could choose many issues as examples of this threat, I select education itself.

For example, by designed omission, the whole question of The Group versus The Individual has been placed on a shelf where it receives scant attention.

Likewise, free will versus determinism has been excised from serious philosophical discussion.

People say, “Well, we don’t have time for all that ‘thinking’. It’s a luxury we can’t afford. We’re just trying to survive.”

But history proves that when the people leave these matters to a few elite thinkers, by default momentous currents are launched. And then the people are pulled along, whether they like it or not.

Ideas aren’t just luxuries or toys. They rescue or drown whole societies.

Of course, if education in all its forms doesn’t prepare people to be able to think beyond the ends of their noses, then the prospect of answering the big questions is rendered moot, because people aren’t equipped for the job.

The word “destiny” itself has mixed messages. It appears to be associated with a pre-fixed outcome. On the other hand, it can be shaped.

The kind of New Age material that was distorted and imported from the East during the 1960s has left a legacy of “surrender.” If you “let go” of enough preconceived perception, you’ll drift upward and connect with a greater universal consciousness. Is this so?

Does destiny involve merging into a larger whole? Does it rather involve extricating yourself from that whole?

These aren’t questions designed merely for the young. Answering them impacts your future and the future of your children in numerous ways. Neglecting to answer them is refusing to have navigational skills on the open sea.

Americans pride themselves on being practical and pragmatic. They opt for “what works” and discard everything else. But that approach has pitfalls. It excludes, for example, pursuing deep desires in the face of long odds. It ends up in shallow materialism, as if that were the totality of life.

John Dewey, the arch-pragmatist philosopher, defined American education for millions of people. He set its course along a stripped-down path that helped produce generations of dumbed-down worker bees.


The Matrix Revealed


Dewey accomplished this by default. His challengers were few, and they were weak. Their supply of counter-proposals was garbled and impotent. Dewey didn’t just win the day through top-down manipulation of the American educational system. He triumphed because his opponents were unprepared to argue that human destiny was far wider and deeper than the next practical decision of the moment.

So consider these five questions and understand that your future is, in a real sense, riding on your answers. It always has. This is the way progress happens. People undertake a significant inquiry and come to conclusions. The inquiry may, depending on how honest you are, take five minutes or it may take a year. In either case, the future comes into focus based on your answers.

One could simply ask himself, “What do I really want to do in life?” A very good question. But, as it turns out, the reply to that question is often obscured by prior unasked and unanswered questions.

In other words, a person’s prior view of his own existence is already limited, because he hasn’t found out what he really thinks about something big. Something like destiny.

These are the famous words Plato placed into the mouth of Socrates: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

Americans are suspicious about this statement when they hear it or read it. They think it implies years of useless and even self-destructive internal wrangling that will come to nothing.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. There is productive thought. It’s motivated to take the ceiling off limited perception of what is possible in this thing called existence.

If you choose to, you have the natural right remove ceilings. Doing it is part of what and who you are.

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 mind-control qualities of Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, and Scott Pelley

The mind-control qualities of Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, and Scott Pelley

by Jon Rappoport

December 20, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

In the wake of the Sandy Hook murders, I’ve been describing how the television coverage is a form of mind control.

Of course, it’s wall-to-wall mind control every day, no matter what stories the networks are focused on.

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

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

Here are the qualities you need to rise to the top of the charts.

You believe and don’t believe in what you’re doing at the same time.

You know it’s all an act, but yet you have firm faith in the importance of the material you’re presenting. You think the stories you’re covering, and the way you’re covering them, is unrivaled truth.

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

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

In this respect, he’s a major surrealist painter. The audience sees objects on the canvas that obviously don’t go together and yet they’re intrigued and mesmerized.

Then there is the voice itself. The elite anchor has a voice that soothes just a bit but brooks no resistance. It’s authoritative but not cold. Scott Pelley is careful to watch himself on this count, because his tendency is to shove the message down the viewer’s throat like a pro surgeon making an incision. And Pelley also used to look down his nose at the great unwashed. He’s been working to correct that. He’s a high-IQ android who’s training himself to be human.

Diane Sawyer wanders into sloppiness. She pours syrup, as if she’s had a few cocktails before the broadcast. And she affects a pose of “caring too much.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, the viewer doesn’t need to think. Which is the acid test. If the ratings are high enough and the audience isn’t thinking, we have a winner. Corollary: the audience doesn’t notice the parameters of stories, how they’re bounded and defined and artificially constructed to omit deeper themes and various criminals who are committing outrageous crimes that aren’t supposed to be exposed.

For example, pharmaceutical companies sell drugs that cause a few hundred thousand deaths in America every year like clockwork.

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

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

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

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

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

More gunfire and explosions in the capital city today…”

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

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

The anchor has to deal with this. He has to develop memory loss. Yes, if interviewed by Charlie Rose or Brian Lamb, he can bring back details of prior stories left to the inhabitants of Wonderland, but on a day-to-day basis he has no memory.

In editorial meetings at his own network offices, if someone mentions trillions in government bailouts to banks, he can frown slightly and thus impart, “It’s stale, it’s old.” But if Brian Lamb interviews him about the “time of the bailouts,” he can recall the story in full…and tap dance on the head of a pin for five minutes, indicting no one, without losing a shred of credibility in the eyes of the American public.

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

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

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

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

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

It’s part of the act.

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Matrix Revealed


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

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

The audience’s faith in the anchor was magnified.

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

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

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

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

The mind-control flicker machine runs on its own.

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

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

Guard the rest from public view.

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

Most viewers still accept that premise.

Their bottomless need for a story teller survives.

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