Social media censorship—here are the deep basics

by Jon Rappoport

August 20, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Orchestrated un-creation of the fabric of free speech—this is what we’re seeing.

Several of the biggest “conservative/libertarian” figures on the Net—Alex Jones, Dennis Prager, Stefan Molyneux, among others—have recently been banned/censored by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies.

When you ask why this is happening, one obvious answer pops up right away:

These social media corporations are fulfilling desperate pleas from major news outlets, who have been losing audience, in massive chunks, to the likes of Jones, Prager, and Molyneaux.

The newspapers and TV news networks came to end of their rope. They had no solutions to their problem—so they went to Google, Facebook, and others, and said, HELP US. Meaning: Censor our competition.

On one level, understanding censorship is that simple.

But then you have to ask yourself this question: Why would Google, Facebook, and other social media giants bend to the needs of mainstream news outlets?

These social media operations are richer and bigger than mainstream news. They could easily have said: “No, we like open forums and a wide variety of opinion, and we think people should be able to deal with ideas they don’t like. We stand for an open society, and we vigorously defend the 1st Amendment.”

But they didn’t say that. Instead, they’re enacting bans and censorship. Why?

The obvious answer staring us in the face is: Google and Facebook and You Tube, for example, the largest social media corporations, are not “free companies.”

They’ve been in bed with the intelligence community for a long time, and they favor wall to wall surveillance of the population. They favor the “liberal” version of a policed State, where correct opinions are let in the door and incorrect opinions are shut down.

Let’s quickly review a bit of Facebook history:

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 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 could fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?

What about Google?

Read Nafeez Ahmed’s (twitter) excellent multi-part series at medium.com, “How the CIA made Google”:

“INSURGE INTELLIGENCE (twitter) can now reveal the vast extent to which the US intelligence community is implicated in nurturing the web platforms we know today…The lynchpin of this story is the corporation that in many ways defines the 21st century with its unobtrusive omnipresence: Google.”

“Google styles itself as a friendly, funky, user-friendly tech firm that rose to prominence through a combination of skill, luck, and genuine innovation. This is true. But it is a mere fragment of the story. In reality, Google is a smokescreen behind which lurks the US military-industrial complex.”

“The inside story of Google’s rise, revealed here for the first time, opens a can of worms that goes far beyond Google, unexpectedly shining a light on the existence of a parasitical network driving the evolution of the US national security apparatus, and profiting obscenely from its operation…”


In other words, social media aren’t banning and censoring “conservatives/libertarians” merely as a favor to their kissing cousins who run major news outlets—no, this goes much deeper.

This is the intelligence and Pentagon communities, with their attendant neo-cons and military contractors, defending their version of the “new world.”

Anyone with a large online audience, who has strong opinions which resist and run counter to this new world vision, is considered an obstacle, and a target for censorship.

The intelligence/Pentagon vision? Endless wars; endless waves of migration engendering chaos; multinational corporations free to roam the planet, set up shop in hellholes, produce their goods for relative pennies, sell those goods anywhere with no tariffs, thus undermining local economies and centralizing economic power in fewer hands; the vast expansion of surveillance and censorship (which go hand in hand); widening poverty, which makes more and more people dependent on government…

Social media censorship isn’t merely a bunch of knee-jerk liberals trying to stop ideas they don’t like. It is that, but it’s much, much, much more.

Google and Facebook are nurtured creatures of the national security state.


Here are links to go to, to listen to the Alex Jones show:

Live stream: 9am to Noon ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/realnews

Live stream: Noon to 4pm ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/alexjones

Live stream: 4pm to 7pm ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/warroom

Additionally, here:
https://www.infowars.com/watch-alex-jones-show/


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.

Monsanto loses lawsuit and $289 million

by Jon Rappoport

August 13, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

A lot of people were waiting for this day. It finally arrived.

Reuters: “…a California jury ordered [Monsanto]…to pay $289 million for not warning of cancer risks posed by its main weed killer [Roundup].”

“The case of school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, filed in 2016, was fast-tracked for trial due to the severity of his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system that he alleges was caused by Roundup and Ranger Pro, another Monsanto glyphosate herbicide.”

More than 5000 lawsuits against Monsanto and Roundup are waiting in the wings, and this verdict, in favor of Johnson, is a strong signal to future juries.

Of course, Monsanto, and its new parent company, Bayer, claim last week’s court ruling was deeply flawed and Roundup is not a health threat; an appeal is in the works.

And that is where the danger lies.

As you go higher in the court system, judges, not juries, are making the decisions, the judges tend to be appointed on the basis of their politics.

Official science IS politics, with mega-corporations the favored clients.

Monsanto’s lawyers will be able to restate the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] assessment that Roundup is not a proven or likely carcinogen.

The judges of an appeals court could decide, for example, that the scientific evidence presented by both sides “cancels itself out” and leaves a definitive opinion on Roundup in maybe-limbo “at the present time.” Therefore, the accuser, Dewayne Johnson, has not proved his case. Therefore, there is no judgment in his favor, and no $$ penalty against Monsanto.

I would say Monsanto (and its new owner Bayer) are counting on this scenario.

Could we also be talking about secret payoffs (or blackmail) to assure a favorable outcome? I’m absolutely shocked that anyone would suggest the possibility. As we all know, these corporations are models of propriety and good citizenship. Their reputations are above reproach. They arise each day seeking only to do good in the far flung communities they serve. They search their souls for any sign of moral turpitude and eradicate such problems in short order.

Right?

No?


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From 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.

The war to destroy Alex Jones, Part 3

The war to destroy Alex Jones, Part 3

Where is the bill of particulars against him?

by Jon Rappoport

August 8, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

(For Part 2, click here)

When several big-tech companies remove a person from their platforms in a 12-hour period, which is what happened to Alex Jones, you need to ask:

Where are the specific violations Jones is charged with?

Where is the bill of particulars against him?

Where is the “hate speech” he is accused of spewing to his audience?

What definition (if any) of hate speech is being used as a measuring stick?

Asking those questions, you come up very short on answers.

Jones is being made into a SYMBOL of a hater by social media and the mainstream press—and when THAT is the objective, the whole idea is to avoid specifics and just smear the target with a very broad and general brush.

“Hate speech” is replacing the 1st Amendment as a standard of judgment. The question now is: did you express hate toward someone? Rather than: did you commit slander or libel?

Did you utter something that could offend and might disturb a victim or victim-group? Yes? YOU’RE BANNED. CENSORED. Of course, social media giants decide what constitutes hate and who is designated a victim-group with “protected status.”

The term “hate speech” is very elastic. Its definition can be changed on a moment’s notice.

Don’t like someone?

Upset at their actual ideas?

Disturbed at their success?

Embroil them in charges of being a hater and expressing hatred toward victims. Ban and censor them from online platforms based on that accusation. Ignore millions of their words—instead, invoke a few outbursts they committed over the years.

And finally, make the conversation all about whether the accused—in this case, Jones—is good or not, is honest or not, is caring or not, is worthy or not—AS IF THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS WOULD DECIDE WHETHER BANNING JONES FROM ONLNE PLATFORMS WAS A CORRECT ACTION.

This is the ultimate diversion and distraction, for increasing numbers of the dumbed-down public.

And toss the brain-challenged a bone—permission to HATE THE HATER.

“You see, in this case, it’s OK to hate, because the target is a hater. So go to it, express all that bottled-up emotion. Have a field day.”

“With every molecule of hate you express, you change the meaning of the Bill of Rights and the 1st Amendment. And this is exactly what we need: a new society based on less freedom and more goodness.”

Less freedom, more goodness.

If you buy that package, I have condos for sale on the far side of the moon.


Here are links to go to, to listen to the Alex Jones show now:

Live stream: 9am to Noon ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/realnews

Live stream: Noon to 4pm ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/alexjones

Live stream: 4pm to 7pm ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/warroom

Additionally, here:
https://www.infowars.com/watch-alex-jones-show/


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From 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.

The war to destroy Alex Jones, Part 2

The war to destroy Alex Jones, Part 2

Many strange things can be implemented on the basis of “protecting the herd.”

by Jon Rappoport

August 8, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

(For Part 1, click here) (For Part 3, click here)

“You see, censorship is good if the person being censored is someone you don’t like. That’s right. You didn’t know that, did you? That’s the secret meaning of the 1st Amendment.”

—Here is how foul the political air is now, how low the ‘logic’ has sunk. If you don’t agree that Facebook censoring a particular person is a good thing, then you must be supporting that censored person. You must be on his side. There is no middle ground. There is no Bill of Rights. There is only like and hate, and hate implies there is a target to be censored—

Whole generations are being raised to think of censorship as a pleasant solution to speech they don’t like, people they don’t like, ideas they don’t like.

I’ve received an email outlining reasons not to like Alex Jones. It stopped short of saying he should be censored. Instead, it accused me of supporting him. Which of course ISN’T THE ISSUE. The issue is, should Jones be banned.

Several generations know NOTHING about the 1st Amendment or corporate monopoly of the news. All they know is: “shut bad people up.”

You could run the following Noam Chomsky quote by such people and see what reaction you get: “If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

The reaction you’d get? Some form of non-comprehension. In the case of the massive social-media banning of Alex Jones that occurred yesterday, these know-nothings would say: “Good. I’m glad he’s censored.”

But if social media giants can ban Jones, they can move right along to another target. They can decide that anyone who speaks out against vaccination is a danger to the community and must be silenced. They can decide anyone who defends Russia for any reason is by implication a Trump supporter, and a menace, and should have his social media presence diminished; perhaps covertly.

Many strange things can be implemented on the basis of “protecting the herd.”

The animals in the herd have a boss and if they obey the boss all goes well. The boss knows what language they should be exposed to, and what language they shouldn’t encounter. The boss understands the herd’s needs.

The Washington Examiner: “Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., is calling on other tech companies to ban more sites like InfoWars, and says the survival of American democracy depends on it.”

“’Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it’,” Murphy tweeted Monday.

So ignorance of the 1st Amendment easily reaches as high as the US senate. Who is this moron, Chris Murphy? What lies is he talking about? What hate? Let’s see the examples and the evidence—unless Murphy isn’t a standard moron at all. He’s a Democrat pushing an agenda: get rid of Alex Jones because Jones is a threat to the political Left.

Major media, in particular, have their knives out for Jones, because he is taking away chunks of their audience, and they have no solution for it—except to appeal to their social media brethren to censor Jones, block him, and declare war against him.

In this day and age, the easiest way to do that is to say a person is a hater and a bigot and a violator of community standards. It falls out this way: “MR. JONES, YOU’VE INSULTED SO MANY GROUPS AND RAISED SUCH HATRED AGAINST THEM, WE’RE CENSORING YOU AND BANNING YOU. YOU’RE SUCH A PARIAH THE SPIRIT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOESN’T APPLY TO YOU.”

What Jones, IN TOTALITY, has actually been doing and saying for the past couple of decades is another matter entirely. You’re not supposed to explore that. You’re not supposed to go to Infowars.com and find out, because you might become exposed to dangerous thoughts or facts. You’re supposed to pretend you know what’s happening at infowars by listening to its critics and leave it at that. You’re supposed to be incurious and oblivious and, therefore, a “perfect citizen.”

You’re supposed to be apathetic about censorship.

IF YOU DON’T LIKE A PERSON FOR ANY REASON, YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO CARE IF THEY’RE CENSORED.

“Well, you see, Jones is not a good person. Therefore, ban him. Yes. Who cares? And if anyone is against banning him, they are supporting him and they’re bad, too.”

“That new criminal running around? He just posted a piece about keeping Mein Kampf on library shelves and not banning Hitler. That means he supports Hitler and Hitler’s ideas. So he is a copy of Hitler. Ban him. Censor him. Excommunicate him.”

“Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it.” (Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451 (1953).

“The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, decided all by itself that radio and television were the only two parts of American life not protected by the free speech provisions of the first amendment to the Constitution. I’d like to repeat that, because it sounds… vaguely important! The FCC—an appointed body, not elected, answerable only to the president—decided on its own that radio and television were the only two parts of American life not protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. Why did they decide that? Because they got a letter from a minister in Mississippi! A Reverend Donald Wildman in Mississippi heard something on the radio that he didn’t like. Well, Reverend, did anyone ever tell you there are two KNOBS on the radio? Two. Knobs. On the radio. Of course, I’m sure the reverend isn’t that comfortable with anything that has two knobs on it… But hey, reverend, there are two knobs on the radio! One of them turns the radio OFF, and the other one [slaps his head] CHANGES THE STATION! Imagine that, reverend, you can actually change the station! It’s called freedom of choice, and it’s one of the principles this country was founded upon. Look it up in the library, reverend, if you have any of them left when you’ve finished burning all the books.” (George Carlin, 1988)

“To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? Or to determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the task of being the censor?…To whom you would delegate the task of deciding for you what you could read? To whom you would give the job of deciding for you – relieve you of the responsibility of hearing what you might have to hear? Do you know anyone? Hands up. Do you know anyone to whom you’d give this job? Does anyone have a nominee?” (Christopher Hitchens, 2006)


Here are links to go to, to listen to the Alex Jones show now:

Live stream: 9am to Noon ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/realnews

Live stream: Noon to 4pm ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/alexjones

Live stream: 4pm to 7pm ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/warroom

Additionally, here:
https://www.infowars.com/watch-alex-jones-show/


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.

The war to destroy Alex Jones, Part One

The war to destroy Alex Jones, Part One

He “employed hate speech and violated community standards.”

by Jon Rappoport

August 7, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

(For Part 2, click here)

Rivers of elite revenge are flowing.

THEY are out to get him and drive him into oblivion.

He, and his huge website, Infowars, stand as a threat to the empire they are building, where free speech is a thing of the past and only correct speech that supports THEIR objectives is permitted.

Monday, the coordinated war against Alex Jones escalated along several fronts, within a space of about 12 hours, according to infowars reporter Paul Watson:

CNBC:

“Apple, Facebook, YouTube and Pinterest clamped down on content by Alex Jones Monday.”

“Apple confirmed on Monday that it had removed five out of six podcasts, which includes Jones’ infamous ‘The Alex Jones Show’ as well as a number of other InfoWars audio streams.”

“Facebook and Google made similar decisions later on Monday. Facebook removed four pages controlled by him, while Google removed the official “Alex Jones Channel” on its platform. The YouTube channel for InfoWars, the media company owned by Alex Jones, still remains live. Pinterest also removed the InfoWars board.”

I just saw a report that YouTube has taken down Jones’ channel altogether. That would mean tens of thousands of videos of his past shows are gone from that platform. Here are links you would go to, to listen to his show now:

Live stream: 9am to Noon ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/realnews

Live stream: Noon to 4pm ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/alexjones

Live stream: 4pm to 7pm ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/warroom

Additionally, here:
https://www.infowars.com/watch-alex-jones-show/

There are several reasons for this war against Jones and infowars. One is: he rallied untold numbers of “deplorables” and helped elect Donald Trump.

Another is: over and over, he has described the differences between nationalism and globalism—and he favors nationalism, in particular for America.

The tech giants/social media who are aligned against him ARE CORPORATIONS. Therefore, they can ban Jones and not face the raft of rules they would have to deal with if they were public utilities.

However, there is no doubt these corporations are colluding in restraint of trade, to invoke an old phrase pertaining to trusts and monopolies. They are waging a COORDINATED COLLABORATIVE war against Jones.

In fact, several years ago, major news giants approached social media giants and pleaded for help. The news businesses were fading further into the background. They needed Facebook, for example, to feature their coverage of the news.

The dark side of this collusion was and is: put big alt.-news operations out of business. Delist them. De-platform them. Delete them.

And so it has been happening, and it is escalating now.

Here is where the free-speech angle enters the scene: suppose a member of a favored minority (fill in that blank yourself) launched a podcast mercilessly attacking “traditional American values” and those Americans who support those values. Would Facebook or You Tube lift a finger to stop them? No? Then why attack Alex Jones?

The answer is simple.

This issue is not about Jones engaging in “hate speech” or “violating community standards.”

It’s about whose speech and ideas are favored and whose are opposed.

The solution and the response to the war on Jones (or any number of other so-called conservatives) is: GO DIRECTLY TO THEIR SITES AND BLOGS. DON’T USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO GET THERE.

Go direct.

<a href="https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/the-war-to-destroy-alex-jones-part-2/&quot; rel="noopener" target="_blank"More coming in Part 2…


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.

The big one: how environmental killing becomes a medical disease

The big one: how environmental killing becomes a medical disease

The giant pig farm disaster: a medical hoax and cover story

The full truth has never been told—until now.

by Jon Rappoport

August 2, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“To handle all that [pig-farm feces] waste, farmers in North Carolina use a standard practice called the lagoon and spray field system. They flush feces and urine from barns into open-air pits called lagoons, which turn the color of Pepto-Bismol when pink-colored bacteria colonize the waste. To keep the lagoons from overflowing, farmers spray liquid manure on their fields nearby. The result, says Steve Wing, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is this: ‘The eastern part of North Carolina is covered with shit’.” —National Geographic, 10/30/14

The above quote describes corporate pig farming around the world.

In order to carry out this operation, giant companies like Smithfield have influenced legislators and government-agency officials. Environmental laws and regulations are ignored, or changed. Lawsuits are fought, hammer and tongs.

Here is what Robert F Kennedy Jr. told radio interviewer, Rachel Lewis Hilburn on 6/3/16: “…a hog produces ten times the amount of fecal waste by weight as a human being, so if you have a facility that has ten thousand hogs in it, it’s producing as much sewage as a city of a hundred thousand people. Smithfield has one plant in Utah—they call it Circle Four Farms—that has a million hogs on it, so it’s producing the same amount of waste as New York City every day.”

Here is Kennedy’s kicker:

“There’s no difference between hog waste and human waste in terms of its danger to human health. They [Smithfield and other giant corporate pig operations] ought to have to have a sewage treatment plant that cleans it up. And yet, if they had to build that sewage treatment plan, it would drive the price of hogs up so that they could no longer function in the marketplace… they ought to have to build sewage treatment facilities but nobody’s making them do that because they have used political clout…”

All right, that’s a bit of background. Now I’m going to shift to the subject of Swine Flu, the phony epidemic of 2009.

Where did it start?

At a Smithfield pig-raising operation in Perote, Mexico; in a village called La Gloria. Smithfield raises 950,000 hogs a year there.

Press reports described outdoor “pig feces lagoons” on the property. When workers began to get sick, the area was sprayed with unknown chemicals. More workers fell ill and died.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of public health could testify that this combination of mind-boggling (non-) sanitation, plus strong germicides, plus other toxic chemicals routinely dumped in the feces lagoons, could and would cause human disease.

In fact, it doesn’t matter which particular germs are present in the mix.

People at the CDC had to be well aware of this. Yet, in 2009, their choice was to rush researchers to the Smithfield operation in La Gloria, Mexico, armed with the unfounded assumption that some novel virus, never before seen, was the culprit, and their job was to take blood samples and discover what the new germ was.

Why? Why assume, when workers who operate in that kind of environment get sick, there is some new disease at work? The symptoms of the workers were not unusual, given the circumstances.

Workers dying in that vat of filth and chemical soup should be expected.

But, up front, based on no evidence, the CDC on-site team was going for a new germ and a new disease, and that’s what they announced they had found. A gullible world, fed by press reports, bought in.

And that’s how the fake epidemic called Swine Flu was launched.

All the focus that could have centered on the highly toxic Smithfield pig operation in La Gloria was diverted.

Diverted to a virus.

H1N1 it was called. The Swine Flu virus.

Suddenly, it was a medical problem. Not an environmental disaster.

It was RE-INVENTED as a medical problem.

If you don’t yet get what I’m pointing out here, imagine this: you’re living in an old sewage tunnel under a city. You’re surrounded by human excrement and biting insects and fetid waste water and foul air—and when you fall ill, you suddenly see virus-hunting researchers, not haz-mat rescue workers, approach you and take blood samples. Are they crazy?

No, they’re just doing what their bosses tell them to do. Because the CDC is fronting for, and protecting, major corporate agricultural criminals. Because your illness has to be shifted over to a “new disease and a new virus.”

On top of all this, the virus that these “researchers” do find, which, by the way, is in no way proven to cause disease, can be found all over the world. Why? Because it’s been around for a long, long time, and it has never caused any dire condition at all.

This is how the game works.

This is the medical hoax.

In the case of Swine Flu, it gets worse. It turns out that the virus is not so prevalent after all. That is why, in the early autumn of 2009, CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson discovered that the CDC, ignoring its mandate and charter, had secretly stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. You see, the overwhelming percentage of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, when sent to labs for testing, were coming back with no trace of the so-called Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus. CBS put Attkisson’s published report on the shelf and never followed up on it.

Again, the virus as the cause of illness, was the cover story. Intelligence agencies float cover stories on a regular basis. It’s no accident that CDC has a large unit of virus hunters called the Epidemic Intelligence Service.

Right off the top, I can tell you they create disinformation on a scale that must make the CIA jealous.

Graduates of this EIS program, as proudly stated by the CDC, have gone on to occupy key positions in the overall medical cartel: Surgeons General; CDC directors; medical school deans and professors; medical foundation executives; drug-company and insurance executives; state health officials; medical editors and reporters in major media outlets.

It’s a loyal insider’s club. They collaborate to float prime-cut, A-number-one cover stories of extraordinary dimensions. They invent medical reality out of thin air.

Here is a brief excerpt from the CDC’s website, “50 Years of the Epidemic Intelligence Service”:

“In 1951, EIS was established by CDC following the start of the Korean War as an early-warning system against biologic warfare and man-made epidemics. EIS officers selected for 2-year field assignments were primarily medical doctors and other health professionals…who focused on infectious disease outbreaks. EIS has expanded to include a range of public health professionals, such as postdoctoral scientists in statistics, epidemiology, microbiology, anthropology, sociology, and behavioral sciences. Since 1951, approximately 2500 EIS officers have responded to requests for epidemiologic assistance within the United States and throughout the world. Each year, EIS officers are involved in several hundred investigations of disease and injury problems, enabling CDC and its public health partners to make recommendations to improve the public’s health and safety.”

Several hundred investigations a year. An unparalleled opportunity to shape the truth into propaganda. Control of information about disease. Control out in the field, where EIS agents rush to the scene of “outbreaks,” all the way back through the hallowed halls of academia, into the press, into Big Pharma, into the government.

When I say control of information, I mean disinformation. That’s what the EIS is for. They’ve never met a virus they didn’t love, and if they couldn’t find one, they pretended they did.

They front for the medical cartel. And they provide cover for the crimes of mega-corporations. There’s a town where poverty-stricken people are dying, because horrendous pesticides are running into the water supply and soil? No, it’s a virus. There’s a hotel where the plumbing is broken and human waste is getting into all the bathrooms, and they want this hotel to be the epicenter of a new epidemic? No, it isn’t the plumbing, it’s a novel virus never seen before by man. There’s a section of a city where the industrial pollution is driving people over the edge into immune-system failure? No, it’s a virus.

And here’s the capper. Their propaganda is so good most of the EIS people believe it themselves. You don’t achieve that kind of robotic servitude without intense brainwashing. The first installment of the mind-control program is called medical school.

Psy-op and propaganda begin with the virus hunters of the EIS. They control and own the chokepoint of disease research. They blow up their scanty findings into ex-cathedra pronouncements.

And of course, this strengthens the vaccine establishment because, for every virus, there must be a vaccine: the shot in the arm, loaded with toxic chemicals and a variety of germs.

The EIS. The CDC’s band of brothers. The medical CIA.

“Show me vast pig-feces lagoons, and I’ll show you a virus you’ve never heard of before. I’ll protect corporate criminals from here to the moon…”


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.

Many ordinary meds cause depression; public trust in Pharma hits new low

Many ordinary meds cause depression; public trust in Pharma hits new low

by Jon Rappoport

June 14, 2018

—For years, I’ve been writing about the medical system’s self-feeding mechanism:

Give a patient a drug to treat his symptoms; the drug causes new symptoms, which are diagnosed as a new illness; and then new drugs are given, and those drugs cause still more symptoms, which in turn are diagnosed as a new condition…on and on it goes. Drugged patients suffer tragically and needlessly, and cash piles up in Big Pharma’s coffers.

At one time, this circle of devastation might have been called an accident. But now, all the experts know the truth. Therefore, this is rightly labeled a MARKETING STRATEGY, and, at the highest levels, a covert op to disable the population.

Here is a new revelation:

Suppose your doctor told you this: “I’m prescribing an antidepressant because the other drugs you’ve been taking have a side effect—they cause depression.”

You might say, “Wow, where is my compensation for suffering depression?”

The answer, of course, is: Nowhere.

Yahoo News (6/12) has the story: “One third of Americans are taking prescription and over-the-counter drugs, such as birth control pills, antacids and common heart medications, that may raise the risk of depression, researchers warned on Tuesday.”

“Since the drugs are so common, people may be unaware of their potential depressive effects, said the report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).”

“’Many may be surprised to learn that their medications, despite having nothing to do with mood or anxiety or any other condition normally associated with depression, can increase their risk of experiencing depressive symptoms, and may lead to a depression diagnosis,’ said lead author Dima Qato, assistant professor of pharmacy systems, outcomes and policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago.”

Here is the kicker: “The report was released one week after US health authorities said suicides have risen 30 percent in the past two decades, with about half of suicides among people who were not known to suffer from mental illness.”

“Anti-depressants are the only drug class that carries an explicit warning — called a black box warning — of suicide risk.”

“For other common medications — like blood pressure lowering pills, antacids known as proton pump inhibitors, painkillers and hormonal contraceptives — the warnings are harder to find or simply don’t exist in the packaging.”

And who knew this? “Researchers found that more than 200 commonly used prescription drugs have depression or suicidal symptoms listed as potential side effects.”

In the Yahoo article’s comments section, one person writes: “That explains why so many heart patients get diagnosed with clinical depression and PTSD. I went from 0 pills a day to over 20 a day after a heart attack. Several months later after becoming clinically depressed I was [p]ut on antidepressants.”

Quite possibly, the depression wasn’t simply the reaction to having a heart attack. The drugs used to treat the attack were at fault.

Hundreds of meds causing depression have produced a $$ bonanza for the psychiatric drug business: THOSE drugs OVER THERE cause depression; THESE drugs HERE treat it.

Of course, the SSRI antidepressants (e.g., Paxil, Zoloft) contain warnings about suicidal effects—because they, too, cause depression. And my readers know I’ve been presenting evidence for years about the ability of antidepressants to cause people to commit violence, including murder.

This is quite a “situation.” Hundreds of ordinary meds bring on depression. Doctors then prescribe antidepressants, which can deepen depression and push people into suicide and homicide.

Taking this further, the official solution to mass shootings is “earlier intervention with people at risk,” which means more psychiatric clinics, more diagnoses of mental disorders, and more drugging with compounds which induce violent actions.

Here is a new report indicating the public may be waking up to “the brutal pharma game”. From fiercepharma.com (June 13): [Public] Trust has hit a new low for pharma in Edelman’s annual Trust Barometer survey. The 13-point drop from 51% to 38% in the U.S. was the category’s biggest plummet in the five years the public relations and marketing firm has been tracking [public] sentiment…Pharma’s score of 38 puts it firmly in distrusted territory…”

None of this press coverage digs deeper into the tragedy. As I’ve been reporting for several years now, the landmark mainstream report on the effects of pharmaceuticals was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

Written by Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered researcher at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, the report—“Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”—concluded that, annually, these drugs kill 106,000 Americans. Extrapolating that number out to a decade, the drugs kill a MILLION people.

In 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield. She adamantly stated that the US government had never consulted her about fixing the horror; nor had they launched any program to reverse the catastrophic trend.

When I label this overall operation chemical warfare against the population, I’m not exaggerating.

For obvious reasons, the mainstream press refuses to reveal the truth. It’s not only Big Pharma’s advertising revenues that are on the line, it’s the chaos that would be caused by cracking a foundational pillar of modern society.

Reality itself would undergo a vast disruption, as branches of the secular religion called modern medicine collapsed in full view of the public.


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.