Mind control and the “flu virus”

Mind control and “the flu virus”

by Jon Rappoport

January 16, 2018

Yesterday, I exposed the fact that most “flu” is not the flu.

For example, here is a quite suggestive quote from Peter 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.”

OOPS.

Today, I want to look at the mind control aspect of this insanity.

If someone says, “You have the flu,” he means you have one thing and other people who have the flu have the same thing.

It is caused by a virus, and everyone who has the flu has that virus.

If you say, “No, the so-called flu could be caused by many different things,” people might appear to agree with you, but they’re still thinking, “The flu is one thing.”

They won’t let go. That’s called mind control.

Person A has a cough, fatigue, headache, and fever. Why? A combination of stress, exposure to cold weather, and contaminated indoor air.

Person B also has cough, fatigue, headache and fever. Why? A combination of junk food, nutritional deficits, and a toxic pain reliever.

Do persons A and B have the same thing?

No, they don’t. If they did, the causes would be the same. And they aren’t.

Now take 10,000 people who have the above list of symptoms. But none of them has the flu virus. Do any of them have the flu? No. Do they all have the same thing? No, because the combination of causes and the precise nature of each cause are not the same from person to person.

If 10,000 people have the flu virus, do they all have the flu? No. People with strong immune systems don’t get sick. People with weak immune systems do get sick. The determining factor is the condition of the immune system, not the presence of the virus. Therefore, the tight equation, “flu virus equals flu,” is false.

Understanding all these factors rearranges the thought process vis-à-vis “the flu.”

“Flu outbreak across America” is a generality. It doesn’t hold together. Once you take it apart, you see something different.

You’re no longer in a state of hypnosis about “the virus.”

“Yes, but all these people getting sick…showing up at hospitals…they must all have the same thing…”

No. They might have similar symptoms, but that doesn’t mean “they have the same thing.”

If you want one factor, which combined with other immune-suppressing factors, might be at work, why not start with the freezing weather across America? That could be a clue. But it’s far from the whole story.

Person C has cough, fatigue, headache, and fever. In his case, it’s caused by a combination of freezing weather, five toxic medicines on his night table at the nursing home, and a forced change of diet that increases the load of empty calories.

Person D has cough, fatigue, headache, and fever. In her case, it’s caused by grief over the loss of a loved one, a bad reaction to the flu vaccine, and a power outage that cut off heat in her home for two days.

And so forth, on and on.

Casually blaming “the virus” is a response dictated by the stimulus of news and government propaganda about “the flu.”

And the propaganda ignores the most important factor: the condition of a person’s own immune system. THAT is a non-medical situation; and increasing the power of one’s own immune response requires something the medical system refuses to recognize—all the actions a person could take under the general banner of “natural health.”

From which the medical system makes zero money.

This is called a clue.

“Let’s see. We can tell people that when they get sick with ‘flu symptoms,’ they have the flu, and it’s all about the virus. Then we can sell flu vaccines and drugs like crazy. OR we can tell them these so-called flu symptoms come from different combinations of causes, which in many cases are environmental and should be identified—and most importantly, we can tell them they need to strengthen their immune systems through ‘natural’ methods—and then we make no money and go out of business and end up pumping gas in Death Valley. Hmm. Which choice do we make? Let’s take a vote…”


The Matrix Revealed

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


(New piece up at my other blog OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE entitled “More on why I named my site NoMoreFakeNews in 2001”. Click here.)

Jon Rappoport

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

The fatal flaw in the brain-computer interface

The fatal flaw in the brain-computer interface

by Jon Rappoport

January 11, 2018

There is a great deal of “utopian research” going on in the area of artificial intelligence (AI) merging with the brain.

Exuberant cheerleaders like Ray Kurzweil are quite confident we are approaching a moment when a computer will exhibit all the power of the human brain. And more.

Kurzweil and others are also sure we’re about to uncover the “algorithm” that underlies all brain activity.

They couldn’t be more wrong. Neuroscience has barely scratched the surface of understanding how the brain operates. Cracking the code is not on the horizon.

Most importantly: how would a brain-computer interface work? Hook up your brain to a super-computer, and how does your brain absorb the computer’s data, and how does it make the data known to YOU, the user?

We aren’t talking about a quiz show where you ask a computer a question and it spits out an answer. And we aren’t talking about crude signals to the brain that can provoke physical reactions. This is about the transmission of detailed information.

There is another problem, even assuming a computer could magically fill your consciousness with usable data.

A human-computer interface, endowed with access to a hundred galaxies of stored data, would run up against the problem of vast chronic misinformation in those cosmic warehouses.

This is not something that can be deleted with a program or a committee tasked with making corrective changes.

For example, and here is just one area, medical science is rife with fraud, at many levels, as I’ve demonstrated over and over again for the past 30 years. AI wouldn’t even know where or how to begin analyzing this problem, because…who would set the parameters of such an investigation? Who would even believe such an investigation is necessary?

There is an inherent self-limiting function in AI. It uses, accesses, collates, and calculates with, false information. Not just here and there or now and then, but on a continuous basis.

Think about all the entrenched institutions and monopolies in our society. Each one of them proliferates false information in cascades.

No machine can correct that. Indeed, AI machines are victims to it. They in turn emanate more falsities based on the information they are utilizing.

Each and every false datum generates a wider and wider stream of lies, and the streams, becoming rivers, overlap and produce oceans of contaminated information.

The oceans of false information that circulate in this world—and are loaded into the super-computer—would be yours. The best model I can think of for THAT is…

Mainstream news.

Yes, you’ll have access to instantaneous floods of “mainstream news” info. Congratulations.

“Recognized authorities” would be feeding you data, by way of their vaunted super-computer. This is exactly where the human-AI interface is heading, like a team of horses being driven toward the edge of a cliff above an ocean.

The human-AI connection would be fatally compromised. In journalistic terms, your brain would AUTOMATICALLY be subjected to untold numbers of “mainstream reporters obeying the parameters laid down by their editors and corporate owners.”

The result? Absurdly limited context, deception, fatuous presumption of authority.

If, instead, you want to look for a program that would discount such a presumption and would reject institutional secrecy and disinformation, a program that would undertake a relentless investigation of the quality of data, there is a potential candidate.

It’s called a human being.

And it’s not a program.

It’s called you.

There is nothing like it.

I’m not writing to inform a super-computer.

I’m writing to individuals, whose consciousness is their own and surpasses what any computer can do by light years.

Super-computers of the future will be nothing more than the super-evening-news.

“Hello, Mr. Smith. I’m your brain. I just received three tons of data from ‘the evening network news’…uh, I mean the wonderful super-computer of all-truth and all-knowing that is leading us into a paradise of wisdom. I will commence transmitting now. Your IQ will rise by twenty points in the next two minutes…excuse me, this just in: a pandemic is breaking out in the UK, Canada, Australia, and the US. There are already three cases. The virus is called X-23-6. The World Health Organization has a vaccine available. A technician is in your neighborhood now, and will arrive soon to administer a shot…”

I can’t wait.

Trillions of dollars went into the research project to create a brain-computer interface, and this is the result.

It’s sublime, I tell you. Sublime.

HELLO, CITIZEN. WE’RE YOUR LEADERS. ALL THE LIES AND HALF-TRUTHS AND FAKE NEWS WE’VE BEEN FEEDING YOU THROUGH YOUR SCREENS ALL THESE YEARS? NOW WE’RE SHOVELING IT INTO YOU DIRECTLY THROUGH YOUR BRAIN. WE USED TO CALL IT OPERANT CONDITIONING AND MIND CONTROL AND HUMAN PROGRAMMING. NOW WE CALL IT COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS. DON’T WORRY, BE HAPPY. THE PROCESS IS AUTOMATIC. YOU WON’T KNOW WHAT’S HAPPENING, SO YOU WON’T BE DISTURBED. YOU WON’T KNOW THERE IS ANOTHER REALITY. THEREFORE, WHY WOULD YOU CARE? IT TURNS OUT THAT IGNORANCE IS ACTUALLY BLISS.

THIS IS ACTUALLY THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

The vision of technocracy and your future

Technocracy for planet Earth

by Jon Rappoport

January 8, 2018

“Well, boys, we’ve got this strange thing called THE INDIVIDUAL. Could somebody tell me what he is? He’s not conforming to our algorithms. He’s all over the place. And while we’re at it, what the hell is this IMAGINATION? It keeps slipping out of our grasp, it doesn’t fit the plan…”

PART ONE

—Technocrats say they want to wipe out poverty, war, and inequality. But in order to achieve these lofty goals (or pretend to), they need to re-program humans—

Technocracy is the basic agenda and plan for ruling global society from above, so we need to understand it from several angles.

Consider a group of enthusiastic forward-looking engineers in the early 20th century. They work for a company that has a contract to manufacture a locomotive.

This is a highly complex piece of equipment.

On one level, workers are required to make the components to spec. Then they must put them all together. These tasks are formidable.

On another level, various departments of the company must coordinate their efforts. This is also viewed as a technological job. Organizing is considered a technology.

When the locomotive is finished and delivered, and when it runs on its tracks and pulls a train, a great and inspiring victory is won.

And then…the engineers begin to think about the implications. Suppose the locomotive was society itself? Suppose society was the finished product? Couldn’t society be put together in a coordinated fashion? And couldn’t the “technology of organizing things” be utilized for the job?

Why bother with endlessly arguing and lying politicians? Why should they be in charge? Isn’t that an obvious losing proposition? Of course it is.

Engineers could lay out and build a future society that would benefit all people. Disease and poverty could be wiped out. Eliminating them would be part of the blueprint.

This “insight” hit engineers and technicians like a ton of bricks. Of course! All societies had been failures for the same reason: the wrong people were in charge.

Armed with this new understanding, engineers of every stripe began to see what was needed. A revolution in thinking about societal organization. Science was the new king. And science would rule.

Of course, for an engineered world to work, certain decisions would have to be made about the role of the individual. Every individual. You couldn’t have an air-tight plan if every human were free to pursue his own objectives. Too many variables. Too much confusion. Too much conflict. Well, that problem could be solved. The individual’s actions would be tailored to fit the coordinated operations of the planned society.

The individual would be “one of the components of the locomotive.” His life would be connected to other lives to produce an exemplary shape.

Yes, this could imply a few problems, but those problems could be worked out. They would have to be worked out, because the overriding goal was the forming of a world organization. What would you do if one bolt (an individual human) in one wheel of a locomotive was the wrong size? You would go back and correct the error. You would re-make the bolt.

Other people entered the game. High-echelon Globalists saw technocracy as a system they could use to control the population.

Essentially, an already-misguided vision of a future technocratic utopia was hijacked. Something bad was made much worse.

In a nutshell, this is the history of technocracy.

A locomotive is a society? No. That was the first fatally flawed idea. Everything that followed was increasingly bizarre.

Unfortunately, many people in our world believe in Globalism, if you could call a partial vague view a legitimate belief. They dreamily float on all the propaganda cover stories—greatest good for the greatest number of people; no more poverty; equality of sharing; reducing the carbon footprint; a green economy; “sustainable development”; international cooperation; allotting production and consumption of goods and services for the betterment of everyone; and all of this delivered from a central platform of altruistic guidance.

If you track down the specifics that sit under these cover stories, you discover a warped system of planning that expresses control over the global population.

The collective utopia turns out to be a sham.

Waking up is hard to do? Breaking up is hard to do? They must be done.

A workable technological fix is a very nice achievement when the project is a machine. But transferring that glow of victory to the whole of society is an illusion. Anything that calls itself education would tackle the illusion as the first order of business.

Engineering society requires engineering humans.

That is the fatal flaw.

It’s called mind control.

PART TWO

Any genuine artist, any builder of communities, any sane activist, any honorable visionary stands outside technocracy, and is not part of this program.

Instead, his thrust is toward more individual freedom and a more open society with greater decentralization of power.

Decentralization is the key.

The use of technology does not imply living inside its control. The use of technology does not imply that society should be laid out like a giant machine with fitted parts.

Those futurists who have offered “overall plans” for the disposition of society generally ignore or sidestep the issue of who is going to administer the plan. To say this is an error is a vast understatement.

Where is one far-reaching center of power in our world that would run society?

All such centers of power are, first and foremost, dedicated to their own survival. And after that, they are dedicated to control of the territory they believe they own. THE INDIVIDUAL is a messy thing that needs to be sidelined or dealt with as a disruptive element.

I speak to those people who understand that the idea of the free, independent, powerful, and creative individual is being sidelined, shelved, and sent down the memory hole. This is no accident. This isn’t just a devolutionary trend. Technocrats see this as a necessary action, in order to “clean up” their equation for the civilization they’re building. The individual is a slippery variable that throws a monkey wrench into formulas.

PART THREE

Imagination never dies.

It belongs to the individual. It isn’t property of the group.

It enables solutions that eradicate problems and get out ahead of problems before they raise their heads.

Time and time again, the individual, as he wends his way through life, encounters persons and organizations that consider imagination a negative. In the clearly defined shapes of society, imagination must take a back seat to planning.

Is the individual resistant to such manipulations, or does he give in?

This is the key question.

Does the individual view society as an operation that can potentially lift up individuals and empower them? Or does he give in to the idea that society should create more and more dependent people?

The individual can be a source of spreading freedom, or he can defend the notion that there are an endless number of “entitlements” that must be honored.

Technocracy promotes entitlements as a doorway into the future. Its ultimate entitlement goes this way: you have the right to be re-programmed to believe you have a slot in the future world; we will make this slot as attractive as possible; you will serve the overall good as we engineer it.

That is the fundamental justification for the Welfare State. It’s the justification for a future technocratic policy which will assign citizens energy quotas. A citizen would be permitted to consume a set amount of energy in a given time period. (So-called smart meters are a step in that direction. The meters enable more specific measurements of energy consumption.)

This is how technocracy views the future…your future.

The ultimate technocratic vision? Your brain is a processor, and your brain is your mind. That’s all your mind is. Therefore, connecting your brain to a super-computer, or to the Cloud, will magically expand your mind and make it “more than human.”

You will become trans-human. A hybrid of human and machine.

This is the fairy tale to end all fairy tales.

It’s wishful fantasy dressed up as science.

The idea is: you will become More. You will overcome the limits and problems associated with being an individual.

Every individual will receive the same information and the same answers and the same solutions from the Cloud. AUTOMATICALLY.

This is the programmer’s wet dream.

Technocrats will thus be able to build a global society and control its every facet.

That’s the revolution.

The counter-revolution is YOU.

The free individual.

Never forget it.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

What about the UFO metal no one can analyze?

What about the “UFO metal” that no one can analyze?

Robert Bigelow, the “metal man” for UFO disclosure

by Jon Rappoport

December 24, 2017

(UFO archive, here)

This is a story out of a 1950s pulp science fiction novel. A story that purports to be quite real, now.

Las Vegas billionaire, Robert Bigelow, has been identified as a major player in the secret Pentagon UFO research group (2007-2012), exposed in the New York Times a few days ago.

Here are press reports about Bigelow, just to give you a few facts about the man, and the exotic flavor of this incredible tale—

Gizmodo (12/16/17): “The Pentagon quietly ran a $22 million program to study unidentified flying objects from 2008 to 2012 at the behest of former Senator Harry Reid, the New York Times reported on Saturday…”

“The unclassified but secretive Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program was funded $22 million from 2008 to 2011, with the vast majority of the funding going to Bigelow Airspace. That’s a company conveniently owned by one of Reid’s friends and donors, Robert Bigelow…That $22 million enabled contractors to build a low-key Nevada warehouse for what they claimed was unidentified artifacts obtained from UFOs, as well as compile witness accounts…”

New York Times: “Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, the company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo [who headed up the secret Pentagon UFO program] and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena…”

Bigelow made his fortune in commercial and residential real estate. He’s a pal of Senator Harry Reid. And he gets to store the most important materials ever discovered in his warehouse. No problem.

We aren’t told whether the UFO materials were analyzed under Bigelow’s direction (no one has been able to discover what these metals are, what they’re made of), but if most or all of the $22 million Pentagon program went to him, it’s possible this real estate tycoon was permitted to supervise, or sub-contract, the analysis of the UFO metals.

Really?

The UK Express is rightly blown away: “METAL and other materials allegedly recovered from UFOs was stored in converted buildings in Las Vegas under a US Government-funded program, it has astonishingly been claimed.”

“The material, that was said to be ‘unknown to science’ following tests, was stored in buildings modified by a private aerospace company [Bigelow] which was paid huge amounts of money by the US Department of Defense to research the phenomenon and look after the ‘metal alloys’, according to reports.”

“However, no images have surfaced of the alleged material, nor have any details of where it was found, or any reports of tests carried out on it.”

“In May Mr Bigelow stunned the world by declaring during an interview with primetime CBS current affairs show 60 Minutes, that believes that intelligent aliens are secretly living on Earth, and the government knows about it.” [A convenient interview, preparing the public for shocking UFO disclosures that were to come six months later.]

“It is now claimed that under his [Bigelow’s] direction buildings at the company headquarters were ‘modified’ to allow the storage of the materials [from UFOs].”

“No further details have been released at this stage about where they [the UFO materials] were found, how many there are, or what happened to them.”

“It also does not appear any official reports on the materials have been released, but it is claimed that research was also carried out on people who came into contact with the material to see if there were any effects on them.”

“Express.co.uk has approached Mr Bigelow through Bigelow aerospace to try to find out what happened to the material, if he still has it, and whether it can be photographed, or any reports on studies on it can be released.”

“We have also contacted Mr Reid, and Mr Elizondo through To The Stars Academy, asking if they know what became of the materials.”

“We await responses from all three.”

Las Vegas Review Journal: “The [NY] Times’ investigation unearthed contracts showing the [Pentagon UFO] program received $22 million in federal funding between 2008 and 2011. The money went to Bigelow Aerospace, the North Las Vegas-based company founded in 1999 by Robert Bigelow, owner of the Budget Suites of America hotel chain and one of Reid’s longtime friends and campaign contributors.”

“Bigelow’s company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials reportedly recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena, the Times said.”

OK, those are a few of the press reports.

Question: Should we really believe metals from UFOs have been recovered, analyzed, and stored at Bigelow’s warehouse—rather than at a super-secret military lab in a bunker?

Should we believe these materials actually come from UFOs? How were they obtained? A pilot in a US fighter jet operated a robot arm that reached out into space and scraped off a few samples from a streaking or hovering alien craft? A UFO crashed, and military personnel rushed to the scene, confiscated the craft wreckage, transported it to Area 51…and years later, a few soldiers drove metal samples to Bigelow’s warehouse and dropped them off for safe-keeping?

Bigelow’s low-profile warehouse has the kind of security that could protect the most important materials ever discovered by humans?

Well, there is a story. The story has been told. It’s been fed to the mainstream press, and the press has run with it—including the New York Times. The man who headed up the 2007-2012 secret Pentagon program, Luis Elizondo, is agreeing with the story.

One lesson: When you own and control the narrative, and when the press is bending over backwards to give you access, you can sell almost anything. In this case, based on no physical evidence, you can say UFO metals have been recovered and no one can figure out what they are, and a rich pal of a US senator has been storing them in his warehouse. No problem. And the man who confirms the story, Mr. Elizondo, who worked for the Pentagon, is now a media point man for something called To the Stars Academy, founded by a rock musician who has a commitment to discovering “the truth about UFOs.” Wow.

I’ve got condos on the dark side of the moon. Cash only for interested buyers.

Here is my backgrounder on a few vital basics of propaganda, which means information control, which means mind control. This is the game in the Information Age. This is how it’s done.

Who owns the UFO narrative?

ONE: 1947-2017 (seven long decades)—“WHAT ARE THE CIA AND THE PENTAGON HIDING ABOUT UFOs? WE DEMAND THEY COME CLEAN AND OPEN THEIR FILES AND TELL THE TRUTH AND REVEAL THE SECRETS! STOP LYING AND STALLING.”

TWO: 2017—“HI, WE’RE THE PENTAGON. HERE ARE SECRETS ABOUT UFOs AND THE PROGRAM NO ONE KNEW ABOUT. NO PROBLEM. IN FACT, WE’RE IN DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES.”

Hmm. What’s that smell?

Sudden Pentagon revelations about UFOs and recovered metal pieces of UFOs: an unknown ship in the sky executing maneuvers and operating at speeds beyond the reach of human technology; the failure to discover what a UFO is made of. These stories are coming right out of the Department of Defense. Officially. They’re not unauthorized leaks. And the moment the stories were handed to the NY Times, they became THE narrative.

The Pentagon owns the narrative, and so does the Times.

This is a necessary condition for big-time propaganda.

For decades, independent UFO researchers have been trying to force the government to admit what it knows—but now, when suddenly that magical moment arrives, the result is not what was hoped for, because the Pentagon and the Times can stake an overriding claim to the overall UFO story.

To consent to this new state of affairs requires blind faith in institutions which have a well-deserved reputation for lying.

It’s as if the Pentagon is saying, “We’ve been willing to go to war anywhere for any reason, based on false pretexts, but now we want you to believe exactly what we’re telling you about UFOs.”

More importantly, the Pentagon can now sell this: “For a long time, you’ve been listening to independent UFO researchers, but now we will take over the narrative, because we can provide truly authoritative information on the subject, and we can push rumor and speculation [independent research] to the side.”

Since 1987, investigating in the medical arena, I’ve been pointing out the horrendous consequences of allowing government agencies to own narratives. Horrendous, in terms of human damage incurred from medical drugs.

I’ll extend the parallel. During the height of the Health Freedom movement in America, in the 1990s, the federal National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest medical research operation on the planet, suddenly announced they were forming a department to study unorthodox, formerly scorned “alternative treatments.” Papers would be written, research grants would be doled out, holistic practitioners would be brought into the fold. Voila. The “medical Pentagon” was opening its gates wide. Predictably, this effort turned out to be a con. There was no intention to allow a significant role for alternative medicine. The plan was to co-opt alternatives and let them die a slow death. But behind that con was another move: NIH was attempting to take over the “alternative” narrative.

NIH would now tell that story and own it and control it and decide who was in and who was out. Fortunately, the ploy has largely failed, because the public hasn’t viewed the government as a reliable source of knowledge about natural health.

When Big Media and the Pentagon are suddenly showing up like Greeks bearing UFO gifts, beware.

They may spread lies from wall to wall, or they may tell a bit of the whole truth and try to shut down the rest. Whatever they are doing, they’re selling a fake.

And lest we forget, the Pentagon is in the business of inventing threats. Everywhere. Will they now release new UFO “information” designed to promote “alien threats,” thus underscoring the need to expand the Department of Defense’s power? Or conversely, will they present a kind and gentle approach, in order to convince us the Pentagon is made up of good people lending a helping hand? Either way, they win…

If they can maintain control of the narrative.

That’s how propaganda works.

Who is OFFICIAL, and what is their OFFICIAL position? That’s the key.

In the blink of an eye, after a hundred thousand people have been digging into a mystery for decades, a force which people accept as OFFICIAL can hijack the mystery and explain it any way they want to. It’s aliens, UFOs, a Russian dictator, ISIS, criminals from an opposition political Party.

It doesn’t matter. It only matters that the OFFICIAL group has the (hypnotic) faith of the public in its pocket.

The group can even win over some of those independent investigators, who breathe a huge sigh of relief and say, “Finally, we’re getting the truth. OFFICIALLY.”

This acceptance is automatic.

“Oh, they obtained metals from UFOs and they couldn’t figure out what they were composed of. So the materials came from another planet. And a businessman has them in his warehouse. I don’t need to study them. The materials are OFFICIAL.”

That’s mind control par excellence.

Bow the head and bend the knee. We’re good. At last.

I’m not saying the story is fake or real. I’m saying when a stimulus gains an immediate response, the intended response, propaganda wins. The operatives pop the champagne corks. They done their job.

A year ago, the New York Times would have laughed at the very notion of someone trying to sell them this story. But now, the stars suddenly align, the reporters are sober and a bit breathless. They turned on a dime. The ship has sailed.

“Well now it’s different. Now we have a credible source.”

Really? A former employee from the Pentagon, the agency that’s “lost” trillions of dollars?

An employee named Luis Elizondo, who has this bio posted on his new company’s website, To the Stars Academy? Read his bio carefully:

—“Luis Elizondo is a career intelligence officer whose experience includes working with the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the National Counterintelligence Executive, and the Director of National Intelligence. As a former Special Agent In-Charge, Luis conducted and supervised highly sensitive espionage and terrorism investigations around the world. As an intelligence Case Officer, he ran clandestine source operations throughout Latin America and the Middle East.”

Wonderful. Of course. We can believe him. He’s official.

The question is: Official What?

High-level intelligence spook.


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.

Charlie Rose: fall of a Globalist mouthpiece

Charlie Rose: fall of a Globalist mouthpiece

The abuse and the crimes are real; the media op is different…

by Jon Rappoport

December 18, 2017

If you had to pick three titans who were promoting Globalism and its new world order, you could scarcely do better than Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and George Soros.

During his reign at PBS, Charlie Rose interviewed them a total of 34 times.

Not only that, Charlie managed never to ask a direct question about the underlying aim of Globalism, and he never elicited a straight response on that subject.

Instead, Charlie’s furry, smarmy, self-congratulatory, oh-so-innocent breathless questions navigated “deep intellectual waters” in the realm of The Abstruse, and you came away from the interviews with a rash and an itch. You were supposed to feel smarter from the experience, but you couldn’t recall what really happened. What was Charlie asking? What were the titans saying? It could have been a parody of high academic fluff. Countries had been mentioned. Crises had been alluded to. The word “solution” occasionally bubbled up.

This was Charlie’s impenetrable style on important subjects.

He was a social hob-nob pro of the first order in New York. Anybody who was anybody wanted to sit down with him and slide into a long-form interview. And he met many of them at cocktail parties on the Upper East Side. He was a kinder gentler magnet for the rich, famous, and fatuous. If you weren’t fatuous before you appeared on his PBS show, you were by the time you were done. Because Charlie pretended everything coming out of his and your mouth was exceedingly Important. He kept pumping fake dead cartoon blood through those televised conversations.

But that’s what “viewer supported” PBS is all about, so it worked. The audience of conscientious liberals demands Disneyesque knock-offs of intellectualism. Everybody congratulates each other, throws a few bucks into the fundraising pot, and goes to sleep.

Charlie was Elmer Fudd who went to Harvard or Yale and got a PhD.

He was a perfect example of many liberals, who listen and talk at parties and begin to pick up on what they’re supposed to believe, if they want to fit in. The interdependence of all nations, the expression of “humanity” through official networks and foundations, the correct charities for serving the disenfranchised, the preferred political candidates, the soft socialism of all good folks, and the absolute need to maintain limousines and high apartments in the best sections of town.

“You should see my doctor, he’s wonderful, here’s the name of my broker, you’ll want to look at these schools for Jimmy, my art dealer can help you, I hope you’ll be out on the Island this summer…”

Charlie stumbled into realizing he could represent these people, and he made it work. He was their mouthpiece, his show was their outlet.

Until it didn’t work anymore. He was hiring young women for his small team, they came to him with great ambition and high intelligence, they knew this could be their big break in a business where plum jobs were at a premium, and he used that torque and control to perform his weird sexual tricks, because he was really a sad sack when it came to women, and because his power seemed like the only card in his deck.

Plus, his act on television was wearing thin. For his friends and betters, he was disposable. No one cared anymore about some nuanced way of selling Globalism to the PBS crowd. Things were moving in a more venal direction: destroy Trump; why didn’t Hillary win; we white people must shame ourselves and grovel because it’s the in-thing to do this year (last year it was owning a Prius); my son is buying fentanyl at his prep school; bombs are going off and cars are slamming into people on city streets and we aren’t allowed to say we know where this is coming from, and we have to get out of town and find a place in the country where we can settle down permanently (why doesn’t Trump just shut down the border without telling anybody)…

So Charlie went down, a casualty in the war. A minor blip on the screen went blank. He’ll now pretend to count his sins while he tries to plot his next move. A mea culpa book? That won’t work. A new independent show on a website? How degrading. He has a law degree—could he represent women who’ve been abused? Ridiculous.

He gets on the phone.

“Hey, Matt.”

“Hey, Charlie.”

“Anything new?”

“No. You?”

“No.”

“Could we team up and sell Netflix a show called The Real Deplorables? You know, blame ourselves over and over? Maybe we could make a new art form out of it. ‘There is no bottom’.”

“I don’t think so.”

“How long do we have to weather this thing?”

“I’m guessing ten years.”

“Then we could come back?”

“Maybe. People have short memories. And so much could happen in ten years.”

Maybe that’s true. But for now, the Globalist PBS man who brought the country endless “conversations about conversation” is a vaporous figure in a building media wave of figures who are vanishing, as the Op to construct a tsunami and, finally, place Trump at the top, as the prime predator, continues.

“See, we in the media are eating our own, some of the most famous and praised among us. We have that mission and that conscience. You cannot doubt our sincerity. So when we decide to tell you that Trump is the kingpin of this type of sordid behavior, remember Charlie and Matt and all the rest. They are the evidence of our truth-seeking, at any cost…”

Bye for now, Charlie. Take it easy. Raise Chickens, grow avocados. Interview the chickens. You’d be surprised at what they have to say. Their answers aren’t all that different from what Soros and Kissinger laid out to you via their opaque blabber.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

The collapse of major media

The collapse of major media

by Jon Rappoport

December 11, 2017

As I indicated in a recent article, the B-team, or even the C-team, is now heading up the national evening news in America. These anchors’ faces and voices (Muir, Glor, and Holt) are not even faint reminders of the so-called Golden Age, when father figures like Cronkite and Reasoner fed official truth into the brains of viewers. The new C-team is vague gloss from a paint job on a used car. This is an ominous sign for the news bosses in the upstairs suites. They can’t find adequate hypnotists anymore.

What happened?

Many things—among them, the father figures left the fold. They decided to sell real estate or take corporate work in PR. They saw the handwriting on the wall: the networks were fostering a youth movement, seeking younger and prettier talent. Why? Because Madison Avenue was convinced the younger viewer demographic was the important one, in terms of consumer buying power. Therefore, on-air news faces had to be younger as well. This sounded right, but it overlooked one vital fact. The young news anchors couldn’t pull off the appropriate level of mind control. They were merely bland robots. Friendly, nice, literate to the point of being able read copy. (Lester Holt at NBC is a bit older, but he comes across as a corpse someone dug up at a cemetery for a role in a Frankenstein remake.)

There is another gross miscalculation. The commercials, between news segments, are overwhelmingly pharmaceutical. Those drugs aren’t intended for the youth demographic. They’re for the middle-aged and the seniors, who want to toxify themselves for the rest of their lives.

So the commercials are playing to the older crowd, while the faces of the news are supposedly attracting younger viewers. It’s a mess. The news execs and programmers really have no idea what they’re doing.

They’re basically hoping their game somehow lasts until they can retire.

There’s more.

Terrified by “visionary” Ted Turner, who started CNN as a 24/7 cable news outlet in 1980, NBC decided they had to spin off their own cable news channel. This move, on its own, splintered the unitary hypnotic effect of having one anchor deliver one version of the news to one audience. Suddenly, there were several hypnotists on stage, all talking at once. It was a disaster in the making.

Then you had the various financial news channels, and FOX, and the sports channels, and the weather channel, and Bloomberg, and C-SPAN, etc. Plus all the local news outlets.

This fragmentation began to erode the programmed mind of the viewer. If, hoping to retreat to an earlier time, he sought out one face and one voice and one great father figure on ANY of these channels, he came up empty. The archetype was gone.

In a pinch, a viewer on the political right might opt for Bill O’Reilly, and a viewer on the Globalist left might choose Charlie Rose. But they’re both out of the picture now.

Enter, from stage left, the goo-goo behemoth, the CIA- connected Facebook, which, amidst building a tower of likes for infantile posts, is trying to convince its adherents that it IS the Internet and a source of tailored news that is sufficient unto the day. Unanchored news. No single voice or face.

Big media, in all its forms, has lost the mind control war.

It has lost it from inside itself.

Into the vacuum have swept the million voices of independent media. I’ve written about that revolution at length, and won’t recap it here.

Instead, consider the Youth Phenomenon. You could peg it at the Beatles’ US invasion of 1964.

Why? Because that was the moment when children began to be entertained by other children. Seriously, deeply, religiously.

Add in the drugs, and other factors, and you had the groundswell of the 1960s.

Stay young forever. Never grow up. Adults are dull dolts.

These children eventually became parents, and their children became parents…and you have the whole generation-to-generation, societal, eternal-youth package. “I want to be young. I want to be happy forever.”

How do you sell these people the news?

You put a nice face on it.

And you lose the hypnosis.

You still have all the lies and cover-ups and diversions and omissions…but the trance element at the core grows weaker over time.

Like the snowfall from a great blizzard, the aftermath shows patches of snow disappearing, piece by piece.

This is happening, and the news titans can do nothing to stop it.

It’s a long-term trend, and it’s called good 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.

The evening news and the gunslinger called Trump

The evening news and the gunslinger called Trump

by Jon Rappoport

December 8, 2017

Every television newscast: staged reality

The news is all about manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it. If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time, the fourth dimension.

Focus on the network evening news. This is where the staging is done well.

First, we have the studio image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they aren’t. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if he broke into the house?”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is: small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

Next we come to words over pictures. More and more, news broadcasts are using the rudimentary film technique of a voice narrating what the viewer is seeing on the screen.

People are shouting and running and falling in a street. The anchor or a field reporter says: “The country is in turmoil. Parliament has suspended sessions for the third day in a row, as the government decides what to do about uprisings aimed at forcing democratic elections…”

Well, the voice must be right, because we’re seeing the pictures. If the voice said the riots were due to garbage-pickup cancellations, the viewer would believe that, too.

We see Building #7 of the WTC collapse. Must have been the result of a fire. The anchor tells us so. Words over pictures.

Staged news.

It mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what that world is, at any given moment.

Since the dawn of time, untold billions of people have been urging a “television anchor” to “explain the pictures.”

The news gives them that precise solution, every night.

“Well, Mr. Jones,” the doctor says, as he pins X-rays to a screen in his office. “See this? Right here? We’ll need to start chemo immediately, and then we may have to remove most of your brain, and as a follow-up, take out one eye.”

Sure, why not? The patient saw the pictures and the anchor explained them.

Eventually, people get the idea and do it for themselves. They see things, they invent one-liners to explain them.

They’re their own anchors. They short-cut and undermine their own experience with vapid summaries of what it all means.

And then, of course, when the news cuts to commercial, the fake products take over:

“Well, every night they’re showing the same brand names, so those brands must be better than the unnamed alternatives.”

Which devolves into: “I like this commercial better than that commercial. This is a great commercial. Let’s have a contest and vote on the best commercial.”

For “intelligent” viewers, there is another sober mainstream choice in America, a safety valve: PBS. That newscast tends to show more pictures from foreign lands.

“Yes, I watch PBS because they understand the planet is interconnected. It isn’t just about America. That’s good.”

Sure it’s good, if you want the same thin-context or false-context reporting on events in other countries. Instead of the two minutes NBC might give you about momentous happenings in Syria, PBS will give you four minutes.

PBS’ experts seem kinder and gentler. “They’re nice and they’re more relaxed. I like that.”

Yes, the PBS experts are taking Valium, and they’re not drinking as much coffee as the CBS experts.

Anchors deliver the long con every night on the tube, between commercials.

Staged.

They’re marketing thin context.

There are various forms of mind control. The one I’m describing here—the thinning of context—is universal. It confounds the mind by pretending depth doesn’t exist and is merely a fantasy.

The mind, before it is trained away from it, is always interested in depth.

Another way of putting it: the mind naturally wants more space, not less. Only constant conditioning can change this.

Eventually, when you say “mind,” people think you’re referring to the brain, or they don’t know what you’re talking about at all.

Mind control by eradicating the concept of mind.

That’s quite a trick.

But now, on the national evening news, something has changed. The quality of the elite anchors has plummeted. These mind-control pros are less and less capable of delivering: the voice of authority.

In the old days, you had Water Cronkite, Harry Reasoner, Chet Huntley, Tom Brokaw, and (before he crashed and burned) Dan Rather. Big-time fakers.

Eventually, this devolved into a B-team of bench players: Dianne Sawyer, Brian Williams, Scott Pelley. Less believable—but still fairly effective.

However, now, at the three major networks, it’s androids on parade. Two pretty boys, David Muir and Jeff Glor, and the NBC cadaver, Lester Holt.

The ship is sinking.

Instead of trying to label their competition Fake News, the networks should look to themselves and try to figure out why they can’t find father figures to deliver their no-context broadcasts.

The audience is wising up. The correct notes on the scale of mind control aren’t being struck.

The system is falling apart.

When I named this site No More Fake News 16 years ago, I could see a fatigue factor setting in—not only in the mainstream news audience, but in the networks themselves. They were playing out the string, hoping to coast on their prior reputations. They weren’t just putting their viewers to sleep (their covert goal), they were slowly falling asleep themselves.

In the following years, the situation grew worse. The networks were moving on auto-pilot.

And now, they’re reaching the end of the line. They’re focusing on the only story that can deliver them ratings: Trump.

They fear him, they hate him—and they love him, because he gives them the numbers that justify their advertising rates with sponsors.

It’s always problematical when the only thing maintaining your survival is your enemy. Especially an enemy whose whole method of attack is to accuse you of subverting your basic mission, which is telling the truth.

And it’s far worse when he’s right.

No matter what you think of Trump, he’s delivering hammer blows to the foundation of network news.

I’ve been aware of every president since Roosevelt, and nothing like this has happened in that time span. A sitting president is virulently going up against The News. Not just the content—which would be bad enough—but the people delivering it.

Since the dawn of time on this planet, news has been controlled, for good reason. It’s the source of supposed fact. Important objective fact. The people who own the news have therefore been able to paint an overall portrait of reality for the masses. Which has been their intent.

In this age of science, the news has donned that cloak. “We’re recording events in the lab. We only relay confirmed results, checked and double-checked.”

And now this crazy cowboy hustler comes along, swaggers into the spotlight, and demeans the whole enterprise. IT’S FAKE!

And millions of people, who have long believed that very thing in the recesses of their minds, sit up straight in their couches and say THAT’S RIGHT!

Overnight, the situation turns surreal.

Up is down, down is up.

The bull is wandering through the china shop, deciding which object to crash next.

Naturally, the networks call him crazy, mentally ill, unfit for office, a Russian agent—while they’re reaping ratings from going to war with him. They have to strike back, and it‘s good for their desperate business to do so.

Whether Trump is, in fact, unfit for office is beside the point of the war.

The truth about Trump, whatever it may be, went out the window a long time ago. It was never in the house.

As the network news business was in a long slide from its former prominence, Trump showed up and stepped on its neck and ground in his heel. Impolitely, he spat in its face.

If you think the total effect was to draw people to Trump’s side, or to the networks’ side, think again.

People began swimming out of their hypnotic attachment to The News. The spell broke. Rudely. The swaggering gunslinger was showing up in their living rooms, accusing and laughing and setting off explosions.

And yes, you can separate that from everything else Trump has been doing or not doing, saying or not saying, committing or not committing.

And you should.

Because The News is supposed to be the ears and eyes and mouth and brain of the public.

And now—for several reasons, Trump very much included—it no longer is.

Which is a good thing, a very good thing.

Even if your hatred of Donald Trump knows no bounds.



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.