CDC “Spider” Scientists attack the CDC, blow the lid off

CDC “Spider” Scientists attack the CDC, blow the lid off

They write a letter to the CDC chief of staff

And I write a letter to them

by Jon Rappoport

January 15, 2017

(Update: for Part-2, click here)

There is a group of anonymous scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control—they call themselves the Spider Group—Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research. They have penned a letter to the CDC’s chief of staff, Carmen S. Villar:

Here is the explosive accusation they make:

“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

“Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.”

“We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”

I have written at length about another whistleblower at the CDC, William Thompson, a long-time researcher who, in August of 2014, confessed in writing to massive fraud (archive here). He admitted that, in a study on the safety of the MMR vaccine, he and his colleagues literally threw vital sheets of data into a garbage can. The study then gave a free pass to the vaccine, claiming it had no connection to autism—when in fact it did. Thompson is the subject of the film, Vaxxed (trailer).

Now with this letter, we see that other scientists at the CDC are blowing the lid off internal corruption at their Agency.

If, in fact, President-elect Trump gives the green light for an independent investigation of the CDC, as press outlets are now reporting, and if he appoints Robert Kennedy Jr. to head up that panel, as Kennedy claims, we are going to see a large number of hidden facts emerge from the secretive halls of the CDC.

Because this Spider Group is anonymous, I wanted to make sure their letter is real. I contacted reporter Carey Gillam (twitter), who has been covering the story. I received this reply: “I was able to authenticate the letter by contacting CDC’s public affairs office and asking them directly about it after I received it from internal CDC sources.”

You can read the full Spider Group’s letter here at US Right To Know. (More on the letter by Carey Gillam here.)

And now I write a letter to them, so they can deepen their investigation.

Dear Spider Group:

I commend you on making an important start. You’re on the right road. As a reporter who has covered the CDC for many years, I offer you three suggestions. This short list is by no means exhaustive. I’m just pointing to a few areas where your own research will yield very rich and fertile results.

ONE: SWINE FLU FRAUD.

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 a 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.

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 and, in the end, no 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.

TWO: THE CDC BUYS MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF VACCINES AND, AT THE SAME TIME, HEADS UP RESEARCH ON THE SAFETY OF VACCINES. EXPLOSIVE STRUCTURAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

If you wanted to buy a product, and the main source of research on the product was the company selling it, would you automatically assume the product was safe and effective?

But you see, that’s the just the beginning of the problem. Suppose the company’s research was cited thousands of times in the press, as the authoritative standard of proof—and anyone who disputed that research was labeled a conspiracy theorist and a quack and a danger to the community and an anti-science lunatic.

Would you begin to suspect the company had some awesome media connections? Would you suspect some very powerful people were backing the company?

This is exactly the situation that exists at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Read these two quotes:

“The government’s Vaccine for Children Program (a CDC organization) purchases vaccines for about 50 percent of children in the U.S.” (The Atlantic, February 10, 2015)

“The CDC currently spends over $4 billion purchasing vaccines [annually] from drug makers…” (Health Impact News, October 24, 2016)

However, the CDC is also the gold standard for research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It turns out an unending stream of studies on these subjects. And the results of those studies are dutifully reported in the mainstream press.

Do you think, under any circumstances, the CDC would publish data showing vaccines are ineffective and dangerous? They’d be cutting their own throats.

“Well, we spend $4 billion a year buying vaccines from drug companies, but guess what? These vaccines are often dangerous…”

Every time you read about a CDC study on vaccines, keep this obvious (and clearly illegal) conflict of interest in mind.

THREE: MASSIVE OVERESTIMATE OF FLU DEATHS IN THE US, IN ORDER TO PUSH THE FLU VACCINE.

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

Boom.

You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

“Well, uh, we say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

The CDC must turn out a steady stream of outrageous lies about the need for vaccines. If they didn’t, they’d have no way to justify the billions of dollars they spend every year buying the vaccines from drug companies.

So, Spider Group, don’t stop now. Deepen your probe. Become true heroes for honest research, expose the deep roots of corruption in your Agency, and do the right thing for the American people you’re sworn to serve.

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.

Obama’s farewell: soap opera for liberals and minority pawns

Obama’s farewell: soap opera for liberals and minority pawns

January 12, 2017

Here are a few snippets from Obama’s goodbye speech to the American people:

“Going forward, we must uphold laws against discrimination…But laws alone won’t be enough. Hearts must change…For blacks and other minorities, it means tying our own struggles for justice to the challenges that a lot of people in this country face – the refugee, the immigrant, the rural poor, the transgender American, and also the middle-aged white man…For white Americans, it means acknowledging that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow didn’t suddenly vanish in the ‘60s; that when minority groups voice discontent, they’re not just engaging in reverse racism or practicing political correctness…”

The question is: do people want empty sentimental sop from Obama or do they want action?

Well, it’s too late for action, because Obama’s presidency is done. And it makes no difference whether, as a result of his final speech, people view him as a great and honorable man who did his best, or as a con artist, because again, he’s on his way out the door.

Needless to say, his supporters were deeply moved by his words. They want to be moved. They don’t want to look at uncomfortable facts.

For example, let’s go to CNN, which is going to offer the best possible interpretation of economic indicators for black people in America.

“Blacks have seen their median income stagnate, along with the rest of the population…Median income [for blacks] stood at $35,398 in 2014, just a touch below where it was in 2009, when Obama took office. But it has climbed back from [a low of] $33,926 in 2011…The Great Recession sent many Americans into poverty, but blacks were hit particularly hard. The [poverty] rate for blacks hit 27.6% in 2011, nearly 2 percentage points higher than what it was when Obama was sworn in. It has since receded to 26.2%.”

If you call that a ringing endorsement of Obama’s performance as president, you’re in need of help.

Let me put it this way. For all Obama’s talk about racism and prejudice and justice, Americans of every description and color have been willing, for a long time, to work alongside each other and get along—IF THERE IS WORK TO BE HAD. DECENT PAYING WORK.

Obama is, in effect, trying to move back to another time, before that was the case.

When he was elected, in 2008, during the recession, his closest advisors thought he would come out swinging and do everything possible to create jobs. That was the number-one concern of Americans.

They were absolutely shocked when he opted for Obamacare out of the gate, as his first priority. And look what it has led to: a massive mess.

Gazing at his presidency head-on, without excuses, it’s clear that Obama chose to IGNORE jobs. He didn’t want to make a move in that arena.

Why?

The answer is stark and simple: the Globalist agenda forbids the creation of new jobs, and Obama is a Globalist. He was plucked out of nowhere by Ted Kennedy and mentored by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, along with David Rockefeller. The Trilateral Commission is the single most important Globalist force in the world. And of the 87 members of the Commission who live in the US, Obama appointed 11 of them to key posts in his administration.

This is no accident. This is intentional.

The idea that Obama would launch a no-holds-barred effective crusade against corporations leaving the US and throwing huge numbers of Americans (of all colors) out of work, is laughable. Look at the record, if you need verification. It never happened. It was never going to happen.

The man can talk forever about discrimination and prejudice and social justice, but those words fall flat, because he has never taken action to correct the true crime—which is there for all to see: Globalists are committed to torpedoing economies.

Obama can be a master of overly sentimental rhetoric—but this is merely a diversion.

And aside from the massive loss of jobs, if he has been talking about the inner cities of America, he should have focused on the enduring disasters that destroy life in those places and hold law-abiding citizens hostage: gangs, the murders they commit, their other crimes, drugs, and the absence of fathers in homes. That’s where he would have started. And he would have launched solutions.

But he didn’t.

In various ways, over and over, he simply said: “We’re all in this together.” That and $2 will get you a bus ticket in Chicago.

We’re all in this together doesn’t destroy pernicious Globalist trade treaties or create jobs for people who are willing and ready to go to work and support their families.

We’re all in this together doesn’t eliminate gangs, killings, drugs, and highly dangerous neighborhoods.

We’re all in this together doesn’t start a national program of urban farms in inner cities, and suddenly give people the opportunity to grow their own fresh clean food, eat it, and make money by selling the excess.

We’re all in this together doesn’t help create a culture in which fathers deserting their families is a cardinal offense.

We’re all in this together does pour a pleasant syrup of “deep concern” on the heads of people who, above all, want to appear virtuous. These are the people who can be led to believe in an imitation of actual solutions and action.

They are content to think that a leader who espouses a lofty ideal has done enough. Everyone else should put the ideal into action. If they don’t, it’s not the leader’s fault. He flew the banner. He recited poetics. He wanted a better world. He was operating at a higher level—and unfortunately, the bulk of humanity couldn’t grasp its profundity.

That notion and $2.75 will get you a ride on a New York subway.


The Matrix Revealed

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


During his term in office, did the man who said, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin,” ever walk through the devastated black neighborhoods of American cities and talk to long-term law-abiding residents (not self-appointed leaders or criminals) and ask them bluntly what their greatest concerns were, and press for real down-to-earth answers? Or did he think that food stamps, low-income housing, welfare checks, and other forms of government dependence were enough?

When he talked about “educational opportunities,” did he really think Common Core schools, with their lunatic indoctrination into “sustainable economies,” were going to function in communities where masses of unemployed people look over their shoulders in fear of their safety?

Who’s kidding who?

Who bought what he was selling? Liberals.

Who has paid the price? The people who live in the neighborhoods where sentiment gets you nothing.

And those who, still and always, assert how brilliant President Obama is believe his failure to make a difference was just a mistake? An oversight?

Does self-deception have no bounds?

The answer is blowing in the winds of Detroit and Chicago.

Jon Rappoport

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

The op: unelected agents now infiltrating ‘critical infrastructures’

The op: unelected agents now infiltrating ‘critical infrastructures’

Massive collection of data

A covert op for the ages: Technocracy United

Technocracy: “control of society by a technical elite”

by Jon Rappoport

January 9, 2017

(Part 1: here)

Note to readers: the people in charge of, yes, running the future are counting on a populace who can’t think beyond a few weeks or months. That’s their ace in the hole. The long-term future must always seem blurry and vague—and a waste of time to consider. Why? It’s obvious. The people in charge are always building the long-term future, brick by brick, and if very few citizens can grasp what it looks like, how can they object or resist or sound an alarm?

If you want to illegally take over an area, you need to invent an external threat justifying the takeover. We’ve been seeing exactly that recently, as Russia has suddenly been painted as a hostile force trying to destroy our “open democracy.”

Therefore, the Department of Homeland Security is now in charge of US elections, to “combat the Russian hackers.”

And it isn’t only elections.

In the release, last Friday, that gave control of US elections to the Department of Homeland Security (a naked coup), we also have this, from ABC News:

“A 2013 presidential directive identified 16 sectors as critical infrastructures, including energy, financial services, health care, transportation, food and agriculture and communications.”

“The designation announced Friday places responsibilities on the Homeland Security secretary to identify and prioritize those sectors, considering physical and cyber threats against them. The secretary is also required to conduct security checks and provide information about emerging and imminent threats.”

ABC got it wrong. The responsibilities (excluding elections) placed on the head of Homeland Security weren’t invented last Friday. They kicked off in 2013, and they represent a technocratic op to infiltrate and exert power over every aspect of American life.

The 2013 Policy Directive, issued by President Obama, was titled: “Critical Infrastructure Security and Review.” It enumerated no less than 16 areas of so-called US “critical infrastructure” where Homeland Security would muscle in:

Chemical; Commercial Facilities; Communications; Critical Manufacturing; Dams; Defense Industrial Base; Emergency Services; Energy; Final Services; Food and Agriculture; Government Facilities; Healthcare and Public Health; Information Technology; Nuclear Reactors, Materials, and Waste; Transportation Systems; Water and Wastewater Systems.

These are the areas where the head of Homeland Security is expected to “manage risk and strengthen security.” HS will also, of course, take charge of integrating and monitoring ALL the data networks of these 16 sectors.

It sounds reasonable to the average person. But the true theme is control. Planning, control, execution. Move in on these areas and exert operational command from the top.

This IS, in fact, the technocratic blueprint for global management of a new system. We’re talking about the re-engineering of society.

Capturing the 16 areas (and their data) above was always the long-term aim, when the Department of Homeland Security was invented in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. If you recall, there was considerable grousing then about the word “Homeland,” because it emitted a strong whiff of Fascism.

If the goal is engineering a new society—and it is—all systems of data collection, communication, and surveillance must be gathered under one roof.

The social and political engineer (aka the technocrat) views every person (unit) as a biological machine that must be profiled six ways from Sunday, for the purpose of inserting him into an overall pattern. As Patrick Wood explains in his brilliant book, Technocracy Rising, “[technology] is being rapidly implemented…to exhaustively monitor, measure and control every facet of individual activity and every ampere of energy delivered and consumed in the life of such individual[s].”

In truth, the Dept. of Homeland Security is spearheading a movement to connect, cross reference, and integrate every major apparatus of data- collection in both the private and public sectors.

This is the ongoing op.

It is not partisan. It flies the banner of no political party. It pretends to protect the citizenry.

But, in fact, it is the major long-term threat to the citizenry.

It is planning a national and global civilization that does not ask for permission to exist.

No one is voting, because if a vote were required, and people were informed about what is really happening, they would overwhelmingly reject technocracy.

Which is why new enemies must be invented on a continuous basis—to justify the “proactive measures that will keep us safe.”

Homeland Security, with its 240,000 employees and its 24 agencies, is in the business of securing untold trillions of pieces of data for the forward march of Technocracy, Inc.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed — which
includes the Logic And Analysis course, click here.)


Suppose, instead of the political-speak we’ve been treated to, the White House and Homeland Security released the unvarnished truth? “Look, we need to collect, record, and store every possible datum on you and you and everyone. This isn’t about our so-called enemies, this is about us, your controllers. This is about the future we’re planning for you. Somewhere up the road, when we’re ready, when we think we can get away with it, we’re going to announce that the planet is in a terminal energy crisis and shortage. Therefore, every person will receive a card that records his use and consumption of energy, and when his quota runs out, he’ll be without energy until the next time period. Get it? This is where we’re headed…”

Again, as author Patrick Wood points out, when you encounter terms like sustainable economy, SmartGrid, green economy, Agenda 21, carbon taxes, cap and trade, and even Common Core (an indoctrination process for the young masked as education), you’re looking at technocracy-in-progress. In fact, you’re looking at declarations, in one form or another, about irreversible energy shortages that requite drastic solutions.

Since 2013, when Obama announced the 16 areas where Homeland Security has to exert its authority, a new phase in the authoritarian ascent to a mountaintop of control, framed as “scientific,” has been underway.

This is the long con, the long op.

The bosses are counting on the inability of citizens to grasp what is going on. The bosses are counting on the passivity of citizens when it comes to thinking about a future of more than a few weeks or months.

They are also counting on the “citizen energy quotas” I mentioned above sounding like nothing more than wild science fiction.

Well, travel back, for a moment to, say, the 1960s. If someone had told you then, “Your cell phones will be collecting data on you, and you’ll happily be profiling yourselves in great detail, for the government, on social media,” you would have said, “What mental institution did you escape from?”

What sounds like fiction becomes fact.

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.

Intelligence agencies make their living by lying; now they’re truthful?

Intelligence agencies make their living by lying: now they’re truthful?

by Jon Rappoport

December 20, 2016

A few delicious contradictions and dissonances:

The political Left has long attacked the CIA and other spying agencies as criminal liars, but suddenly those agencies are as pure as the driven snow, because they claim Russia hacked the US election and took victory away from Hillary Clinton.

Putin, the supposed arch-villain in this operation, heavily censors the press in Russia. That would be bad—except now, many of the people who support the claim that Putin masterminded the election-hack in the US want to heavily censor independent media outlets in the US, who claim the Russian hack is a lie based on zero evidence. Putin censoring news in Russia=bad. Censoring “fake news” in the US=good.

In the push for launching Gulf War 2 in Iraq, the political Left in the US demanded detailed proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. When it comes to the accusation that Russia hacked the US election, no proof is necessary. After all, the CIA must protect its “sources and methods.” A simple assertion of hacking is sufficient.

Among green opponents of GMO crops, it’s common knowledge that the FDA never offered evidence of safety before certifying GMOs in the 1990s. However, those green people who support Hillary only need the CIA to say Russia hacked the election to believe it. No evidence necessary.

Here is a 1981 statement attributed to Bill Casey, incoming director of the CIA: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

And how about this one, from David Talbot, author of The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government. Talbot is discussing James Jesus Angleton, who was the head of Agency counterintelligence from 1954-1975: “These were some of James Jesus Angleton’s dying words. ‘Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars. The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted. . . . Outside of their duplicity, the only thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things that, in looking back on my life, I regret. But I was part of it and loved being in it’…”

What we’re really looking at here, in the “Russian hack” allegation, is a wholesale revision of attitude toward the US intelligence community. Now, because it’s convenient for “progressives,” these agencies are protecting the security of the United States with truth, honesty, and righteous investigations.

Much of this revisionist propaganda is aimed at the young, who have never studied the history of the CIA, have zero knowledge of its regime-change ops, its MKULTRA mind-control programs, or its illegal structure that exceeds by miles its original charter.

The NSA is also, of course, involved in the Russian-hack story, because that agency spies on emails and phone calls 24/7. They would surely be able to present evidence about who hacked the Hillary, DNC, and Podesta emails—if indeed any hacking, as opposed to inside leaking, occurred at all. But if they offered information, would you believe them? They’ve been lying about the extent of their spying for decades. Their track record doesn’t inspire holy trust.

These days, major media are lining up behind the Russian-hack claim. For them, nothing matters except the political agenda. For them, the election isn’t over and it never will be. Donald Trump scorched them, time and time again, during the campaign, and they will have their revenge, no matter what it takes.

Further, the emails WikiLeaks released reveal extensive cooperation between the press, the DNC, and Hillary Clinton. That’s a bitter pill for the press to swallow, to say the least.

For example, the Daily Caller (10/17/16) reported:

“A Politico reporter has been caught sending his journalism to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman for approval.”

“In an April 30, 2015 email, released Monday by WikiLeaks, Politico’s chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush asked John Podesta to approve his writing pre-publication. Thrush begged Podesta not to tell anyone he had shared the copy and referred to himself as ‘a hack’ in the email exchange.

“’No worries Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u,’ Thrush wrote to Podesta. ‘Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything’.”

“The Politico reporter then included five paragraphs from a story he would publish May 1 titled: ‘Hillary’s big-money dilemma’. Podesta replied that, off-the-record, there were ‘no problems’.”

Just to be clear, Glenn Thrush isn’t saying he’s a hacker. He’s saying he’s a hack. Dictionary.com offers a useful definition of the term: “a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment…”

But that’s not all. On December 12, 2016, Huffington Post reported: “Politico chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush is joining The New York Times to cover the White House, the newspaper confirmed Monday.”

“Over the past eight years, Thrush has emerged as one of Politico’s standout journalists, most recently writing a 13,000-word dive into the pivotal moments of the 2016 election.”

“’We’re thrilled that Glenn Thrush is joining The Times,’ Elisabeth Bumiller, the paper’s Washington bureau chief, said in a statement to The Huffington Post. ‘He’s a premier political journalist, a master of breaking news and long-form story telling and a stellar addition to our White House team’.”

Wikipedia offers this telling paragraph on the revelations about Thrush in the Wikileaks-released email: “The email and its wording prompted criticism of Thrush from some commentators and on social media. Thrush replied on Twitter that ‘checking if a portion of a story that pertained to him [Podesta] was accurate… I DO THIS WITH EVERYBODY.’ Politico’s vice president of communications, Brad Dayspring, said that ‘Glenn is one of the top political reporters in the country, in no small part because he understands that it is his job is to get inside information, not appear perfect when someone illegally hacks email… I can speak with firsthand knowledge and experience that Glenn checks the validity of often complex reporting with everybody, on both sides of the aisle’.”


power outside the matrix

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


Are you getting this? Are you getting the dazzling spin? It’s quite hilarious. Rotten eggs are turned into caviar.

For big media, it’s vital to support the Russian-hack story. It allows them to denounce and reject the CONTENT of the leaked emails and divert people from focusing on the press-Hillary cooperation throughout the presidential campaign.

“Who cares what the leaked emails SAY? All you need to know is: THE RUSSIANS DID IT. Russians are bad. We are good. Russians bad. We good.”

The CIA is good, too. Always was.

If you buy all this, you’ll surely be interested in purchasing my special ant farms. The ants are trained to drive your car. Put 50 of them behind the wheel and they’ll take you right to the market and back home again. They can also pilot a space ship to Mars. For that, you’ll need to order one of my ships separately…

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.

Top 11 “Russian-hack” questions the “rogue-Electors” should ask the CIA

Top 11 “Russian-hack” questions the “rogue-Electors” should ask the CIA

by Jon Rappoport

December 14, 2016

Assuming these “rogue-Electors” from the Electoral College get a briefing on the “Russian election-hack” from the CIA, and assuming the Electors have a few working brain cells, and assuming they care, here are the top 11 questions they should ask the CIA presenter:

Questions One through Three (repeated with enthusiasm and fervor): Are you just going to feed us generalities and tell us you can’t detail specifics because that would compromise your methods and personnel? We can read the generalities in the Washington Post, whose owner, Jeff Bezos, chief honcho at Amazon, has a $600 million contract with the CIA to provide cloud computing services, so he and the Post and the CIA are in bed together.

Question Four: We need a precise distinction here. How did “Russia hacked the DNC, Hillary, Podesta, and Weiner emails and fed the emails to WikiLeaks who released them” suddenly morph into “Russia hacked the election vote”?

Question Five: The security systems that protected the DNC, Hillary, Podesta, and Weiner emails were so feeble a child could have gotten past them in a few minutes. Why should we assume high-level Russian agents were involved?

Question Six: Not only does the CIA have a history of lying to the American people, lying is part of your job description. Why should we believe you? Take your time. We can have food brought in.

Question Seven: We’re getting the feeling you’re talking down to us as if we’re the peasants and you’re the feudal barons. Why is that? Do you work for us, or do we work for you? Once upon a time, before you went to work for the Agency, were you like us, or were you always arrogant and dismissive?

Question Eight: Let’s put aside for a moment the question of who leaked all those emails. What about the substance and content of the emails? Was all that forged or was it real? If you claim there was forgery, prove it. Put a dozen emails up on that big screen and take us through them, piece by piece, and show us where and how the forgery occurred. By the way, why didn’t you allow us to bring several former NSA analysts into this briefing? Are we living in the US or the USSR?

Question Nine: Are you personally a computer expert, sir? Or are you merely relaying what someone else at the CIA told you? Would you spell your name for us again? What is your job description at the Agency? Do you work in public information? Are you tasked with “being convincing”?

Question Ten: Do you think we’re completely stupid?

Question Eleven: Let’s all let our hair down, okay? Forget facts and specifics. Of course we want to overthrow the election and install Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. So do you. We’re on the same team. But we need you to give us something, anything. So far, this briefing is embarrassing. Once we get out of here, we want to tell a few persuasive lies. Give us a Russian name, any name. Or a location in Russia we can use. The brand name of a Russian vodka. Caviar. Something that sounds Russian. Make up a code with letters and numbers. Help us out. How about the name of an American who who’s actually a Russian spy? You could shoot him later today in a “gun battle at a shopping mall.” That would work.

Good luck.


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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The great fear that Putin and Trump will have THIS conversation

The great fear that Putin and Trump will have THIS conversation

by Jon Rappoport

December 13, 2016

The press, the federal bureaucracy, Congress, and other assorted power players and leeches are deathly afraid that Trump will go off-script in his communications with key foreign leaders.

Worse yet, he will do it without the usual gaggle of reporters on the scene. He will therefore ignore and insult the “owners of the news” yet again.

He will pay zero attention to the State Department bureaucracy, which of course is dedicated to Globalism.

He will get on the phone with Putin, and this will happen:

Trump: I was thinking we should get together and sit down and talk. Just you and I.

Putin: Why not?

Trump: No staffs. I’d bring two or three people.

Putin: No big ceremony. No months of planning. No protocol. No build-up.

Trump: Exactly. And no reporters.

Putin: That goes without saying. Where would we do it?

Trump: Maybe an island. Anywhere.

Putin: A nice quiet resort. Better yet, a friend’s private house.

Trump: Sounds good. Let’s see. I can get on a plane in three days.

Putin: I can clear my schedule. What shall we discuss?

Trump: Whatever is on our minds. No fixed agenda.

Putin: NATO, nuclear weapons, terrorism, trade, Syria, oil.

Trump: Sure. Let’s get to know each other a little better. We can even talk about how you handed me the election.

Putin (laughs): My guess is there were at least ten countries that hacked the Clinton, DNC, and Podesta emails. To say nothing of the NSA. A child could have gotten past their security systems, which were basically non-existent. But we didn’t leak anything. Some Democratic insider did.

Trump: I know. It’s pathetic. I’d be interested in your take on the CIA. I don’t know what the hell those people are doing over there.

Putin: I’ll talk to my department heads and have something ready for you.

Trump: Let’s put our heads together on George Soros. The man’s a menace.

Putin: I can share some useful information.

Trump: Call me back and give me a location and I’ll be there on Friday for supper. And look, no war, right?

Putin: The last thing I want is a war with the United States. It would be insane.

Trump: I have some ideas about the Russian economy.

Putin: I’d be happy to hear them.

Trump: I know in the past it hasn’t all been rainbows and marshmallows between our two countries, but I don’t know of any law against making a new start.


Exit From the Matrix

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


—If, by chance, both men were sincere, that would ruin everything, wouldn’t it? Sitting down and solving a few problems together? The horror of it would make politicians tremble in their shorts:

“What good are we? Those two sons of bitches are working things out without us. It’s immoral. Failing is our business…and our business is taking a hit.”

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 sequence by which major media went stark raving mad

The sequence by which major media went stark raving mad

by Jon Rappoport

December 12, 2016

I’ve been working as a reporter since 1982. Since then I’ve watched big-media news lie in every possible way they could. But I’ve never seen them race to the edge of a cliff and jump off—until now.

Here is the rough sequence, acted out in the past year.

During the presidential campaign, big media massively sided with Hillary Clinton and attacked Donald Trump. They predicted a Hillary victory all the way up to Election Night. Meanwhile, Trump was campaigning against the media. Mercilessly. Naturally, this raised the ire of entrenched news operations, who basically believe they own the news.

As further exacerbation, a schizoid split occurred during the campaign. WikiLeaks and Project Veritas were releasing vital independent material (to say the least) exposing the Clinton camp and the DNC. Major news outlets were trying their best to downplay and ignore all this material, while the public was eating it up by the ton.

Then came the results on Election Night.

O the horror.

Major media. Naked. Their candidate, defeated.

This was impossible, and yet, there it was.

The shock and disappointment were profound. (Perhaps you saw Wolf Blitzer try to swallow his tongue and teeth, rather than utter the words that must never be mentioned: “Trump, winner.”)

Not only was the major media prediction of many months completely wrong, their obvious campaigning for Hillary Clinton had yielded nothing. Less than nothing. It had put her into a hole.

Understand that these media giants not only believe they own the news, they also believe they create reality itself for the masses. They carve into the rock and unveil the sculpture. They script and direct the movie and screen it. They paint the ceiling fresco and display it. They write the novel and sell it. They produce the stage play and review it.

And suddenly…they lose.

The kings and queens of information lose.

In their venomous hatred, they have only one option. They must discredit the election itself.

First, they attack Trump as unworthy of the office of the Presidency; but, predictably, that goes nowhere.

They support the Soros-funded protests and riots in cities across America. As in 1968, with the full-blown riots at the Chicago Democratic Convention, the American people recoil and “support the other side.” Another loss.

Next: the talking point about fake news sites emerges. Big media are becoming unhinged. They claim: thousands and thousands and thousands of sites and blogs have been spreading malicious falsehoods about Hillary Clinton, thus duping the public—and THIS is why she lost.

Part Two: the malicious falsehoods came from Russia.

The slightly more complex narrative that Russia hacked hundreds of thousands of Hillary-DNC-Podesta emails, passed them to Wikileaks, who then leaked them to the public, is submerged under the general accusation: Russia helped Trump win. Russia made Trump win.

Russia hacked the election. The distinction between “Russia hacked emails” and “Russia hacked the actual vote” is lost, if it was ever there to begin with.

Big media, like demented nursing home residents in wheelchairs, zoomed across the lawn to the edge of a high cliff and kept on going.

And while in mid-air, before crashing on the rocks below, they rapidly concocted a “special narrative,” with the help of the CIA-connected Washington Post, the CIA itself, and several members of Congress: Russia gave the election to Trump, therefore the election is null and void, and therefore members of the Electoral College can legitimately and morally turn their votes inside out and select Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States.

And then they crash.

Psychotic. Suicides.

And even as they take their last shallow breaths, they expect us to believe them.

But here is the problem: even after they die, these media psychos transmit an afterglow. And this is it:

A group of roughly 10 Electoral College electors, who are due to rubber-stamp Trump’s victory on December 19, are not going to go quietly. Supported by John Podesta, Hillary’ campaign manager, they are requesting the same “intelligence briefing” members of Congress just received—in order to “learn” that Russia “subverted the US election” and “handed it” to Trump.

And then, the group of rebellious electors could grow and switch their votes.

And then we would have a coup.


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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.