The psyop to neuter The Rebel

The psyop to neuter The Rebel

Notes on the evolution of caricatures

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2017

If you want to track a civilization as it collapses, watch what happens to the concept of the rebel.

From the 1960s onward—starting with Lee Oswald and the assassination of JFK—the whole idea of “the rebel” with power has been sequentially updated and repackaged. This is intentional.

The objective is to equate “rebel” with a whole host of qualities—e.g., runaway self-serving paranoia; random destruction; out-of-control drug use; generalized hatred; the commission of crimes…

On a lesser, “commercialized” level, the new rebel can define himself by merely showing up at a concert to scream and drink heavily and break something, having already dressed to make a dissident fashion statement. He can take an afternoon off from college classes and have his arms tattooed. All the while, of course, he functions as an avid consumer of mainstream corporate products.

You even have people who, considering themselves rebels of the first order, support a government that spies on its people 24/7, launches military attacks all over the world, and now funds a Manhattan Project to map every move of the 100 billion neurons of the brain, for the ultimate purpose of controlling it.

Even going back as far as the 1950s, the so-called decade of conformity, psyops professionals sculpted notions of The Rebel: He was the person who didn’t want to take part in the emerging bland corporate culture.

He was imagined and presented as troubled, morose; a wobbly unfocused JD Salinger Holden Caulfield, or a beatnik, a Madison Avenue caricature of somebody who opposed Madison Avenue.

In other words, the people who were shaping the consumer culture were creating the image of the rebel as a cartoon figure who just didn’t want to buy into “the good life.”

Time Magazine ran a cover story on the beatniks, and characterized them as a disaffected trend. Marlon Brando, heading up a bunch of moronic motorcycle riders, invaded a town of pleasant clueless citizens and took it over, wreaking destruction. The 1953 movie was The Wild One. James Dean, who had the same trouble Brando did in articulating a complete sentence, was “the rebel without a cause” in the “iconic film” of the same name. He raced cars toward cliffs because his father couldn’t understand him.

These were all puff pieces designed to make rebels look ridiculous, and they worked. They also functioned to transmit the idea to young people that being a rebel should be a showbiz affectation. That worked, too.

Then the late 1960s arrived. Flower children, in part invented by the major media, would surely take over the world and dethrone fascist authority with rainbows. San Francisco was the epicenter. But Haight-Ashbury, where the flowers and the weed were magically growing out of the sidewalks, turned into a speed, acid, and heroin nightmare, a playground for psychopaths to cash in and steal and destroy lives. The CIA, of course, gave the LSD culture a major push.

For all that the anti-war movement eventually accomplished in ending the Vietnam war-crime, in the aftermath many of those college students who had been in the streets—once the fear of being drafted was gone—scurried into counselors’ offices to see where they might fit into the job market after graduation. The military industrial complex took its profits and moved on, undeterred.

The idea of the rebel was gone. It later resurfaced as The Cocaine Dealer, the archangel of the 1980s.

And so forth and so on. All these incarnations of The Rebel were artificially created and sustained as psyops. At bottom, the idea was to discredit the Individual, in favor of The Group.

Now, in our collectivist society of 2016, The Group, as a rapidly expanding victim class, is the government’s number one project. It’s a straight con. “We’re here to make you worse off while we lift you up.”

In the psyop to demean, distort, and squash the rebel, there is a single obvious common denominator: the establishment media are doing the defining; they are the ones who are setting the parameters and making the descriptions; they are the ones who build the cartoons; looking down their noses, pretending to a degree of sympathy, they paint one unflattering picture after another of what the rebel is and does and says; they have co-opted the whole game.

These days, the ultimate rebels, the media would have you believe, are “gun-toting racist bitter clingers who have religion.” Another attempt to shape a distorted unflattering portrait

You can take a whole host of political films and television series of the past 50 years, and look at them for signs of the Rebel: Seven Days in May, Advise and Consent, The Candidate, The Seduction of Joe Tynan, Dave, Primary Colors, The Contender, Good Night and Good Luck, The American President, West Wing, Scandal, The Newsroom…

Good acting, bad acting, drama, message—at the end you’re looking for the core. What do the rebel heroes really stand for? What are their principles? It’s all bland. It’s vague. It has the posturing of importance, but little else.

As I was finishing this piece, a friend wrote with a quote attributed to Robert Anton Wilson: “The universe is a war between reality programmers.”

This is exactly where the real rebel enters the scene. He’s not trying to program people. Freedom means cutting loose from programming.

The Rebel doesn’t go to the market and choose which reality program he wants. They’re all used up as soon as they come out of the package.

Albert Camus once wrote: “The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. It would be easy, however, to destroy that good conscience by shouting to them: if you want the happiness of the people, let them speak out and tell what kind of happiness they want and what kind they don’t want! But, in truth, the very ones who make use of such alibis know they are lies; they leave to their intellectuals on duty the chore of believing in them and of proving that religion, patriotism, and justice need for their survival the sacrifice of freedom.”

“THIS or THAT” is the history of Earth: choose reality program A or B. The choice was always a con.


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


We’re well into a time period when the experts and scientific authorities are settling on the human being as a biological machine that can only respond to programming. That’s their view and their default position.

It’s sheer madness, of course, but what else do you expect? We’re in an intense technological age, and people are obsessed with making things run smoother. They treat their precious little algorithms for control like the Crown Jewels. They’re terribly enthusiastic about the problem they’re solving, and that problem is us.

We’re the wild cards, a fact which they take to be result of our improper and incomplete conditioning. They aim to fix that.

“Why not stop diddling around and just make the whole thing over? Why not reshape humans?”

Having decided that, the battle begins between competing programmers of the mind. Which program for humans is better?

The rebel is against all such programming, no matter how “good and right” it sounds. “Good” and “right” are the traps.

“Well, certainly we could make a list of qualities we want all people to have. You know, the best qualities, like bravery and determination. Who could be against that? So suppose we could actually program such qualities into humans? Wouldn’t that be a fine thing? Then people would just BE that way…”

The ultimate rebellion is against programming, whatever it looks like, wherever it occurs.

Programming is someone else’s idea of who and what you should be.

It is never your idea.

Your idea is where the power is.

Jon Rappoport

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

Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2017

Thousands of articles have been written about the so-called Russian hack of the US election. The term “Russian hack” suggests the Russkies actually found a way to subvert the results of voting machines.

But of course, no convincing evidence has been presented to support such a charge. In fact, when you drill down a few inches below the surface, you find this charge instead: Russia hacked into email accounts and scooped up Hillary, DNC, and Podesta emails, and passed them to WikiLeaks, who then published them.

No chain of evidence supporting this claim has been presented to the public, either. But even assuming the assertion is true, an important factor is intentionally being ignored: THE CONTENT OF THOSE LEAKED EMAILS.

In other words, if making all this content publicly available cost Hillary the election, and if no one is seriously questioning the authenticity of the emails, then THE TRUTH undermined Hillary. However, no major media outlet is reporting the story from that angle.

After all, how would this headline look? TRUE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS SINKS HILLARY CLINTON. Or this? HILLARY COULDN’T REFUTE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS AND SO SHE LOST THE ELECTION.

Those headlines would attract millions of clicks. Why weren’t they printed? It’s reasonable to assume big news outlets didn’t want readers to think about the story from that perspective.

Why not? Why was the heavy emphasis put on the hacking of the emails? To obscure the importance of their content: for example, DNC collusion to obstruct and undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders.

“Let’s make the story all about WHO we claim stole the emails, rather than WHAT THE EMAILS CONTAINED.”

When a tape surfaced in which Trump spoke about women who were eager to have sex with famous men, did major media make the story all about who had the tape and who released it to the press? No.

Perhaps you remember this 2009 email-hack controversy. Wikipedia sums it up: “The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as “Climategate”) began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.”

One of the most revealing elements in the email exchanges: an obvious attempt to sideline scientific critics of global warming. But major media quickly began to reframe the story. It was all about illegal hacking, and investigations were launched to determine the criminal. The contents of the emails were brushed off as “proprietary work product” and “misleading” because “context was missing.”

The case of Edward Snowden was somewhat different. There the media felt compelled to expose the CONTENT of the NSA documents Snowden stole. They also gave considerable space to Snowden himself. To some degree, this was a fait accompli, because The Guardian newspaper was committed, from the beginning, to publishing NSA documents and an analysis of their meaning—so other media outlets followed suit.

Getting the picture?

Big news media decide whether to focus on the WHO or the WHAT, in each case. “Should we give primary coverage to the leaker or what he leaked?”

But that is not a choice you are making. It’s a choice being made for you.

Government agencies and spokespeople leak news to the press all the time. In these instances, the press doesn’t turn around and launch a probe aimed at exposing the WHO and discovering WHY a particular tidbit was passed along for publication. Newspapers and television news departments simply run with the stories.

“Okay, Bob. Here’s a little gem for you. The White House and the Congress are cooperating on this one. In the next few days, a piece of legislation is going to be inserted into a current bill in the House. It’ll establish a working group to combat ‘fake news’ operations that confuse the public…”

Does Bob bite the hand that feeds him? Does he write a story accusing the White House of trying to knock out independent news competitors who contradict official reality? Of course not. Bob plays along.


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)


Sometimes, both the WHO and the WHAT are censored. Such was the case with CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, who confessed publicly, in August of 2014, that he and colleagues at the CDC committed fraud in a 2004 study of the MMR vaccine and its possible connection to autism. Thompson admitted the study was cooked, to make it seem the vaccine didn’t increase the risk of autism, when in fact it did. The mainstream press put a chokehold on the story. Aside from scattered references, and official denials, the story faded quickly. The leaker and what he was leaking remained in the shadows. Independent news outlets (such as this one) kept the story percolating.

In summary, there is no logic in the mainstream approach to leaks and leakers. These days, the WHO and WHAT are decided on the basis of serving official interests and agendas—and repressing the public interest.

Jon Rappoport

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

CIA director slams Trump for slamming CIA

CIA director slams Trump for slamming CIA

Note to readers: if the list of names and phrases in this article doesn’t ring any CIA bells, a refresher course is in order…

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2017

In case you hadn’t noticed, uttering a politically incorrect comment is now a bigger crime than decimating thousands in a war.

You can bomb a country into submission and chaos, leaving dead and wounded from shore to shore, and that might be counted as a “mistake in judgment”; but using a few loaded words—or in this case—criticizing an intelligence agency—is an earthshaking event that could make the planet spin off-course…

Case in point:

The lame-duck outgoing CIA director, John Brennan, lectured Donald Trump Sunday, on FOX. NBC News reports:

“Trump has repeatedly called for a better relationship between the U.S. and Putin’s government. He suggested in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Friday that he’d consider easing the latest sanctions on Russia.”

“’I think he has to be mindful that he does not have a full appreciation and understanding of what the implications are of going down that road’, Brennan said.”

“The CIA chief roundly denounced Trump’s approach to Russia and other national security threats, suggesting the president-elect has much to understand before he can make informed decisions on such matters.”

“’The world is watching now what Trump says and listening very carefully. If he doesn’t have confidence in the [US] intelligence community, what signal does that send to our partners and allies as well as our adversaries?’ Brennan said.”

Signal?

Mr. Brennan, the signal was sent to our partners, allies, and adversaries decades ago:

The CIA is a criminal agency.

Is that clear enough?

Long ago, the CIA criminally stepped outside its mandate, in order to shape world events it had no business participating in. Is that clear enough?

In that regard, do these names and phrases mean anything to you, Mr. Brennan?

* The Gehlen Org.

* Operation Gladio.

* MKULTRA.

* Operation CHAOS.

* Nugan Hand Bank.

* BCCI Bank.

* Golden Triangle. Asian heroin.

* Air America.

* Central American cocaine. Mena.

* The Contras.

* Henry Luce. William Paley. Arthur Sulzberger. Operation Mockingbird.

* Overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh (Iran).

* Overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz (Guatemala).

* Murder of Patrice Lumumba (Congo).

* Bay of Pigs.

* JFK.

* Diem assassination.

* Rafael Trujillo assassination.

* Sukarno. Suharto.

* East Timor genocide.

* Military coup—Greece.

* Allende.

* Gulf of Tonkin.

* Operation Phoenix.

* Laos bombing.

* Sihanouk.

* The Khmer Rouge.

* El Salvador death squads.

On and on it goes…

See Mark Zepezauer’s book. The CIA’s Greatest Hits.

Overthrow, assassination, regime change, mind control, covert war, mass destruction, drugs, financial theft, co-opting the press…

Do you recall any of this, Mr. Brennan?

brenbren

Trump (or any president) is sending a negative signal about the US intelligence community to our friends, allies, and adversaries? Are you kidding, Mr. Brennan? Are you telling some kind of inside joke?

People all over the world have known, for decades, what the CIA has been doing.

And you’re worried about the effect of a little tweak from Trump?

The murderous history of the CIA has been a cat out of the bag for a long, long time.

Professional amnesia may be your friend, Mr. Brennan, but it doesn’t convince the victims and targets of your agency’s actions since 1948.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

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

Robert F Kennedy Jr: CDC an “edifice of fraud”

Robert F Kennedy Jr: CDC an “edifice of fraud”

by Jon Rappoport

January 16, 2017

(For Part-1, click here)

Robert Kennedy, Jr. “All the things that I do are bent on forcing this [vaccine] debate out into the open—because once the science is in the open, the CDC’s position is so fragile, it’s an edifice of fraud, fraud stacked upon fraud, so high and so wobbly, that even a slight breeze of public scrutiny will topple it.”

Kennedy states that President Trump has appointed him to head up a task force investigating vaccine safety. The above quote indicates Kennedy, would, if given the green light, probe much more than the use of mercury in vaccines—his main topic of interest thus far.

This would be a very good thing. The CDC is most certainly an edifice of fraud. It has concealed many of its crimes over the years.

If he hasn’t already, Kennedy should make contact with an anonymous group of scientists at the CDC who call themselves ‘Spider’. They have written a letter to the CDC chief of staff accusing the agency of widespread “unethical practices…influenced and shaped by outside parties…[that] threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.” (More on Spider here.)

In my recent open letter to Spider, I presented three shocking areas of fraud at the CDC that they should expose:

Swine Flu, a dud and phony “epidemic,” presented as a dire global threat requiring vaccination;

A structural conflict of interest, in which the CDC buys billions of dollars of vaccines and, at the same time, carries out many studies assessing vaccine safety—with this much money on the line, the Agency would never, under any circumstances, admit vaccines are dangerous;

A massive overestimation of annual flu deaths in the US, in order to push the necessity of the flu vaccine.

In this second memo, I present two more shocking areas which should receive the immediate attention of the dissident Spider scientists at the CDC, and Mr. Kennedy:

ONE: THE CASE OF JULIE GERBERDING.

On August 27, 2014, CDC scientist William Thompson came out of the shadows and revealed that he had participated in a major scientific fraud:

Ten years earlier, he and his co-authors had published a study claiming there was no MMR-vaccine connection to autism. They had omitted vital data which contradicted that finding.

The MMR vaccine was increasing the risk of autism. Thompson knew it. So did his co-authors. They buried that chilling fact.

Before their fake study was published, Thompson wrote to the head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, informing her that, at an upcoming conference, he would be “presenting the summary of our results from the Metropolitan Atlanta Autism Case-Control Study [and]…I will have to present several problematic results relating to statistical associations between the receipt of MMR vaccine and autism.”

In other words, Thompson was ready to blow the whistle on the MMR vaccine-autism connection. He received no reply from CDC Director Gerberding, and his presentation at the conference was canceled.

Fast forward: in 2009, Gerberding left the CDC.

She eventually went to work as the president of the vaccine division at Merck.

Merck. Manufactures. The. MMR. Vaccine.

Get it? (full story here)

TWO: OVERWHELMINGLY, FLU IS NOT FLU. THEREFORE, EVEN PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FLU VACCINE ARE BEING DECEIVED.

Peter Doshi, PhD, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals a monstrosity.

As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off. The CDC is supposed to be doing an accurate count of case numbers of diseases in the US. They’re lying and covering up the facts.

—Those of you in the Spider group of rebel scientists at the CDC, get busy. There are many more instances of massive corruption at your Agency. Dig in. Don’t let the American people down.

Go all the way.

You, too, Mr. Kennedy.

Jon Rappoport

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

Russian agent: who gave US uranium to Putin, Trump or Hillary?

Russian agent: who gave US uranium to Putin, Trump or Hillary?

by Jon Rappoport

January 16, 2017

Putin controls 20% of US uranium production. That fact is established. But how did it happen?

Now that we know Trump is a hard-core Russian agent who has been undermining America on behalf of his secret twin brother, Vladimir Putin, it stands to reason Trump was the one who gave 20% of US uranium to the Russkie leader. Right?

I mean, why wouldn’t he? All that uranium was up for grabs, it was there, and Trump somehow engineered the deal. I’m shocked the Washington Post and its CIA pals haven’t reported the story by now.

Anybody who passed that much US uranium to our eternal enemy, Russia, would have to be a secret agent working undercover for the Kremlin. No doubt about it.

Therefore, Trump…

Oh, wait a minute, my mistake.

Oops.

The Clintons were instrumental in making the uranium deal.

For proof, let me go to the irrefutable authority on all news in the known galaxy, The New York Times. They’ll settle the issue.

On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal”.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. The company was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions).

So Putin then possessed 20% of US uranium production!

From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

From the Times: “The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that [Canadian] group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One. [Uranium One controlled 20% of US uranium.]”

Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton…”

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

“At the time, both Rosatom [the Russian energy agency] and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.”

“…the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.”

—The US State Dept. had to sign off on the deal giving Putin control over US uranium. Hillary headed up the State Dept. Much money from Canadian mining executives, who owned the American uranium, who obviously wanted the Russian deal to go through, found its way into the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation concealed these donations.

If you’re Putin and you’re sitting in Moscow, and the uranium deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what’s your reaction—after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered on your face, and you can’t figure out why…and then you remember, oh yes, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Can we give our girl Hillary a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill need any more hookers?


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


So there it is. By all standards of current mainstream news “logic,” Hillary Clinton is the Russian agent. She and her crooked husband and their Foundation are working for Mr. Putin.

Therefore, Putin didn’t order the hacking of the DNC, Hillary, and Podesta emails and send them to WikiLeaks. No. He never would have torpedoed his own secret agent, Hillary Clinton.

Again, I’m just applying mainstream news “logic” to see where that “reasoning” process goes; and where it goes is: a) the Russians didn’t hack; and b) Hillary Clinton is their secret agent.

Cue the James Bond theme.

Ask yourself: if Trump had been instrumental in turning over 20% of US uranium to Putin, how many decibels of mainstream-news screaming would be assaulting the public day after day after day?

But Hillary and Bill were instrumental. How much screaming do we hear now?

Zero.

Jon Rappoport

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

CDC “Spider” Scientists attack the CDC, blow the lid off

CDC “Spider” Scientists attack the CDC, blow the lid off

They write a letter to the CDC chief of staff

And I write a letter to them

by Jon Rappoport

January 15, 2017

(Update: for Part-2, click here)

There is a group of anonymous scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control—they call themselves the Spider Group—Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research. They have penned a letter to the CDC’s chief of staff, Carmen S. Villar:

Here is the explosive accusation they make:

“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

“Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.”

“We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”

I have written at length about another whistleblower at the CDC, William Thompson, a long-time researcher who, in August of 2014, confessed in writing to massive fraud (archive here). He admitted that, in a study on the safety of the MMR vaccine, he and his colleagues literally threw vital sheets of data into a garbage can. The study then gave a free pass to the vaccine, claiming it had no connection to autism—when in fact it did. Thompson is the subject of the film, Vaxxed (trailer).

Now with this letter, we see that other scientists at the CDC are blowing the lid off internal corruption at their Agency.

If, in fact, President-elect Trump gives the green light for an independent investigation of the CDC, as press outlets are now reporting, and if he appoints Robert Kennedy Jr. to head up that panel, as Kennedy claims, we are going to see a large number of hidden facts emerge from the secretive halls of the CDC.

Because this Spider Group is anonymous, I wanted to make sure their letter is real. I contacted reporter Carey Gillam (twitter), who has been covering the story. I received this reply: “I was able to authenticate the letter by contacting CDC’s public affairs office and asking them directly about it after I received it from internal CDC sources.”

You can read the full Spider Group’s letter here at US Right To Know. (More on the letter by Carey Gillam here.)

And now I write a letter to them, so they can deepen their investigation.

Dear Spider Group:

I commend you on making an important start. You’re on the right road. As a reporter who has covered the CDC for many years, I offer you three suggestions. This short list is by no means exhaustive. I’m just pointing to a few areas where your own research will yield very rich and fertile results.

ONE: SWINE FLU FRAUD.

Let me take you back to the late summer of 2009, and the Swine Flu epidemic, which was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?

The problem was, the CDC was concealing a scandal.

At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on a Swine Flu story. She discovered that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases of the illness—while, of course, continuing to warn Americans about its unchecked spread.

The CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers.

What was the Agency up to?

Here is an excerpt from my 2014 interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

—end of interview excerpt—

It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.

That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.

But it gets even worse.

Because about three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.

Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).

Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

In the summer of 2009, the CDC secretly stops counting Swine Flu cases in America, because the overwhelming percentage of lab tests from likely Swine Flu patients shows no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.

There is no Swine Flu epidemic.

Then, the CDC estimates there are 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.

TWO: THE CDC BUYS MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF VACCINES AND, AT THE SAME TIME, HEADS UP RESEARCH ON THE SAFETY OF VACCINES. EXPLOSIVE STRUCTURAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

If you wanted to buy a product, and the main source of research on the product was the company selling it, would you automatically assume the product was safe and effective?

But you see, that’s the just the beginning of the problem. Suppose the company’s research was cited thousands of times in the press, as the authoritative standard of proof—and anyone who disputed that research was labeled a conspiracy theorist and a quack and a danger to the community and an anti-science lunatic.

Would you begin to suspect the company had some awesome media connections? Would you suspect some very powerful people were backing the company?

This is exactly the situation that exists at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Read these two quotes:

“The government’s Vaccine for Children Program (a CDC organization) purchases vaccines for about 50 percent of children in the U.S.” (The Atlantic, February 10, 2015)

“The CDC currently spends over $4 billion purchasing vaccines [annually] from drug makers…” (Health Impact News, October 24, 2016)

However, the CDC is also the gold standard for research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It turns out an unending stream of studies on these subjects. And the results of those studies are dutifully reported in the mainstream press.

Do you think, under any circumstances, the CDC would publish data showing vaccines are ineffective and dangerous? They’d be cutting their own throats.

“Well, we spend $4 billion a year buying vaccines from drug companies, but guess what? These vaccines are often dangerous…”

Every time you read about a CDC study on vaccines, keep this obvious (and clearly illegal) conflict of interest in mind.

THREE: MASSIVE OVERESTIMATE OF FLU DEATHS IN THE US, IN ORDER TO PUSH THE FLU VACCINE.

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

Boom.

You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

“Well, uh, we say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

The CDC must turn out a steady stream of outrageous lies about the need for vaccines. If they didn’t, they’d have no way to justify the billions of dollars they spend every year buying the vaccines from drug companies.

So, Spider Group, don’t stop now. Deepen your probe. Become true heroes for honest research, expose the deep roots of corruption in your Agency, and do the right thing for the American people you’re sworn to serve.

Jon Rappoport

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

Analyzing information in the age of disinformation

Analyzing information in the age of disinformation

by Jon Rappoport

January 14, 2017

My “ordeal by fire” came in 1987, while I was writing my first book, AIDS INC.

I had dozens of sources telling me contradictory stories about HIV, what HIV really was and wasn’t; and that was just the beginning of the AIDS information/opinion flooding in from all quarters.

I had to find a way to judge all these data. I had to separate value from non-value. I had to discover a few bottom lines that would serve as context, against which I could make judgments.

When the dust cleared, I knew I had reached a high point. I knew I was launched. Never again would serious disinformation and misinformation cook my brain.

Since then, I’ve made extensive notes on “Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation”—which happens to be the title of one section of my collection, Power Outside The Matrix.


power outside the matrix


Here are the contents of Power Outside The Matrix:

These are audio presentations. 55 total hours.

* Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation (11.5-hours)

* Writer’s Tutorial (8.5-hours)

* Power Outside The Matrix and The Invention of New Reality (6.5-hours)

Then you will receive the following audio presentations I have previously done:

* The Third Philosophy of Imagination (1-hour)

* The Infinite Imagination (3-hours)

* The Mass Projection of Events (1.5-hours)

* The Decentralization of Power (1.5-hours)

* Creating the Future (6-hours)

* Pictures of Reality (6-hours)

* The Real History of America (2-hours)

* Corporations: The New Gods (7.5-hours)

I have included an additional bonus section:

* 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 (and how to analyze them). 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.

* A 2-hour radio interview I did on AIDS in Dec 1987 with host Roy Tuckman on KPFK in Los Angeles, California.

* My book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies

(All the audio presentations are mp3 files and the books are pdf files. You download the files upon purchase. You’ll receive an email with a link to the entire collection.)

At the core of consciousness, there are two impulses in the individual. The first is: give in, surrender. The second is: express power without limit.

The teaching of every civilization and society is: don’t use your power. When you follow the second path, when you express your power without limits, remarkable things happen.

The veil of illusion melts away.

You meet yourself on new ground.

You know what your freedom is for.

Without imposing on the freedom of others, you live the life you always wanted.

That’s what Power Outside The Matrix is all about.

Jon Rappoport

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