Astounding: Miss America contestant will have both breasts removed, and she doesn’t have cancer

 

Astounding: Miss America contestant will have both breasts removed, and she doesn’t have cancer

by Jon Rappoport

November 29, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Allyn Rose (twitter), 24, has announced she’ll have a double mastectomy after the Miss America pageant is over.

 

She doesn’t have cancer.

 

If I were to win [the contest]…I would have this incredible platform to speak to my generation…” Rose said.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/miss-dc-allyn-rose-on-her-decision-to-opt-for-a-double-mastectomy-after-miss-america-pageant/2012/11/19/b888e7e6-326b-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_blog.html

 

Rose has been making the rounds of media outlets, announcing her intention, promoting what can only be called the medically-assisted culture of self-mutilation.

 

Read Mike Adam’s devastating article about the new study showing mammograms produce vast over-diagnosis of non-existent cancers, leading to cut-burn-poison treatments.

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/038099_mammograms_false_positives_overdiagnosis.html

 

The case of Allyn Rose goes even beyond that. She has received no diagnosis of cancer. This is now a growing trend: precautionary mastectomies.

 

In Rose’s case, it’s about a marker, called Wiskott-Aldrich, which signals a very rare immune disorder, almost always found in boys.

 

Rose has been called a carrier. She is without symptoms.

 

But because this marker is said to run in her mother’s family, because her mother died at a young age, as a result of breast cancer, and because, we are told, breast cancer “runs in her mother’s family,” Allyn Rose has decided to have both her breasts removed.

 

Medical literature claims a high correlation between this Wiskott-Aldrich marker and cancers. But breast cancer specifically?

 

The director of the Wiskott-Aldrich foundation, Dr. Sumathi Iyengar, told the Washington Post’s Reliable Source there was only some anecdotal evidence pointing to a possible connection.

 

I spoke with Dr. Iyengar and she was much more emphatic, stressing there is “no evidence” proving a link between the Wiskott-Aldrich marker and breast cancer.

 

On this basis, a healthy young woman of 24 is having both her breasts removed; she has been hailed as a hero; and she will go on the road and function as a promoter for her cause.

 

Naturally, Allyn Rose is working with the Susan Komen Foundation, notorious for its propaganda about the need for mammograms and “early diagnosis” and treatment.

 

What message will Rose be sending to young impressionable girls who want to gain status, recognition, and praise? The answer is obvious. Suddenly, popularity and acclaim are just one surgery away.

 

Major media outlets are playing along, of course. Where are the medical reporters raising objections? Nowhere.

 

Jon Rappoport

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

Live in the collective and forget who you are

 

LIVE IN THE COLLECTIVE AND FORGET WHO YOU ARE

By Jon Rappoport

November 26, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

We are now told it’s selfish and greedy to promote freedom for the individual. It’s old-fashioned. It’s passe. It’s dangerous. It’s nothing more than a ruse floated by the rich to hold down the poor.

 

Forget about the fact that the next Einstein or Tesla, growing up in what has become a collectivist society, could be slammed with Ritalin, Prozac, and even heavier drugs—because they’re “abnormal.”

 

Some day, when America has been forgotten, an anthropologist will write a celebrated history of this country, and it’ll be all about cultural trends and group customs, and no one will even remember there was such an idea as The Individual.

 

By that time, the population of what was once the United States will live in a theocracy dedicated to Mother Earth, and every day for half an hour, the people will kneel and pray, together, from coast to coast, for mercy from this Mother.

 

And the people will be happy doing it—such as they understand happiness. They will glorify The Group. They will live under the great dome of the Flying Drones and they will rejoice in their solidarity.

 

They will willingly submit to all forms of surveillance, because it is in the interest of the Whole, the collective, the mass. After all, who would depart from the rules and sentiments of The Group? Only the outcasts. Only those bitter clingers who still believe they are unique individuals and have desires and power. Who needs them? Who wants them? They’re primitive throwbacks. They’re sick and they need treatment.

 

Be grateful you’re living in the time of the great transition. If you look, you can see the changes taking place right in front of your own eyes. You can see The Individual fading out as a concept. You can see its replacement—the group and its needs—coming on strong. You can know where we’re heading.

 

One day, you’ll be able to tell your grandchildren there was once a time when there was a completely different conception of existence, and you’ll be able to regale them with stories of the impossible. Stories of individuals.

 

Of course, they won’t believe you. They won’t be able to fathom what in the world you’re talking about. But that doesn’t matter. They’ll listen in rapt wonder, just as we now admiringly contemplate tales of strange creatures and mountain gods of the ancient Greeks.

 

It’ll be fun to look back on our time.

 

Don’t worry. It doesn’t matter. History is merely an anthropological catalog of trends, a series of customs. We pass from one epoch to another. What was true and important in one time becomes meaningless later.

 

Just “come together for the great healing.” That’s all you need to think about now. It’ll all work out. And if it doesn’t, you won’t remember the failure anyway.

 

Coda: What’s that? I can’t hear you. Speak a little louder. Oh…I see. You’re saying we the people are getting ripped off by our leaders and their secret controllers. Yes. Well, sure, that’s true.

 

And yes…if we all came together perhaps we could throw off these controllers and assert our independence once again. Yes.

 

But then I ask you this:

 

After we’ve won the great battle, what do we do next? Do we parade around, from town to town, from city to city, a hundred million of us, a great caravan, extolling our group victory? Is that what we do for the rest of eternity?

 

Or did we fight and win the great battle for another reason?

 

Did we perhaps fight and win so we could reestablish the individual as the basis and the object of freedom?

 

Wasn’t that really the reason we were in this fight?

 

Or are you already too humble and progressive and submissive and enlightened to think so?

 

If you’re going to fight and fight to win, it helps to know why you’re in the battle, why you’re really in it.

 

Jon Rappoport

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

If all thoughts were made public?

 

ASSAULT ON THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN MIND

By Jon Rappoport

November 26, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Where do these insane professors come from? Maybe they’re hatched from eggs in a lab. The neuroscientists, in particular, are prime candidates for the funny farm.

 

One wants the human brain to be recast as a hologram and planted in a robot. Another wants the robot to be made out of pure energy.

 

But Professor Michael Persinger (twitter) (wikipedia), of Laurentian University in Canada, is promoting a utopia in which everyone’s thoughts are made public.

 

Of course, Persinger hopes humanity will embrace the notion voluntarily. I think.

 

In his lecture, “Just Suppose You Could Know What Others Are Thinking: No More Secrets,” Persinger tells us that utopia is just one step from creation. All we have to do is allow all our thoughts to be made public.

 

Brain-mapping, electronic translation of thoughts into digital form? A master library where we can tap in and find out everything David Rockefeller or a janitor at Yankee Stadium is thinking and has thought? Or maybe Persinger thinks we’ll do this telepathically. If so, it sounds strenuous.

 

Of course, thoughts don’t equal action. But in this age of thought-crime, does it matter? If it’s discovered that a housewife in Little Rock was thinking, for three seconds, about killing the president of Egypt at 3:57 on a rainy Tuesday, between thinking about the frosting for a cake and getting the brakes fixed on the SUV, why she’s an open book. She’s a potential killer, right?

 

Then, at her next dinner party or picnic, her friends can ask her whether she’s planning to carry out the hit with a Glock or a drone.

 

And if the president of the United States, after a meeting with the Joint Chiefs, thinks he wants to bomb England, that’s the top headline in the Washington Post. Of course, he thought about the attack for a tenth of a second, and his next thought was about having sex with Angelina Jolie, and this was followed by a thought about pizza.

 

But who cares?

 

It’s all in the master library, and we can all tap in, and that’s utopia.

 

Then there is this: suppose someone hacks into the library and inserts thoughts for you you never had? For example: it’s falsely claimed you thought about declaring war against all gay men on the planet. Might that cause a ripple?

 

The purely technical aspects of translating all the thoughts of ten billion people into a readable library are, I must say, absurd. How many thought-impulses does one person generate in a 24-hour span? Even the dullest among us must rack up at least a million.

 

Eventually, somebody would come up with an algorithm and a computer model to highlight “certain thoughts that are more important than others.” And after a decade or so, it would be discovered that these models were wrong, useless, and politically motivated.

 

But not to worry. The whole point of Professor Persinger’s program is the elimination of secrets and privacy. The very existence of the program would force people to admit “we’re all liars,” because we don’t say everything we think. And this would be good, because then we would become suitably humble, passive, and non-threatening. We would become meek, submissive, and universally tolerant.

 

And the people controlling the whole system (who can have their own thoughts fabricated or blocked) would have a very simple time controlling us. Yes, it’s perfect.

 

If you want complete fascism.

 

Thanks, professor. We’ll take up your proposal at the next meeting of the Looney Tunes Society.

 

And by the way, who says thoughts are stored in the brain? Who says brain is the same thing as mind?

 

Professor Persinger has published widely during his long career. He’s written papers on telepathy, remote viewing, and the induction of spiritual experiences through electromagnetic stimulation.

 

This last area of research is particularly significant. It reveals the neuroscience bias toward assuming all “non-scientific” experience comes from physiological causes. In other words, everything we do, think, feel, or say is completely grounded in the physical.

 

This version of materialism is the justification for managing and manipulating human life. If we’re only biological machines, as these researchers assert, what difference does it make how we’re re-engineered?

 

If all our thoughts can be made public and universally available, why not do it? Why not wipe out all privacy and create the ultimate capstone on the Surveillance State?

 

Of course, “it’s for our own good.” It always is.

 

Naturally, we believe proposals like Persinger’s are ridiculous and would never be implemented. But back in the day when the FBI was obtaining an occasional warrant to wiretap a suspect, who imagined we would come to a time when our every electronic communication would be collected, sorted, and scanned by government agencies?

 

Sources:

 

http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2011/05/michael-persinger-lecture-just-suppose.html [VIDEO]

 

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/thoughtsrecording.php [ARTICLE and VIDEO]

 

Jon Rappoport

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

Why psychiatry and big government are in a pornographic embrace

 

WHY PSYCHIATRY AND BIG GOVERNMENT ARE IN A PORNOGRAPHIC EMBRACE

by Jon Rappoport

November 24, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Modern psychiatry is based on the premise that there is something wrong with almost everybody. But when it comes to dependence, psychiatry takes a distinct back seat to big government.

 

Psychiatry and big-government actually share a bed. They both need dependents; otherwise, they’d fade away. In this pornographic intimacy, psychiatry functions as a medical and cultural salesman and PR hustler.

 

It ensures a steady supply of diagnosed and designated victims for government.

 

Dr. Marcia Angell, for two decades the editor of the most prestigious medical journal in the world, The New England Journal of Medicine, wrote a devastating piece on psychiatry for the The NY Review of Books.

 

In the “The Epidemic of Mental Illness: Why?”, Angell points out that a staggering 10% of Americans at least seven years old take antidepressants.

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/?pagination=false

 

She also reveals that these drugs, observed to increase levels of a neurotransmitter called serotonin, were the springboard for claiming that depression was caused by a serotonin deficit. In other words, the whole theory of depression was invented backwards, to fit what the drugs were doing.

 

This would be somewhat like saying the flu is caused by a lack of Tamiflu in the body.

 

That was “the science” behind the whole chemical-imbalance theory of depression.

 

We’ve got this drug (Prozac) that raises serotonin levels, so let’s say depression is caused by a deficit of serotonin, and let’s sell that idea.”

 

Angell cites a study done at the National Institute of Mental Health (a federal agency) showing that 46% of randomly selected adults qualified for a diagnosis of mental illness, according to the definitions of disorders established by the American Psychiatric Association.

 

This is victim-creation at its finest, especially since none of the official 297 mental disorders are diagnosed by any chemical or biological test. They are merely menus or checklists of behaviors.

 

This would be like going into a doctor’s office for a conversation, after which he brings in a team of doctors who sit around and discuss what you said, take a vote, and decide you have cancer.

 

The class of psychiatric drugs called anti-psychotics (or major tranquilizers), including Risperdal, Zyprexa, and Seroquel, is now the best-selling class of meds in the US.

 

Going back two decades, perhaps the number-one person in America dedicated to the psychiatric hustle was, indeed, a government representative. Wife of a two-term president, then senator, now secretary of state, Hillary Clinton campaigned tirelessly for accepting the diagnosis of mental illness “without stigma.”

 

She led the way; others followed.

 

The objective was to enable a cultural revolution. “We’re all victims.” “We all have some kind of mental problem.” “We all need treatment.”

 

The revolution succeeded. And in its wake, big government could and did expand the theme of dependence.

 

Angell, in her highly readable article, makes a further point that is often overlooked. At one time, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression experienced relatively brief episodes. But with the onset of the drugs for treatment, patients now find themselves dealing with chronic conditions.

 

The obvious conclusion? The drugs are creating abnormal brain function.

 

Chronically debilitated patients are a perfect set-up for big-government dependence.

 

In the US, the use of psychiatric drugs increased 22% from 2001 to 2010.

 

In 2010, 21% of adult women took antidepressants.

 

In his book, Anatomy of an Epidemic, Robert Whitaker provides the capper: in 1987, 1.25 million Americans were on government disability as a result of mental illness. By 2010, that figure had risen to 4 million.

 

Yes, big government and psychiatry are in love. And it isn’t pretty.

 

The formula for creating this ever-expanding dependence?

 

One: Continually add new mental disorders to the official list. These labels have no basis in reality. They aren’t accompanied by any diagnostic tests. But they enable many more people to be assigned a mental illness.

 

Two: Prescribe drugs that are, in and of themselves, destructive and debilitating, and therefore create long-term patients.

 

Three: Deny the drugs are the culprits. Blame the deterioration of the patient on his “mental disorder.”

 

Four: Encourage a culture in which patients think of themselves as struggling to “regain normalcy,” but need constant outside help for the rest of their lives.

 

Five: Offer government assistance in this regard. The assistance, of course, is based on the person remaining “mentally ill.” The assistance is therefore a bargain. “As long as you continue to think of yourself as ill, we the government will help you.”

 

Dependence.

 

For detailed evidence that psychiatry is an arbitrary pseudoscience, and for an introduction to evidence that the prescribed drugs are toxic, see my previous articles:

 

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/the-liars-liar/

 

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/more-evidence-psychiatry-is-a-fake-science/

 

Jon Rappoport

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

GMOs plus Obamacare: Your ticket to slavery

GMOs plus Obamacare: Your ticket to slavery

by Jon Rappoport

November 20, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

At this late date, there are still people who don’t see the consequences of Obamacare. They cling to the notion that it’s simply a wonderful system that will allow more people to get vital medical care. That’s all they see or want to see.

They agree that medical treatment has an alarming toxic track record. But they don’t want to admit that Obamacare will spread that toxicity even further.

Why are these people blind? Because they think of themselves as caring humanitarians, and they fit Obamacare right into that self-serving picture. It’s part of their “religion.”

Also, they don’t want to “be negative.”

Some day, I’m sure, being negative will get you a public decapitation in the town square.

Okay. Here we go.

The recent study which revealed that rats fed with GMOs developed cancer is just one example of the health hazards of GMO food.

The argument advanced by the Monsanto forces and their allies is: “people who eat GMO food aren’t dropping like flies, so we’re all okay.”

This is a case made by con artists for idiots.

GMO crops were originally introduced with no human safety studies. The crops were given carte blanche because the whole approval process was rigged.

People could be developing cancers as a result of eating GMO food and no one would know. People could be developing serious digestive disorders and neurological problems and no one would know.

To pursue this in detail, read Jeffrey Smith’s classic, Genetic Roulette: The Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Smith lays out 65 GMO health risks, with references. He also shows how safety assessments of GMO foods fall horribly short.

The GMO overlords need a cover-story-diversion for the harm their foods inflict. That cover story will, increasingly, be fashioned and sculpted by Obamacare.

Obamacare will eventually morph into a blueprint of all diagnosable diseases and disorders, and permitted treatments.

That’s what health insurance does. It assembles a comprehensive chart of what is covered by policies.

This will allow a perfect cover for the protection of “favored toxins.” In other words, when disease strikes as a result of GMOs, pesticides, other environmental chemicals, chemtrails, and so on, the medical diagnosis will fail to name the true culprits.

It’s called concealment.

Under Obamacare, who will put together that all-embracing list of permitted disease-diagnoses and treatments? The US Dept. of Health and Human Services. DHHS is a cabinet post under the president.

Therefore, the federal government (in collusion with pharmaceutical companies) will control, in great detail, the practice of medicine, and if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy, I have condos for sale on Pluto. You think the CDC and FDA are overbearing now? You haven’t seen anything yet.


Here’s a case of how this con game would function:

Let’s say a young boy suddenly develops rapid mood swings. He’s up, he’s down, he’s all over the place. He throws tantrums, then he sits in his room and won’t talk to anyone.

Unknown to him or his parents, the cause of all this bizarre behavior was GMO corn. The inserted genes in the corn provoked a massive inflammatory response, in which his immune system attacked the myelin insulation surrounding his nerves.

But the medical diagnosis, according to the Obamacare chart of allowable interpretations: Bipolar disease.

Now come the Bipolar drugs. Lithium, Valproate, with their highly destructive adverse effects—and the sanctity of GMO crops is protected.

And to take this a step further, the company that produces and sells GMO corn seeds knows all this. It knows that many people who are being diagnosed with Bipolar are actually suffering from an autoimmune reaction to the genes inserted in the corn.

They have the perfect medical mechanism for covering up their secret.

In fact, this company is not just a GMO producer. It, like other giants, is also a chemical and pharmaceutical outfit. It makes a drug used to treat…Bipolar.

The circle is complete. The secret is protected, the money rolls in through several allied channels, and only the patient suffers.


Obamacare, in one of its several heinous aspects, is a stealth operation used to conceal crimes.

If you think this is science fiction, think again. It’s already happening. Researchers are madly probing for genes that cause cancer, and their PR people, based on no solid evidence, are trumpeting the “advances.”

Meanwhile, large numbers of people are developing cancer from exposure to pesticides. But the genetic diversion takes the public’s mind away from this fact into a more esoteric area.

As of 2012, people still have the right to enter a detox program aimed at ridding the body of stored pesticide chemicals. But up the line, the day will come when the Obamacare Program will rule that out as a permitted option for all people under the umbrella of the national health insurance plan. Meaning, everybody.

This is precisely what the drug companies want, which is why they participated in crafting Obamacare in the first place.

They want to lock down the population in a pharmaceutical arena and treat them from cradle to grave with their chemical agents.

No, you don’t see the lockdown now, as Obamacare enters the mainstream, but neither did you see drones flying overhead and giant computers recording every email, phone call, and product purchase you make, back in the day when the FBI was occasionally wire-tapping a suspect after obtaining a warrant.

These thing take time, but they happen.

Back when Lyndon Jonson announced an idea called The Great Society, you didn’t see the time when the US government would be spending a trillion dollars a year on means-tested welfare, or that at least half the country would want that sum to go higher without limit.

These things take time, but they happen.

In 1985, as the first word leaked out that corporations were experimenting with genes shot into food crops, you didn’t assume that, 25 years later, the world would be covered with GMO plants and that those genes would be floating and drifting into organic life from Pole to Pole.

These things take time, but they happen.

In the early 1950s, when Ritalin first arrived on the scene, you didn’t see that this highly toxic form of speed would be prescribed by doctors to more than five million children for a condition called ADHD, for which there is no diagnostic test.

These things take time, but they happen.

In the late 1940s, when young children received one vaccine, for smallpox, you didn’t see that the day would come when the CDC would recommend an incredible 55 doses of vaccines by age six, or that no studies would be done to assess the combined toxic effects of this vaccine load, or that the government would be trying to close down exemptions from vaccines.

These things take time, but they happen.

In the 1950s, as psychiatry was beginning to use a drug called Thorazine to treat “psychotic” patients, you didn’t see that the day would come when a bible of psychiatry, called the DSM, would list 297 distinct and separate “mental disorders,” none of which were diagnosed with any physical test. You didn’t see that the federal government would back, in every way possible, the pseudo-science of psychiatry, or that leading politicians and celebrities would endorse mental-disorder diagnosis and treatment with across-the-board toxic drugs. You didn’t see that some of these drugs would push people over the edge into committing murders.

These things take time, but they happen.


The Matrix Revealed


So it will be with Obamacare, as we move ahead. It will be used to lock down the population in a toxic pharmaceutical universe, and to gradually shave away competing forms of alternative healthcare.

This is the road we’re on. If, a few years ago, you didn’t think the freedom to pursue and manage your own health, according to your own desires, was important, you’d better believe it’s important now and in the future.

If you insist on clinging to the notion that Obamacare is a wonderful, wonderful thing, almost a religious sacrament, you don’t understand how history works, how things morph into other things, how agendas control that evolution, how what looked good at one moment turned into a nightmare, later on.

And as GMOs spread and cause disease, Obamacare will function as a steel barrier against doctors diagnosing patients with GMO-caused illnesses.

You know, when the patient came to me, I was sure he was suffering from a form of autism. But now that I look more closely, I realize it’s the insect genes in the grain he’s eating.”

Doctor, stop this nonsense. Consult your Obamacare Bible. Nowhere in it does it say there is a disease caused by GMOs. You can’t make that diagnosis. It won’t fly. You won’t get paid if you submit that insurance form. And you’ll get into trouble. Federal agents will visit your office. They’ll put you through the mill. They’ll threaten to cancel your ticket to practice medicine.”

That’s ridiculous. That would never happen.”

Oh no? Do you realize that, by statute, I’m required to turn you in? That’s right. I heard you say you wanted to make a diagnosis that wasn’t permitted by the Bible. I’m supposed to call Homeland Security. If I don’t, I’m guilty, too. I’m a co-conspirator.”

Give it time. Give it time.

Or if you don’t care, shut your eyes, and contemplate loving Obamacare, just as Winston Smith finally loved the State in Orwell’s 1984.

See: Dr. Barbara Starfield, “Is US health really the best in the world?” Journal of the American Association, July 26, 2000. Starfield revealed that, every year, the US medical system kills 225,000 people. Of those deaths, 106,000 are the result of FDA-approved drugs. Under Obamacare, these numbers will escalate.

Jon Rappoport

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

Was the YES ON 37 campaign undermined by its allies?

 

Was the YES ON 37 campaign undermined by its allies?

By Jon Rappoport

November 19, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Before you decide I’m just making this stuff up, answer this question: do you really think food sellers like Whole Foods wanted to see hundreds, maybe thousands of their store products suddenly say “GENETICALLY ENGINEERED” on them?

 

Are you kidding?

 

Well, that’s exactly what would have happened if YES ON 37 had won.

 

With that prologue, let’s begin.

 

I’m not talking about the workers for the YES ON 37 campaign. There is no doubt the ground game was fought by honest people. But at the top level, a few “suits” relied on advice from professionals who told them there was only one way to win the vote:

 

Focus on the consumers’ right to know what was in their food.

 

That’s it. That was the biggest message.

 

Why?

 

Because the other message would have exposed the natural foods industry. And that other message was:

 

GMOs are horrible. GMO food is destructive to health, to the soil, to farmers…and, by the way:

 

The natural foods industry, which is big business in California, sells tons and tons of GMO food.

 

It’s labeled “natural.” But in a huge number of cases, “natural” contains GMOs.

 

Get it?

 

Without all that “natural” food ringing cash registers, big health-food sellers would go belly up.

 

If YES ON 37 had gone all in on a campaign to educate the people of California about the dangers of GMOs, this would have inevitably revealed that the “natural” food that people were already buying and eating was contaminated to the hilt with GMOs.

 

And that would have been bad for business.

 

There were many people at lower levels of the YES ON 37 campaign who wanted to educate the people of California about the dangers of GMO food. But they were rebuffed.

 

Face it, some big natural food sellers in America have accepted the presence of Monsanto and other GMO crocodiles as permanent fixtures in the landscape. These food sellers reason this way:

 

We sell organic food, which is free from all but small traces of GMOs. That’s what we offer to those who don’t want GMOs. All our “natural” products? That’s GMO territory, and there is nothing we can do about it.”

 

In any election campaign, you go after the undecided vote. Everybody else has already made up their minds. In California, the undecided people were on the fence because they didn’t know why labeling GMO food was necessary. They needed to be taught.

 

But that wasn’t the major thrust of the YES ON 37 campaign.

 

People needed to know they should want labeling because eating GMO food is dangerous.

 

The people of CA didn’t get that message loud and clear. It wasn’t delivered with great energy and power.

 

And that helped the natural food industry. It helped them a lot.

 

They can continue to sell thousands of food products with “natural” labels on them, and consumers won’t know they’re eating GMOs, and consumers won’t know why that’s a very bad thing.

 

People who already understand the GMO issue and what Monsanto is doing to the planet assume millions of other people know, too. They see the YES ON 37 campaign as the first big wedge into other states and other campaigns.

 

They don’t realize how many Americans don’t have a clue about GMOs and Monsanto.

 

The big-shot suits from the YES ON 37 campaign better take a long hard look at the pollsters and advisers they’re using. When those pollsters tell them, again, in other states, to focus only on “the right to know what’s in your food,” they should stop and ask themselves:

 

Whose side are these pollsters really on?

 

And the non-organic “natural food” sellers? Whose side are they on?

 

Jon Rappoport

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

Why the Prop 37 vote-count is too perfect

 

WHY THE PROP 37 VOTE-COUNT IS TOO PERFECT

by Jon Rappoport

November 17, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Late yesterday afternoon, I consulted a map of California counties on the secretary of state’s website. You can see it here:

 

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/37/

 

This page has a summary of the Prop 37 vote-count so far.

 

This is an ongoing figure, because the state of California is still counting votes.

 

In the box, you’ll see YES on 37 has 5,329,994 votes. NO on 37 has 5,869,382 votes.

 

YES on 37 has 47.6% of the vote, while NO has 52.4%.

 

This is vitally important. Why? Because when the networks called the election early, on election night, a couple of hours after the polls closed, this was almost exactly the percentage breakdown they claimed existed then.

 

It’s no different from the vote percentages now: less than one percentage point.

 

Eleven days later, as millions more votes have been counted, and are being counted, these election-night percentages are still holding firm.

 

What are the odds of that happening?

 

Any sane person would demand to know how these percentage splits are being manipulated, created, invented.

 

We are led to believe the projections offered by networks on election night are astonishingly accurate, but this is a fairy tale.

 

It’s especially a fairy tale when, eleven days after Election Tuesday, when millions more votes have been counted, the percentage-splits don’t budge.

 

We know next to nothing about the people who actually make these early projections on election night. That is troubling. They are shaping the perception of the American people, and we don’t know how they operate.

 

We can say, yes, they work for Edison Media Research or the Associated Press, and they hand out early-call projections to media outlets, but beyond that, we have few clues.

 

Yet, as soon as the networks make their calls on who has won an election, everyone folds up his tent and walks away. It’s as if a magic wand has been waved, and everyone obeys.

 

These “projection gurus” do some exit polls and, poof, they predict winners. They pick the moment when they’re going to put the word out to media outlets: “it’s time to say Prop 37 lost.”

 

And then it’s over.

 

And then 11 days later, the percentage splits that existed when the media made the call, on election night, are virtually the same.

 

Only a fool drinks that Kool-Aid.

 

It’s as if these projection gurus were watching horses coming out of the gate in the Kentucky Derby. A hundred yards down the track they call the winner. Not only are they right, but their horse had a two-length lead at a hundred yards and the same two-length lead as he crossed the wire at the finish.

 

When are people going to give up their religious belief in the sanctity of elections? Are they afraid that, if they leave that church, they’re going to Hell?

 

Let’s rework PT Barnum’s famous dictum: “There are 300 million suckers born every election night.”

 

Jon Rappoport

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

Federal investigators lying through their teeth in the Petraeus probe

 

FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH IN THE PETRAEUS PROBE

By Jon Rappoport

November 16, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

The punchline of this story is an unconstitutional US imperial war machine, dedicated to empire, contributing to a Globalist planet by destabilizing and causing massive chaos in the Middle East and Africa.

 

In this criminal effort, one American soldier has stood out above the rest. He has been made into a heroic myth. He represents the best of the best.

 

Seeing his character, his honor, millions of Americans have concluded that whatever our Armed Forces are doing, it must be right and good.

 

If David Petraeus is our fearless leader, we’re on the side of the angels.

 

If he succumbed to a moment of misguided passion, we can forgive him. His grand portrait must continue to hang on the wall. Petraeus gives legitimacy to war, destruction, empire-building.

 

He’s the scoop of vanilla ice cream on the poisonous pie.

 

So the general will be given protection.

 

An hour ago, he testified behind closed doors, to Congressional committees, claiming he knew, within a day, that the Benghazi attack was launched by terrorists. So far, reporters’ questions indicate Petraeus won’t be hammered hard about why he has changed his story. In September, he blamed an anti-Muslim video for the attacks. Now it’s terrorists. Incredibly, the protection of the general’s reputation is holding, to this point.

 

Meanwhile, federal agencies, trying to figure out how deep the Petraeus scandal really goes, are fashioning a cover story, to shield the guilty.

 

From the NY Daily News: “Reuters reported on Wednesday that investigators found substantial classified information on a computer used by [Paula] Broadwell. According to law enforcement and national security sources, investigators are examining whether the information should have been stored under more secure conditions.”

 

That’s a double-talk lie. You don’t need to consult complicated manuals to know that, when you transfer classified information to a place it doesn’t belong, a home computer, you’re already breaking the law.

 

And when the FBI can quickly find the classified data on the home computer, as they did, you realize it wasn’t buried under sophisticated protection. So that’s another clear indication of a crime.

 

You might as well have secret memos lying on the kitchen counter.

 

The feds are lying about this. What else are they lying about?

 

It’s obvious the whole Washington establishment and their media allies are lying, too. They’re trying to stitch together a fake story to cover a horrendous series of security breaches.

 

And what secrets may sit under those breaches.

 

For example, was Broadwell, an experienced Army officer, leaving classified data in open view because she was trying to sink Petraeus by association? Was this part of her plan? If so, there is little doubt she was involved in a full-scale, long-term operation, whose leaders remain unknown.

 

Broadwell, whose only visible track record as a published writer, aside from academic papers, was a pair of dry op-ed pieces in the Boston Herald and the NY Times, was suddenly co-writing a biography of the most famous soldier in America.

 

This is now explained by Petraeus’ sexual attraction to her. But on her side, she dedicated a tremendous amount of effort to meeting and charming the general. She traveled to Afghanistan to seal the deal. It doesn’t require a great leap to suspect she was working a classic honey-trap.

 

Here is a rogue’s gallery of top government officials telling lies..

 

FBI Director Robert Mueller claims he was unaware of an investigation into Petraeus until after the election. This is about as likely as a drunken sailor climbing the side of the Empire State Building.

 

Leon Panetta, the secretary of defense, is playing “I know of no other names in the scandal,” as if he’s the executive producer of TMZ, presiding over a tabloid story. “I only know what I read in the papers,” he says.

 

Eric Holder, contemplating his next cushy job in the private sector, casually states there were no national-security implications discovered in the Petraeus-Broadwell case.

 

Holder’s off-the-cuff “final judgment” about national security implications is ludicrous. In a case with this much potential for leaks of classified data and blackmail, he’s clueless. He’s just spouting what he’d been told to.

 

Obama himself is adopting a relaxed attitude. Commenting on Petraeus at his first press conference since winning reelection, he astoundingly said, “My main hope right now is that he and his family will be able to move on.” Was he doing a Dr. Phil impression?

Several conservative pundits have speculated that the White House held the Broadwell affair over Petraeus’ head to force him to say, in September, that the Benghazi attack was the result of an amateur film trailer.

 

A flood of liberal pundits have responded to these claims, calling them woo-woo conspiracy theories.

 

No surprise here. Conservatives go after the White House. Liberals defend the White House.

 

Neither side is willing to look at the big picture.

 

And neither side gives a thought to how the intelligence establishment views this scandal, as loud alarm bells keep ringing at Langley.

 

Let’s see. Not a CIA agent, but the director of the CIA has a secret affair with a woman who is not his wife. This woman has a significant amount of classified information on her unsecured computer at home.

 

She herself is compromised and vulnerable, because she is having an affair with him and she is married. And no one knows who she might be covertly working for.

 

Before the CIA director publicly confesses the affair and resigns, he has access to millions and millions of pieces of highly secret CIA data, some of which even the president never gets to see.

 

No one, however, is particularly worried that the general may have been blackmailed.

 

What would blackmailers seek to get from Petraeus?

 

In addition to what he knows from his tenure at the CIA, he served at the top of the heap in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

He was in Iraq, where billions of dollars in “US aid” went missing. Who stole the money? Those names? An extremely useful nugget, if Petraeus could provide it.

 

Then in Afghanistan, details on the restructured heroin-trade operation would be another gem. As would reports on poppy yields and the names of drug warlords who were replacing old mainstays. Dope Inc. is a trillion-dollar business, and what Petraeus could pass along would rate as prime industrial espionage. He would know a great deal about US government involvement in drug trafficking.

 

Then you have oil deals vis-a-vis the hoped-for Afghan pipeline. Can’t tell the shifting players without a scorecard. You’ve got newly minted Russian oligarchs, Chinese operatives, competing oil companies, bank financiers, drug kings looking for a place to wash and multiply their money. Everybody and his brother wants a slice of that action.

 

Petraeus was there on the ground. He was connected. Anything he knew about oil deals would be prized intelligence, useful to a great many competitors.

 

General MacArthur once said, “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.” Now old soldiers reach out for the cash. The unimaginative ones sit on boards of security companies and defense contractors. The clever ones dig deeper. Holding companies, banks, finance groups, places where sums of money that would make you reel cross over the transom every day, as the global laundry machine pumps away digital blood and bankrupts nations.

 

Paying off a general and a CIA director (if you can) to extract very, very valuable intell and information is a natural. Having an affair to hang over his head, an affair to which he has not confessed, is a jackpot.

 

But no one is particularly worried that Petraeus may have passed information on to blackmailers.

 

Then we have this. The general had an enormous amount of information about the US Armed Forces’ strengths and weaknesses, about classified military bases, about deployment numbers, special ops missions, weapons capabilities and limitations in the field, under actual battle conditions. He knew other generals and officers, and could speak, authoritatively, to their methods, abilities, and deficiencies. If they had personal secrets, he would have known some of them.

 

But no one is particularly worried that Petraeus may have passed information on to blackmailers. It’s only important that he and his family can move on.

 

During his tenure in the Army and the CIA, Petraeus spoke with Obama many times. He could offer up, from personal experience, assessments of the president’s character, methods, operational strengths and weaknesses.

 

But no one is particularly worried that Petraeus could have passed information on to blackmailers.

 

There is Benghazi. Petraeus has crucial information about what actually happened there. There is a good chance he could sink the president’s second term before it even begins.

 

But no one seems worried Petraeus could have already passed on that information to blackmailers.

 

No one seems worried because they’re quaking in their boots and covering up their fear. They’re hoping against hope that the artificial portrait they had painted of Petraeus, as a mythical national hero, holds together long enough to let the ongoing uproar fade down the memory hole.

 

There are other matters as well. Petraeus could offer blackmailers an inside view of West Point, the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon, the Secretary of Defense.

 

He could discuss, in intimate detail, perception vs. reality vis-a-vis the inner workings of the CIA, conflicts within the White House. He could disclose secrets about defense contractors, future US weaponry, the revamping of the Armed Forces, classified experiments at DARPA, research on creating the “superior soldier,” dissident military officers who are against the president and his policies and might be trying to drum up various rebellions in the ranks.

 

And much, much more.

 

But no one is worried.

 

Of course not.

 

Petraeus slipped and had an affair. That’s the beginning and end of it.

 

A man walking around with miles and miles and miles of invaluable unique information in his head…a man, in that respect, like no other in America…is no problem at all.

 

The US military-industrial complex needed a man like Petraeus, at a time when a two-front war was stretching personnel thin. Soldiers, ordered to do multiple tours, loaded up with psychoactive drugs, were starting to push back.

 

Petraeus came in and provided a sense of order and renewed purpose. Of course, it was all fake. It was a “new theory” on how to fight enemies while pacifying civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as if the wars were, in reality, a humane enterprise.

 

Obama was Bush with a kinder face.

 

Petraeus was hailed as a brilliant innovator, a leadership guru. Broadwell celebrated and extolled the leadership angle in her book.

 

But really, Petraeus was just providing the US war machine with longer shelf life.

 

He gave that machine cover, and now they’re giving him cover.

 

And everybody will keep tap-dancing and lying.

Jon Rappoport

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

Disrupting the flow of matrix virtual reality

 

DISRUPTING THE FLOW OF MATRIX VIRTUAL REALITY

by Jon Rappoport

November 15, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Election night on planet Earth is an illustration of the virtual reality we live in.

 

A news anchor on a network, who has learned how to impart information as if it is real, who can effortlessly assume a position of earnest authority, who seems to emanate the correct amount of empathy without descending into a cloying familiarity with the audience, who can seamlessly switch from reporting to giving way to other reporters to breaking for commercial, who can listen to instructions in his earpiece while talking at the same time, who can generate exactly the right amount of enthusiasm without straining credulity, who can appear to care about what he is reporting, who can maintain a pose of neutrality:

 

Tells us what the numbers are, and:

 

When the moment is right, makes the projection of the winner and the loser, as if:

 

The information comes through to him from an unimpeachable source.

 

The anchor can hand off to an analyst who explains why the projection is correct, who points to a map to reveal the breakdown.

 

It all passes before us, and the goal is to make us accept, and by accepting, believe.

 

The system is air-tight.

 

The truth has been made known.

 

The predictive power of unseen experts is formidable.

 

But, in fact, we are watching images and listening to voices on television, and what is actually happening in voting booths, what has been happening in voting booths, and what will happen in voting booths is a mystery.

 

However, as long as we are in the flow, we sense things are all right.

 

This virtual flow is a tiny corner of the Matrix in action.

 

What would happen, though, if out of nowhere, on our television screens, we saw an egg cracking and Donald Duck crawling out of it wearing a bright pink suit holding a handful of cash?

 

Right in the middle of an election projection for a senate race in New Jersey.

 

What would happen if the face of the anchor began to drip tears of steel as he was making a call on the presidential race in Ohio?

 

What would happen if we heard the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing, “Something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr Jones,” swelling in volume, until the anchor was drowned out and we could only see his mouth working in silence.

 

This is, in fact, the sort of thing that happens when you back up and analyze where the election information is coming from and discover you don’t know.

 

You do know, however, that the channel through which it is expressed is electronic and deploys computers.

 

You know that computers are programmed to deal with millions of crumbs in certain assigned ways.

 

So it occurs to you, like a joke unfolding, that if the situation were right, those machines could spit out anything.

 

They could say Bob Dylan or James Bond had just been elected the next president of the United States. They could.

 

So you wonder how that might be done. Then you wonder how it’s actually done, to produce the name of the winner you automatically accept as genuine and true and authentic. The real-real winner.

 

Then you realize the real-real winner could be no more real than President James Bond.

 

The Matrix is very much like a hall in a painting. You walk into the painting and you’re in the hall. Having arrived in the hall, you look for a room. You find one. There are books on the shelves and a fire in the fireplace. You sit down. A man comes in and tells you it’s raining and the guests for dinner may be a little late.

 

Someone painted a picture and you walked into it and took up residence. You believed.

 

When you stop believing, you can go back into the hall and find your way out of the painting.

 

In this world of ours, exposing “a flow of the virtual Matrix” for what it is can create a domino effect. If the transmission of election results is a mere charade, then what does that imply? What other slices of Matrix flow are fabricated?

 

As you expose one segment of flow, you already sense there are others to expose. Many segments of flow are linked up.

 

If you tell people you’ve just exposed a segment of flow, they may become annoyed. They are comfortably ensconced in the whole continuum of flow, and they want to see the show. They don’t want interruptions.

 

They don’t tell you this, of course. Instead, they reach out for and grab the most convenient story and use it to reject your discovery. It doesn’t matter what that story is. They treat it as holy fact.

 

But basically, they reject what you’re telling them because you’re the Donald Duck in a bright pink suit holding a handful of cash, and they were trying to watch a wholly engrossing news anchor project the next president of the United States.

 

Jon Rappoport

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

A call to hackers everywhere

 

A CALL TO HACKERS EVERYWHERE: TEST THE PROP 37 VOTE-COUNT

by Jon Rappoport

November 15, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

I’ve now established the most probable truth about the fate of Prop 37 in California. The election was electronically controlled.

 

See my definitive piece here:

 

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/prop-37-the-top-7-reasons-not-to-believe-the-vote-count/

 

Now, to earn a place in the white-hat hall of fame, a few very talented hackers need to prove that the California election system, the vote-counting apparatus can be hacked.

 

I’m NOT calling for anything illegal. In fact, this only works if it’s done in front of election officials and FBI agents and the FEC. In broad daylight. As it is broadcast to hundreds of millions of people around the world, online.

 

Start, I suppose, with hacking into individual vote machines. Go from there to hacking the information relayed from those machines up the line. Hack larger computers and tabulating machines in the sequence. Hack pieces of the count. Hack the whole count. Reverse election winners. Whatever can be done.

 

In no possible way do I support or countenance just hacking in privately or illegally. I want something definitive accomplished above board. I want everybody who believes we’re living in a real system to see it’s virtual, to know the networks who do the absurd early projections on election night are puppets in a parade.

 

Let’s make something clear. This isn’t some idea I came up with as an original suggestion. I’m not fomenting anything. This has been done before. Every hacker worth his salt already knows about the idea of hacking an election count. Every hacker knows, for example, about the group of Michigan computer scientists who broke into the District of Columbia’s system and reversed the mayoral race winner, fabricated absentee votes, and canceled actual votes. They did this by invitation, to prove it could be achieved.

 

Of course, the implications here go a lot farther than Prop 37. Ultimately, they call into question the whole voting system of America—or anywhere where computers are at the heart of the system.

 

Would California election officials and the FBI and the FEC permit a “teaching moment” like this? Would they cooperate in a grand experiment, publicly carried out by the best of the best?

 

If they refused, that would tell something very valuable. It would tells they’re scared. It would tell us they don’t really want the system tested to the limit.

 

How about it? Let’s cut through the crap. Let’s show what a real hacking test looks like. Let’s have the most talented among you display your stuff.

 

Naturally, certain conditions apply. We have to know this is the real California vote-count system we’re dealing with. Not some phony version. We have to know there are no tricks up anybody’s sleeve. No normal information pathways being blocked off.

 

I say, if Pentagon and Interpol and FBI and NASA systems can be hacked, the California voting system can be cracked like an egg and manipulated, without leaving obvious traces or alerting officials.

 

Right? Wrong?

 

Let’s find out.

 

Jon Rappoport

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