by Jon Rappoport

May 22, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Sharyl Attkisson (twitter) is the one thing CBS News has going for it. She’s the real article. As real as you can be in the current news climate, while still working for a major media outlet.

She crashed the credibility of the CDC, as it was lying through its teeth about numbers of Swine Flu cases and overplaying the fake “epidemic.”

She’s taken on the horrific effects of vaccines, to the point where her Wikipedia page, through a series of unethical maneuvers, continues to characterize her as irrationally “anti-vaccine.”

She broke key elements of Fast&Furious. She’s a hound on Benghazi, and the Obama administration’s funding of “green programs.”

Now, she states that her computer was compromised in 2011, as she was covering Fast&Furious. She’s still working to find out what happened.

From Politico:

“Sharyl Attkisson, the Emmy-award winning CBS News investigative reporter, says that her personal and work computers have been compromised and are under investigation.

“‘I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I’m not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I’ve been patient and methodical about this matter,’ Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. ‘I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public.’

“Attkisson told WPHT that irregular activity on her computer was first identified in Feb. 2011, when she was reporting on the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and on the Obama administration’s green energy spending, which she said ‘the administration was very sensitive about.’”

end Politico excerpt

Two computers compromised. Star reporter. Somebody gained physical access or remote access to those machines. Strong likelihood it started as a government response to Attkisson’s coverage of Fast&Furious. (Although, unfortunately, Attkisson should also look to someone at CBS as the possible hacker.)

All those nasty stories Attkisson’s worked on, over the years? If she ever wants to use sources from those pieces again, she’s going to have to convince them they won’t pay a steep price for talking to her.

Then, for future stories, she’s going to have to convince new sources they can talk to her without getting into serious trouble.

It’s the big chill. This is the government and its allies sending a message to reporters’ sources and potential sources, confidential or not: watch out; we’re listening in; we can make you sorry.

Since Attkisson has been working for “some months” trying to figure out and confirm where the hack of her computers came from, we can assume it was no amateur job.

The government doesn’t have to put reporters on trial for leaking classified information. It doesn’t have to mount a DOJ investigation against them. It can make reporters’ sources more timid and fearful. That works.

What well-known mainstream reporters (who are honest) don’t realize is this: if a mere dozen of them left their networks and newspapers and started reporting online and independently, they could provoke a firestorm.

The hypnotic public trust in corporate media depends on a united front maintained by networks and big newspapers: “we’re the real source of the news.”

This is a lie, of course, but it’s all about perception. If Attkisson and a few others broke ranks, a piece of the trance would crack and shatter.

I’m not talking about joining Politico or other such “reputable” online sites. I’m talking about reporters like Attkisson setting up shop on their own sites and leaving all their chains behind them.

There is an illusion that mainstream reporters need the kinds of sources for stories they can only obtain if they work for CBS or CNN or the Washington Post. That’s not true. Most of those sources are useless, when it comes to real investigative work.

The unwillingness to leave major networks is really about money, prestige, and job security. The big three. The truly vital journalistic investigations, which go unreported by the mainstream, are done and achieved without the need for the big three.

The fact that Attkisson has to spend time trying to figure out who hacked her computers shows that the mainstream is no haven for any kind of investigative reporter.

Stories are derailed, spiked, postponed indefinitely, and twisted in the world of conventional journalism. They are also hacked.

Government has been spying on reporters for decades. The CIA has formed close relationships with reporters for decades. What’s happened lately is nothing new. In fact, when the dust finally settles on this recent scandal, government will come out as the winner. Why? Because reporters’ sources will feel less confident about talking to reporters.

And that will satisfy the big mainstream news outlets as well—because they don’t really want to employ reporters who dig far below the surface and threaten to expose elite power players.

Back in 1982, when I was starting out as a reporter, I had a brief experience in this regard. On assignment from LA Weekly to expose behind-the-scenes players in Central America, where left-wing revolutions were spreading, I went to New York to do research.

I was homing in on one group that looked like it was funding fascist death squads in El Salvador and Nicaragua. I met with a man who I thought could provide me with information.

The conversation took a strange turn. He told me he could hook me up with an editor at a newspaper who needed “bright reporters.” The money, he said, would be good, much better than I was making working for LA Weekly.

I turned him down. Later, I discovered that the editor he wanted me to meet was supporting the group who was funding death squads.

I probably could have taken a job with that newspaper. I could have covered a wide range of interesting stories…but not the story I was working on. Definitely not that one.

When you work as a staff employee for a major newspaper or television news outlet, you deal with two censorship poisons. The government and your own employer.

It’s a party, but not one you want to sign up for, unless you’re excited about giving up your freedom. The money is there, and I have nothing against money, but there is a heavy downside. You’re a slave, and you know it every time you wander off the reservation and touch the electrified fence.

In a real sense, your computer is hacked the minute you walk through the door, sign the papers, and take the job.

Computer hacked, mind on hold.

Hell of a life.

Jon Rappoport

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

by Jon Rappoport

May 22, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Now it’s getting interesting.

Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt filings, will take the Fifth in front of Congress tomorrow.

She won’t answer questions. She won’t say, for example, why she never informed Congress that she knew there was criminal fiddling going on at the IRS, where employees “gave extra scrutiny” to tea party, conservative, patriot, and other groups during the application process.

Instead, as the DOJ launches a criminal investigation, Lerner will tell the House Oversight Committee, “I decline to answer. I invoke my Fifth Amendment right.” Multiple times she will say this.

Meaning: “If I answer, I could incriminate myself.”

Her lawyer, William Taylor, has asked the Committee to excuse Lerner from testifying tomorrow, Wednesday, since she won’t be answering questions. Taylor wrote to the House Committee, “[Forcing her to testify would] have no other purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.”

Tsk, tsk. Mustn’t embarrass a person who has committed crimes. Be nice. Be kind. Yes, Lois Lerner failed to tell the Committee anything about IRS crimes, when she testified four times last year, but so what? Give her a break. Goodness gracious, don’t put her through an ordeal.

Somehow, Lerner’s lawyer’s logic doesn’t stand up. But he’s a lawyer, so that’s no surprise.

Then there was this: a presidential election last year. 2012? Obama? Remember?

If Lois Lerner had blown the whistle then, and the full-blown scandal that’s erupting now had occurred before the election, who knows who would have won the presidency.

Lois was obviously protecting a president running to win a second term. She’s “pre-taking” the Fifth now and hoping she won’t have to appear before the Committee tomorrow, so the Obama administration won’t have to risk hearing a Congressman ask, WERE YOU PROTECTING THE PRESIDENT FROM SCANDAL IN AN ELECTION YEAR?

WERE YOU LYING SO OBAMA COULD WIN REELECTION?

Ahem…the Fifth Amendment wasn’t designed for that purpose. It was designed so a person wouldn’t have to incriminate himself/herself. The Fifth doesn’t exist to protect someone else from scandal.

We get it, Lois. We get what you’re up to.

If you do stand before the Committee tomorrow, why don’t you just say, “I refuse to answer on the grounds that I would cast doubt on the 2012 presidential election and the president.” Come out with it.

One question, though. Are you sure the president you’re protecting isn’t named George Bush? Because this sounds a lot like what Bush’s people were doing all those years.

Am I dreaming here? This is the Obama administration, right? The presidency that was supposed to be transparent and good and different and transcendent, and prophetic of a New Age?

Gee, you mean it’s just biz as usual? It’s every presidency and every administration that pulls dirty tricks? It’s one continuous, unbroken line of diabolical scum at work?

What a shock. Let me hold on to my chair, because the room might start spinning.

Lois, what if there is no Clark? What if he’s not in some phone booth taking off his suit and turning into Superman, so he can rescue you? What if the president and his henchmen are just throwing you to the wolves?

Consider that. Then consider what would happen if you changed your mind at the 11^th hour, and instead of taking the Fifth, you checked into the Committee room tomorrow and told everything, and I mean everything, you know.

You could rock the vote, retrospectively. You could make the kind of splash we rarely see. You could upset so many apple carts it would be wondrous to behold.

Wasn’t this administration supposed to be about a massive healing and cleansing? You could make it so, Lois. You could engage with the people, for once, and tell the truth.

I know you’re sweating bullets right now, but think about it.

Imagine the looks on the faces of Steven Miller, Eric Holder, Barack Obama.

The truth and the whole truth.

Priceless.

Lois, your lawyer, Taylor, has written to the House Committee, “[Lois] has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation, but under the circumstances, she has no choice but to take this course [and invoke the Fifth].”

Wow, Lois, do you see how crazy it’s getting? Your own attorney is basically saying you have no reason to take the Fifth…except for the fact that you have to protect other people. Isn’t that right? Isn’t that what he really means? So who is he really working for?

You’re out there alone. You’re exposed. Why not give them all the shaft and tell the whole sordid story?

Jon Rappoport

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

by Jon Rappoport

May 21, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

It’s simple. Authorities invented the idea that other people have issues with authority.

Psychiatrists rank right up there among the elitists setting the standards. They, for example, have concocted a little fictional doodad called Oppositional Defiance Disorder. And magically, they never accuse their professional colleagues of having it. No.

Why should they? They amuse themselves by deciding when civilians are overly defiant and need pacification (drugs).

But we’re also talking about character structure here, because psychiatrists turn out to be exactly the people who want to slap labels like ODD on others. They like that. So they labor in universities and hospitals and earn their degrees and state-issued licenses, knowing that soon they will have that power.

Having gained it, there is nothing to be defiant about. They’re sitting on top of the heap, which they call science.

It’s quite a racket.

In response, how about this? The Challenge to Authority Syndrome (CAS). It would be diagnosed in people who hold positions of authority and react very badly when someone lower on the totem pole doubts them.

Symptoms include: facial flushes; body tremors; shouts excessively; deals out punishment; calls challenger a “terrorist”; obtains secret warrant to spy on challenger…

Treatment for CAS: sedatives; aspartame; fluoridated water.

There are literally millions of jobs and positions in this country that are entirely dependent on listening to instructions and following them, no questions asked. No suggestions permitted. No divergence tolerated.

Therefore, the potential pool of people who “have issues with authority” is huge. It seems only fair to do a reversal and start diagnosing authorities with CAS.

In 1957, at the age of 19, I found myself taking a train into New York, to see a psychologist who was going to give me a Rorschach (inkblot) Test.

We sat in his office and he ran down his credentials and background, and assured me he was a “specialist.” Right away, I had “issues.”

He said he would show me 10 cards with pictures, and he wanted me to tell him what I saw. His interpretation of my answers would enable him to assess my state of mind.

Really? Now I had serious issues.

He flashed the first card. The picture looked like a bat. Well, all ten pictures pretty much look like bats or butterflies or moths.

But I thought it would be too obvious to say “bat.” I was going for more arcane material to make it interesting.

So…a full hour later, I was still working on one section of the picture on card one. I was seeing clouds, branches, statues, ancient Rome, space travel, stoves, noses, Graham crackers, interplanetary musical notation, pregnant deer, Civil War soldiers, private detectives’ hats, freezers, sandstorms, X-rays, lint, faces in the moon, candy wrappers…

The authority figure was sweating. He was supposed to make notes on everything I said without comment. At the rate I was going, we’d be in his office all night and into the next day.

I observed him come to a boil.

Finally, he snapped. “Keep it simple!” Obvious symptom of CAS.

My, my.

“Why should I keep it simple?” I calmly asked.

“Because I have enough material!”

“What about the other pictures?” I said. “And I’m not through with this one.”

“We don’t need the other pictures!” he said, his face a fine flushing red.

“We don’t? I thought the test was all ten.”

“It doesn’t have to be!”

“Oh,” I said. “But I’m really enjoying this. It’s an interesting picture. They’ve put so much in it…”

He sat there, pen in hand, notebook on the table, and glared at me, as if I’d just blown up his house. He was clearly having a full-blown CAS episode.

“Are you doing this on purpose?” he said.

“Doing what?”

He sputtered, “Finding so many things!”

“Well,” I said, “there’s really nothing in the picture, is there, come to think of it. It’s all what I imagine.”

He shook his finger at me. “No it isn’t. I’m not asking you to imagine anything. I’m asking what you see.”

“I don’t see anything,” I said.

“That’s impossible,” he said.

“I’m just telling you the way it seems to me. Maybe there are right and wrong answers. You’re in charge. You would know.”

The authority. The authority on perception and what it means. The authority on my state of mind.

“No,” he said. “There is no right or wrong.”

“Then I guess I should continue,” I said.

So I did, for another few minutes. On the same section of the picture on card one, I chirped right along.

“Okay,” he said. “That’s enough.”

“No,” I said. “I feel like I’m just getting started. I thinks it’s therapeutic.”

“Listen,” he said. “This isn’t a test of your imagination. I want to know what you see in the picture.”

“I see an inkblot. It’s symmetrical.”

Then he came out with it. “You have a problem with authority,” he said.

“Really? You can tell that from my responses to the picture? Was it the hats? The Civil War soldiers?”

He took a deep breath and tried to calm himself down.

“No,” he said. “You don’t want to be judged.”

“Would you?” I said. “I could sit here and make notes on what you see in the pictures.”

“I’m administering the test,” he said, “not you. I’m trained to interpret it.”

“Okay,” I said. “I see male genitalia there at the top of the picture. They’re reading the New York Times and ordering coffee at a cafe.”

He stood up. He closed his notebook. He looked very tired.

He showed me out the door.

At the tender age of 19, I learned two lessons that day. One: they command, I subvert. And two: pretensions to science make a marvelous front for authorities.

There is something further. So-called mental-health authorities build a feedback loop to make a sale. They essentially ask you what you see, think, and feel, and then, when you tell them, they jam a label on your head. They just rearrange your own words and sell them back to you. In essence:

“I feel sad.”

“You have a condition called Sadness (depression).”

“I feel up and down.”

“You have condition called Up and Down (bipolar).”

No. They have a condition called Authority.

The Rorschach Test was one of those disastrous experiments where academics tried to make art into science. They presumed to carve pictures up into neat and revealing categories.

It didn’t work. It’s never worked. People looking at pictures see what they see, think what they think, and imagine what they imagine. This is why Hitler, Stalin, and the Chinese leadership destroyed so much art and set binding rules on what should be imagined.

Art is dangerous. People move out of standard-response channels and actually conceive of ideas they’ve never considered before. They surpass brainwashing.

They realize, for starters, that any system, when it becomes large enough, can only continue to exist by turning rotten at the core.

Here is a piece from an interview I did with hypnotherapist Jack True in 1990:

Q (Rappoport): “There seems to be a growing interest, from psychiatrists, in ‘problems around authority.’”

A (Jack): “It’s self-reflexive. The psychiatrists are the authorities. So they want to protect their own turf. Anyone who questions their supremacy can get a diagnosis of mental illness.

“This society is being shaped into tighter systems. It means people in charge have to exert more control. They want to be immune from serious attacks.

“Everything leads back to freedom. When you press down hard on people, they think about their freedom. They want to break out. There are a lot of strategies employed to keep that from occurring.

“Code words are dropped into the culture. ‘Family,’ ‘groups,’ ‘love,’ ‘humanity,’ ‘care,’ concern.’”

Q: “Those are real words.”

A: “Yes, but they’re put there to bring about a kind of trance. They induce certain frequencies that are calming. As vague general terms, in basically trivial contexts, they flatten out emotional responses. They reduce emotional energy.”

Q: “And then what happens?”

A: “A number of things. The idea of freedom becomes less forceful. It become associated with less power. People opt for gentle behavior. But it’s not genuine. It’s the outcome of hypnotic suggestion.”

Q: “And the people who resist, who don’t buy in?”

A: “Their numbers decline. Ways are found to characterize them as mentally ill.”

Q: “If a person doesn’t react well to overweening authority…”

A: “He’s said to have a problem. You see? It’s his problem. That’s turning it around on the rebel. He’s not exposing authority. He’s got a problem.”

Q: And the psychiatrist ‘cares.’”

A: “Sure. He ‘wants to help.’ It’s a load of hypnotic suggestion, all the way up and down the line. I wouldn’t refer a person to a psychiatrist for all the tea in China.”

end of excerpt

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.

On August 18, 1988, George Bush the Elder gave a speech in which he said, “I want a kinder, gentler nation.” It was perfectly in line with the ongoing pysop Jack True referred to above.

Bush’s words seemed to be positive, but they were really trying to “soften the frequencies” generated by the mind. Bush was basically saying, “We’re the authorities, we’re in charge. Be nice and everything will be all right…”

Jon Rappoport

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

By Jon Rappoport

May 19, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The upward pressure of ongoing scandals is moving into the White House. Benghazi, AP, IRS.

The president’s surrogates are trying out their lying skills.

Jay Carney: The situation at the IRS isn’t really a scandal, depending on what the definition of “is” is. And if one uses the passive voice, that’s acceptable, as in “mistakes were made.”

Hillary Clinton: It doesn’t matter how and why Americans were killed in Benghazi. They died. We’re alive. We move on.

Steven Miller, retiring/ousted head of the IRS: We gave bad customer service. Who at the IRS is guilty? I asked someone and they told me, but I don’t remember what they said.

Eric Holder: If something bad happened at my agency in relation to spying on AP reporters, I don’t know what it is, because I’ve recused myself. Other people under me are investigating the whole thing. I don’t know who these investigators are. I have to remain ignorant, in order to be objective.

Inside the White House, key players are saying: “Okay, we’ve deleted four thousand emails. That doesn’t sound like enough. Keep looking. Keep deleting. Destroy the computers. And paper. There’s still paper. Order new shredding machines. Check everybody’s schedules and logs of meetings. Make sure they don’t overlap in suspect ways…”

Remember the old phrase “plausible deniability?” The people around the president commit crimes and make sure the president doesn’t know about them. Or if he does know, or if he ordered the crimes to be committed, his people erase the links that would lead to his exposure.

It’s a game. Can the president be protected? Can he deny knowledge and make it stick? Can anyone prove he’s guilty? Can he fire a few underlings and make the whole thing go away?

Of course, the president chose those people around him. He chose criminals who will protect him. That’s true, but it’s not part of the plausible-deniability board game. It doesn’t count.

Magically, the president is pure. He just happened to err in judgment and choose a bevy of criminals to work close to him. What was he thinking?

The president is innocent. Everybody else is guilty. Amazing.

The public (aka the television audience) waits with baited breath to discover what the president really knew and what he didn’t know. Because that’s the story line, and story line is, above all else, what’s important.

The scandals are spreading like ink on a blotter. Gee, I wonder if the president knew about this? I wonder if he was part of this. How will it end? I have to keep watching, to find out. If I already know, there’s no suspense. That’s no fun. I have to remain ignorant and follow the news. That’s exciting.

If it merely and magically turns out that the president chose 16 pathological liars and felons as his closest advisers, he’s off the hook. He’s fine. If he actually took part in committing crimes, that’s a whole different thing.

Not only is a sucker born every minute, the suckers that are already here are getting more stupid by the hour.

“In retrospect, it may appear odd that I appointed Jack the Ripper as my national security adviser, but at the time I only knew him as a distinguished physician. His record was spotless. Yes, mistakes were made. But now the Ripper is no longer on my staff, and I pledge we will fix the damage he caused. That’s what important. Fixing it as we move forward…and preventing it from happening again.”

So far, the press is circling the blood in the water like minnows. They’re sipping a bit here, a bit there. Benghazi, the worst of the crimes, is fading from memory. It’s old news. “It’s already been covered.”

AP is claiming that the DOJ started spying on its reporters after AP was told by the White House that it, the AP, could run with the Yemen-CIA story, and therefore the spying op was launched for some other reason.

This is a potentially explosive revelation, but it hasn’t become a major story—even though the AP itself is a consortium owned by major press outlets.

Fast&Furious? Deaths? Murders? Guns walked into Mexico? That happened light years ago. It’s history. Let the scholars take care of it.

There’s a lever that could be pulled, at which point all these scandals will flood the Oval Office, but it hasn’t been pulled yet. It’s in the hands of the people who really run and own this country.

They’re counting their chips at the moment and deciding who should fall and who should remain standing. They’re the Trilateral Commission and the inner core of the CFR. They represent corporations and banks who calculate how much destruction they can wreak on America at any given moment, while still maintaining their profit margins and control.

They rely on the elite news media to dole out pieces of the story to eager millions, in the meantime. A piece here, a piece there. The AP has known about government spying on its reporters for months. CBS, NBC, and ABC have known about IRS diddling with non-profit status for months.

Television news is the moonscape where simulacra of truth are manufactured on call. It doesn’t really matter when. Time as we know it no longer exists. Scandals are real when the networks say they are real.

High-IQ idiots like Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Dianne “I’ll cry for you” Sawyer take their cues from sources who, themselves, are tuned up when the owners of the US are ready to go.

There is no authentic beginning, middle, and end of these scandal-stories. There are only fabricated time lines.

A great deal of mass mind control depends on public hunger for a traditional arc of plot. The public wants a shocking revelation (beginning), followed by an increasing tide of new evidence (middle), and judgment day (ending), when the suspects are declared guilty or sort of guilty, or innocent (ignorant).

It doesn’t matter what the tale is or who is involved, as long as the transitions are managed and experienced, like porn.

Evidence of guilt leading to Obama? That’s relevant only in the context of the real decision-makers pulling the levers or not pulling them.

Every president knows everything. He knows it well before he takes his oath of office. He’s the mouthpiece for a crime syndicate. It’s point one in the job description.

Only little children would think otherwise. Fortunately for the high-level criminals, the world is populated with little children of all ages.

“The buck stops here” was never descriptive of what a president does. The sign on his desk should read: “I’m a front man. It’s all a mystery to you kiddies out there.”

Jon Rappoport

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

by Jon Rappoport

May 17, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

In his recent testimony before Congress, US Attorney General Eric Holder, the so-called highest law-enforcement officer in the land, responded to questions about the AP scandal.

Holder’s Justice Dept. had secretly subpoenaed and seized the phone records of Associated Press reporters.

Holder stated he didn’t know anything about anything, because he had recused himself from the issue and recused himself from the new internal DOJ investigation of the matter.

What?

Huh?

His own agency, the US Dept. of Justice, had spied secretly on reporters. But he, Holder, the head of that agency, decided to remain entirely ignorant about the whole fiasco, once he discovered the vague outline of what was going on.

This is like the manager of a car agency learning that 50 new cars in his lot have packets of heroin in their glove compartments, and immediately withdrawing to Bermuda for a fishing vacation.

The Congressional committee then asked Holder about the new internal DOJ investigation of itself vis-a-vis the AP scandal. Holder said he wasn’t absolutely sure about that either, because, again, he had recused himself.

This is like that car-agency manager sitting in his boat in Bermuda and putting a blindfold over his eyes and plugs in his ears.

Why did Holder recuse himself? Unasked, unanswered. That in itself is staggering.

Possibly, he recused himself because he might be a target of the ensuing investigation into the scandal. In other words, he needed to avoid the appearance of being in charge of his own agency, from which position he could, theoretically, let himself off the hook?!?!

In that case, his power is decimated. He’s a sitting duck. He’s nobody.

Some unit of the Justice Department is tasked with figuring out how and why the DOJ spied on reporters—and who is to say that unit is automatically free from political influence and corruption? Who is to say that unit will do an honest job and indict employees of the DOJ?

In other words, it’s a no-win situation. Doesn’t matter who, at the Dept. of Justice, does or doesn’t recuse himself. Holder could have kept his head in the game and pushed the internal investigation himself. But he didn’t.

He’s the village idiot. He doesn’t know anything about anything.

The press doesn’t gang up and attack him hard.

“Listen, Mr. Holder. We’re not buying your recusal or your ignorance. You’re the man in charge. You’re the boss. If you don’t know what’s going on, what good are you?”

“Mr. Holder, when exactly did you okay the secret seizing of AP reporters’ phone records? We know you did. When was it?”

“What? You never did okay the spying and seizing, Mr. Holder? You mean you, the boss, didn’t know what was happening on your watch? Your people feel no need to get your approval for a major op like this?”

“We’re camping out on your doorstep until we get some real answers.”

NONE of this has happened. The press has whined and complained, and that’s about it.

“I don’t know who put all those packets of heroin in the new cars, and I don’t want to know. Maybe somebody thinks I OKed it, and they’ll investigate me. So it’s my duty to remain as ignorant as I can about the whole thing, to preserve neutrality and integrity…”

Holder is saying that any knowledge he might have, but doesn’t, about the original plan to spy on reporters, about the actual spying, about the aftermath of the spying, and about the new internal investigation into the spying…any knowledge on these subjects could make him INFORMED, and therefore, better able to lie now to investigators, if he were so disposed, which of course he isn’t.

Right? Got it? Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Irrefutable logic. No problem. Let’s all take a nap.

Imagine if this happened. A few months after 9/11, the director of the CIA appears before 9/11 Commission and states the following:

“Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve intentionally kept myself entirely ignorant about what the Agency knew leading up to 9/11, what the Agency found out on the day of 9/11, and what the Agency has learned since 9/11. I exist in a pristine state about all these matters, because if you investigate me for malfeasance, I want to be able to say, unequivocally, that I haven’t been tainted by actual knowledge, which I could then twist to my own advantage. And I haven’t covered myself with lies, because I have no idea what the truth is. I trust you understand this. I trust you understand the sacrifice I’ve made in order to help you arrive at the truth. It has not been easy watching sports 24/7 and keeping myself from the news of the day. I have suffered. But I do it because I’m a patriot. You’re welcome.”

Holder actually believes we’re buying his act?

Well, I hate to say this, but he does. He thinks he can get over. He thinks he can slither through and around and over the press.

And he’s probably right, judging by what the press has and hasn’t done so far.

The man is a towering liar and fabricator. He’s all lies all the way up and down.

Can’t the committee before whom he’s testifying at least fall down laughing, because they’re seeing a man like them working his act?

“Wow, Eric, I thought I’d been witness to some major bullshit in my time, but you’re in another league. I’ve told some tall tales, but this, this pose of see no evil, it’s championship material. Really. You’ve taken me to school. I’m awed. Where do I sign up? I need what you’ve got. I really do. You’re pushing Bill Clinton for the heavyweight belt.”

Holder: “I can’t comment on that comment or anything else. I’m merely saying I have no knowledge or understanding of anything, and I’ve achieved this state of mind on purpose. Therefore, I’m clean. I’m a machine carefully built to specs of ignorance, a machine with no function. In that sense, I’m perfect.”

We may be seeing the greatest bureaucratic ploy in the history of the democracy.

Imagine a million bureaucrats like him. Each one defers to the other, who in turn expresses the same across-the-board Zero. At the end of it, the apparatus spits out a blank piece of paper and everybody goes home.

Yes, government is wonderful. It’s cosmically zen. It’s what we all want.

Life without life.

To top it off, Obama, at his press conference yesterday, said he has full confidence in Holder. Meaning: Obama is sure Holder will remain a blank slate.

“I have full confidence that the man who is running the Department of Justice isn’t running it. He’s staring at the wall. That’s what I want him to do.”

Recusal, the actual version, works like this. A lawyer who once represented a client suing a chemical company for damage is now an appeals judge. Another case involving the same company comes up for review. The judge backs out. He says, “I once went up against the company in court, so I won’t get involved now.”

What Holder is doing is from another planet. He’s found a way to take the Fifth without admitting he has anything to incriminate himself about.

“Mr. Jones, were you at the restaurant on the night of the murder?”

“I recuse myself from answering that question.”

“What?”

“I don’t want to give the impression that I have any knowledge about the murder.”

“But you’re on trial for the murder, sir.”

“Yes, and that in itself is prejudicial. Do you see? Aspersions about my character and actions have been cast. I wish to remove myself from the possibility of such accusations.”

“You can’t. That’s why you’re here. We suspect you of committing murder.”

“I recuse myself.”

“Are you invoking your Fifth Amendment rights?”

“Absolutely not. That would imply I have some knowledge about the crime. I reject that characterization.”

“You Honor, the witness is unresponsive. Please instruct him to answer my original question.”

“As a judge, I find the defendant’s posture of recusal interesting. I think we’ll let him go with a warning and a small fine. Three hours of community service in the White House, for which he’ll earn seven thousand dollars an hour. Court is adjourned.”

Jon Rappoport

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

by Jon Rappoport

May 16, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

When Chris Matthews files for divorce from Barack Obama, you know the world is upside down.

When the liberal online rag, Politico, features a clip of Matthews saying, “[Obama] obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch,” we’re through the Looking Glass.

Chris Matthews loses ‘thrill up leg’ …

The liberal jackals are stalking their own leader, the President. After making mind-bending excuses for Obama’s disastrous presidency, they’ve suddenly heard a supersonic whistle, and they’re out for blood.

Jonathan Turley, famous liberal constitutional lawyer, is counting Obama’s sins, ranging far beyond the current IRS and AP phone-tapping scandals.

James Goodale, former lawyer for the NY Times, is writing, at the Daily Beast, “Obama is fast becoming the worst national security press president, worse than Nixon, and it may not get any better.”

Liberal radio host Bill Press is calling for Obama to fire Eric Holder. Charley Rangel says, “No one believes that the president has given us a sufficient answer [to the IRS and DOJ scandals].”

Representative Zoe Lofgren and NBC’s Brian Williams are down Obama’s neck.

Just a few weeks ago, after the Boston bombing, Obama was unassailable. He was still the king with his own people. Now, he’s turning into lunch meat.

Liberals could be shouting and claiming that the IRS targeting of conservative, patriot, and constitutional groups had nothing to do with Obama, that he’s entirely innocent, that he just got rid of the IRS chief and all is well…but they’re not saying it.

They could be insisting that the DOJ tapping AP phones was all on Eric Holder, and Obama had nothing to do with it…but they’re not saying it.

The current press virus is: Obama is Nixon.

What’s going on?

Who’s giving liberals the order to go after Obama? Who shifted the political wind overnight?

Yesterday, I examined Watergate from the perspective of Nixon’s betrayal of the Rockefeller family. That was the key to his ouster from the presidency. The Washington Post was used as the attack dog. Are we looking at something similar here?

Has Obama failed to live up to his promises to people far more powerful than he is? If so, what is his betrayal?

Is it simply the fact that the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations have chosen Hillary Clinton as the next president—and in order to make that happen, major diversions have to guide the press and public away from her role in the Benghazi catastrophe? Is that why we’re suddenly seeing the IRS and DOJ scandals erupting?

Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission (TC) certainly wields enough power to torpedo Obama, if they want to. And they surround Obama.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.” Consider the following TC members, who have held Obama posts:

Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;

James Jones, National Security Advisor;

Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;

Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

All Trilateralists.

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The TC is the hand that feeds Obama. Has he bitten it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

A closer look at Tim Geithner’s circle of economic advisers reveals the chilling Trilateral effect: Paul Volker; Alan Greenspan; E. Gerald Corrigan (director, Goldman Sachs); and Peter G Peterson (former CEO, Lehman Brothers, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations). These men are all Trilateral members.

How many foxes in the hen house do we need, before we realize their Trilateral agenda is controlling the direction of our economy?

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

So yes, if the Trilateral Commission wanted to sink Obama’s presidency, they could call that shot. They could radically influence press coverage of the president, they could pull strings and end the worshipful celebration of Obama as the great prophet. They could bring hard doom to him.

Nixon started imposing tariffs on imported goods. That was his Waterloo. He ran afoul of the massive Rockefeller free trade agenda. What has Obama done?

Is he stalling on war with Iran? Has he gone too far in his embrace of Islamic partners? Has he finally balked at continuing the war in Afghanistan?

Setting economic and political policy for the US is a prime operation of the Trilateral Commission. If Obama has crossed swords with the TC, he would be treading on very dangerous ground.

From the shadows of history, let me give you an illustration of how far and deep the TC can reach. It really does boggle the mind.

Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment—in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper.

The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others?After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.

Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.

If the mainstream press had made hay out of this interview, had reported it widely, and commented upon it with relentless fervor and disgust and shock (a pipe dream, to be sure); if the interview had been pushed and publicized as a scandal of the greatest depth; if ensuing denials and distractions had been cast aside; the exposure of the Trilaterals would have shaken the country’s foundations, and the press would have had to admit all their coverage of government was a farce and a cartoon.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.

Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that, if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff. He gave up.

That’s the kind of power we’re talking about. Barack Obama would merely be a minor figure blowing in the wind, if the TC decided he’d betrayed them. Obama’s administration is stacked with TC members.

They could foment the sudden liberal opposition to this president, which has bloomed overnight like a mushroom in the dark.

No one at the moment is playing the race card for Obama, which has been an effective strategy. No one in the press is claiming that Obama’s Republican opponents are racists. Why not?

The IRS and DOJ scandals are manageable. By themselves, absent the press firestorm, they can be contained. Eric Holder can go. The IRS chief has already been dispatched to nowhere land. The president can claim immunity from these two doofuses. Indeed, he may try that.

As long as his liberal allies keeping pounding on the fact that he’s a great president who has been served badly by his inferiors, the ship could hold water. But right now, that’s not happening. The sudden sea change is swamping the boat.

Remember, with Watergate, we saw a successful attack on the US Attorney General, John Mitchell, on the way to nailing Nixon and knocking him out of the box. That Rockefeller operation worked like a magic machine.

Eric Holder, the current Attorney General, has just testified before Congress that he doesn’t know anything about anything. He’s pretty much said, “Ask me a question about any scandal and I’ll plead vast ignorance. That’s my defense.”

Holder is ripe for a takedown. And then the press hounds would be that much closer to pinning blame on Obama himself.

I’m not saying Obama will be impeached or will resign—although in politics, never say never. I’m saying his presidency, such as it is, could be destroyed very quickly among and by his own supporters.

The clue here, again, is the sudden and boggling liberal press turnaround, their all-out assault on Obama. This kind of thing doesn’t happen by accident. It certainly doesn’t happen from the bowels of the president’s rabid worshipers. But it is happening.

That means marching orders. That means screws have been turned by people who expect and demand and can count on obedience. Those people are players who live far above government. Government is their mechanism, as is the press, when it needs to be.

And right now, it needs to be.

Jon Rappoport

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

by Jon Rappoport

May 15, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Watergate eventually became the story of two young rookie reporters who exposed and took down a president.

Try to think of another major story in your lifetime where the reporters themselves took center stage, and in the process nearly eclipsed their own work. Odd.

One of them, Bob Woodward, expanded his fame. The powers-that-be permitted him to go on and, with extraordinary access, write books criticizing future presidents. Woodward became the in-house attack dog. Mr. Limited Hangout.

The other reporter, Carl Bernstein, faded into relative obscurity. Well, he began connecting journalists to the CIA. That wasn’t a smart career move. That was, perhaps, a case of biting the hand that had fed him.

To learn why Richard Nixon was really blown out of the White House, you could begin with the infamous Nazi chemical/pharmaceutical cartel, IG Farben. The cartel that pushed Hitler over the top into power in Germany.

One of its lasting legacies is the multinational corporation ballooning out into titanic proportions. Farben didn’t just buy smaller companies, it forged favorable agreements with huge corporations all over the world: Standard Oil (Rockefeller); Rhone-Poulenc; Imperial Chemical Industries; Du Pont; Dow.

During World War 2, Josiah Du Bois, representing the US federal government, was sent on a fact-finding mission to Guatemala. His comment: “As far as I can tell the country is a wholly owned subsidiary of Farben.”

What Farben stood for was an attempt to remake the planet in terms of power.

Farben held important cards. It employed brilliant chemists who, in some ways, were far ahead of its competitors. Farben was all about synthetics. Rubber, oil, dyes, pharmaceuticals.

Farben saw itself as a modern version of the old alchemists. Transforming one substance into another. It came to believe that, with enough time, it would be able to make anything from anything. It envisioned labs in which basic chemical facts would be changed so that, in practice, elements and compounds would be virtually interchangeable.

This was in line with the Nazi obsession to discover the lost secrets of the mythical Aryan race and then reconstitute it with selective breeding, genetic engineering, and of course the mass murder of “lesser peoples.”

On one level, there was the idea of chemical transformations, and on another level, the transformation of the human species.

It was really all one piece. The Nazi ideology was the glue.

It was the picture of scientism—the philosophy that asserts science should absolutely rule all facets of life. Nazi Germany showed the world what that philosophy looks like in practice. Farben had prisoners shipped from Auschwitz to its nearby facility, where horrendous medical/pharmaceutical experiments were carried out on them.

At the end of World War 2, the Farben executives were put on trial and, despite the efforts of Telford Taylor, the chief US prosecutor, the sentences handed out were light.

There was a reason for this. A new world was coming into being, and mega-corporations and cartels were at the heart of it. They would be the engines driving the global economy and pillaging the natural resources of the planet. It was colonialism with a different face, the East India company running on technology and industry and a planetary reach beyond anything ever attempted.

So the Farben moguls, and those like them, were seen by many as designers of the new “peace.”

Consider the total volume of international trade of goods today—the largest 300 corporations in the world are responsible for an unbelievable percentage of it…as high as 25%.

So now you see the reason why these treaties like GATT and NAFTA and CAFTA have been launched. Mega-corporations want to roam free. They want to be able to inject money into any entity in the world and suddenly remove it at will. They certainly want to be able to ship goods from one nation to another without paying tariffs, which otherwise would cost them an extraordinary amount of money. For these corporations, nations don’t really exist anymore—they are convenient fictions. These corporations don’t want any restrictions on their plundering of the Global Village.

Farben envisioned and planned for this kind of licentious freedom. It saw itself as more than a German cartel. It was already international, and it was moving toward domination.

However, more powerful forces would overtake it—and I’m not just talking about American soldiers. In the sphere of international influence, there are the Plan A and Plan B people. The Plan A controllers (think Rockefeller dynasty, among others) opted for a “softer, gentler” approach, a more covert program, whereby, over a long period of time, the world population would be brought under a global management system, in which mega-corporations would play the central role. The Plan B people, Nazis and their allied interests, wanted crushing force and violence to achieve a somewhat similar goal in a much shorter period of time—with Germany as the leading prow of the movement.

It is in the arena of pharmaceutical domination that one of Farben’s goals has endured. Two of its original components, Bayer and Hoechst, have survived and prospered. And many other drug companies have copied the basic model.

For a number of years, I’ve researched and published on this subject. Death, maiming, destruction, poisoning—these are correct assessments of the overall effects of drug-based medicine. Judging solely by these effects, one could say that war by other means has continued after 1945. And the fronts of devastation have spread.

On the mega-corporate front, the plan for world control remains the Rockefeller template. “Free trade.” This plan was advanced, ceaselessly, for 40 years until, on January 1, 1995, the World Trade Organization was fully formed and took charge of the criminal rules of global commerce: the crowning moment.

However, back in the early 1970s, the whole operation had almost been derailed. One man, a crook, a president, a liar, an insecure parody of a head of state, Richard Nixon, went off script. He REALLY went off script.

In an effort to bolster US companies and protect them from foreign competition inside the United States, Nixon began erecting tariffs on a range of goods imported into the US.

In an effort to bolster US companies and protect them from foreign competition inside the United States, Nixon (on Aug 15, 1971) began erecting tariffs on a range of goods imported into the US (and took American money off the gold standard).

If this Nixon economic plan spread to other countries, the entire global program to install “free trade” and mega-corporate emperors on their thrones for a thousand years could crash and burn.

Nixon was a Rockefeller man. He was owned by them. He’d been rescued from financial ruin by The Family, and now he was in the White House undermining their greatest dream. You can’t overstate the degree of the betrayal, from the Rockefeller point of view. You simply can’t.

Something had to be done. The president had to go. This was the real motivation behind Watergate. This was the real op. Yes, there were sub-motives and smaller contexts, as in any major op, but the prime mover was: get Free Trade back on track, and get suitable revenge on the puppet in the White House who went off the script.

Any historian who overlooks this is an outright fool or a deceiver.

Whether the Watergate break-in was planned to serve the higher goal or was pounced upon, after the fact, as the grand opportunity, is beside the point. It was there, and it was used. It became the starting point for the Washington Post, its publisher, veteran editor, and two cub reporters to break Richard Nixon into pieces.

And if the Rockefeller people needed an inside man to report on the deteriorating mental state of the president as he heated up in the pressure cooker, they had Henry Kissinger, who was another Rockefeller operative.

The Washington Post was owned by Katharine Graham, who was herself a very close friend of the Rockefeller Family. Years later, she would be awarded a medal of honor by the University of Chicago, a an institution founded by John D. Rockefeller. On her death, a paid heartfelt obituary was inserted in the NY Times by the trustees, faculty, and staff of Rockefeller University, where she had served on the University Council.

And she and Nixon already hated each other by the early 1970s.

The managing editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, was an old hand at writing promotional material, having worked in Europe crafting releases for a CIA front group. A former Naval intelligence man, he liked one of his cub reporters, Bob Woodward, who had also worked for the Navy in intelligence.

When Woodward came to Bradlee with a story about a man in a parking garage who was passing secrets from the White House/FBI about Watergate, we are supposed to believe that Bradlee naturally responded by giving the green light to a major investigation. Woodward and Carl Bernstein, another cub, would undertake it—with nothing more than Bradlee’s reputation and the future survival of the Post and Katharine Graham’s empire on the line if the cubs got it wrong.

We are supposed to believe Bradlee gave the green light, without knowing who the man in the garage was, without knowing whether Woodward could be trusted, without even getting permission from Graham to move ahead.

Bradlee, a grizzled veteran of Washington, understanding exactly what Washington could do to people who told secrets out of school, just said to Woodward and Bernstein, “You’d better be damned sure you’re right, because otherwise we’re all in trouble.”

Two untested cub reporters set loose in a cage with tigers.

The odds of that happening were nil. Bradlee had to know a great deal from the beginning, and he had to have Katharine Graham’s signal to move. The series of breaking stories would be spoon-fed to the unsuspecting young reporters. They would be consumed by their ambition to advance their careers. Bradlee was confident because he had the essentials of the scandal in hand—all the way up to Nixon, the target—well in advance of his two reporters.

To have proceeded otherwise—Bradlee was simply not that kind of fool. Whatever Deep Throat, the man in the garage, was dishing out to Woodward didn’t really matter. Bradlee already had it in his pocket. Deep Throat was merely a contrivance to allow the story to expand and grow by steps, and to permit Woodward and Bernstein to believe they were peeling layers from an onion.

The man behind the curtain was David Rockefeller.

After the whole scandal had been exposed and Nixon had flown away, in disgrace, from the White House for the last time, Rockefeller addressed a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the European Community (October, 1975). He was there to allay their fears about Nixon’s betrayal of the new economic world order. There was really very little he needed to say. David had already created (1973) the free-trade Trilateral Commission. And a new puppet, Gerald Ford was in the White House, and Ford had appointed David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller, as his vice president.

David told the European attendees, “Fortunately, there are no signs that these anti-[free] trade measures [of Nixon] are supported by the [Ford] Administration.”

And that was that. The global mega-corporate colossus was back on track.

The temporary rip in the Matrix had been repaired.

On a far lower level of power politics, everyone and his brother was consumed with the contrails of the scandal that had driven away Nixon and his colleagues. People were congratulating each other on the expunging of a corrupt conspiracy from public life.

The real players, of course, were still in place, more powerful than ever. David Rockefeller and his aides were preparing for an even greater coup. They had chosen an obscure man with zero name recognition to be the next president of the United States. Jimmy Carter. Carter would function to forward the goals of the Trilateral Commission in bold view of anyone who knew the score.

And every president since Carter, regardless of party affiliation, has supported and extended those Globalist-corporate goals. No questions asked. Obama, who fatuously remarked during his 2008 election campaign that NAFTA “needs to be revisited,” has taken his cues like any other puppet.

When, from this perspective, you examine the global takeover of land and resources by GMO agribusiness, the destruction of small family farms, the plundering of natural resources in the Third World, the use of UN “peacekeepers” and “humanitarian groups” and intelligence agencies to create a wedge, for corporations, into these areas, you see the hand of the Rockefeller plan.

When you see the destruction of currencies and the escalation of insupportable debt, the incursion of a bewildering number of UN-affiliated groups sinking their teeth into local communities all over the planet to “manage sustainable development,” you see the plan.

On the approaching anniversary of Watergate, you can see that the trashing of Nixon, who like every president since, was put in place to serve his masters, is an opportunity to notice the Plan Behind the Curtain.

Obama? Merely the latest willing front man. A third-rate hustler.

The innocuous-sounding “free trade” policy is the number-one priority of every American president. He must do two things: rarely speak of it, and allow it to move forward. That’s all. In return, he gets to act as if he’s the most powerful man in the world.

But if he wobbles and considers taking up a position against free trade (corporate domination of the planet), he can look back and see what happened to Richard Nixon. He can learn from that example.

He can recite the famous words of Zbiggie Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and David Rockefeller’s intellectual flunkey: “The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”

Like Jimmy Carter, a future president can espouse the most wide-ranging humanitarian philosophy and ascend to a cloud of beautiful altrusim, admired by all. As long as he sticks to the plan.

If not, two reporters coming out of nowhere, wet behind the ears, eager for advancement, will magically learn of his missteps and demolish him.

Jon Rappoport

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

by Jon Rappoport

May 15, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

In the early 1990s, hypnotherapist Jack True was trying to show me how perception operated in hypnotized subjects.

As a joke, well it was a half-joke, he said the following: “If you’re doing a scientific experiment on gravity, and you start dropping various objects from the top of a building, you’re going to find out some interesting things about the way gravity operates in the universe.

“But if you don’t care about gravity and science, when you drop the objects from the roof, some will fall and others will float.”

What he meant was this: if you want to find out how to build things and run things and propel things and blow up things, you can look into the universe and eventually obtain that information.

The information will seem to be definitive about how the universe is built. It will seem to be the only model. It will seem to be the truth.

But that’s an illusion. Actually, competing models about the universe are available, and depending on your intent, you can discover and put together as many as you need.

They all work. They all look like mutually exclusive systems. But they aren’t.

The picture of tiny particles whirling through space and time is fine. It works. It enables the kind of technology we have now. It can be proved with mathematics. It can be verified until the cows come home. But it’s not the only choice.

Jack once had a patient who, three years earlier, had suddenly developed nearsightedness.

So Jack put him in a light trance and worked on it. Nothing.

Finally, after a number of sessions, Jack told him that perhaps his view or picture of the universe was standing in his way. Perhaps he needed to come up with another picture. Jack liked to try these radical approaches.

In ensuing sessions, Jack had his patient invent dozens of different models of how the universe was constructed. None of them were based on physics.

The patient was getting interested. He suddenly recalled that, as a very young boy, he’d thought the world was a kind of vacuum surrounded by extremely dense space, which was actually solid. He’d had dreams about this “reverse configuration.”

For no apparent reason, the patient now felt much better. He felt freer. His eyesight improved, nearly to its former level.

I had a chance to talk to the patient. “The most astonishing thing,” he told me, “is knowing that if I hadn’t invented these other models [of the universe], it’s likely I wouldn’t have regained my eyesight.”

Jack told me his experience with this patient was part of the reason he stopped doing hypnosis. He said that having one and only one model of the way things are is, in fact, the result of being in a core trance. He realized everyone is, to one degree or another, already in a hypnotic state. Therefore, his job should be to wake people up.

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 once had a consulting client who owned a small business. It had been successful, but it was now in an extreme condition of disrepair. Everything that could go wrong had gone wrong.

His books were a mess. His records were a mess. Employees were coming and going, and they were all failing at their jobs. Sales were down, and he was in debt.

He presented me with a list of everything he’d tried, to get things back on track. The list was formidable. This was a smart man. But nothing was working.

I told him he had no choice but to re-imagine the whole business from scratch. He had to find a completely different way to build it.

At first, he had no idea what I was talking about.

Then slowly, painfully, he began to write down all sorts of scenarios by which he could reconstruct his company.

Eventually, the mists cleared, and he began to feel better. He tore down everything and started over. He came up with a radically new way of doing business. And it worked.

It was an example of the One versus the Many. The One is the way a person chronically views reality. It’s the central perception which seems to be obvious, irrefutable, and permanent. The Many is the envisioning of multiple and different views of reality. It shakes up the status quo in the psyche and shifts into new territory.

Whether the universe is made of particles or waves, was produced by the Big Bang or the translation of lines of code from a two-dimensional surface, or as a result of vibrating Strings, it can be said to be a projection, a demonstration.

It can be viewed as an absolute unity, just as a stage play strives for absolute credibility. But of course, the stage play is wise enough to end. And then the audience walks out. But the universe is a projection that wants to impart the illusion of permanence.

This illusion is brought about by a scheme of interconnectedness, in which each particle or thing appears to be related to every other thing, or, from a different point of view, reflects every other thing, in a series of mirrors.

This is the overarching meaning of the ancient symbol of the maze. You move through the paths and arrive back at the beginning. The journey is always self-contained.

From the perspective I’m presenting here, the horse that finishes last in the race is named Truth, when truth is sought and found inside the continuum of this particular universe.

It’s not merely, as some physicists venture, that there are universes parallel to this one. There are universes everywhere. They are infinite in number. And then there is a “greater” infinity—those universes that have not yet been created.

Taking this as a starting point, and inventing multiple scenarios, multiple worlds, universes, and futures, one gains back power. Power beyond what one thinks, at any given moment, is possible.

Jon Rappoport

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

by Jon Rappoport

May 13, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Tom Laskawy (twitter), writing at Grist, points out how the next generation of GMOs is following in the track of present disasters:

“…the growing pest and weed problems for GMOs have caused farmers to turn to seeds that are coated with a different pesticide—a neonicotinoid. If that name rings a bell, it’s because these pesticides… have been implicated in the increasing epidemic of bee deaths.

“And that’s aside from the evidence that biotech’s ‘next big thing’ —seeds that emit multiple pesticides—may be doomed to fail. An international team of researchers, including USDA and biotech scientists, found what they termed ‘cross-resistance’ to these pesticides in [predatory] bugs exposed to the next-generation GMO seeds. Evidence, in other words, that GMO seeds are hitting a bug-covered wall.” The seeds don’t knock out the plant pests.

Yet the venerable journal Nature recently urged patience, because just over the next hill, the biotech giants will surely succeed in bringing us better GMO crops.

This reveals an underlying assumption about technology: when scientists discover a new way of doing things, it can never be retracted; it will eventually work well; improvements will come.

That false assumption sustains a tremendous amount of false science, as well as profits, of course, for the companies involved.

“Wait, better developments are being made.”

If scientists can shoot genes into plants, that’s a step that can never be taken back. It’s automatically a sign of progress. To admit defeat would be equivalent to admitting science can be wrong.

This is the insanity we are dealing with.

We’ve seen it in the field of psychiatric drugs, all of which carry heavy toxicity. If you push a researcher up against the wall, where he has to admit problems with the drugs, he’ll say, “But we’re working on next-generation chemicals. It’ll be different. We’re just starting to understand how the brain really works. Be patient. Help is on the way.”

In recent days, we’ve seen the US National Institute of Mental Health and its British counterpart defect from orthodox psychiatry in the interpretation of what a mental disorder is. Some people have taken this as a positive development. But that’s not the case.

The defectors intend to push brain research to new dangerous heights. Even though they have no baseline for “normal brain activity,” they are racing along the track of discovering “abnormal chemical imbalances.” In other words, their better science is no science at all.

They will invent new names for mental disorders, and there will be more drugs to treat patients, and the whole edifice will be founded on lies.

In the field of gene research, scientists are advancing on a road of manipulation of the human genome. This, they say, is yielding one breakthrough after another. New humans, better humans, more talented and healthy and intelligent humans will be the result.

But really, this translates into: we can shift genes around, we can substitute new genes for old genes, we can silence genes and provoke dormant genes to express themselves—therefore, we have to keep doing it. It’s science. We have to expand our work.

No they don’t. In the same way they don’t have to build even more destructive H-bombs, they don’t have to play roulette with the human body and brain.

Just because medical researchers can come up with new chemo drugs that kill cells and destroy immune systems, it doesn’t mean they have to.

Despite failures along every front of GMO-crop production, despite the fact that predictions of higher crop yields and reduced use of pesticides and herbicides have failed to materialize, Monsanto pushes on.

Monsanto lies and pretends their work is an enormous success. Their researchers, many of whom know the catastrophic failure they are dealing with, nevertheless keep going, keep telling themselves that this is science, and therefore it will ultimately succeed.

Translation: The seven billion people of earth are the guinea pigs in a vast corporate experiment.

Technocrats who envision trans-humans, a combine of brain and computerized brain, pin faith on the idea that, since brains can be hooked up to machines, they should be. It’s “scientific progress,” and therefore it has to happen.

All this used to be called scientism, a massive overreach of misplaced faith, but now the word is largely defunct. It was too accurate. It nailed the obsession and showed how crazy it was.

Years ago, I was invited to give a lecture to an atheist group in Los Angeles. The topic was HIV research, because I had written a book about it, AIDS INC.

I described the line of HIV research, and made a detailed case for the fact that researchers had never proved HIV caused a condition that was being called AIDS.

My analysis was met with strong opposition. The group was unhappy.

No problem. But it turned out their unhappiness was based on the notion that I was attacking science itself. And since they believed that’s what I was doing, they were angry because, get this, if I was against science, I must be for God. And they were atheists.

Therefore, I had to be wrong.

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

Their reaction mirrored 19^th century attitudes about the rise of science. Its proponents felt they’d finally found an antidote to religion, and therefore, anyone who criticized science on any terms (e.g, flawed reasoning, bad data, bogus experiments) must be demanding a return to the Church, the Inquisition, and burning at the stake.

In the second half of the 20^th century, a new class of people came into being. Amateurs who wanted to pretend they were scientific thinkers. Even though they knew nothing about what really went on in laboratories, they could spout a few pseudo-scientific truths and win friends and influence people at cocktail parties and academic confabs. They were “up on the latest developments.”

More and more, this also became the m.o. in media. Reporters, broadcasters, anchors, government spokespeople, and pundits issued proclamations about science, without in fact having a clue about the truth or falsity of what they were saying.

We saw this (and still do), for example, in the area of so-called climate science. Everyone is now an expert on global warming and its imminent threat to the planet. The evidence is “settled.” Well, that’s what the president said, so it must be right.

After all, he personally knows all there is to know about methods of compiling historical temperature records, about alternate periods of cooling and warming, about computer modeling, about the mathematics of climate prediction.

Through cutouts, the White House has recently launched a campaign to defame anyone who doubts or questions or criticizes the manmade warming hypothesis. This is science by PR and intimidation.

The very best medical researchers assured us that Swine Flu was an emerging pandemic. In the spring of 2009, on the basis of 20 cases of Swine Flu, and after changing the very definition of “pandemic,” so it no longer needed to include “widespread death and devastation,” the World Health Association declared Swine Flu a level 6 pandemic, the most dangerous threat level.

Eventually, it turned out that Swine Flu was far less significant than ordinary seasonal flu. But no mea culpas emerged. No one admitted the hoax. No one stepped up and confessed.

It was science, and science (and profits) had to be protected, even and especially if it was wrong.

Many of these science projects are designed, at the highest level, as ops. The lies are told from the top, the deceptions are arranged. But much, much support is given, at lower levels, by people who swallow generalities about science.

They entertain delusions about science as a continuous march of progress which shouldn’t be interrupted. They will swear up and down they’re defending rational thought, logic, and the experimental method, when in fact they’re merely mouthing sentiment and propaganda.

Monsanto, like a stage magician working a cheap club in Vegas, says, “Look! We can insert genes in plants! Isn’t that incredible?”

And the rubes in the audience, enchanted by the trick, applaud, ready to support all the coming variations. For their part, these yokels only want to be able to say they’re on the cutting edge of science.

Lower, not higher crop yields? Nutritionally deficient food? Increased, not decreased use of pesticides and herbicides? Superweeds that don’t die under the assault of Roundup, as advertised, but instead thrive and spread? Health problems for people consuming GMO food? Who cares? It’s the magic trick that counts.

They can insert genes in plants. No one could do that before. It’s got to be a good thing. You want proof? Now they can make the plant exude more than one pesticide. What a feat.

Let’s eat.

The heart and soul of THE MATRIX REVEALED are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together. One of those Matrix-insiders is ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

For those who continue to parrot the company/government line that there is no difference between GMO and conventional crops, and claim “that’s good science,” here are smoking gun data from Mosanto’s own researchers.

The data were uncovered by science writer Barbara Keeler in 2000. Keeler published pieces in the Whole Life Times and the LA Times. The Whole Life Times piece was titled: “Buried Data in Monsanto’s Study on Roundup Ready Beans.”

Keeler discovered that, in 1994, when Monsanto submitted studies to the FDA, to win approval for GMO soybeans, highly significant data were hidden.

Roundup Ready (RR) Monsanto beans contained 29% less choline than conventional non-GMO beans.

RR beans contained “27% more trypsin inhibitor, an allergen that inhibits protein digestion, can retard growth in animals fed raw soybeans, and has been connected to enlarged cells in rat pancreases.”

In data Monsanto failed to submit to the FDA, from its Puerto Rico field trials, RR beans “were significantly lower in protein and the amino acid phenylalanine.”

In retoasted RR soy meal, “levels of allergens called lectins…almost doubled the levels [found] in controls [non-GMO meal].”

In other words, there was quite enough evidence, in 1994, to halt the whole FDA approval process of Monsanto soy. It was there in Monsanto’s own studies. And it was ignored and buried.

Now new biotech masterpieces are on the way. Plants that emit multiple pesticides. We’re supposed to believe this is good science that will do no harm.

We’re in the technological age, and it’s all wonderful, and because we’re rational people, we should jump on the bandwagon.

Jon Rappoport

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

By Jon Rappoport

May 12, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

This article is dedicated to Bonnie Lange, my dear friend and publisher, who passed away last week. Bonnie was an unbound creative spirit who lived her life as a titanic vision. Leaving her physical form behind, she expands her vision, her life, her work, her ever-present joy. Much love, my friend…

NBC News is in the process of appointing a new chief. The purpose? To rearrange what is already false reality, to make it more interesting and dramatic.

The desperate networks are grasping at straws. Their ratings reflect a continuing audience exodus.

I once wrote that, if tomorrow the top news anchors admitted they were drag queens, the whole country would immediately collapse. That’s how fragile America actually is.

I’ve updated that comment, because the USA is now so tolerant the top anchors could come out as collies or toasters and everyone would feel compelled to consider the revelation with warm regard.

So here is the new formulation: If tomorrow, television news disappeared completely, the human mind would lose its mirror and chaos would ensue.

The minds of most viewers lack context, are satisfied with cartoons of reality, yearn for authorities, and will accept any version of “being informed.”

This is what the news is all about. The superficial mind clings to the news as a representation of what the mind is.

Take away that mirror and millions of people would enter a highly disturbing void, an absence, a vacuum.

It would be quite interesting.

Some people would realize the degree to which they demand to be told what to think, what to see, what to assume. Others would simply spin into a deep confusion.

At bottom, most minds want to know what exists, even if the portrait is a total lie. A lie is better than nothing. “Give me something, anything.”

That morbid desire is in direct proportion to the absence of any ambition to create reality on one’s own.

Every psyop since the dawn of time is based on, and works because of, the individual’s refusal to create his own reality.

This refusal is, in turn, the cornerstone of highly organized, layered, hierarchical, top-down societies.

These societies generate majestic deceptions, enemies, wars, and huge disparities between the haves and the have-nots. History reveals many elements of progress, but it doesn’t show a solution to these chronic injustices.

To put it another way, the solutions will not appear, in the long run, until millions of people do, in fact, create their own realities.

And that capacity to create requires a revolution at the deepest possible level.

Most people don’t even understand what it means, and/or won’t admit it’s possible.

They would rather rearrange deck chairs on a sinking ship:

“Give me THESE liars as leaders (creators of mass reality), and if you won’t do that, give me THOSE liars as leaders…”

“Ladies and gentlemen, this is the end of the last newscast anywhere. Good night and good luck.” Blackout.

If government’s media mouthpiece were gone, people would be forced to make up their own minds about government. And eventually, they would. And it wouldn’t be a happy moment, for government.

Unsurprisingly, the first “newspapers,” in ancient China, Egypt, and Rome, were government-issued bulletins. They were decrees, commands, and announcements.

They were deployed to control citizens’ actions and paint an official picture of reality.

At some point, leaders recognized that, with the expansion of individual freedom, more subtle methods for control and “guided perception” were necessary. Hence, modern media.

For this to work, reporters had to be elevated to privileged status. They were now town criers dressed to kill.

“Owing to excessive propaganda, lies, and style masquerading as substance, all news is canceled.” That would be a kind of forced declaration of independence.

In 1982, when I began writing for LA Weekly, I sat down with the editor, who explained that investigative reporting was a dying function of the news, because it was too expensive. Its outcome was always uncertain—a newspaper could assign a reporter to a story and pay him for a few months, and at the end of it he might or might not come up with something explosive.

There was, of course, another reason for squelching investigative reporting. A reporter might dig too deep and find too much gold. The wrong people (actual high-level criminals) could be indicted and exposed.

For the most part, mainstream news has canceled real investigation. It’s gone. It exists as limited hangout, meaning it’s constructed to execute partial and ultimately harmless exposure of crimes. The limited hangout pretends to be the last word, and everybody packs up and goes home, thinking the job is done.

Which is exactly the way most minds operate, when it comes to the truth. They poke around a little, come up with a bit of “deep” material, and check out. Nothing more to see, move along.

Any reporter who goes too far with a story is stopped by his bosses and reassigned to lighter topics. I know of one such hound, who broke open several heavy scandals and was then pulled off to do other work. Allowed to continue his investigations, he would have torn apart the Dept. of Justice and the CDC.

All of mainstream news is a limited hangout, because it purports to be coverage of reality. Actually, it invents reality by establishing narrow context, selecting which stories are important, and twisting their meaning.

So my original question, what if television news disappeared, is in a way a moot point. It’s already disappeared. It never was. It was always a simulacrum.

The Matrix can be viewed as the simulacra the mind invents to stand in for reality. This obsession for what psyops specialists used to call stereotypes is the putty-like target for engineers of deception:

“People already want false images. We merely make sure they buy our false images.”

Coming out of World War 2, US psychological warfare operators turned their attention to new conditions of “peace.” They fed the population images and simulacra of distant peoples and places and cultures.

The premise was: there are billions of people Americans will never meet or come to know. We, the princes of psyops, have to give them pictures of who these foreign humans are, to align with US foreign policy (empire building).

Now, the psyop operators’ target has expanded to a significant degree. The premise reads: there are billions and trillions of bits of information people will never be able to evaluate or organize. We have to tell them what all this information means. We have to shrink it down and frame it and paint shorthand pictures of it. Our pictures, not theirs.

Hence, the news.

Notice the basic fixation in all this madness. It’s the fixation on deciding what reality is, rather than what new realities can be created.

That is the threshold most people refuse to cross or understand. They’ll do anything to avoid it. And when I say most people, I don’t mean groups, I mean individuals.

Here is the real news: People’s problems and confusions and anxieties will never be resolved until they invent realities they truly desire with power and imagination.

I’m talking about inventing social reality and political reality and personal reality and aesthetic reality. This is no cotton-candy prescription. It calls for the deepest conviction and commitment.

When, in the 1960s, various Asian philosophies and spiritual systems were twisted and reduced and re-cooked and distorted, for importation into the West, one of the underlying themes was: enlightenment comes by accepting What Is.

That was a psyop of major proportions, on the level of consciousness and spirit. It was aimed at the closing the door on the oceanic creative impulse.

Accept What Is. Don’t try to change it. Surrender. Stop struggling. Then all your problems will disappear.

False.

The ability to accept reality ultimately and paradoxically depends on surpassing it by inventing new realities in profusion. Then, you can look at What Is and accept it as a fact that, like all other facts, can be radically changed.

Peace attained through a struggle to “let go of everything” is a deception. It’s one piece of a much larger story. That story centers on us and our creative force, the titanic and submerged faculty that always was and always will exist, no matter how many ploys are engaged to reject it.

The news doesn’t cover this story

The news is a drug to put this story to sleep.

The news is a voice expressing itself. But what about the far more important voice of the individual? What is it expressing, if consciousness itself is buttoned up?

I can tell you this. 100 percent of individuals have no idea what they would express if they opened up all creative channels. Oh, they might know what their opening shots would be. But beyond that? They don’t know. They couldn’t know. Because they haven’t invented the full range of their voices.

You could sit down and write a thousand pages to “express what you really want to say,” and you would only be scratching the surface. You would only be warming up your engine.

The mind is trained for delivering summaries and bytes. After throwing off that colossal inhibition, you’re at the beginning of the road. Just the beginning.

The news and all its allied support systems are a reflection of the mind held in check, the imagination held in check. As such they are really meaningless.

We have no clue about what a civilization would be, if many individuals entered the untapped universes of what amounts to endless expression. We live in a shorthand world. We convince ourselves that’s all there is.

That isn’t all there is. It’s just one atom of potential experience.

As far as individual creation is concerned, we live in a world that’s a kindergarten. It’s a nursery school. When people are asked to invent something, to express something, they look for the short form. The brief statement (like the news).

Write a thousand pages and see where you are. Paint a thousand paintings and see where you are. Reinvent your business a hundred times and see where you are. Reinvent your group that seeks to fulfill a social cause a hundred times and see where you are. Become an endless artist of expression and invention and see where you are.

Now we are getting down to the real crime of the news. It looks for the lead paragraph and the bottom line. It searches for the wrap-up and the stinger. It short-circuits the potential of the individual mind because the mind wants to be short-circuited.

And within this prison, people look for answers. It’s a joke. There are no answers there.

We are operating at one tiny end of the light spectrum, claiming that the whole remaining arc of possible light is invisible. Yes, it’s invisible because we shut ourselves off from it, because we fail to realize it becomes visible only when we live through and by imagination.

The myth of Prometheus is really an expression of self-limited creative consciousness seeking to break out and invent realities and worlds without end. The fire Prometheus stole from the gods wasn’t merely “knowledge” or “technology.” It was the infinite creative force.

There was no crime. The gods were already bored to death with their own powers. They had abandoned imagination. They had become tyrannical managers of humans. The gods were pathetic paupers living on borrowed time.

And when Prometheus delivered fire to humans, he wasn’t punished by the gods. He wasn’t chained to a rock and tortured. He was astonished by humans’ refusal to pick up the torch.

The Olympian gods were the News. They were the purveyors of What Is. They demanded allegiance.

The people chose to listen to the news from above. They chose to abdicate the endless road of expression and creation and instead worship an external narration of existence, a tired and bloated and worn-out and stench-ridden song emitted from Broadcast Central.

Imagine this: Scott Pelley, the anchor of the CBS News, appears on screen and says, “Tonight I begin to tell you a story. The story of myself. But not the narrow history. Not just where I was born and what happened to me. Yes, there will be some of that. But my story, like yours, is largely unknown, because I haven’t launched it yet. It isn’t only memory or fact. It’s a fuller and deeper expression, and it’s also an invention. Every night, for a thousand and one nights, I’ll be here on television unspooling and imagining myself. There will be many starts and stops. There will be moments of confusion, and there will be times when I don’t know where to go. But I’ll continue, because I want to, because I’m the artist of myself. As I talk, you’ll see parts of myself disappear and new parts surface. No doubt there will be long periods when I speak impersonally, and then a new intimacy will arise. It will loom up, vanish, and I’ll move into other realms. There is no wrong way to go. This is an Everything, an everything that expands and shrinks and submerges and ends and begins and swells and explodes and starts again from nowhere. This is an adventure. The goal is not a specific thing. The goal is not the truth. The truth is an illusion we concoct to sum up the adventure and give it structure, but this story will be about far more than the truth. It occurs to me that the news is our way of avoiding the ocean of our being, and that ocean contains logic and illogic, myth and also what could never happen but does happen. We perceive certain immovable and credible boundaries that we actually throw up to cover ourselves, to eliminate great cores of energy, to pretend we exist in one centralized space and time. I will tell this story in as many dimensions as I can…”

As improbable as it seems, if such an event took over the news, night after night, for years and years, the so-called vital events of our time, as usually reported by the news, would pale in importance, and something else would take over.

Something we sense but do not express. Something that will revolutionize our lives. We will remember we once knew the endless telling of the endless story, we knew it was the projection of both dream and reality that could and would change, not just the world, but how the world is built…taking it out into uncharted islands, snapping the chains we forged to keep us in a minor tale, always waiting for a romantic moment of liberation to come, forgetting what we need to do to change the sameness of the music:

Tell the endless story without limits.

Ordinary self, extraordinary self, both fuel for the fire.

Here is a quote from a work-in-progress, The Magician Awakes: “There is a thing called Endless Story. It has no walls, floor or ceiling. It reflects how consciousness actually operates, once the programming is cast aside. Endless Story isn’t a cultural artifact. It cuts across all cultural lines. It is pure invention. Nothing that has already happened is sacred…Imagination finds its energy. All common and inhibiting symmetries are cast into the creative fire. Exploration and discovery are redefined. They no longer depend on what already has been laid down as Pattern. Symbols no longer have conventional meanings. Endless Story is the answer to the old alchemical mystery called Quintessence, or Philosopher’s Stone, which was supposed to be the key to transformation of unresolvable conflicts. Endless story overtakes and overrides ‘things as they are.’ Beginning, middle, and end, the cherished components of traditional story, fly out the window into a new dawn, a new day, a new night…”

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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