Fake evidence used in the Oklahoma Bombing

Fake evidence used in the Oklahoma Bombing

How official “science” is deployed to advance a political agenda

by Jon Rappoport

August 21, 2017

The public wants to buy every official scientific claim the mainstream press pounds into their brains—whether the issue is vaccine safety, global warming, the “overwhelming success” of medical drugs, the Big Bang theory of the universe’s origin…

The notion that a political agenda underlies such scientific pronouncements is unthinkable.

So as an example, a very specific example of fake science, let’s look back at the attack on Oklahoma City.

On April 19, 1995, one-third of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City blew up, killing 169 people and wounding 680 others.

Three men were arrested and convicted: Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier. McVeigh was put to death on June 11, 2001, Nichols is currently serving multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole, and Fortier was sentenced to 12 years (he served that term and was released).

The official narrative of the bombing stated: A Ryder truck parked at the curb outside the Murrah Building contained barrels of ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil (ANFO bombs), and their coordinated explosion occurred shortly after 9AM on the morning of April 19th.

In addition to the deaths and the woundings, the explosion impacted 324 buildings and 86 cars in the area.

(In my 1995, book, “The Oklahoma City Bombing, the Suppressed Truth,” I laid to rest the claim that ANFO bombs could have caused that much damage; and more importantly, I showed that an explosion coming out of a Ryder truck at the curb could not have caused the particular profile of damage sustained by the Murrah Building.)

The vaunted FBI lab decided that, indeed, all the damage and death HAD been caused by ANFO bombs in the Ryder truck.

But wait.

Buckle up.

Two years after the bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

And with those revelations, the case, the investigation, the court trials, and press probes should have taken a whole new direction. But they didn’t.

The fake science was allowed to stand.

Therefore, other paths of investigation were abandoned. If bombs did, in fact, explode in the Ryder truck, but didn’t cause the major damage, then those bombs were a cover for other explosions of separate origin—for example, charges wired inside the columns of the Murrah Building, triggered at the exact moment the Ryder Truck explosion occurred.

Now we would be talking about a very sophisticated operation, far beyond the technical skills of McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier.

Who knows where an honest in-depth investigation would have led? The whole idea of anti-government militia terrorism in the OKC attack—symbolized by McVeigh—was used by President Bill Clinton to bring the frightened public “back to the federal government” as their ultimate protector and savior.

Instead, the public might have been treated to a true story about a false flag operation, in which case President Clinton’s massaged message would never have been delivered.

But the fake crooked science pushed by the FBI lab was permitted to stand—despite exposure as fraud—and the story of militia terrorists trying to bring down the federal government was allowed to stand as well.

The year 1995 was rife with anti-government sentiment in America. This wasn’t merely a bunch of militias talking about insurrection. This was widespread dissatisfaction, on the part of many Americans, who were seeing federal power expand beyond any semblance of constitutionality.

As an object lesson, the Oklahoma Bombing was: “You see what happens when crazy people are allowed to own guns and oppose the government? Stop listening to anti-government rhetoric. It’s horribly dangerous. We, the government, are here to protect you. Come home to us. Have faith in us. We’ll punish the offenders. We’ll make America safe again. Let’s all come together and oppose these maniacs who want to destroy our way of life…”

The lesson worked.

Many scared Americans signed on to Clinton’s agenda.

And fake FBI science was used to bolster that agenda.

Even when exposed as fake by mainstream press outlets—however briefly, with no determined follow-up—the federal brainwashing held. The myth was stronger than reality.

If the federal government can egregiously lie about an event as huge as the Oklahoma Bombing, using fake science as a cover—what wouldn’t they lie about?

That’s a question which answers itself.


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.

A message to Wikileaks: release this leak

A message to Wikileaks: release this leak

Do 2.25 million deaths in America, per decade, at the hands of the medical system, rate as a significant leak?

by Jon Rappoport

August 14, 2017

As my readers know, I’ve reported on a number of scandals concerning the toxicity of medical drugs, including shocking death numbers in the US.

These scandals are open leaks from inside the National Security State.

If you visit Wikileaks, how many purely medical documents do you find posted?

How many damaging leaks exposing the crimes of the medical cartel do you find?

Very, very few.

Where are the medical insiders who are liberating and passing along incriminating documentary evidence?

The medical sphere, for various reasons, is far better protected than any other segment of society.

For the hundredth time, let me cite Dr. Barbara Starfield’s stunning review, “Is US health really the best in the world?” published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Starfield, at the time, was working as a highly respected public health expert, at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

She concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.

That would add up to 2.25 million deaths per decade.

Laid directly at the door of the American medical complex.

106,000 of those annual deaths, as Starfield reports, are the direct result of FDA approved, correctly prescribed medical drugs.

Aside from the genocidal death toll, Starfield’s findings also imply massive fraud in all medical journals that routinely publish glowing results of clinical trials of drugs.

Such trials open the door to the marketing of drugs that kill, according to Starfield, 106,000 Americans every year. How is this possible unless deep, continuing, and abetted research-fraud are the order of the day?

Indeed, Dr. Marcia Angell, the editor of New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, wrote the following:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009)

The FDA, of course, is the single government agency responsible for certifying drugs as safe and effective, before their public release is permitted. Yet the FDA takes absolutely no responsibility for the deaths.

Can you imagine the feeding frenzy, if, say, some leaker in the Pentagon passed along a political/military document to WikiLeaks that showed the Dept. of Defense was poisoning to death, like clockwork, a hundred thousand of its own soldiers every year?

Let’s stop this insane nonsense of separating one whole set of government crimes from another, simply because the propagandized priests in the white coats are above reproach.

We’re not living in 1950 anymore, and this isn’t Kansas.

In 1988, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC (included in my Matrix Revealed and Power Outside The Matrix collections), I stated that medical covert ops are the most successful methods for pacifying, debilitating, and controlling populations, through toxification, because these ops fly the flag of political neutrality.

They appear to favor no king, dictator, president, government administration or partisan position.

Their propaganda is all about healing and helping.

In fact, the medical cartel is, in the long run, the most effective branch of political repression, from one end of the planet to the other.

It favors top-down control by those in power, whoever they are, whatever they claim to stand for.

Consider this: when Ed Snowden released NSA documents that showed the extent of government surveillance on populations, no one from the intelligence establishment made a serious case that Snowden’s revelations were false. Instead, they attacked Snowden for exposing “methods” of “the war on terror.”

However, in the medical arena, leakers would be afraid that doctors, medical bureaucrats, public health agencies, government leaders, drug-company fronts, and major media outlets would, all at once, deny the validity and truth of the leaks—despite the fact that the truth is there for all to see.

In other words, the best protected cartel in the world—medical—would act in a far more Orwellian fashion. It would say: the truth is not the truth, the facts are not the facts, 2 and 2 do not equal 4—and the cartel would get away with doing that.

This is the kind of clout we’re talking about when it comes to medical matters.

Over the years, I’ve alerted mainstream reporters to the Starfield review, cited above, and other confirming published studies that reveal the horrific extent of medical destruction. Those reporters who bothered to get back to me issued blanket denials. They essentially said, “Yes, I see the evidence, but the facts aren’t facts. What’s happening isn’t happening.”

Now we’re talking about some heavy brainwashing.

By comparison, it makes the quality of the scandal around Snowden seem like a Sunday outing in the park.

A few years ago, I had one reporter, who exposes political leaks, tell me: “I don’t mess with medical stuff. It would ruin my credibility.”

Indeed. Another indication of how powerful the medical apparatus is.

Several months ago, the Washington Post highlighted a new study that puts “medical errors” as the 3rd leading cause of death in America. There hasn’t been any significant follow-up. There hasn’t been an explosion of outrage. So even when exposure occurs, the brainwashing factor is so strong it makes no difference. It’s just another ho-hum day in the news business.

That’s mind control par excellence. That’s tremendous protection of criminals.

That’s like a crime boss saying, “Yeah, I kill 225,000 people every year, but it’s an accident”—and nothing happens.

He goes his merry way, and everyone praises him as a humanitarian.

Talk about inventing and selling false reality.

This one is at the top of the charts, and it stays there.

I could stop here, but I’m going to take this one step further, because, as you can see, I’m talking about mind control. So here is the vital add-on:

From the dawn of history, humans have been particularly vulnerable to statements, from “selfless altruists,” about being saved, being rescued, being given gifts from above. And behind those statements, when there is an organization involved, a top-down organization, the threat level rises considerably.

Leaders have always recognized that if they match their pronouncements and assurances with the population’s unflagging hope of being saved, they, the leaders, win. They win big.

Even in societies where overt human sacrifice was practiced, the cover story involved some kind of healing and rescue. The good gods would see the sacrifices and intervene to produce “better days.” Better life for all.

This is what was sold, and this was what was bought. For many people, the times have not changed. Make them a promise of medical rescue, and they’re in. They’re floating in a hopeful trance.

A hypnotic induction has been performed, and it works.

The controlled subject responds with gratitude.

At that point, you can engage in complete contradictions, rank absurdities, and doublespeak.

The trance will hold.

The medical cartel is the best-protected organization on the planet.

Think about that, Mr. Assange. There is a whole world of “dark matter” for you and WikiLeaks to explore.

You obviously love upsetting apple carts. Well, this one has decaying apples from Nome to Tierra del Fuego.


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.

My interview with CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson: not fake news

My interview with former CBS star reporter: not fake news

by Jon Rappoport

August 7, 2017

I’m reprinting an excerpt from an interview I did, several years ago, with former CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson.

It’s a reminder about the difference between fake and real news, and about who the major purveyors of fake news are.

It also reveals a familiar strategy major news outlets deploy, when they happen to publish a true story and then realize its explosive implications: they shut down all further investigation. They close the book.

Here is the piece in full:

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you’re aware that a film, Vaxxed, has been showing in theaters across America and overseas—and audiences are stunned by its revelations.

Vaxxed exposes a huge scandal at the CDC, where a long-time researcher, William Thompson, confessed (2014) that he and colleagues committed gross fraud in a study of the MMR vaccine.

Thompson admitted the evidence showed the vaccine led to a higher risk of autism in children—but that finding was intentionally buried, and the vaccine was given a free pass.

Of course, mainstream reporters have been mercilessly attacking Vaxxed, and a segment of the population finds it impossible to believe that the CDC would ever commit this kind of fraud.

So, as a mind-changer, let me take you back to the late summer of 2009, and the Swine Flu epidemic, which was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?

The problem was, the CDC was concealing another scandal.

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

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

What was the Agency up to?

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

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

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

—end of interview excerpt—

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

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

But it gets even worse.

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

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

Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

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

There is no Swine Flu epidemic.

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

So…the premise that the CDC would never lie about important matters like, oh, a vaccine increasing the risk of autism…you can lay that one to rest.

The CDC will lie about anything it wants to. It will boldly go where no person interested in real science will go.

It will completely ignore its mandate to care about human health, and it will get away with it.

And CBS will conveniently forget how it aided and abetted the CDC, by censoring real news, and instead opted for egregious and titanic fake news.


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.

CIA mind control morphed into psychiatry?

CIA mind control morphed into psychiatry?

by Jon Rappoport

July 11, 2017

Here is a new introduction to a piece I wrote several years ago. Then I’ll reprint the piece.

The famous CIA mind-control program, MKULTRA, always used psychiatrists; often these professionals headed up projects; they carried out the bulk of the research. But what I’m talking about here is the “evolution” of MKULTRA into mainstream psychiatry that affects the lives of millions of people every day.

I’ve demonstrated, on a number of occasions, that not one of the 300 so-called official mental disorders has a lab test to back up the diagnosis. No defining lab test. No blood test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic assay. All 300 “disorders” are described and defined by committees of psychiatrists—and their non-scientific decisions are published in the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association.

Unfortunately, the treatments for every one of these arbitrary diagnoses are toxic drugs; drugs that addle the brain; drugs that reduce people to a state of abject dependence; drugs that make people think they’re insane; drugs that cause violent behavior; drugs that create life-threatening problems when patients try to withdraw from them quickly; drugs whose effects mimic the very descriptions of mental illness.

In other words, modern psychiatry, backed by drug makers, has an ideal formula for disabling populations.

So it’s more than interesting that the CIA has pursued a mind control program (MKULTRA) to achieve, in certain respects, the same objectives.

—end of introduction—now here is my piece on a forgotten CIA document:

Drugs to transform individuals…and even, by implication, society.

Drug research going far beyond the usual brief descriptions of MKULTRA.

The intention is there, in the record:

A CIA document was included in the transcript of the 1977 US Senate Hearings on MKULTRA, the CIA’s mind-control program.

The document is found in Appendix C, starting on page 166. It’s simply labeled “Draft,” dated 5 May 1955 (note: scroll down to #123-125 in the document).

It states: “A portion of the Research and Development Program of [CIA’s] TSS/Chemical Division is devoted to the discovery of the following materials and methods:”

What followed was a list of hoped-for drugs and their uses.

First, a bit of background: MKULTRA did not end in 1962, as advertised. It was shifted over to the Agency’s Office of Research and Development.

John Marks is the author of the groundbreaking 1979 book, Search for the Manchurian Candidate, which helped expose MKULTRA. Marks told me a CIA representative informed him that the continuation of MKULTRA, after 1962, was carried out with a greater degree of secrecy, and he, Marks, would never see a scrap of paper about it.

I’m printing below, the list of the 1955 intentions of the CIA regarding their own drug research. The range of those intentions is stunning.

Some of my comments gleaned from studying the list:

The CIA wanted to find substances which would “promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness.” Serious consideration should be given to the idea that psychiatric medications would eventually satisfy that requirement.

The CIA wanted to find chemicals that “would produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way.” This suggests many possibilities—among them the use of drugs to fabricate diseases and thereby give the false impression of germ-caused epidemics.

The CIA wanted to find drugs that would “produce amnesia.” Ideal for discrediting whistleblowers, dissidents, certain political candidates, and other investigators. (Scopolamine is such a drug.)

The CIA wanted to discover drugs which would produce “paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.” A way to make people decline in health as if from diseases.

The CIA wanted to develop drugs that would “alter personality structure” and thus induce a person’s dependence on another person. How about dependence in general? For instance, dependence on institutions, governments?

The CIA wanted to discover chemicals that would “lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men.” Sounds like a general description of the devolution of society.

As you read the list yourself, you’ll see more implications/possibilities.

Here, from 1955, are the types of drugs the MKULTRA men at the CIA were looking for. The following statements are direct CIA quotes:

A portion of the Research and Development Program of TSS/Chemical Division is devoted to the discovery of the following materials and methods:

1. Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.

2. Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and perception.

3. Materials which will prevent or counteract the intoxicating effect of alcohol.

4. Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of alcohol.

5. Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used for malingering, etc.

6. Materials which will render the induction of hypnosis easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness.

7. Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called “brain-washing”.

8. Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.

9. Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.

10. Substances which produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.

11. Substances which will produce “pure” euphoria with no subsequent let-down.

12. Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.

13. A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.

14. Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts.

15. Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent effects.

16. A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use by agent types on an ad hoc basis.

17. A material which can be surreptitiously administered by the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it impossible for a man to perform any physical activity whatsoever.

—end of quoted section from the 1955 CIA document—


The Matrix Revealed

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


At the end of this 1955 CIA document, the author [unnamed] makes these remarks: “In practice, it has been possible to use outside cleared contractors for the preliminary phases of this [research] work. However, that part which involves human testing at effective dose levels presents security problems which cannot be handled by the ordinary contactors.”

“The proposed [human testing] facility [deletion] offers a unique opportunity for the secure handling of such clinical testing in addition to the many advantages outlined in the project proposal. The security problems mentioned above are eliminated by the fact that the responsibility for the testing will rest completely upon the physician and the hospital. [one line deleted] will allow [CIA] TSS/CD personnel to supervise the work very closely to make sure that all tests are conducted according to the recognized practices and embody adequate safeguards.”

In other words, this was to be ultra-secret. No outside contractors at universities for the core of the experiments, which by the way could be carried forward for decades.

A secret in-house facility.

Over the years, more facilities could be created.

If you examine the full range of psychiatric drugs developed since 1955, you’ll see that a number of them fit the CIA’s agenda. Speed-type chemicals to addle the brain over the long term, to treat so-called ADHD. Anti-psychotic drugs [Haldol, Risperdal, etc.], AKA “major tranquilizers,” to render patients more and more dependent on others (and government) as they sink into profound disability and incur motor brain damage. And of course, the SSRI antidepressants, like Prozac and Paxil and Zoloft, which produce extreme and debilitating highs and lows—and also push people over the edge into committing violence.

These drugs drag the whole society down into lower and lower levels of consciousness and action.

If that’s the goal of a very powerful and clandestine government agency…it’s succeeding. In mainstream psychiatry.

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.

Canada scandal: how does Minister of Defence still have a job?

Canada scandal: how does Minister of Defence still have a job?

Will wonders never cease?

by Jon Rappoport

July 5, 2017

I write about this one because the “mistake” excuse is prominent. I love the “mistake.” Politicians invoke it all the time when their backs are against the wall. They didn’t do anything wrong. They didn’t lie on purpose.

They made a mistake—something on the level of forgetting to turn off the lights in the basement after climbing up the stairs to the kitchen.

Here are the charges, as reported by CTV News: “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his embattled defence minister endured a withering question-period offensive Monday as opposition MPs accused Harjit Sajjan of ‘stolen valour’ for overstating his role in planning a 2006 battle in Afghanistan.”

“Opposition parties trained their sights squarely on Sajjan, who apologized again in the House of Commons for having described himself as the architect of Operation Medusa, one of the bloodiest and most pivotal battles of the Afghan war.”

“Interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose went so far as to accuse Sajjan of stealing credit for the actions of others — a cardinal sin in military circles.”

“’The minister made a mistake’,” the prime minister [Trudeau] said repeatedly. ‘He acknowledged his responsibility and apologized for it; that’s what Canadians expect when one makes a mistake’.”

“’I would like to apologize for my mistake in describing my role, and retract that statement, and I’m truly sorry for it’, [Defence Minister] Sajjan said.”

“’I in no way intended to diminish the great work that our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces have done….and I’m truly sorry for it’.”

Here’s the point. It wasn’t a mistake. It was bald-faced lie. And what kind of politician tells that lie, knowing he can be exposed, knowing he can face withering attacks?

The answer: The kind of politician who deludes himself into thinking he can get away with it, because he believes everyone else is so stupid he won’t get caught.

The kind of politician who begins to believe his own lie.

The kind of politician who lives in his own little universe, where he can say and do whatever he wants to.

The kind of politician who is addicted to lying.

This describes most politicians. This describes their choices and their sickness.

The public, by and large, doesn’t understand that political lying is a symptom of a much deeper problem. They buy the “mistake” excuse, or they just go passive and limp and try to forget the whole business.

South of the border, we’ve had a few recent examples of lying ourselves.

Take the story of NBC’s anchor, Brian Williams, “the most trusted name in news.” He lied about being in a helicopter taking fire in Iraq in 2003. Under extreme pressure, he finally admitted his “mistake,” the result of “brain fog”—and in his “confession” he apparently lied again, giving the false impression that the helicopter right in front of his took the fire, when at least one soldier on the scene states that Williams’ helicopter wasn’t even in the same formation, but landed some time later. Williams was suspended from his job and then quietly rehired to anchor the news on NBC’s cable network, MSNBC.

Sharyl Attkisson, at CBS, wrote an instructive article about Hillary Clinton’s “perilous” 1996 “sniper” trip to Bosnia. Instructive, because she was there with Hillary.

Attkisson writes:

“The trip in 1996 would later become grist for the political mill when presidential candidate Clinton claimed—in 2008—that we had dodged sniper fire [on an airport tarmac] on that trip.”

“I not only had a different memory, but I still had the video from the event and it clearly showed no snipers. In fact, there were children on the runway in Bosnia to greet Clinton. Sheryl Crow was on the trip with us, as was comedian Sinbad (to entertain the US troops). Sinbad, too, pointed out he didn’t recall sniper fire.”

“CBS News assigned me to do the story on Clinton’s mistaken memory. When she doubled down the next day [still claiming she was under sniper fire], we followed up with a second day story.”

“Some analysts said it was the final nail in the coffin that caused her to drop out of the race in 2008, clearing the path for Barack Obama to take the nomination for Democrats. Clinton never fully explained whether she knew she wasn’t telling the truth, or whether she actually somehow believed her own concocted story. She simply explained that she’d been overtired.”

Hillary eventually confessed, if you can call it a confession: “So I made a mistake,” she said. “That happens. It proves I’m human, which you know, for some people, is a revelation.”

And then, on another occasion: “I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke.”

She made a human mistake. She misspoke. Sure she did.

She lied. Brian Williams lied. Canadian Defence Minister Sajjan lied.

How would this play, for the public? “I apologize. I lied. I intended to lie.” It wouldn’t play very well.

When these people lie, they often can’t separate their own conscious intent to deceive from their belief in their own lie.

They’re actors trapped in their own roles. They can’t get out.

That makes them dangerous.

Most of the public would rather not face that fact.

Thus, politics-as-usual spreads and spreads across the landscape.

I have a suggestion for mainstream reporters—one which they’ll never accept. Whenever you get a chance to sit down with a prominent politician and do an interview, or if you moderate a political debate, start off by asking the politician the following revealing question:

WHAT’S THE BIGGEST LIE YOU EVER TOLD?

For example, Prime Minister Trudeau might say: “Well, let’s see. Hmm. Yes, I remember. When I was five, I told my father I planted a little tree in the back yard to help the environment and stave off global warming and save the Earth. But actually, you see, I had planted two trees! I didn’t want to say that, because I took the extra money to buy the second tree from my allowance, and I thought my father might think I was short-changing myself.”

Reporter: And that’s the biggest lie you’ve ever told?

Trudeau: Why, yes. It was a whopper!

Reporter: Were you lying then or are you lying now?

Silence.

Then the whole country of Canada bursts out laughing.

Let’s look at a few actual Justin Trudeau quotes. His form of lying is an endlessly popular brand among politicians. It’s the Empty Generalization. You follow along with him, and when he’s through talking (if you have working brain cells), you think: “What did he just say? I could get more meaning out of breakfast cereal made of plastic and sugar…”

Trudeau: “For me, to represent people who represent the future of Canada and the great challenges we will face over the coming decades — this is where I wanted to start. … I’m a teacher; I’m a convenor; I’m a gatherer; I’m someone who reaches out to people and is deeply interested in what they have to say. And people see that I’m not faking it. I’m actually genuinely committed to this dialogue that we’re opening up, and this understanding that needs to happen in order to be an effective MP.”

What? A dialogue? Where’s the dialogue? Trudeau is a “gatherer?” Who is he gathering? Sheep? Goats?

Trudeau: “In Canada, can we speak of acceptance, openness, friendship, understanding? It is about where we are going and what we are going through every day in our diverse and rich communities.”

“It” is about? About what? What is the “it?” What exactly are “we” going through every day?

If I were a speechwriter, I’d want to put different words into Trudeau’s mouth, just to clarify things a bit. I’d have him say:

“Look, I’m a Globalist, okay? Let’s get down to it. I’m a mid-level player who wants open borders, as a step toward putting a North American Union together. Let’s erase borders and let’s have the US, Canada, and Mexico join together in a structure very much like the European Union, where armies of bureaucrats decide your fate and your future every day, by passing tons of regulations. We’ll run your lives down to the fine details, and you’ll learn to live with it. Stay passive, my friends. Our present national government is already overbearing, but you haven’t seen anything yet. When I use words like ‘diversity’ and ‘openness’ I mean ‘control’. Control from above. Control with a smile and friendly face. I’m a Globalist and a technocrat, which means I want a completely planned society, an engineered society. No more individualism. And no more free speech. We have to get rid of that. Are you catching on? There is no ‘dialogue’. That’s a fantasy. I paint a Disney cartoon for you yokels and rubes. Think of me as a sort of New Age hustler. I’m selling you love and friendship, which, when you take them apart, crumble in your hands. Remember the old saying, ‘grin and bear it’? Well, I’m grinning, and you’re bearing it. Canadians are famous for being stoical. Keep it up. Take what we give you. Nationalism is dead. This is now One Planet, and you’re all ciphers, numbers on a planning board. That’s the vision. I’ve been groomed for this job since I was a child. The thing called the New World Order? It’s real. You’re in it. And finally, I’m not lying. Not now. Everything else I’ve been saying up until now was by way of selling you rose-colored glasses…”

Wouldn’t that be refreshing? Refreshing and disturbing, yes. But at least a statement like that would begin to define the actual situation; and the terms of the struggle.


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.

Which completely screwed up healthcare bill do you want?

Which completely screwed up healthcare bill do you want?

by Jon Rappoport

July 4, 2017

You can have Obamacare. Or you can take the current Republican re-do. Have you read it? Do you know exactly what’s in it? Of course not.

I can tell you this. Every possible healthcare bill has the same flaw. It’s called death. I’ll explain in a moment.

But first I want to mention that, for the past decade, as a working reporter, I’ve taken many actions to put a piece of medical information in front of mainstream news media, and they won’t bite. No matter what. I’ve published the information, backed it up seven ways from Sunday, and it doesn’t matter. No dice.

Here it is. Again. Every year, like clockwork, the US medical system kills 225,000 people. That’s a mainstream conclusion. A conservative conclusion. By extrapolation, that means the US medical system kills 2.25 MILLION people per decade.

Therefore, any new law that places more Americans inside the medical system through insurance plans will increase those death numbers. The death numbers will rise to new heights.

Where does the 225,000 death figure come from? A review in the July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, titled: “Is US Health really the Best in the World?” The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

When I interviewed her in 2009, not long before her death, I asked whether the federal government was doing anything to comprehensively fix the medical horror show, and whether any official from the government had approached her to consult on that fix. To both questions, she emphatically answered: “NO.”

In her Journal review, Starfield broke down the ongoing medical tragedy this way: annually, 106,000 Americans die from the effects of correctly prescribed, FDA approved, medicines. 119,000 Americans die as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals.

Again, it doesn’t matter what kind of national health insurance plan you prefer. As long as it puts more Americans under the umbrella of the medical system, the death figures will rise.

Starfield was not the only person to blow the whistle. I’ll give you two more examples.

Consider this article, “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and is the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.

Donald Light: “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [than the deaths: 6.6 million hospitalizations annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014)

One more. The journal citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989), “Anticoagulants cause the most serious adverse events, finds US analysis.” Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because THE FDA CERTIFIES, AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, ALL THE DRUGS THAT ARE ROUTINELY MAIMING AND KILLING AMERICANS.

What I’m pointing out in this article is an ongoing devastation that sits at the bottom of any conventional health plan.

All discussions about which national insurance scheme is right for you ignores that devastation.

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.

UK, Netherlands: wrong sperm, three parents, ultimate agenda

UK, Netherlands scandals: wrong sperm, three parents, ultimate agenda

by Jon Rappoport

July 3, 2017

Sperm bank mix-up of sperm samples; DNA from three people to produce a baby. What’s going on?

In 2016, as dw.com reports: “A Dutch medical center has launched an investigation after uncovering that dozens of women may have been fertilized by the wrong sperm. Half of the women who underwent IVF [in vitro fertilization] treatment are pregnant or had their babies.”

“The University Medical Center in Utrecht (UMC) said on Tuesday that a ‘procedural error’ may have caused up to 26 women to be fertilized with the wrong sperm cells at its IVF treatment laboratory.”

Also in 2016, as dw.com reports: “Three-parent IVF techniques have been declared safe enough by British scientists to be offered in ‘specific circumstances.’ The treatments can reduce the risk of mothers passing hereditary diseases to their babies.”

“The treatment is known as ‘three-parent’ IVF because the babies, born from genetically modified embryos, would have DNA from a mother, a father and from a female donor.”

And now we have this emerging scandal in the Netherlands: A sperm bank owner in Rotterdam, Jan Karbat, who died two months ago, is being accused of secretly fathering dozens of children. According to 23 families, Karbat switched sperm samples and substituted his own for the donors’.

As grisly as these scandals and practices are, they are mere covers for a much deeper agenda: making conception, pregnancy, and birth AN INCREASINGLY SYNTHETIC PROCESS.

Here’s another factor (summarized in the Daily Beast). In 2011, the European Science Foundation reported that 20% of European men, between the ages of 18 and 25, are “sub-fertile.” Not only that, both sperm count and sperm effectiveness have been falling since 1960.

The Daily Beast article goes on to highlight research indicating that bisphenol-A (BPA), “found in hard plastic items like food containers, could tinker with reproduction because it’s an estrogen-like ‘endocrine disruptor’…Men with the highest levels of BPA in their urine had 23 percent lower sperm concentrations than did men with the lowest exposure to BPA.”

The deeper you drill into this whole issue, the clearer the outlines become. Behind the scandals and bizarre practices, the population is being conditioned to accept all forms of synthetic conception, pregnancy, and birth.

We are approaching the day when these natural events will be laboratory-type processes. “It’s best and safest for everyone that the experts handle human reproduction.”

In other words, the scandals are a limited hangout: confess to errors and mistakes and even crimes, as a way of making the deeper story go away. Admit a fragment of the truth, and conceal the rest.

If the public believes the whole process of giving birth, from the beginning, from conception, is fraught with problems, they will look for security and safety. They will look toward scientists “who have all the answers.” And those answers, more and more, will entail artificial and synthetic processes of conception, fertilization, and DNA tinkering.

The nuclear family? An outmoded notion.

Into the dustbin of history.

The inclination is to say, “Well, if enough scandals surrounding synthetic conception and birth are brought to light, the public and the authorities will demand a return to natural practices.” It’s counter-intuitive to imagine these scandals will drive the public into the arm of scientists for answers and guidance. But that’s the way it’s working out.

What has to happen is an awakening from the basic trance, in which all official science is considered a god.

Then people can think and look for themselves.

And one of things they can think about is the degree to which they want the birth of their children to become a technocratic institution for a Brave New World.

Substitute-sperm from an anonymous donor’s bank-deposit to impregnate a future mother? Combining and engineering the DNA from three or more donors, in order to produce an embryo? These are steps along the path to Huxley’s dystopia:

“Hot tunnels alternated with cool tunnels. Coolness was wedded to discomfort in the form of hard X-rays. By the time they were decanted the embryos had a horror of cold. They were predestined to emigrate to the tropics, to be miner[s] and acetate silk spinners and steel workers. Later on their minds would be made to endorse the judgment of their bodies. ‘We condition them to thrive on heat’, concluded Mr. Foster. ‘Our colleagues upstairs will teach them to love it’.”


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.