Exclusive: an interview with fired Professor James Tracy

Exclusive: an interview with fired Professor James Tracy

Free speech at an American university? Or not?

James Tracy responds to questions about his firing, and about press reports of events that have swirled around him.

by Jon Rappoport

March 7, 2016

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

By Jon Rappoport

“Why was he fired? I mean, why was he really fired? What did he do? What did he do to bring this down on himself? He must have done something wrong…Wait. Are you saying he was fired because he exercised his natural right to free speech? He spoke freely? That’s it? That’s all? No, I can’t believe that. He must have said something that I would disagree with—in which case, he should have been fired. I feel better. He said something I disagree with. He should be fired. What right does he have to say something that makes me feel uncomfortable? That crosses the line. I have a right not to feel uncomfortable. Isn’t that the most basic of all rights? Isn’t that written in the Constitution?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

What happened to Professor James Tracy?

Here is what the NY Times had to say (“Florida Professor Who Cast Doubt on Mass Shootings Is Fired,” 1/6/16):

“MIAMI — A Florida Atlantic University professor who suggested in blog postings and radio interviews that the 2012 massacre of children at Sandy Hook Elementary and other mass shootings were a hoax designed by the Obama administration to boost support for gun control was fired Tuesday.

“James F. Tracy, 50, a tenured associate professor of communications at the Boca Raton university, has repeatedly called into question the authenticity of recent mass shootings, including the slaying of churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., and office workers in San Bernardino, Calif. In his blog postings and radio interviews, Mr. Tracy has said the Newtown massacre may have been carried out by ‘crisis actors’ employed by the Obama administration.”

Here are a few more news quotes about Tracy:

Orlando Sun-Sentinel op-ed (“Tenure be damned, Professor James Tracy embarrasses FAU,” 12/17/2015):

“In our view, academic freedom is not a license to do or say whatever you want, consequences be damned. So we welcome the termination proceedings begun against Tracy this week by FAU, a university he continues to embarrass with his ‘didn’t happen’ conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter, the Boston Marathon bombing, the San Bernardino shooting and other mass attacks.”

The Washington Times (“Florida Atlantic University moves to fire professor who questioned Sandy Hook,” 12/18/2015):

“Florida Atlantic University moved Wednesday to fire a professor who has faced calls for resignation after claiming the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a staged drill that the community benefitted from financially…The school said in a release on its website that School of Communication and Multimedia Studies professor James Tracy was served Wednesday with a notice of termination, to which he has 10 days to respond.”

And then we have this from the Daily Beast (“This Professor Trolled Sandy Hook Parents—And His University Wants Him Gone,” 12/17/2015):

“James Tracy, who taught a course chock-full of conspiracy theories at Florida Atlantic University, reportedly harassed parents of a Sandy Hook child, demanding proof of his death… Florida Atlantic University announced on Thursday it planned to fire tenured professor James Tracy for allegedly harassing parents of the victims of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary that left 20 children and six adults dead… After years of Tracy stating that the massacre was a government conspiracy, the professor reportedly sent a certified letter to Lenny and Veronique Pozner demanding they prove that their deceased 6-year-old, Noah, ever existed. When the family notified the police of the harassment, Tracy responded on a ‘Sandy Hook Hoax’ Facebook page, claiming that the family had ‘made out very well for itself financially’ from the tragedy… That was enough for the university to take action.”

Here is my interview with James Tracy. Let’s read, at length, what he has to say:

Q: Did you harass Lenny and Veronique Pozner about their son, Noah?

Absolutely not.

In March of 2015, Lenny Pozner, acting on behalf of his “HONR Network,” filed a copyright infringement claim with Automattic, the ISP and parent company of WordPress.com, where my blog, Memory Hole, is housed. Pozner/HONR Network demanded that I take down an image that Pozner purports to hold copyright ownership in. This well-known photograph, purportedly of [Lenny’s son] Noah Pozner, was voluntarily provided to the press by the Pozners in December 2012 following the Sandy Hook massacre event and has since been reproduced millions of times in print, electronic, and online media throughout the world.

An identical photo of Noah Pozner also appeared in December 2014 in the wake of a school massacre in Peshawar Pakistan, purportedly representing a child victim in that shooting. I wrote an article in January 2015 on the re-emergence of this image and included the photo in question. Even the BBC eventually acknowledged how the photo first appeared following the 2012 Newtown massacre. When Automattic/Wordpress presented me with Pozner’s takedown request it remarked that my inclusion of the photo in the post constituted “fair use” under US copyright law, which provides for republication of copyrighted material for the purpose of “commentary or criticism.” Nonetheless, I removed the photograph from my blog, and responded to the allegations, referencing free speech concerns and asking for documentation and evidence supporting Pozner’s copyright claims. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any journalistic outlet that has ever attempted to accurately report this.

I should note that by early 2015, Lenny Pozner had become infamous within the alternative media community for filing blatantly frivolous infringement claims. Pozner’s objective appears to be to shutdown any commentary or criticism of the controversy surrounding his son’s death, as alleged. To contest such claims, anonymous bloggers and YouTubers must divulge their legal identities. Pozner and his HONR Network associates then use this identifying information to stalk and harass Sandy Hook researchers, going so far as to contact their family members, neighbors, and employers, to suggest these researchers are emotionally harming Sandy Hook victims’ families. But there’s nothing unlawful with such study and criticism. On the contrary, it is Pozner and his group who are involved in unlawful stalking, harassment and defamation. This very harassment and defamation of myself reached a crescendo with the Sun-Sentinel’s December 10 publication of an article by Lenny and Veronique Pozner entitled, “Sandy Hook Massacre 3rd Anniversary: Two Parents Target FAU Conspiracy Theorist; FAU Professor Taunts Sandy Hook Parents.”

Q: How do you view free speech and the 1st Amendment, in light of what is happening to you?

Free speech and academic freedom are closely intertwined. When school officials at FAU [Florida Atlantic University] initially expressed their concerns about my blog in 2013, I explained to them that if I could not practice my constitutional rights during my personal time, then my right to academic freedom and professional autonomy on the job is likewise threatened. This is the case for university faculty at FAU and throughout the country. The American Association of University Professors and The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education supported my stance in letters of protest to school officials when FAU first attempted to discipline me for my personal blogging in March of 2013. Regardless of the lies told by the Pozners and their media allies, I don’t think there’s any question given what has transpired that FAU has acted wrongfully, and in violation of its own principles of academic freedom, institutional tenure and my constitutional rights.

Q: On what basis did the University fire you?

FAU’s contention is that I failed to file “outside activity” forms for my personal blog. In January of 2013, they made the same request and at that time I explained that such endeavors are personal and protected by the First Amendment. The administration fell silent for 34 months, and then abruptly resurrected this unconstitutional basis as cause for termination in late December 2015. For their exact “reasoning”, see FAU’s Notice of Termination, dated January 6, 2016.

Q: Before this situation finally blew up, you must have known you were on a collision course with the University. What were your thoughts about that?

I had no idea that university officials would so brazenly violate the well-established principles of academic freedom and my constitutional rights. In 2014, a new president, John Kelly, was recruited from Clemson University and installed at Florida Atlantic. His administration was characterized to me by one senior FAU faculty member as the most anti-faculty administration in thirty-plus years. This administration has proceeded to discipline or threaten with discipline several faculty who’ve made public pronouncements that Kelly and his inner circle disfavor.

In September 2015 the Kelly administration attempted to effectively eliminate tenure by implementing a controversial post-tenure review process that faculty eventually caught wind of and protested. I also reported on that episode.

See James Tracy, “Academic Freedom Threatened in America: The Policy of Post Tenure Review,” Global Research, September 20, 2015.

Q: In a similar vein, people must have been telling you, in the past few years, that you were treading on dangerous ground, relative to job security. How did you respond?

I can’t recall any colleague suggesting that I was in danger of being disciplined, much less being stripped of tenure and fired. I was confident that tenure and the First Amendment still had meaning at FAU. I was obviously proven wrong.

Q: Do you believe your present situation is a test case for academic freedom in America?

Absolutely—for academic freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. All of these protections exist so that faculty and citizens can examine, research, and publicize the potential malfeasance and wrongdoing of those in power. As some academics and journalists have come to realize, however, is the unwritten code guiding what topics can actually be addressed. Political assassinations and similar events are often deemed suspect and off-limits.

I think this is strongly-rooted in the misleading yet almost uniformly adhered to notion that we live in an “open society,” a mythic pluralism overseen by properly functioning political institutions inhabited by fair-minded political leaders and bureaucrats, all of whom have our best interests at heart. Of course, universities are a central part of this mythic democratic order. Researching such difficult subject matter calls the legitimacy of this system into question. At the same time controversial and poorly-understood topics are exactly what tenure and academic freedom exist to foster and protect.

Q: Is anyone at your University defending you?

I have maintained contact with most of the colleagues I’ve come to know in my thirteen years at FAU. They understand how I have been defamed in the press and recognize the grave injustice of the termination. Yet not nearly enough people have condemned the FAU administrators’ action, particularly the egregiousness of their conduct. As noted, some faculty clearly fear retaliation, and rightly so. Others both at FAU and elsewhere have simply bought the disinformation the news media have circulated without examining the facts, which is the most painless and convenient course of action.

Q: What would you say to people who believe your claim about Sandy Hook is completely absurd?

You can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into in the first place. Most challengers of my analyses and criticisms of unbelievable official narratives have not even attempted to explore the evidence researchers and journalists have presented through alternative media. It’s much easier to shoot the messenger, particularly when the messenger is framed as an insensitive deviant, and refrain from critical thinking.

Q: Playing Devil’s advocate for a minute—it’s one thing to espouse a controversial view in a college classroom, but when grieving parents feel pain because you’re going after them, all bets are off, and your University has a right to terminate you, on the basis that you’re crossing a moral line and bringing shame to the institution.

I didn’t “go after” anyone, even though that’s how the legacy news media chose to present and cultivate the controversy. In the immediate wake of FAU’s public announcement that it was poised to terminate my employment on December 16, 2015 the media assumed that I was being fired because of my public comment and letter to Pozner’s HONR Network. Yet the administration fired me on a technicality that cannot warrant the termination of any tenured faculty member, particularly one such as myself who since 2002 has established an impeccable record of research, teaching and service at FAU. I contend that I merely sought the truth, did my job and engaged in constitutionally protected activities. I did not bring shame on FAU. The disclaimer on my blog specifically states that I don’t speak for FAU. In fact, FAU has brought shame to itself by violating long standing principles of academic freedom, and by violating constitutional rights that it is supposed to safeguard and protect.

Q: There is going to be a University hearing, at which you’ll defend yourself against job termination? What shape do you anticipate that hearing will take?

In January 2016, I dropped the faculty union-appointed attorney and hired a counsel of my own choosing who I believe will be a stronger advocate. While I cannot discuss any case details or specifics, it is my understanding that any legal action will be directed at those who have violated my constitutional rights, and I have the right to a trial by jury. This is how the proceedings will take shape, unless a Court determines that I am entitled to relief as a matter of law without a trial.

Q: Here are several questions together; sort them out in whatever way you want to: How do you separate the right to free speech, the right to express your conclusions about Sandy Hook, from the content and substance of your conclusions? What’s the primary issue here? Did your University fire you because you’ve expressed a very controversial view, or because you’ve become embroiled in a conflict with the Pozners?

George Orwell once remarked, “At any given moment there is orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this or that or the other, but it is not done. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in highbrow periodicals.”

I maintain that the primary issue is FAU violated my constitutional rights, which exist to provide the basis for rational argument and exchange, and protect “unorthodox” views, which with the benefit of hindsight often demonstrate their significance. According to the U.S. Supreme Court: “The hallmark of the protection of free speech is to allow “free trade in ideas”–even ideas that the overwhelming majority of people might find distasteful or discomforting.” (Virginia v. Black 2003)

Regardless of how the FAU administration dressed this matter up I don’t believe there’s really any question that I was fired for exercising my constitutional rights.

Q: If your tenured employment is re-established there, how will you go forward?

A perfect definition of an intellectual slave, in my view, is someone who recognizes truth but fears to publicly acknowledge or affirm it. I would very much wish to have my job back. Yet if this were achieved I would remain concerned about efforts by school officials and others to infringe on my constitutional rights and harm me for standing up for my rights, as well as the rights of others.

Q: Do you believe there are people trying to avoid the issue of free speech and academic freedom in your situation? Do you believe they’re shading this controversy and mischaracterizing it, in order to invent other reasons for firing you, so they don’t have to face the question of freedom head-on?

The fact that FAU administrators have chosen to fire me on pretextual grounds is ample proof that they must at all costs avoid the questions of academic freedom and free speech.

Q: Have you looked for help where you thought you might get it, only to be ignored or rejected?

I want to thank those who have stood by me and shown their support. I think it would be best to leave it at that.

—After receiving Tracy’s answers to these questions, I sent him a few follow-up questions. Here is the rest of the interview:

Q: I understand the Pozners claim you questioned, or doubted, or denied that their son died during the Sandy Hook School shooting. Is that correct?

Yes, this is what the Pozners claim in their December 10 article published by the Sun-Sentinel.

Q: Did you ask the Pozners for proof that their son died, that he wasn’t still alive?

My correspondence was not sent to Lenny and Veronique Pozner, but was rather directed to the business address of Lenny Pozner and his HONR Network. The letter requested written verification of Pozner’s identity, his ownership of the copyrighted image, and evidence of the image’s origin. In other words, I asked for Lenny Pozner to back up what he swore to be true under penalty of perjury in his copyright infringement complaint against my ISP and website. This is the specific passage from that letter:

I have reason to doubt the good faith nature of your March 22, 2015 DMCA copyright infringement claim. An action with such potential weight to stifle free speech needs the utmost scrutiny. I am therefore requesting written evidence of the following from you:

1. Proof of your identity via copy of a government-issued document, such as a state driver’s license or passport.

2. Proof of your relationship to the deceased party, Noah Pozner, whose alleged photograph appears in the image in question referenced above.

3. Proof of your ownership of said image via a signed and notarized statement from a qualified and licensed forensic expert substantiating your legal ownership of said image, including the date and time of the image’s capture.

The text of the letter is available here: “HONR Network, ‘Lenny Pozner’ Fall Silent on Copyright Infringement Claim”.

Very few publications chose to provide this important context. Instead, they collectively reinforced the much more sensational yet erroneous notion that I made an out-of-the-blue request for “proof that their son died.”

Q: Could you describe the position you’ve taken regarding the Sandy Hook school shooing?

My position from December 2012 has been that the corporate news media never did their job in reporting the Sandy Hook massacre. We now know without any doubt that the actual event differed greatly from what the American public have been told, and as with most poorly-understood terror events the media never backtracked to further investigate the case and admit their “errors” in reportage, some of which now appear to have been intentional. If Americans are going to have an honest debate and possibly endorse policy changes further compromising the Second Amendment such an exchange needs to be based on facts rather than on the media disinformation that’s created a mythology of misplaced fear.

Q: Just to clarify, your letter to Lenny Pozner’s HONR group was essentially asking him to verify he was who he said he was; that he was the father of Noah Pozner; and that the photo of Noah was owned by him. These requests were part of your investigation into the Sandy Hook shooting. You were trying to establish whether the shooting actually took place or was a staged hoax in which no one died. Correct?

Yes, that’s correct.

—end of interview—

My opinion:

Florida Atlantic University is a Florida state institution. It is an extension of state government. Therefore, its decisions about free speech and limits are government decisions. The government is telling a tenured professor he went too far in speaking and writing freely. It fired him.

It entered the dark regions, where morbid dislike for someone else’s reasoning process takes precedence over his right to speak and write.

It’s as if the University said: “You can write this. You can write that. But over here, you can’t write that. No. We don’t like that. It reflects badly on us and, well, we just don’t like it. So we’re going to find a reason to fire you. We’re going to find a reason that doesn’t attack free speech per se, because that, too, would reflect badly on us. We’re not that stupid. So we’ve put our people on the case. How can we fire you on some technicality? How can we appear to be neutral? How can we nail you, while appearing to be as calm and neutral as a surgeon operating on the brain of a stranger?”

This is what bureaucracy does. It likes doing it. It wants to limit free speech. It’s tired of free speech. It’s an annoyance. And worse, free speech can expose the nature and the actions of the bureaucracy.

Free speech is untamed. Free speech can even, God forbid, employ reasoning and evidence and actually make a formal argument, and attempt to establish a case. People “have to be cured of that practice.” It’s dangerous to the State.

The State wants all debate to occur within a chosen context. Outside those boundaries, debate should be belittled. It’s “conspiracy theory.”


power outside the matrix


Well, here is a theory. If one college in America had the balls to defend one of its own who is expressing a very unpopular view—if one college made that call and stood by it and loudly attacked anyone who tried to impinge on that freedom…who knows what might happen? Who knows how the tide might turn? Who knows how many people might wake up?

You know, suppose something like this happened instead of what has happened:

“As president of Florida Atlantic University, I wanted to bring Professor Tracy here today to give us a complete presentation of his views and his position on the Sandy Hook school shooting. He has now done that, for the last three hours, in front of five thousand people and the press. I thank him for that. There is no ‘we’ here. I’m not going to tell you what ‘we, the University’ think of all this. I’m not in the business of making ‘we’ pronouncements when it comes to research and conclusion. I don’t care what anyone thinks or believes or concludes about Professor Tracy’s stance. He has made his case. If any person or group thinks they can come at this University now and demand we censure Professor Tracy or fire him, be ready for war. I hold up the First Amendment of the Constitution. It’s not just a shield. It’s a sword. I will use it. And you won’t like what it does to you. Somewhere, people have to make a stand for the law and what the law embodies and refers to—which is the natural right of the individual to speak freely. This University is that place. Right now. If you can’t tell the difference between what you think of what someone else is saying and his right to say it, without interruption or censure, you are socially and politically insane. You need help, and the help should come in the form of education. This University is in that business. We are that island. If you want a war on that subject, bring it. But I warn you.

“Don’t screw with me. I’ll crush you.”

You know, something like that. Something we really need.

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.

Training exercises dovetail with mass shootings

Training exercises dovetail with mass shootings

What are the odds?

by Jon Rappoport

November 21, 2015

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

By Jon Rappoport

Note: Thanks to humansarefree.com. I found much information at the site, as well as links to relevant articles.

Whether mass shootings are approached as the mainstream reports them, or as false flags, staged scenarios, or outright hoaxes, there is a common thread which runs through some of them: official training exercises held just prior to, or at the same time as, the shootings.

I’m not trying to present an all-inclusive list here.

The November 13, 2015, Paris attacks: “Since the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January, from which 16 people died, Paris-area ambulance crews and emergency personnel have taken part in regular exercises designed to test their readiness for possible attacks. One such exercise was held on Friday morning, the day of the latest terror attacks. In a twist of fate, the simulated emergency was a mass shooting, according to Dr. Mathieu Raux, emergency room chief at the Pitié-Salpetrière hospital in Paris.” (Bloomberg, 11/17/15, “Hours Before the Terror Attacks, Paris Practiced for a Mass Shooting”)

The Charleston, South Carolina, church shooting, June 17, 2015: See The Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers Advanced Training Schedule chart (in the article), which lists training courses in various locations. The chart indicates that, in Charleston, there was an “Active Shooter Threat Instructor Program” from June 15 to June 19, which overlapped the church shooting. (humansarefree.com, 6/24/15, “‘Active Shooter Drills’ Took Place in the Same Day as Charleston Shooting…”)

Boston Marathon attack, April 15, 2013: In this case, the training exercise was called off, because the real thing happened before the exercise took place—“…the DHS-funded drill, known as ‘Operation Urban Shield,’ was intended to take place during the summer, according to the Boston Globe — that is until the ‘real’ event beat it to the punch. But the drill itinerary so closely resembles what actually occurred the day of the bombings that even the mainstream media source responsible for bringing it to light could not help but point out this incredible ‘coincidence,’ …The [training exercise] scenario had been carefully planned: A terrorist group prepared to hurt vast numbers of people around Boston would leave backpacks filled with explosives at Faneuil Hall, the Seaport District, and in other towns, spreading waves of panic and fear, explains the Boston Globe…” (Natural News, 6/22/13, “DHS documents prove Boston Marathon bombing was false flag ‘drill’ planned months in advance”)

Sandy Hook school shooting, December 14, 2012: “By grim coincidence, even as the terrible events were unfolding in Newtown on Friday morning, the Putnam County Emergency Response Team (‘ERT’) happened to be assembled for regular training in Carmel, and team members were at that very moment engaged in a mock scenario of an active-shooter in a school. The ERT is comprised of specially trained and heavily armed officers from the Sheriff’s Office and the Carmel and Kent Police Departments. When news broke of the Newtown shooting, the Putnam County ERT commander called Newtown Police and offered to have the ERT respond to the Sandy Hook school, but that response was not needed because Connecticut police had already secured the scene.” (Southeast-Brewster Patch newspaper, 12/18/12, “Sheriff: Putnam Officials to Talk School Safety This Afternoon”)

The July 20, 2012, Aurora, Colorado, “Batman” shooting: “The tragedy that played out in an Aurora movie theater Friday was ironically paralleled as a classroom learning experience in a medical school in Parker the same day. Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine is in the middle of holding specialized classes in disaster life support for 150 second-year medical students. Along with response to natural disasters like hurricanes and floods and terrorist attacks, one of the scenarios being used to train the students is how to respond if a shooter fires at people in a movie theater and also uses a bomb in the attack. ‘The irony is amazing, just amazing,’ said Rocky Vista Dean Dr. Bruce Dubin.” (Denver Post, 7/21/12, “Real life shooting imitates training exercise at Parker medical school”)

The Oslo bombing/shooting attack, July 22, 2011: “Only hours before Anders Behring Breivik began shooting children on Utøya, the police emergency squad concluded an exercise where they practiced an almost identical situation. Four days in advance, and also the same Friday the attack was carried out, the police special unit trained on an ongoing terror campaign that was approximately equal to the situation that hours later, met the 22 police officers within the emergency squad on Utøya. As far as Aftenposten has been informed, the training transcended directly into what the policed then faced in the Tyrifjord that very day; a mobile terror attack, in which one or more perpetrators only goal was to shoot as many people as possible and then shoot the police when they arrived. Only 26 minutes after the emergency squad’s training had concluded, the car bomb went off in the government quarter. The Emergency Squad arrived early on the scene.” (publicintelligence.net, 8/30/11, “Norwegian Police Conducted Drill for ‘Almost Identical’ Scenario Minutes Before Utoya Massacre”)

The 7/7/2005 bomb attacks on the London underground: “A fictional ‘scenario’ of multiple bomb attacks on London’s underground took place at exactly the same time as the bomb attack on July 7, 2005.

“Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, a private firm on contract to the London Metropolitan Police, described in a BBC interview how he had organized and conducted the anti-terror drill, on behalf of an unnamed business client.

“The fictional scenario was based on simultaneous bombs going off at exactly the same time at the underground stations where the real attacks were occurring:

POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don’t want to reveal their name but they’re listening and they’ll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they’d met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on. (BBC Radio Interview, 7 July 2005—as reported at Global Research, 8/8/15, “Ten Years Ago: The London 7/7 Mock Terror Drill: What Relationship to the Real Time Terror Attacks?”)


the matrix revealed


9/11/01 attacks on Trade Center and the Pentagon: No less than 22 drills took place on that day, among which was a National Reconnaissance Office exercise in Chantilly, Virginia, involving a simulated plane crashing into a tall building. (See Kevin Barrett’s chart of 9/11 training exercises “The 46 drills, operations, war games, and activities of 9/11”, based on Webster Tarpley’s book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA (5th Ed))

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.

The James Holmes Batman-murder psychiatric circus

The James Holmes Batman-murder psychiatric circus

by Jon Rappoport

April 28, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

This article is not about all the contradictions and inconsistencies in the official story of “the Batman murders” at the Aurora Theater. This article is about the use of psychiatry in the judicial system.

Judge Carlos Samour has ordered James Holmes to undergo a second sanity review. Holmes’ lawyers are appealing that order, so once again, everything is on hold.

Holmes has already entered a plea of insanity, meaning he committed the murders but was crazy at the time. And he’s already had one sanity review in a hospital. But the Judge didn’t like that review, and neither did the prosecution. Why? No one is permitted to say, but it’s obvious the prosecution is upset because the first review concluded that Holmes was/is insane….unable to tell right from wrong.

The prosecution wants the case to end up with a guilty verdict and the death penalty, not with an insane Holmes assigned to a prison hospital as a psychotic.

The Judge wants the second sanity review to focus tightly on whether Holmes was sane or insane on the night he “killed people in the theater.”

So how do psychiatrists decide that question?

In order to do so, they have to go through Holmes himself.

Is Holmes now sane? Can he look back and provide an accurate account of his state of mind then?

“Well, I’m quite sane now, and I can see I knew right from wrong then.”

Sure.

If Holmes is sane now (whatever that means), why should he admit he was sane then and risk dying at the hands of the State? If he’s sane now, he’ll say, “I was crazy that night. I couldn’t tell right from wrong.”

How do the psychiatrists navigate through that?

If Holmes is insane now, whatever he remembers about that night in the theater should be automatically discounted and ignored.

But psychiatrists, with their pseudoscience, have a reputation to uphold. They have to make it seem as if they know what they’re doing. They have to pretend their word games and their diagnoses are connected to the reality of the mind.

That isn’t the case, of course. No official diagnosis of any so-called mental disorder has a defining test to back it up. It’s all a hoax.

Eventually, after their second sanity review, psychiatrists will enter an opinion with the court. They’ll claim that some sort of objective analysis was done on Holmes, bypassing his fractured mental state. They’ll sell their snake oil to the Judge.

And he’ll buy it, because psychiatric reviews are part and parcel of the modern judicial system.

The bottom line? Aided by the sold-out political establishment, the men who really want to control the destiny of this country are using psychiatry and the “mental health” system to create a Police State.

“Everybody has a mental disorder, and must be treated.”

UPI is now reporting that 1 out of every 13 schoolchildren between the ages of 6 and 17 is on a prescription psychiatric drug. These drugs, all of them, are toxic. They sedate the brain. They initiate out-of-control hyper-manic states. They scramble neurotransmitters. The SSRI antidepressants, in particular, push people over the edge into violence; suicide, homicide. Holmes himself was under psychiatric care prior to Aurora.

These drugs are chemical warfare, eating out the population from the inside.

James Holmes is a poster boy for the mental-health system.

“If only his disorder had been caught sooner, if only he were treated, we could have avoided the tragedy in Aurora.”

Therefore, children must be screened and monitored from an early age, diagnosed, and dosed with drugs.

Whether Holmes’ second sanity review comes back with the finding that he was insane in Aurora, the story-line has already been set in concrete: he was suffering from a mental disorder. That fits the overall agenda. That promotes the necessity of psychiatry judging and running the minds of every person.

Freedom dictates the opposite.


power outside the matrix


Some of you may be wondering about my statement that psychiatry is a pseudoscience based on nothing more than arbitrary fantasies.

Here is just a bit of the evidence for that assertion:

Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for 3 years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.

Finally, at the end of the Wired interview, Frances flew off into a bizarre sojourn:

“Diagnosis [as spelled out in the DSM-IV] is part of the magic…you know those medieval maps? In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here’…we have a dragon’s world here. But you wouldn’t want to be without the map.”

Translation: Patients need hope for the healing of their troubles; so even if we psychiatrists are shooting blanks and pretending to know one kind of mental disorder from another, even if we’re inventing these mental-disorder definitions based on no biological or chemical diagnostic tests—it’s a good thing, because patients will then believe and have hope; they’ll believe because psychiatrists place a name on their problems…

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with science. Or healing.

Here is a smoking-gun statement made by another prominent psychiatrist, on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]

Without intending to, Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession.
So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.

These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.

Dr. Barkley employs a corrupted version of logic in his statement to the PBS Frontline interviewer. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. If a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have psychiatry at all, our whole profession would rest on nothing—and that is patently absurd, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”

That logic is no logic at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.

Psychiatry is a pseudoscience. A fake.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Exposed: Sandy Hook shooter’s biggest threat still lives

Exposed: Sandy Hook shooter’s biggest threat still lives

by Jon Rappoport

January 26, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Adam Lanza, the purported Sandy Hook School shooter, is the subject of an ongoing investigation in Connecticut. No, it’s not a police probe, it’s about “mental health.”

The investigation is all about Lanza’s medical history, what diagnoses were made, who the doctors were, what psychiatric drugs they prescribed Lanza.

The Governor of Connecticut is ultimately in charge, in order to make recommendations about improving “mental health” in the state and preventing future violent tragedies.

But the inquiry has stalled. And stalled.

Despite multiple agencies apparently having possession of Lanza’s medical/psychiatric history, these reports have been held close to the vest and not released.

Why?

There are a number of reasons.

First and obviously, the psychiatric drugs didn’t make Lanza better, they made him worse; and some of those drugs, like the SSRI antidepressants, are known to cause violent behavior, including homicide.

The Assistant Attorney General of Connecticut, Patrick Kwanashie, remarked, when asked why the list of psychiatric drugs Lanza took over his lifetime wasn’t being exposed: “[It] would cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.”

Rightly or wrongly cause people to stop? Kwanishie meant wrongly, but the truth is: rightly.

Here are telling quotes from two recent Sheila Matthews AbleChild.org articles that suggest further reasons why Lanza’s psychiatric history isn’t being revealed in detail:

What is known is that Adam [Lanza] was treated over many years, by many mental care practitioners, for his disorders.” Can’t expose all these doctors’ failures.

Adam’s primary psychiatrist was Dr. Paul Fox who, in 2011, surrendered his license to practice medicine in Connecticut and New York, destroyed his records and moved to New Zealand.” Well, doesn’t that raise some juicy questions.

The last known treatment for Lanza was from the Yale Child Study Center…Nancy Lanza [Adam’s mother] reported to Yale that Adam was experiencing an adverse reaction to the psychiatric drug, Celexa, prescribed by Yale.” Celexa is an SSRI antidepressant, and as mentioned above, all the SSRIs are known to produce violent behavior in patients. (See the website, SSRI stories.)

To further indict Yale (an eternal Connecticut institution of great prestige), here is a quote from the State Police Report re Adam Lanza: [Dr. Robert A King of the Yale Child Study Center…indicated] “that serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRI antidepressants], agents such as Zoloft, Luvox, Celexa, Lexapro or Paxil are useful in reducing those symptoms [of depression]…”

I suggest you read the work of psychiatrist, Dr. Peter Breggin, to discover the actual effects of these drugs: destabilization, manic states, violence, etc. Start with Breggin’s landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry.

Yet more reasons why Adam Lanza’s true and complete psychiatric- drug history hasn’t been published thus far? Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy has, at the very least, a strong sentimental attachment to Yale, since he is a lifelong dyslexic and Yale has a center devoted to the study of dyslexia.

More importantly, to the degree that Yale could be exposed and absorb tremendous negative publicity re Lanza, the governor of Connecticut wants to protect that institution. It’s part of his job description.

Then there is the little matter of the Governor’s son, Ben, being arrested on a 2009 charge of trying to steal marijuana from a man. The Governor remarks that Ben was suffering from severe depression, is in treatment now, and is doing well.

Does this mean the criminal charge was vacated in favor of psychiatric treatment? Does the Governor want to risk negative exposure for a psychiatric system that saved his son from doing jail time?


But above and beyond all these reasons why Lanza’s complete and detailed psychiatric-drug history has been hidden, there is this:

Connecticut is home to a collection of important pharmaceutical companies. And yes, Virginia, there is something called the domino effect. If Lanza’s meds were publicly connected to the Sandy Hook shooting, it would be bad for the overall medical-drug business. Very bad.

These drugs companies protect each other when the chips are down, because they’re all selling highly toxic drugs, and that basic secret has to stay in the closet.

Here is a list of drug and medical research companies that have either corporate headquarters or significant research facilities in Connecticut:

Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer-Ingleheim; Rib-X; Purdue; Alexion; Achillion; Pfizer.

Pfizer, of course, manufactures Zoloft (an SSRI antidepressant) and Xanax, a highly addictive drug given for anxiety and panic attacks.

Do all these corporate brethren of toxic drugs exert major influence in Connecticut state politics?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Circling the wagons to prevent Lanza’s psychiatric-drug history from exposure would be on their to-do list.


The Matrix Revealed


Finally, all roads in Connecticut lead to Yale. The University engages in a boggling amount of medical research and teaching activity. Who pays for it? Here is a list of some of its corporate funding partners who engage in pharmaceutical-related business:

Boehringer; Bristol-Myers; Roche; Merck; Ziopharm; Achillion; CuraGen; Metrum Research Group; and Orbi Med, a company which does asset management in the “global health sciences” sector, and has $5 billion in assets.

A 2008 Archstone Consulting study concluded: pharma companies added more than $14 billion to the Connecticut economy in that year. And Connecticut colleges and universities laid out about $600 million for bioscience research in 2008, which was 81% of their whole academic R&D pie.

Connecticut is a relatively small state. To have all these pharmaceutical titans converge on it, and especially at the state’s most famous institution,Yale—versus releasing one boy’s psychiatric-drug history, an event which could start a domino effect within the whole pharmaceutical industry….who is going to exert pressure? Who is going to play its cards? Who is going to call in favors to keep secrets?

The names Sandy Hook and Newtown, however, are now so famous that, somehow, we may see Adam Lanza’s concealed psychiatric records emerge into the light of day.

Peter Lanza, Adam’s father, says he has his son’s medical/psychiatric records and is willing to release them to the investigating commission.

However, this doesn’t mean the public will ever see them.

Big Pharma, day in and day out, celebrates its massive proliferation of drugs for every condition under the sun, including those conditions which are invented out of wholecloth. It creates the illusion that the drugs are absolutely necessary, in order to maintain health.

Admitting that this is all propaganda, and further confessing that some of its drugs routinely kill people and push them over the edge into violence is not part of their program.

And when it comes to an event as explosive as Sandy Hook, accepting blame because the accused shooter was ingesting, for years, psychiatric drugs that scramble neurotransmitters and cause extremely violent behavior…that is out of the question.

The pharmaceutical illusion must be maintained.

A film in which I was interviewed, and on which I worked as associate producer, American Addict, is now available at Netflix and other platforms. (See americanaddictthemovie.com). Dr. Breggin is interviewed, as well Dr. Barbara Starfield, the late revered public health expert, who blew the whistle on medically caused deaths, in her landmark study, “Is US Health really the Best in the World” (JAMA, July 26, 2000).

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

Alexis, Lanza, Holmes, and the Psychiatric State

Alexis, Lanza, Holmes and the Psychiatric State

by Jon Rappoport

September 28, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Whether or not these three men committed the crimes they’ve been accused of, there is no doubt scenarios have been written and established to emphasize and advertise them as mental cases.

And not only mental cases, but people “in need of psychiatric treatment…if we had only caught them in time, we could have gotten them help and then they wouldn’t have killed all those people…”

That’s the PR people at work, because gun control is only one of the items on the agenda here. The twin is MORE PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT AND DRUGGING.

And of course the way the story is being spun, anyone can go off the rails, so be on the alert, your neighbor could have a mental disorder, it’s all right, no stigma attached, he needs treatment right away.

It’s called The Psychiatric State. It’s based on myths and fairy tales about distinct and separate disorders and “good treatment” and sharing and caring in this new humane society of ours.

Everyone at some time in their lives will experience a mental disorder.”

An open secret has been slowly bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association (twitter).

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

But we have a mind-boggling twist. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for 3 years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances (twitter), and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness,” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the (then) latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.

Finally, at the end of the Wired interview, Frances flew off into a bizarre fantasy:

Diagnosis [as spelled out in the DSM-IV] is part of the magic…you know those medieval maps? In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here’…we have a dragon’s world here. But you wouldn’t want to be without the map.”

Translation: Patients need hope for the healing of their troubles; so even if we psychiatrists are shooting blanks and pretending to know one kind of mental disorder from another, even if we’re inventing these mental-disorder definitions based on no biological or chemical diagnostic tests—it’s a good thing, because patients will then believe and have hope; they’ll believe it because psychiatrists place a name on their problems…

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with science.


The Matrix Revealed


If I were an editor at one of the big national newspapers, and one of my reporters walked in and told me, “The most powerful psychiatrist in America just said the DSM is sheer b.s.,” I think I’d make room on the front page.

If the reporter then added, “This shrink was in charge of creating the DSM-IV,” I’d clear room above the fold.

If the reporter went on to explain that the whole profession of psychiatry would collapse overnight if the DSM was discredited, I’d call for a special section of the paper to be printed.

I’d tell the reporter to get ready to pound on this story day after day for months. I’d tell him to track down all the implications of Dr. Frances’ statements.

I’d open a bottle of champagne to toast the soon-to-be-soaring sales of my newspaper.

And then, of course, the next day I’d be fired.

Because there are powerful multi-billion-dollar interests at stake, and those people don’t like their deepest secrets exposed in the press.

And as I walked out of my job, I’d see a bevy of blank-eyed pharmaceutical executives marching into the office of the paper’s publisher, ready to read the riot act to him.


Exit From the Matrix


Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM-IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definition of Bipolar was expanded to include more people.

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;

life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;

brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

intercranial pressure leading to blindness;

peripheral circulatory collapse;

stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

serious impairment of cognitive function;

fainting;

restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

Dr. Frances’ label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of toxic Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of choice.

So what about Ritalin?

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

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

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

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

A recent survey revealed that a high percentage of children diagnosed with bipolar had first received a diagnosis of ADHD. This is informative, because Ritalin and other speed-type drugs are given to kids who are slapped with the ADHD label. Speed, sooner or later, produces a crash. This is easy to call “clinical depression.”

Then comes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. These drugs can produce temporary highs, followed by more crashes. The psychiatrist notices the up and down pattern—and then produces a new diagnosis of Bipolar (manic-depression) and prescribes other drugs, including Valproate and Lithium.

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week? They are in harness.

And Dr. Frances is somehow let off the hook. He’s admitted in print that the whole basis of his profession is throwing darts at labels on a wall, and implies the “effort” is rather heroic—when, in fact, the effort leads to more and more poisonous drugs being dispensed to adults and children, to say nothing of the effect of being diagnosed with “a mental disorder.”

I’m not talking about “the mental-disease stigma,” the removal of which is one of Hillary Clinton’s missions in life. No, I’m talking about MOVING A HUMAN INTO THE SYSTEM, the psychiatric apparatus, where the essence of the game is trapping that person to harvest his money, his time, his energy, and of course his health—as one new diagnosis follows on another, and one new toxic treatment after another is undertaken, from cradle to grave.

The result is a severely debilitated human being (if he survives), whose major claim to fame is his list of diseases and disorders.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.


Here is a smoking-gun statement made by another prominent psychiatrist, on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [emphasis added]

Without intending to, Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession.

So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.

These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.

If I said the moon was made of green cheese, even if I were a Harvard professor, sooner or later someone would ask me to produce a sample of moon rock to be tested for “cheese qualities.” I might begin to feel nervous, I might want to tap dance around the issue, but I would have to submit the rock to a lab.

Dr. Barkley employs a corrupted version of logical analysis in his statement to the PBS Frontline interviewer. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. But if a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have science at all, and that would mean our whole profession rests on nothing—and that is absurd, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”

That logic is no logic at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.


Close to 50 years ago, psychiatry was dying out as a profession. Fewer and fewer people wanted to see a psychiatrist for help, for talk therapy. All sorts of new therapies were popping up. The competition was leaving medical psychiatry in the dust.

As Dr. Peter Breggin describes it in his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, a deal was struck. Drug companies would bankroll psychiatry and rescue it. These companies would pour money into professional conferences, journals, research. In return, they wanted “science” that would promote mental disease as a biological fact, a gateway into the drugs. Everyone would win—except the patient.

So the studies were rolled out, and the list of mental disorders expanded. The FDA was in on the deal as well, as evidenced by their drug “safety” approvals, in the face of the obvious damage these drugs were doing.

So this is how we arrived at where we are. This was the plan, and it worked.

Under the cover story, it was all fraud all the time. Without much of a stretch, you could say psychiatry has been the most widespread profiling operation in the history of the human race. Its goal has been to bring humans everywhere into its system. It hardly matters which label a person is painted with, as long as it adds up to a diagnosis and a prescription of drugs.

Do people suffer, do they have problems, do they experience anguish and pain, do they make choices that sabotage their own interests, do they fall victim to external circumstances, do they long for relief? Of course.

But this nothing to do with fraudulent psychiatric diagnoses.

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. 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

James Holmes’ lawyers enter insanity plea; here come the insane psychiatrists

James Holmes’ lawyers enter insanity plea; here come the insane psychiatrists

by Jon Rappoport

June 7, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

What do you do for a living?”

I slap fictitious disease labels on people and poison their brains.”

Sounds good. We want you to examine a defendant and determine whether he was morally competent on a specific night a year ago.”

Piece of cake.”

That’s what we’re dealing with now in the Batman murder case.

The psychiatrists have taken over.

James Holmes’ lawyers have entered an insanity plea in the Aurora- theater massacre case, and the judge, Carlos Samour, has just accepted it.

From Lawyers.com: “When the insanity defense is raised, it’s an admission that the defendant performed all of the acts alleged by the prosecution. For this reason, if the jury rejects the insanity defense, the defendant will almost certainly be convicted.”

In other words, Holmes’ lawyers have said Holmes committed the murders, but he was insane at the time. He didn’t know right from wrong, he was driven to murder by an irresistible impulse caused by a mental disorder.

So now Holmes will be sent to a Colorado hospital for at least several months, where psychiatrists will make up their minds about whether he is/was insane on the night of July 20, 2012, at the Aurora theater.

Eventually, unless Holmes changes his plea to a simple “guilty,” a trial will take place. In the trial, the jury will decide whether he was sane or insane when he committed murder. The psychiatrists who examined Holmes will, of course, factor into that decision.

At minimum, the jury’s verdict will put Holmes in prison or a psych ward for the rest of his life. If the jury decides Holmes was sane last July, the likely sentence will be death.


In other articles, I have discussed whether Holmes was in the theater last July, whether he killed anyone, whether he was set up as the patsy. Here, I’ll look at what happens now. Because the legal consequences of the insanity plea are as crazy as a bunch of cockroaches when the lights suddenly go on late at night in a garbage dump.

At a Colorado hospital, psychiatrists will check Holmes out from every angle, to determine whether, last July, he could distinguish right from wrong when he supposedly entered the Aurora theater and killed people.

The doctors will give him drugs. These drugs are highly toxic. They can and do cause brain damage. Their effects can be so horrendous the patient will admit to anything, just to stop further dosing.

Holmes must cooperate with the psychiatrists as they adjudicate his state of mind last July 20th. If he doesn’t, it increases the likelihood that he’ll be sentenced to death—as opposed to life in prison. Why? Because at his sentencing hearing, his lawyers will be barred from calling “psychiatric experts” to testify on his behalf.

Where did this preposterous rule come from?

Cooperate now with the shrinks or die later.”

If Holmes is now insane (whatever that means), then the psychiatrists will be working with a crazy man to find out whether he was sane or crazy when he supposedly committed murder a year ago.

We know and accept, Mr. Holmes, that you’re crazy now, but we want you to try to remember whether you knew the difference between right and wrong when you committed multiple murders last July.”

What could possibly go wrong?

So do the psychiatrists start out by trying to make Holmes sane (whatever that means) now, and then quiz him about the events at the Aurora theater last summer?

If so, how do they make him sane? With anti-psychotic drugs that have been documented to cause motor brain damage? These brain-hammer drugs also can reduce a person to a state of utter incoherence.

On the other hand, if Holmes is “sane” now, then when psychiatrists ask him whether he could distinguish right from wrong when he killed people in the Aurora theater, he will certainly say no. He’ll say he was crazy then. Who wouldn’t? In other words, Holmes’ statements will be meaningless as evidence.


The Matrix Revealed


Enter the “narcoanalytic review,” which was authorized by the court several months ago. Under this plan, Holmes can be given “truth drugs,” to allow him to recall accurately his actions and state of mind on the evening of July 20, at the theater.

There is only one problem with that. There are no reliable truth drugs. They don’t exist. Many drugs have been tried. They all fail to perform consistently.

Apparently, the court overlooked this small glitch.

And then there is the serious matter of forced self-incrimination, which is against the law. If the drugs do happen to open a window of accurate memory for Holmes, and he reports that he was a killer who knew right from wrong last July, he is sealing his fate. The jury will almost certainly give him a death sentence. But his admission will only have occurred because he was involuntarily drugged.

Holmes’ lawyers have already warned him that, if he comes back to court in several months, claiming he is now sane, claiming he is guilty, claiming he did the killings and knew right from wrong, he’s sunk. He’ll probably be executed.

So why should Holmes take that route? The simple answer is: a deal. The prosecution might agree to recommend life in prison instead of death, if Holmes says: “I’m sane now. I did the murders. I confess. I know the difference between right and wrong. I change my plea to guilty.”

The court most assuredly wants a nice clean boy-scout confession of guilt. The court doesn’t want an unseemly trial with a dozen shrinks from both sides arguing about Holmes’ state of mind and which mental disorders he suffers from.

The shrinks don’t want that, either. It would expose the fact that they aren’t doing science of any kind. They’re playing with words and making it up as they go along. They can’t agree among themselves about which lies make more sense.

The craziness surrounding what happens to Holmes from now forward can be laid at the feet of psychiatry. Specifically, the right of psychiatrists to decide whether a defendant is sane or insane.

These terms aren’t just relative. They aren’t merely fictions. They’re deployed to open the door to forced dosing with toxic and destructive drugs. The assumption that these drugs allow the emergence of truth about prior events and crimes is insupportable.

On top of that, you can drug a person and thereby get him to admit anything, because he doesn’t want more of the drugs.

A rational layperson sitting in front of a criminal defendant could find out everything the court needs to know, if psychiatrists and other coercive law-enforcement types were kept out of the picture.

You ask the defendant, “Are you willing to answer my questions?” If he won’t reply or seems unable to, or can only offer gross non-sequiturs, everything stops there. The defendant is left alone in his cell, where nothing is done to him. No treatment, no drugs.

He stays there until he can and will answer questions.

Meanwhile, the prosecution, the defense, and an empaneled citizen grand jury (free of the influence of lawyers), would endeavor to investigate the crime and discover the truth. That burden would principally fall to the grand jury.

On the other hand, if the defendant is willing to answers questions posed by a rational non-partisan person, a brief interview takes place. The defendant states he is guilty or innocent. A trial is then scheduled.

If the defendant states he committed the crime but didn’t know what he was doing at the time, there is no trial. There is a sentencing hearing. The defendant’s position about his state of mind becomes part of the testimony at the hearing. The defendant testifies, submits himself to cross-examination. The jury decides whether the defendant knew what he was doing when he committed the crime.

If the defendant refuses to testify and invokes his Fifth Amendment right to avoid incriminating himself, the jury takes that into consideration in doling out the sentence.


Exit From the Matrix


Is this system perfect and air-tight? By no means. But it’s far better than what happens when psychiatrists get into the act.

Psychiatrists employ destructive drugs, intimidation, covert threats, and their decisions on sanity versus insanity are utter garbage, because they’re based on opinion filtered through a maze of pseudoscience unsupported by diagnostic tests.

The psychiatrists who will now examine Holmes are supremely unqualified to determine whether Holmes knew or knows right from wrong. They have no special skills. They are all about diagnosing people with fictional mental disorders and drugging them to the gills with toxic chemicals.

In a world where even a shred of reason exists, these charlatans wouldn’t be allowed within a hundred miles of a defendant.

But alas, this is not the world we live in.

Every time I write an article refuting the scientific basis of psychiatry (and I have written several), some apologist tries to argue that psychiatry employs a “different kind” of science.

That argument carries zero weight. For every one of the 300 officially certified mental disorders, there are NO diagnostic tests. No blood test, no saliva test, no urine test, no genetic test, no brain scan.

To verify this, all you need to do is open the tome, published by the American Psychiatric Association, called the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Look for the definitive tests. They aren’t there. They aren’t anywhere.

There’s a reason for that. They don’t exist.

These state-licensed con artists and poisoners are committing RICO crimes every day of their professional lives.

To say they can tell us anything useful about James Holmes is like saying Al Capone can do surgery on a car-crash victim and stop the internal bleeding.

Further reading:

Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St, Martin’s Press, 1991.

Mad In America, Robert Whitaker, Perseus Publishing, 2002

Rappoport, “The secret at the bottom of psychiatry’s rabbit hole,” “The lying liars who lie about psychiatry,” “The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and truth-serum torture”

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/the-secret-at-the-bottom-of-psychiatrys-rabbit-hole/

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/the-lying-liars-who-lie-about-psychiatry/

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/the-cia-james-holmes-mkultra-and-truth-serum-torture/

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. 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

Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer: the three stooges

Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer: the three stooges

by Jon Rappoport

April 26, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

I think, at the very least, YouTube should censor them. Well, wait a minute. Not censor, but put up a notice on all their videos:

It’s come to our attention that these three characters are as annoying as a bad case of fleas. Caution: watch and listen at your own risk.”

The three stooges. Three schmucks in the fountain. Send in the clowns, don’t bother, they’re here.

If people are beginning to get the idea I’m waging a war against against elite media, they’re right.

At the same time, I’m fascinated. How do these anchors do it? How do they lie so consistently, and with such aplomb, day in and day out, without going up in a puff of smoke and vanishing?

The Big Three anchors are a miracle, in the sense that they need a whole construction company to build the walls that permanently separate them from the truth…so they can sit in a television studio in New York and believe they’re in the wheelhouse of Real News.

When you see the Big Three are discussing their own footage, but you find visual clues as big as the moon that their analysis is 180 degrees away from actual fact—as has been happening from Aurora to Sandy Hook to Boston—and the Stooges just sit there and drone on…well, that’s a CSI or a Law&Order you just can’t get if you pay the best scriptwriters in the world to come up with it.

The bomb was a pressure cooker.”

Right, and the Twin Towers went down because two planes flew into them.


Because the Web has been alive and humming, media coverage of every major catastrophe since 9/11 has been rejected by extraordinary numbers of people.

The elite network anchors have been trying to hold the fort, but they’re failing.

Their long-running stage play is closing down.

Despite their traditional skills and technological backup, they’re coming across like cartoon hacks.

These days, it’s better to be a marginally believable doofus like Diane Sawyer, who chooses to affect a persona based on depression, than to be the eternal boy wonder, Brian Williams. Williams, the smoothest of the smooth, comes across like the biggest liar, because he’s the most dedicated of the lot when it comes to defending the indefensible.

And Scott Pelley is Scott Pelley, the hospital doctor you’d least like to show up at your bedside. He might tell you you need an amputation just because he’s having a bad day.

Who do we need for the most important anchor’s job in the world?”

How about Pelley? He’s utterly convinced the lies we feed into the propaganda machine are the last word.. He’s sold. He couldn’t look outside the box if we drilled holes in it and let him see a mountain of gold bars and 50,000 naked bureaucrats running down Broadway at high fucking noon.”


The Big Three strut their stuff on the evening news, executing well-oiled, high-priced transitions from one completely false/basically deceptive story to another completely false/basically deceptive story.

Recall the often-quoted George Burns pearl? “In acting, sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” But suppose the sincerity isn’t faked? Then, the schmuck becomes king.

My late friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True, described the television-news audience: “Mind control is accepting what you know to be false. You do it because you think the only other alternative is a vacuum: you either buy the news or you’re left with nothing.”


The Matrix Revealed

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


Once in a while, you can see cracks. Scott Pelley, stewing in his juices, looks like he’s ready to pull his uncle’s old revolver out of his pocket and fire a few rounds at the teleprompter.

Diane Sawyer appears to be on the verge of sagging to her right and collapsing out of her chair, on her way to a fit of copious weeping.

Brian Williams wants to say, more than anything, “Live From New York, it’s Saturday night!” Then a few coiled springs pop out of the top of his head and he winds down and stops moving.

Subliminally, the three stooges are announcing: “We’re showing you the most important stories of our time, and each one has a television lifespan of ninety seconds, after which they no longer exist.”

Television news is really all segue all the time. That’s what it comes down to.

The word “segue,” pronounced “segway,” refers to a transition from one thing to another, a blend.

Ed McMahon once referred to Johnny Carson as the prince of blends, because Carson could tell a clunker of a joke, step on it three times, and still move to the next joke without losing his audience.

Television news is very serious business. A reporter who can’t handle segues is dead in the water. He’s a gross liability.

The good anchors can take two stories that have no connection whatsoever and create a sense of smooth transition.

Brian Williams can say, “The planes were recalled later in the afternoon. And a man was castrated in a horrific accident in Idaho today…” And no one says, WHAT? WAIT!


You take an elevator up to the 15th floor in an office building. The door opens and you step into a medieval dungeon. That doesn’t compute in real life, but it does on the news.

The networks basically have, on a daily basis, fragmented stories, and they need an anchor who can do the blends, the segues, and get away with it, to promote the sense of one continuous flow.

So the audience doesn’t say, “This is just an odd collection of crap.”

The news is all segue all the time.

Not just nationally. On the local level, too. The pounding lead-in music at the top of the show is a segue, to prepare the audience. A) Music. B) “Tonight, our top story: a man ate a hot dog and died …”

The voice of the anchor is the non-stop blending machine that ties all news stories together. That’s why the elite network stars earn their paychecks.

Good segue people are stage magicians. They can move the viewer’s attention from item A to item B without a tremor or a doubt.

It’s often been said of certain actors, “He could read from the phone book and you’d listen.” Well, an elite anchor can hold the viewer’s mind as he reads a sentence from the phone book, another one from a car-repair manual, a third from a cookbook, and a fourth from a funeral-home brochure. Without stopping.

And afterward, the viewer would have no questions.


The news is surreal because the stories are mostly fool’s gold to begin with; and they’re unrelated. They’re rocks lying around on the floor. The anchor picks them up and invents the illusion of One Flowing Stream.

This is what the audience wants. It feels like a story. It feels like unity. It feels like a stage play or a movie. It feels, when all is said and done, good.

The anchor (as his title suggests) holds the fragments together in one place. For the audience, he’s the focus. He’s the maestro. The hypnotist.

You can’t pull anyone off the street and have him describe car crashes, murders, storms, threats of war, political squabbles, 300 cats living in a one-room apartment, a new piece of Medicare legislation, genitalia picture tweets, and the dedication of a library, while placing and keeping millions of people in a light trance.

Katie Couric couldn’t do it. People were waiting for her to break out into an attack of Perky and giggle and cross her legs. Diane Sawyer does it poorly. She seems to be affecting somber personal grief as her basic segue-thread. Scott Pelley is competent, but he sits like a surgeon ready to signal the anesthesiologist to clamp a mask on your face, before he cuts into your stomach.

Brian Williams is the current king of segue. He does smooth-serious-affable-employee-of-the-month-I-know-all-the-news-is-true.


None of these elite anchors can hold a candle to Cronkite or Chet Huntley, the past masters. Ed Murrow was the first star-practitioner of the television-news form. He was working a kind of sepulchral spin-off of Hemingway prose.

Murrow got his first break, right out of college, working for the Institute of International Education, a pathetic front for what they used to call “internationalists” (aka globalists). Elihu Root founded the organization. Root was also founding chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In other words, one world together actually meant: all you peons down there and we wise men on top…

Anyway, all anchors can do segue. They are dedicated to The Blend. They put their souls, such as they are, into transitions.

What do you want to do when you grow up, Brian?”

I want to take people from A to B.”


Whereas, a true version of the news would go something like this: “Today, in fact just now, I moved from a tornado in Kansas to the removal of restrictions on condom sales, and I’m blending into penguins in Antarctica. I’m doing Salvador Dali and you’re not noticing a thing.”

What does all this tell us? The news, if it were taken apart into its component pieces, would look quite surreal. And the anchor, by blending, manufactures a hypnotic illusion of interconnection.

The audience wants to be put in a trance. Even a several-day event, like the Boston bombing, with all its twists and turns, doesn’t mitigate that basic big sleep. Television news, with a good anchor, with the television screen itself, with the electromagnetic emissions and frequencies, can attain and hold the hypnotic state.

Therefore, the content of the news sinks in below the level of the rational mind.

But with each shift in story line, with each new breaking bit of revelation, with each disturbing image, the anchor must be there to execute the segues.

He is basically saying to the audience, “I’m a few feet inside your personal landscape, your mind, feeding you all the turns in the river, and I’ll always be here, so things are all right…”

Elite anchors invent and maintain certain tones of voice, certain rhythms, certain cadences, certain variations of musical pitch, throughout the stage play, in order to sustain the sense of continuity.

They’re mechanics of voice.

They use their skills to report the false facts handed down to conceal ops and staged events.

They need to believe in what they’re doing. They need to be that stupid. Talent search: 130 IQ, inherently stupid.

They can know they’re actors on television, but they have to believe they’re acting out the truth. Ends justify the means. Of course, “truth” often means to them: that which will bind us all together.

What is the role they’re cast in? It’s: Normal. It’s a heavy part in the play, because this joke of a society has a prime-cut value called Normal.


Exit From the Matrix


Okay, look,” the Broadway director says to the veteran actor he’s interviewing for the lead, in a billion-dollar production. “This may sound strange, but you’re going to have to do Normal as it’s never been done before. That’s what the audience wants. You’ve got to come across as very, very smart and very, very Normal. Get it? I mean, you can emit a few rays of Elite here and there, but you have to do that Normal dance. The audience has to believe you somehow fit in with being a solid American, whatever the hell that is. You can be the news boy down the street, riding his bike, tossing papers on front porches (Brian Williams), wholesome as Wonder Bread, or you can be a socialite on the Upper East Side teetering on the verge of a nervous breakdown (Diane Sawyer), or you can be a doctor moving briskly through his morning hospital rounds telling the interns trailing behind him what incompetent assholes they are (Scott Pelley)…but it has to be Normal at the same time. You’re the brain of every other brain. You’re the conscience of every other conscience. You’re just as walled off from the conspiracy to own every inch of America and grind down the people into dust-bowl hell as all Americans are walled off from knowing about it. You know as little as they do. You’re just as clueless as the great unwashed, but you put your stupidity on display with some measure of grace and style. Got it? You’re clean, sanitary, loyal as a dog, dumb as fog but very smart. You spew absolute nonsense every second of your time on stage, but it sounds plausible, and again, Normal. You constantly change subjects, and the subjects are in no way related to each other, but you make it all seem sensible. It’s a joke. But you’re serious. And you have to Believe, as if you’ve always believed, from the moment you emerged out of your mother’s body.

And if you need a model for all this, just watch the news every night on the three major networks and focus on these geniuses.”


See the bomb exploding, the one that emits a puff of smoke straight up in the air? The one that was built in a pressure cooker? The bomb that didn’t tear the flags to pieces and didn’t shred the blue canopy right next to it? The bomb that didn’t cause the men in yellow jackets standing in front of it to even blink? That bomb vectored at a very low angle and took out people’s legs in the Boston street. That right, America. It did. I swear it did.

See the purple and pink pigs flying over the White House? They’re bringing food from Mars for all the bureaucrats who push paper in the city every day, the people who can’t be fired during the Sequester, while flights all over the country are delayed. That food from Mars keeps the paper pushers going. It does. It has special vitamins in it. See how fat the pigs in the sky are? How do you think they got that way? They ate the food. It’s so healthy. It’s mystical and magical. It’s just part of the largesse coming to you from your eternal government. Wait a little while longer. It’ll be here. There are lots more flying pigs. They’ll drop off little bags of Martian tasties on your street any week now. It’s the new Normal. Get used to it. We know what you want, and we’re going to give it to you.

We know what you want and we’re going to give it to you.

If you have any doubts and need more information and assurance, just watch Brian, Scott, and Diane every night. They’re narrating the Days of Our Lives. They’re from Mars. They’re the advance scouts for the pigs.

Brian’s the happy pig. Diane’s the sad pig. Scott’s the cold pig.

They’re America. The best of America.

This is why the Colonies fought a revolution against the British. So you could suck up stories, like a vacuum cleaner, from the three little pigs.

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. 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