Facebook, the CIA, and the Clintons

Facebook, the CIA, and the Clintons

by Jon Rappoport

June 19, 2017

This article recounts key events along a time line that stretches from 1986 to the present. Follow the bouncing ball.

Since Facebook went public with an IPO (Initial Public Offering) of stock in 2012, I’ve been following the trail of its stock price.

In 2012, I wrote:

“But now the Facebook stock has tanked. On Friday, August 17 [2012], it weighed in at half its initial IPO price. For the first time since the IPO, venture-capital backers were legally permitted to sell off their shares, and some did, at a loss.”

“Articles have begun appearing that question Zuckerberg’s ability to manage his company. ‘Experts’ are saying he should import a professional team to run the business side of things and step away.”

“This has the earmarks of classic shakeout and squeeze play… First, [insiders] drive down the price of the stock, then they trade it at low levels that discourage and demoralize public investors, who sell their shares…As the stock continues to tank, the insiders quietly buy up as much of it as they can. Finally, when the price hits a designated rock bottom, they shoot it up all the way to new highs and win big.”

In 2013, I followed up and wrote: “Facebook launched its IPO and went public on May 18, 2012. The opening stock price was 42 dollars a share.”

“In September 2012, the collapsing stock hit a low of 17.55.”

“On October 17, 2013, a year later, after a long climb, the stock reached an all-time high: 52.21.”

“So…Facebook, a company with CIA-front connections, a company that encourages people to offer up surveillance data on themselves [and censors politically incorrect news], goes through a financial transformation. Its IPO price collapses like ice in a heat wave. It keeps trading at its new low prices, scaring lots of investors.”

“They sell their shares. Insiders buy up those shares at delicious discounts.”

“Then, when the insiders have scooped up enough, they begin to move the price. Up. The long climb begins.”

Now, in June of 2017, it’s time to check in again. What’s happened to Facebook’s stock price since the high of $54 a share in 2013?

From October 2016 to December 2016, there was another shakeout that convinced many shareholders to dump their stocks—and of course, insiders gobbled up those shares for themselves. The shakeout took the stock price down from an all-time high of $127.88 a share to $115.05.

Then, once again, the relentless climb resumed. On June 2nd of this year, the stock reached a new all-time high of $153.61.

All in all, quite a ride. From the IPO price of $42, down to $17…and now $150.

Are some of the insiders who have been engineering Facebook’s long-term stock-rise front-men for the CIA?

I ask that question because of Facebook’s CIA connections:

The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.

Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.

Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”

That’s not the only connection between Facebook funder Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.

With these CIA/DARPA connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who can fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?

From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.

CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a walk in the park for agencies like the CIA.

When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Facebook/CIA presented an anti-Trump stance, which meant a pro-Hillary stance. Is that a pro-CIA stance? Let’s look at a fascinating piece of history involving the CIA and the other Clinton: Bill.

The source here is the explosive 1995 book, Compromised, by Terry Reed and John Cummings.

According to the authors, Bill Clinton, way back in the 1980s, was involved with the CIA in some very dirty dealings in Arkansas—and I’m not just talking about the cocaine flights landing at the Mena airport.

It seems Bill had agreed to set up CIA weapons-making factories in his home state, under the radar. But because Arkansas, when it comes to money, is all cronies all the time, everybody and his brother found out about the operation and wanted in. Also, Bill was looking for a bigger cut of the action.

This security breach infuriated the CIA, and a meeting was held to dress down Bill and make him see the error of his ways. His CIA handlers told him they were going to shut down the whole weapons operation, because Bill had screwed up royally. A screaming match ensued—but the CIA people backed off a bit and told Bill HE WAS STILL THEIR MAN FOR AN EVENTUAL RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY.

Of course, there are people who think Reed and Cumming’s book contains fiction, but John Cummings was a top-notch reporter for Newsday. He co-authored the 1990 book, Goombata, about the rise and fall of John Gotti. He exposed US operations to destroy Cuban agriculture with bio-weapons. It’s highly doubtful he would have put his name on Compromised without a deep conviction he was correctly adding up the facts.

Here, from Compromised, is an account of the extraordinary meeting, in Arkansas, between Bill Clinton and his CIA handlers, in March of 1986, six years before Clinton would run for the Presidency. Author Terry Reed, himself a CIA asset at the time, was there. So was Oliver North, and a man named “Robert Johnson,” who was representing CIA head Bill Casey.

Johnson said to Bill Clinton:

“Calm down and listen….We are all in this together. We all have our personal agendas…but let’s not forget, both the Vice President and Mr. Casey want this operation to be a success. We need to get these assets and resources in place and get them self-sustaining and prospering on their own while we have the chance. This is a golden opportunity. The timing is right. We have communists taking over a country in this hemisphere. We must all pull together and play as a team. This is no time for lone wolves…

“I’m not here to threaten you [Bill Clinton]. But there have been mistakes. The Mena operation survived undetected and unexposed only because Mr. [Barry] Seal carried with him a falsely created, high-level profile of a drug runner. All the cops in the country were trying to investigate a drug operation. That put the police in a position where we could control them. We fed them what we wanted to feed them, when we wanted to feed them; it was our restaurant and our menu…now we have to shut it down….

“Bill, you are Mr. Casey’s fair-haired boy. But you do have competition for the job you seek. We would never put all eggs in one basket. You and your state have been our greatest asset. The beauty of this, as you know, is that you’re a Democrat, and with our ability to influence both parties, this country can get beyond partisan gridlock. Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something stupid, you’re No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job you’ve always wanted.

“That’s pretty heady stuff, Bill. So why don’t you help us keep a lid on this and we’ll all be promoted together. You and guys like us are the fathers of the new government. Hell, we are the new covenant.”

By this account, Bill Clinton was the CIA’s boy back in 1986, long before he launched himself into his first 1992 Presidential campaign.

That speaks of major planning. In 1992, an obscure governor from a rather obscure state suddenly gains national prominence and vaults to the head of the line in the race for the White House.

Now, consider the role of the CIA-connected Facebook in the 2016 presidential election. Did Facebook’s strategy of cutting off pro-Trump postings/information and instead supporting ANOTHER CLINTON, HILLARY, signal the continuation of a long-running covert CIA op to put and keep the Clintons in power?

Since 1986, have the Clintons been a package deal for the CIA?

Was the most recent incarnation of that deal the Facebook op to put Hillary in the White House?

Most people have a problem looking at log-term ops. They conceive of covert actions taking place along severely limited time lines. That’s exactly what major operatives count on. They can plan in the dark for two or three decades ahead (or longer) and feel they’re in the clear.

And when a little social networking company comes along and needs an infusion of cash, they can step in, help, and, seeing the possibilities, they can help push the stock to new highs and accomplish elite surveillance and censor true information and support their favored presidential candidate—all during the same dozen years.

It’s an easy program.

All sorts of cards can be played from the bottom of the deck.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Suppose Trump had Hillary’s incredible Russian connection?

Suppose Trump had Hillary’s incredible Russian connection?

by Jon Rappoport

May 31, 2017

If Trump had Hillary’s Russian connection…

Trump would be curled up in a ball in a bunker a few hundred feet under the White House. And that’s on his best day.

The newspapers and television news would be citing nothing less than treason as the cause for his impeachment. They would claim he was, in fact, helping Putin win World War 3 against the US. A nuclear war.

Forget “Putin influenced the election on behalf of Trump.” Instead, mainstream attack dogs would be claiming Trump was a conscious agent who had been turned, years ago, against his home country. The dogs would be making up stories about how this happened.

“It was on a business trip that the world changed for a desperate real estate mogul named Donald Trump. Mr. Trump was on his way to Moscow, ostensibly to meet with several Russian oligarchs about a casino project he was hoping to launch. Instead, he huddled with a representative and close friend of Vladimir Putin at the Baltschug Kempinski Hotel, and that friend offered Mr. Trump a different kind of deal, one that would change his life forever and alter the future of America…”

This is what we would be seeing and hearing if Donald Trump had been involved in the 2013 Clinton business deal with Russia that everyone knows about—but no one is willing to prosecute or even cover (anymore) in the mainstream press.

I have written about the Clinton deal before, but it’s worth reviewing again, given the kind of heat Trump is dealing with for Phone Conversations. Conversations several of his people have had with Russians; even business deals that could have been consummated during those discussions.

So…here it is again. Imagine Hillary and Bill Clinton were not the wheelers and dealers. Imagine Trump was. Try to conceive what would be happening to him now vs. what is happening to Bill and Hillary: i.e., nothing.

I’ll go one step further. Wherever Bill or Hillary’s name, or the name of their Foundation, appears in the NY Times story I’m about to quote, I’ll substitute a Trump name (in CAPS), so you get the full effect:

Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.

Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is owned by a Canadian mining company.

The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.

But because uranium is a US “national security” product, various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies is the US State Department.

The State Department is headed up by MELANIA TRUMP. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.

The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the TRUMP FAMILY FOUNDATION.

Memory is short. On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to TRUMP Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.

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

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

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

“Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by DONALD TRUMP…”

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

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

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

Got the picture?

Circumstantial case, you say?

Well, imagine the case applied to Donald Trump and his wife.

Where would we be now?

What hell would be unleashed from the press corps?

What venom would be spewed from the Arctic Circle to Tierra del Fuego?

Page one: THE GREATEST TRAITOR IN AMERICAN HISTORY IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

And that headline would run on a mild slow news day.

But Hillary and Bill Clinton, the actual players in the Russia/Putin/uranium deal…

Roam free.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Hacking elections: Trump vs. Bill Clinton: not even close

Hacking elections: Trump vs. Bill Clinton: not even close

by Jon Rappoport

March 30, 2017

On the one hand, we have unverified claims that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee and passed them to WikiLeaks, who released them.

Supposedly, the contents of the emails were so embarrassing, they helped sink Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

We also have unverified claims that thousands of websites and blogs somehow operated under Russian influence, during the campaign, on behalf of Trump and against Hillary.

But imagine what major media would have done to Trump, if the following events occurred:

IMAGINARY EVENT ONE: The Russian government contributed money to Trump’s campaign.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: In a new article, former CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson writes: “If you’ve watched politics a little while, you may remember the scandal broken by The Washington Post in 1996. The Post reported evidence of China directing contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the presidential contest between Bill Clinton and Republican Bob Dole—a violation of US law.”

If Trump was embroiled now in what Clinton was embroiled in then, the press would go over-the-top insane now.

IMAGINARY EVENT TWO: A foreign-born Trump fundraiser is actually convicted of illegally raising campaign money.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: Sharyl Attkisson writes: “Taiwan-born Maria Hsia, a fundraiser for Clinton Vice President Al Gore [in 1996], was convicted of illegal campaign fundraising.”

Substitute a Trump campaign worker for Maria Hsia, and the press would go over-the-top insane now.

IMAGINARY EVENT THREE: A Russian-born Trump supporter is convicted of trying to give major money to Trump.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: Attkisson writes: “Eventually, Taiwan-born Charlie Trie was convicted of improperly attempting to give large donations to the Clinton’s legal defense fund.”

IMAGINARY EVENT FOUR: A Russian national is convicted of violating election law after he gives large donations to Trump.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: Attkisson writes: “Taiwan-born Johnny Chung was convicted of violating election law after making large donations to the DNC (which were later returned).”

IMAGINARY EVENT FIVE: A Russian fundraiser for Trump, who actually works at the US Dept. of Commerce, is convicted of campaign finance fraud.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: Attkisson writes: “Chinese-born John Huang—a DNC fundraiser and Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration—was convicted of campaign finance fraud.”

If the press treated Bill Clinton then the way they’re treating Trump now, given the actual crimes committed on behalf of Clinton by Taiwanese and Chinese nationals, reporters and editors and their allies would have called for Clinton to be encased in a tube and shot off in a rocket to Mars, never to return.

But Clinton served out his term in office. There was no widespread scandal. The impeachment proceeding involved him lying about sex with Monica Lewinsky, not criminal campaign activity. In Democratic circles, and even in the press, many people still revere Clinton as a major statesman and philanthropist.

But don’t worry.

The press isn’t biased.

They have no covert agenda.

Of course not.

All is well.


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

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

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

by Jon Rappoport

January 16, 2017

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

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

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

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

Therefore, Trump…

Oh, wait a minute, my mistake.

Oops.

The Clintons were instrumental in making the uranium deal.

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

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

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

So Putin then possessed 20% of US uranium production!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Exit From the Matrix

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


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

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

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

Cue the James Bond theme.

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

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

Zero.

Jon Rappoport

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

Hillary hacked (up) the election

Hillary hacked (up) the election

by Jon Rappoport

December 28, 2016

Made relatively few personal appearances. Spouted empty generalities. Collapsed after 9/11 Memorial. Ignored jobless states. Never spoke out against Globalists (being one herself). Used her Foundation to collect billions in pay-for-play schemes. Broke federal law with her personal email server. Thought she was divinely entitled to occupy the Oval Office. Read the NY Times (whose writers kept claiming she was way ahead in the race). Couldn’t sway significant number of voters outside New York and California. Destroyed Libya. Lied about Benghazi. Remained silent about scandalous content in leaked emails. Is still married to Bill. Giggled about defending rapist of young girl.

And she now claims all these factors = Russia hacked the election.

Which is like saying a 20-car pileup on the I-5 was caused by a hippopotamus living under the surface of Mars.

Other than that, she was perfect.

In the language of pop psychology, the entirety of major media are her enablers. And they’re going down, as they fabricate more and more unhinged tales about the election.

It’s like this: a farmer’s young boy plays with matches and burns down the barn. Cops, fire fighters, paramedics, and reporters gather at the scene. The boy is standing there with singed hair, more packs of matches in his pockets, and a print-out of instructions on how to set fire to structures. Everyone is talking about a mysterious arsonist who most certainly walked on to the property, torched the barn, and walked away.

Don’t count Hillary out. She’ll spend the next four years at a Swiss longevity clinic with Huma and make another run in 2020. Her campaign theme will be “unity.”

The media have a serious case of red-ass. They have to blame somebody for their ineptitude, bias, and lack of professionalism. They coached the losing team. They sacrificed every shred of their (pretended) objectivity and bet the house on Hillary. They had no idea how to deal with Trump.

The hard political Left are poor losers. They have a long history of being losers. They’ve made it a virtue, and they call it socialism and Globalism. “Hey, let’s face it. We’re a bunch of losers. Let’s elevate that into a system that will give everybody everything for nothing. Let’s make that into a winner. It’s our only option. We’ll call it universal love. And we privileged ones, among the losers, can parlay our act into million-dollar homes and fat bank accounts. That’s our political philosophy.”


power outside the matrix

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


In the process, their leaders align themselves with the hard political Right, who want endless wars of Empire.

If there’s a shred of a thread of a whisper of a possibility that the fast-talking hustler cowboy Trump won’t pursue such wars, he must go away, no matter how. Because what makes America great is conquest and creating endless enemies.

And anyway, shoulda coulda woulda Hillary is the first uncrowned female president of the United States, and she stands as a symbol of hope for women everywhere, about whom she cares as much as the hippopotamus living under the surface of Mars cares about the 20-car pileup on the I-5.

Jon Rappoport

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

Why don’t media now claim Hillary’s ill-health was fake news?

Why don’t media now claim Hillary’s ill-health was fake news?

by Jon Rappoport

December 24, 2016

Why aren’t major media now highlighting Hillary’s ill-health as a “vicious fake news item” that was spread around by many sites, including the loathsome and ever-popular Drudge, during the presidential campaign?

Surely, it had to be one of the most damaging claims that helped defeat her. Who wants a president in the White House who can’t walk upright, who falls down, who needs to be helped up stairs, who has to take time off to rest, who has a physically impaired brain, whose judgment is suspect, whose very life is teetering on the edge.

Those charges were super-viral messages that traveled around the world on the Web thousands of times, replete with photos.

Fence-sitting voters, faced with one piece after another about Hillary’s failing health, could easily have opted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, or stayed home on Election Day. Some of them could even have cast a vote for Trump.

Read the current mainstream stories about “fake news” torpedoing Hillary’s bid for the presidency, and try to find one that highlights, front and center, the accusation of ill health as a horrific piece of gossip that truly sank her boat.

***You mean to tell me not one reporter now remembers how important that charge was at the time? All these sharp journalists have selective amnesia on the very same subject?

How convenient.

Or…Hillary’s health issue is being purposely exiled from permitted talking points now.

In the echo chamber of bouncing stories that makes up the fake consensus generated by big media, that item is verboten.

Russia did it? Putin cost Hillary the election? James Comey cost her the election? Julian Assange cost her the election? Fake news in general did her in? Fine. No problem. Those items are on the list of talking points.

But ill health? Front and center? No. That’s out of bounds.

Why?

Because bringing it up now would re-open the door to all sorts of persuasive medical opinion and other assessments from some quite smart people. And that opinion would be: yes, she is in ill-health. And on those grounds alone, it’s a lucky thing she didn’t win the election.

The fake story about the Russia-hack keeps on moving these days, despite a lack of evidence; it’s a dead man walking. There is nothing to keep it alive, except the media’s determination to push it like manure over a vast field.

But the story that has evidence to back it up, the most corrosive story about Hillary—her health—is missing in action. How interesting.


power outside the matrix

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


Here is a conversation between a reporter and his editor that would never take place, because both people understand the rules of the game and need no prompting:

Reporter: Boss, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s add to the list of fake-news charges against Hillary that she was in ill-health. I mean, that was a big one. Remember how she seemed to collapse after the 9/11 Memorial, and they had to pour her into the van like a bag of protoplasm?

Editor: No. That’s not on our list of talking points.

Reporter: Talking points? I didn’t see them.

Editor: Doesn’t matter. I saw them. Hillary’s health is off-limits.

Reporter: Why? Because she’s really sick?

Editor: There is no “really”. There is only what we say there is. If we bring up the health thing now, it’ll come back to life and everybody and his brother will weigh in on it. It’s counter-productive.

Reporter: Counter-productive to what?

Editor: To two things. The first one I won’t mention because who knows who’s listening? The second one is: counter-productive to you and I picking up our paychecks every week. Got it?

Reporter: Got it. Enough said. I’ll do another piece on Putin and his Russian hackers.

Editor: And make it a good one. The Putin story is so damn thin people are laughing at us already.

Bottom line: the actual fake news is coming right out of the major media, and is limited to their shared and agreed-upon talking points.

To boil it down further: “We will say THIS but we won’t say THAT.”

Jon Rappoport

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

The war against the people: fear and loathing in NY and DC

The war against the people: fear and loathing in NY and DC

Thank you for your support. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

by Jon Rappoport

December 19, 2016

Vladimir Putin is the secret president of the United States.

Yep. That’s it. The US is now the USSR. It’s all over. Trump is a Communist who took orders from Putin. Trump is a Red. That was his game all along. He’s a billionaire Commie.

Here is how this would play out in a reasonable court, in the judge’s chambers—

Prosecutor: Your Honor, we’re prepared to offer proof that Putin personally influenced the election in favor of Trump.

Trump’s Lawyer: Nonsense. This is a ruse.

Judge: Mr. Prosecutor, what is the nature your proof?

Prosecutor: We will bring several CIA people to the stand and they will say they have proof.

Judge: Will they back up those statements with evidence, so Mr. Trump’s attorney can cross-examine them?

Prosecutor: No. Secrets must be kept.

Judge: Not in my court.

End of story.

Think about this: what will the major media do when their latest fiction about the Russians and Trump sinks below the waves? They’re lying so hard and so often…is there any end to it?

The answer is no. They’re committed. They can’t turn back.

They’re committing slow suicide in full view of the public.

It almost feels like they want to go down.

“Stop me before I kill again.”

Men and women of the news, whose whole act depends on securing trust and admiration from the public, are squandering whatever is left of it in the space of a few months.

“Well, they didn’t believe that outrageous lie. Let’s try one that’s even more ridiculous.”

Now they want to censor news which fails to fit their picture. And if they don’t watch out, they’ll take down Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter—their enablers—with them, as people find new social-media outposts.

Trump—love him, hate him, whatever—is playing his role. He’s virtually winning a new election every time the major media slam him and he comes back with a tweet that simply announces, “You’re full of it.”

Influential papers like the NY Times and the Washington Post have gotten a free pass for as long as they’ve been in business. Their staffs have developed a massive sense of their own importance, their own infallibility. They’re like popes—who’ve suddenly been exposed, in leaked documents, for falsely claiming Jesus wanted the Catholic Church built in his name.

George Orwell: “A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible.”

Recognize we’re in a unique situation here. This has never happened before—certainly not in a highly sophisticated civilization where the official means of communicating information were limited to a few basic sources. Those sources have lost now faith with the people. Instead, huge numbers of new outlets have emerged.

The mainstream is beginning to realize how great the shift is.

A centralized reality splitting up equals a centralized and hypnotized perception of reality splitting up.

Centralized reality, by its very nature, presents a false picture. In the absence of that monopoly, many new true stories emerge that were previously hidden. Each of these stories is, in effect, a new reality holding a candle in the dark.

Virtually all major news sources agreeing on the substance of virtually all important stories, over the course of decades, is completely unnatural and absurd. That agreement must be engineered. Concocted. Invented.

The “consistent concoction” is dissolving in the minds of the public. It no longer holds sway.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters should be thanked for contributing to this break-up. The public is viewing their actions as those of a child who refuses to admit she herself is at fault, and instead throws blame in every possible direction: thousands of “fake news” sites; the Russians; Putin; pollsters who failed to warn of impending doom; the Electoral College system; the “deplorables”; WikiLeaks; the FBI.

“It’s not our fault. It’s everybody else’s fault.”

Thank you, thank you.

Keep finding new people to blame. How about the Chinese, the Brexit supporters, some guy who owns a gas station in Death Valley, a massive tribe who live on the dark side of the moon and illegally voted for Trump?

Don’t stop now.

Interestingly, the big donors to Hillary Clinton’s failed campaign, who are shocked and irate after forking over their money, aren’t eagerly drinking the Putin Kool-Aid. They’re hard-headed, and they want real-life answers. As Politico writes (12/15):

“…the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?”

“’A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,’ said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. ‘It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads’.”

“Or, in the words of a Midwestern fundraiser who’s kept in touch with fellow donors, ‘A lot of people are saying, “I’m not putting another fucking dime in until someone tells me what just happened”.’”

The CIA-connected Washington Post can pump out as many “Putin-did-it” articles as they want to. But the big Clinton donors are unimpressed.

Don’t look for major media outlets to give those donors much face time. It would explode the blame-game narrative.

The NY Times is now calling Trump a threat to democracy. Translation: Trump is a threat to the NY Times, and by extension, all major media—because the Times is usually the first voice that sounds in the news echo chamber that bounces fake stories among hundreds of outlets from shore to shore.

I’m waiting for the term “Russian denialist” to pop up in the press, as a label for reporters who “ignore a mountain of evidence” that Putin hacked the election and handed it to Donald Trump.

“Stay with us. Coming up after the break, a list of Russian denialists who refuse to believe what’s in front of their eyes, say government officials. Some of the names will shock you. But first, six commercials for medical drugs you don’t need that could put you in the hospital…

“The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what’s wrong with this country. It’s just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no f—ing idea what’s going on. If The New York Times didn’t exist, CNN and MSNBC would be a test pattern. The Huffington Post and everything else is predicated on The New York Times. It’s a closed circle of information from which Hillary Clinton got all her information — and her confidence. That was our opening.” —Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist and senior counselor

The major media’s depth of hatred for Donald Trump is beyond most people’s understanding. Most people can’t fathom it, because they believe they know who these media personages are. They see them on television or read their words every day. How bad could these reporters be?

Very, very bad. The media personages see themselves as 12th-generation feudal barons who are suddenly surrounded by the peasants stealing their land, crops, animals, homes, and royal titles.

Here is what Paul Krugman of the NY Times recently wrote about Trump: “Thought: There was (rightly) a cloud of illegitimacy over Bush, dispelled (wrongly) by 9/11. Creates some interesting incentives for Trump.” —As if Trump might secretly provoke another huge terror attack on US soil and, by his response, improve his status in the eyes of the public. Heavy, heavy malevolent conspiracy theory from a baron at the Times.

Back in February, WND reported on a tweet from another NY Times writer: “A columnist with the New York Times caused a social media stir with a tweet that joked of billionaire businessman and GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s assassination.”

“’Good news guys,’ wrote Ross Douthat in his tweet, as found by Infowars.com. ‘I’ve figure out how the Trump campaign ends.’ Douthat is a foreign-policy expert who supports Marco Rubio and John Kasich. He then included a link to a YouTube video of the 1983 movie, ‘The Dead Zone,’ a flick that features Christopher Walken as a character who tries to shoot to death a politician played by Martin Sheen. Sheen’s character uses a human baby to shield himself from the assassination attempt.”

This is the media battling for survival.

Suppose, as rumored, Trump decides to re-cast the whole White House Press Office? Suppose, for example, he intends to deny many veteran reporters their press credentials, and instead welcomes independent journalists?

Suppose Trump decides to establish his own Web channel, and live- streams many fireside chats directly to a global audience, without even letting the press know his schedule?

Suppose the New York Times and the Washington Post fall to the bottom of the pile, left to scramble for crumbs?

Yes, things could get much worse for major media. And they should, because they have been lying to the public ever since the first brick was laid on their first office building.

Trump’s war on the media should become a centerpiece of his presidency. If not, they will shatter his term in office. I hope he understands that fully.

Suppose Trump’s inside man, Steve Bannon, puts his head together with a few deep-pocket investors and shows them how to create strong social-media alternatives to Twitter and Facebook, who are now trying to censor and bury independent online media operations?

Suppose Julian Assange and Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe vault to the top of the press hierarchy?

Suppose the American people laugh the Times and WaPo and CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and FOX out of court?

Suppose their echo chamber falls apart?

The major media’s fear and loathing of Trump knows no bounds. Their loyalty to Hillary Clinton, who played a central role in the inhuman decimation of Libya, and whose Foundation set up a parallel government stop-and shop for global greedheads, is without conscience.

If you think independent media need your support now, watch what is going to happen in the coming months and years. Big media will keep throwing nasty conspiracy theories like cakes of dreck at the wall, hoping something, anything sticks to “fake news” sites.

These “liberals” are so firmly in the Globalist camp, they wouldn’t know how to escape even if they wanted to. The very notion that America might reassert itself as a sovereign nation is a silver bullet aimed at their vampire hearts.

They’ve been sucking all the blood they can out of this country, with their “kind and gentle” “share and care” con job. It pays for their lifestyles, and they fully intend to maintain their status.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Not quite on the level of George Washington’s Farewell Address or Eisenhower’s last warning to America about the military-industrial complex, here is Obama at his final press conference—tortured logic, generalized garbled garbage, and veiled threats of censorship—looking for scapegoats after the election put a cap on his failed presidency:

“If fake news that’s being released by some foreign government is almost identical to reports that are being issued through [domestic] partisan news venues, then it’s not surprising that that foreign propaganda will have a greater effect. It doesn’t seem that farfetched compared to some of the other stuff folks are hearing from domestic propagandists.”

“To the extent that our political dialogue is such that everything is under suspicion, everybody’s corrupt and everybody is doing things for partisan reasons and all of our institutions are, you know full of malevolent actors and if that’s the story that is being put out there, then when a foreign government introduces that same argument, the facts are made up, voters who have been listening to that stuff for years, who have been getting that stuff every day from talk radio or other venues, they’re going to believe it.”

“So, if we — if we want to really reduce foreign influence on our elections, then we better think about how to make sure that our — our political process, our political dialogue is stronger than it’s been.”

Then Obama basically characterized the totality of the WikiLeaks emails as “gossip.” That was his overheated swan song.

He message for the media was: stick to the script; you know what it is; why did you cover material detrimental to The Plan?

“Mele Kalikimaka.”

—So, dear reader, you can choose to obtain your news from purveyors of the Plan, or you can explore and keep exploring independent sources.

What is The Plan? Aiding and abetting the descent of America into a nation swallowed up in a global management system, where the Constitution, freedom, and the individual are relics of a discarded past.

Donald Trump is not The Answer. He never was. A declaration of independence can take many forms, articulated by many individuals, and backed up in different ways.

What’s your way?

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.