Trump’s war against the media continues

Trump’s war against the media continues

by Jon Rappoport

February 26, 2017

Those who thought Trump would back off in his war against media are, so far, wrong.

For example, the other day, the White House held an informal press conference, a “gaggle,” and among those not invited was the New York Times.

—How dare they, the Times said.

The truth is, we are long overdue for a massive exposure of the mainstream press. As in: they are liars. As in: they are shills for the so-called “progressive Left.” As in: they have a history of supporting horrific US wars. As in: they take CIA “leaks” as gospel. As in: they never expose the Globalist agenda. As in: they defend conventional medicine which destroys millions of lives. And so forth and so on.

Think of what Trump, Bannon, and their team are doing as a necessary “market correction,” after a century-long bubble.

Any president or presidential candidate could have executed the correction. But they didn’t. Trump did.

Who is reporting on Trump’s war against the media? For the most part, independent news outlets. Of course, the Times and other mainstream news operations are slamming Trump for his attacks on them—but they are in the middle of the fire. And they don’t have the will, courage, and intelligence to assess their own performance over the last century. They can’t be expected to expose themselves.

The overall long-term effect of mainstream news is the induction of a hypnotic trance. The audience expects the truth because they believe. They uncritically accept. They rely on “reputation.” They ingest Authoritative Tone. They need a Voice that narrates reality. They refuse to do their own research. They reject the idea that there are powerful men behind the curtain who are controlling the direction of government. They embrace vague “humanitarian” ideals that are reflected with the same vagueness by mainstream news.

This is a war on the subject of waking up vs. staying asleep.

It is much bigger than Trump. He is a catalyst.

Even if you assume every single one of his policy objectives is wrongheaded and dangerous, he is still a catalyst.

Most Progressives who have also been opposed to major media fictions over the years now put that issue on the back burner, because they hate Trump. They would never admit he is a wedge into the shattering of mainstream supremacy. They would rather spend all their time attacking The Donald. “We’ll revisit the continuing major media crimes later, when hopefully a Democrat (who? Hillary Clinton?) is leading the charge…” Good luck.

In my 30 years as a reporter, I’ve come to see the result of mainstream news parading as the eyes, ears, mouth, and brain of the populace. It has been an utter disaster. The stench has risen high in the sky. I’ve watched reporters who are actually CIA assets turn the truth upside down and inside out. I’ve watched news editors ax vital stories that could have redirected history along better roads. I’ve watched “legendary journalists” betray the public trust time and time again, as their reputations climbed to the level of honored statesmen. I’ve watched newly minted graduates emerge from journalism schools with the moral sense of hustlers who sell pay-day loans to desperate clients.

When you realize the persona of mainstream news is a stage hypnotist performing daily in front of millions of people, you know the clog in the brain of the public must be taken away.

The naïve faith of the hypnotic subject must be dismantled.

We have a chance now. More than a chance. We are winning. The shift to independent media is happening on a grand scale.

Consensus reality is absorbing powerful body blows.

In many cases, people are realizing the consensus doesn’t even exist. It was erected on a foundation of sand by The News. It was propped up by chatter from fake experts.

If six mega-corporations now own roughly 90% of the mainstream news in America, it stands to reason they are going to service other mega-corporations, as well a federal government which supports and illegally advances the prospects and profits of those other companies.

The News is the business of business, via hypnosis. “Here is the Word about America today. Close your eyes and relax…”

My own personal and final declaration of independence as a reporter came ten years ago, after I had researched and exposed several monumental medical lies. In each case, I discovered mainstream news outlets were blocking the publication of the truth. In each case, they were defending the lies.

There was no sadness or depression about this. Quite the opposite. I felt energized and inspired. My long-held suspicion about mainstream news was irrevocably confirmed. The die was cast. There was no going back. From that point on, I would be dedicated to unseating major media cover stories with the facts.

There are many, many people who would take it as a personal loss and tragedy if the New York Times disappeared tomorrow. They would be beside themselves. I would take it as a great victory. A tremendous amount of “normalcy” would go out the window. Which is a good thing.

Because we really do exist in a landscape strewn with ops, cover stories, real conspiracies, lies, omissions of great importance, and bribery. Seeing all this surface and penetrate the hypnotic blanket would certainly cause an amount of chaos. But it would be fertile chaos.

From it, new individuals would arise with new discoveries and new solutions. People would find out what hope (not fake hope) is.

Loads and tons of un-remediated problems would begin to dissolve in burning light.

Well, this is happening now. We are still in the early stages. But is happening.

The old familiar semi-happy status quo is going away. It was never genuine. It was nothing more than the Sunday edition of the New York Times arriving on a doorstep, with the promise of morning coffee. Comfortable habits.

Now we are climbing mountains and making deep archeological digs. We are launched.

No possible future is safe as long as The News is the perceptual apparatus of the people. The News in the mainstream has forfeited its right to exist and flourish. We can know that now or know it later.

I opt for now.

I highly recommend now. It’s bracing and fortunate and absolving.

Joy comes in many forms.


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Genetically modified people: what could go wrong?

Genetically modified people: what could go wrong?

Genes, genes, genes: hype, hype, hype

Notes on Brave New World, against which freedom is the prime option

Freedom to refuse—

by Jon Rappoport

February 21, 2017

(Update: Part-2 here, Part-3 here, )

I’ll get to genetically modified people; but first, the background on the grand gene hype and propaganda operation—

The war against cancer has painted a picture of hope: genetic solutions.

This, despite the fact that there are no successful genetic treatments, across the board, for any form of human cancer.

The focus on genes is a diversion from obvious causes of cancer in the environment: industrial chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, food additives, and even pharmaceuticals.

This futile human gene-fix has a direct parallel in food crops: modify plants so they can grow despite drenching them with toxic pesticides.

However, massive GMO crop failures, reduced nutritive value of such crops, and the rise of super-weeds are three reasons why the gene model fails.

So it is with human cancer: “let’s modify the genes of people and they will be impervious to the environmental assault of chemicals that cause cancer.”

In other words, the fantasy proposes that someday, humans will be able to live in a toxic soup created by mega-corporations, and even thrive, because they have been genetically altered.

There is no reason under the sun to believe this.

“Trust us. Even if environmental toxins trigger gene mutations that bring about cancer, we can just cancel out those mutations through better human engineering.”

Preposterous.

This is like saying you can cure diseases caused by germs even though people’s immune systems are severely and chronically compromised.

The entire cancer industry exists to protect the corporations that are manufacturing products that cause cancer.

I’ve made these points during radio interviews, and I make them here again, because major media news outlets are silent; they are part of the cancer industry and are beholden to the cancer-causing corporations that buy huge blocks of advertising.

In the so-called research community, scientists can spin their wheels and obtain grant monies to do experiments with genes and mice and ‘cell lines’ (*) forever and never emerge with results that will save lives. (*) (Note: by the way, did you know there is a huge, general scandal with ‘cell lines’? More on that here.)

These scientists and their corporate masters can herald minor tumor reductions. But nothing changes. The war on cancer is a war on people.

Assuming gene damage can cause cancer, the triggering event can occur as a result of coming into contact with environmental toxins. In other words, the toxic effects on genes will continue apace, no matter how much research is done on the composition and disposition of the genes themselves.

Much cancer research does, in fact, discover toxic causes—and it is in the interest of companies that spew those compounds out into the world to cover up their criminal guilt. What better way to achieve that than by asserting: “cancer is all in the genes.”

Look at the giant biotech companies like Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta. In one way or another, they are all involved in chemical AND genetic research and production.

So they are in a prime position to deflect the chemical destruction they are wreaking by pushing “the frontiers of gene research.”

“It’s all about the genes.”

Hype. Hype. Hype.

Dr. Samuel Epstein, who devoted a major part of his life to the research of environmental toxins, wrote:

“We are losing the war against cancer. The prohibition of new carcinogenic products, reduction of toxins in use, and right-to-know laws – these are among the legislative proposals which could reverse the cancer epidemic.”

But that would be bad for business. The solution? Promote endlessly the notion that genes and only genes are at the root of cancer.

The big picture? The big con? Imagine a world drowning in pollution of all kinds, and top (bought-off) scientists saying: “Don’t worry, when it comes to cancer we’ve got it covered. Tweak this gene, tweak that gene, and poof, cancer never has a chance. Or if you get cancer, we can go in there and re-position crucial genes and knock out the disease. See, you can live in a chemical soup and never feel adverse effects…”

Genes. High-level, high-flying, high-minded, high-tech answers for the problems we face.

What? The science isn’t solid? The propaganda is wall-to-wall? The shills are everywhere? Don’t worry, be happy. The best minds will come up with solutions. Just wait and see. The great discoveries are right around the corner.

And I have condos for sale on Jupiter.

Step right up.

You can see the same kind of gene-hustle when it comes to autism, which many researchers, based on no real evidence, claim is “surely a genetic disease.”

This assertion covers up the fact that happy and healthy children, soon after receiving a vaccination, experience devastating neurological damage, leading to a diagnosis of autism.

But don’t go there, don’t look there, don’t talk about vaccines. No, instead, listen to the ascendant experts, who say it was just a coincidence that a vaccine was given and a child’s life was destroyed. You see, what really happened was: an errant gene response kicked in at the same moment as the shot of vaccine. A grand coincidence. Nothing to do with the vaccine. Certainly not.

In actuality, the dominant paradigm of this world’s power structure is: float cover stories.

Sell big cover stories and keep selling them. Use them to conceal ongoing crimes.

“It’s the genes” is the latest and greatest cover.

Some of the biggest, best-educated liars on the planet deploy it every day.

Here is the next big thing: genes injected, functioning as vaccines. The hype is over the top. Of course, scientists admit that these injected genes will incorporate themselves in the body and alter its genetic makeup permanently.

If you like and trust that idea, I have condos in the core of the sun for sale. Bargain prices.

The reference is the New York Times, 3/9/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.”

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.” Alteration of the human genetic makeup. Not just a “visit.” “Permanent residence.”

The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.

Let’s take this further. Under the cover of preventing disease (note: all good covert ops float a laudatory goal to conceal their true intent), vaccines are ideal carriers for all sorts of genes that would be permanently incorporated into the human structure.

The enormous tonnage of propaganda about vaccines, and the resultant mandatory laws that enforce vaccination (without fear of liability), create a powerful channel along which re-engineering is eminently possible.

Synthetic genes injected into billions of humans would form a grand experiment to create an altered species.

This grand experiment could be compartmentalized. For example, secretly, genes 1-6 will be injected into Group A in geo-location I. Genes 7-12 will be injected into Group B in location II. And so on.

Vaccine recipients will be subjected to ongoing surveillance to gauge the results. On various pretexts, members of these groups will be brought into clinics for exams and tests, to discover markers that purportedly reveal their bodies’ responses to the genetic alterations.

Are these people stronger or weaker? Do they exhibit signs of illness? Do they report behavioral changes? Through surveillance and testing, all sorts of information can be compiled.

Of course, there is no informed consent. The human guinea pigs have no knowledge of what is being done to them.

And what would be the objectives of this lunatic research program? They would vary. On a simplified level, there would be two. Create weaker and more docile and more obedient and more dependent humans. On the other side, create stronger and healthier and more intelligent and more talented humans. Obviously, the results of the latter experiments would be applied to the “chosen few.” And clearly, some of this research will be carried on inside the military. Secrecy is easier to maintain, and the aim to produce “better soldiers” is a long-standing goal of the Pentagon and its research arm, DARPA.

A global vaccine experiment of the type I’m describing here has another bonus for the planners: those people who fall ill or die can be written off as having suffered from various diseases and disorders which “have nothing to do with vaccines.” This is already SOP (standard operating procedure) for the medical cartel.

The numbers of casualties, in this grand experiment, would be of no concern to the Brave New World shapers. As I’ve documented extensively, the US medical system is already killing 2.25 million people per decade (a conservative estimate), as a result of FDA-approved drugs and mistreatment in hospitals. Major media and government leaders, aware of this fact, have done nothing about it.

Here is a quote from Princeton molecular biologist, Lee Silver, the author of Remaking Eden. It gives you a window into how important geneticists are thinking about an engineered future:

“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—[will] all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class…

“Naturals [unaltered humans] work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.

“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.

“Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of repro[grammed]-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”

Here is another gem, from Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”


The Matrix Revealed

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


Notice that these two well-known scientists are speaking about “ethics.” It’s important to realize that a significant number of such experts have their own extremely peculiar (to say the least) version of what is right and wrong.

With vaccines that permanently alter human genetic makeup on the horizon, and given the corporate and government-agency penchant for secrecy, we are already inhabiting the Brave New World. It’s not a distant prospect.

Every genetic innovation is aimed at bringing us closer to a stimulus-response world, and further away from freedom.

Which is why the defense of freedom becomes ever more vital.

That struggle comes down to who controls, yes, the philosophy and the science. Is each human merely and only a system waiting to be re-engineered, or is he something far, far more, inhabiting a physical form?

We already know what the vast majority of brain researchers and geneticists believe, as well as the governments and corporations and universities and foundations that make important decisions.

Of course, these days, the college faculty department considered to be the least important, the most useless, a mere appendage waiting for those with wisdom to put it out of its misery and kill it off…is the philosophy department.

That leaves us to take up the argument and the resistance.

Not Lee Silver at Princeton or Gregory Stock or Bill Gates or George Soros or David Rockefeller or the Pope or Stephen Hawking or Monsanto or Dow or PBS or FOX or socialists or Communists or liberals or conservatives or some wackadoodle at Harvard or MIT or UCLA.

Us.

Us.

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.

“Border tax”: word-manipulation used to destroy Trump’s economic plan

“Border tax”: word-manipulation used to stop Trump’s economic plan

by Jon Rappoport

February 15, 2017

I’ll get to the devious word-manipulation in a minute, but first a bit of background.

Corporate Globalists are now gathering their forces to destroy Trump’s economic plan.

Their goal: stop Trump from laying tariffs on goods exported to America.

Trump has announced a simple and straightforward idea. If US companies shut down factories here and set them up in Third World hell holes, with slave labor and no environmental rules, and then export those goods back to the US, they’ll have to pay a stiff tariff.

That tariff will cut them off at the knees. They won’t be able to sell their products so cheaply here. In fact, they’d be better off re-opening their factories in the US and re-employing all those workers they threw out of jobs when they left the US.

Trump’s other obvious idea: countries where the labor is cheap have their own native companies, of course, who are producing goods and exporting them to the US—undercutting American companies who make the same products. Those foreign companies would also have to pay a stiff tariff, putting them on an equal footing with US manufacturers.

Globalists hate these plans. They want predatory corporations to roam free all over the world, gutting economies, and exporting their products to one and all, without paying tariffs.

This is what 50 years of conferences (1945-1995) on the treaty called GATT were all about. Knocking out tariffs. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade culminated in the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a pillar of the new world economic order.

Now, there is panic as Trump appears to be going after the WTO and its grand foundation.

And so we come to the word-manipulation.

Here are current news headlines. Read them and then I’ll explain.

New York Times: “Profitable pickups may be in cross hairs of Trump’s border tax.”

Marketwatch: “Target, Gap, Best Buy and other retailers going to DC to oppose border tax…”

Reuters: “Retail CEOs head to Washington to try to kill US border tax.”

Automotive News: “US border tax could raise vehicle tax…”

Wall St. Journal: “Border tax could upend global markets…”

Drudge summary of Financial Times: “BRUSSELS GEARS UP FOR HIGH-STAKES CHALLENGE TO ‘US BORDER TAX’ PLAN… Biggest case in World Trade Organization history…”

There are many more headlines along the same line. And they all mention “border tax.” What are they talking about?

Well, “border tax” equals “tariff,” a word that has been used since the founding of the American Republic. But suddenly the memo has gone out to mainstream news to use this other term instead.

Why? Because “border tax” suggests the idea of a tax connected with immigration, as in “border.” Yes, tariffs are traditionally collected at a nation’s border (a port) when imported goods arrive. But no one had been calling a tariff a border tax until now, when Trump is under heavy fire for his temporary immigration ban.

In order to pile on, and give a negative twist to the idea of a tariff, conflating it with immigration, we have “border tax.” Another bonus: everyone dislikes more taxes. So “border tax” has two negatives.

It’s called mind-control propaganda by word association.

War is peace.

Ignorance is strength.

And tariffs are (immigration) border taxes.

In the same way, sheer corporate greed (demanding an end to tariffs) has long been called “free trade.” It sounds positive. It’s the opposite of “slave trade.” More language manipulation. Wouldn’t you prefer being free to being a slave?

When “new world order” and “new international economic order” came into vogue, decades ago, the psyop was based on the idea that “new” was preferable to “old,” and “order” was much better than “chaos.”

Of course, “new world order” backfired, because millions of people saw through it.

Hopefully, the same thing will happen now to “border tax.”

As in: “Why yes, borders are good. They should be solid and well defined and protected. And that’s where tariffs are collected. Plus, draconian corporations should pay their taxes. Border-tax. It’s a terrific idea. Let’s do it.”


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Boom: thousands of medical studies found to be useless

Boom: thousands of medical studies found to be useless

Memo to “medical bloggers” living in mommy’s basement

by Jon Rappoport

February 14, 2017

I’m talking about little defenders of consensus science, bloggers who love and adore every official pronouncement that comes down the pipeline from medical journals and illustrious doctors.

Dear Bloggers: Thousands of published studies you cite and praise are wrong, useless, irrelevant, deceptive—and the medical journals know it, and they’re doing nothing useful about it.

The issue? Cell lines. These cells are crucial for lab research on the toxicity of medical drugs, and the production of proteins. Knowing exactly which cell lines are being studied is absolutely necessary.

And therein lies the gigantic problem.

Statnews.com has the bombshell story (“Thousands of studies used the wrong cells, and journals are doing nothing,” July 21, 2016):

“Recent estimates suggest that between 20 percent and 36 percent of cell lines scientists use are contaminated or misidentified — passing off as human tissue cells that in fact come from pigs, rats, or mice, or in which the desired human cell is tainted with unknown others. But despite knowing about the issue for at least 35 years, the vast majority of journals have yet to put any kind of disclaimer on the thousands of studies affected.”

“One cell line involved are the so-called HeLa cells. These cancerous cervical cells — named for Henrietta Lacks, from whom they were first cultured in the early 1950s — are ubiquitous in labs, proliferate wildly — and, it turns out, contaminate all manner of cells with which they come into contact. Two other lines in particular, HEp-2 and INT 407, are now known to have been contaminated with HeLa cells, meaning scientists who thought they were working on HEp-2 and INT 407 were in fact likely experimenting on HeLa cells.”

“Christopher Korch, a geneticist at the University of Colorado, has studied the issue. According to Korch, nearly 5,800 articles in 1,182 journals may have confused HeLa for HEp-2; another 1,336 articles in 271 journals may have mixed up HeLa with INT 407. Together, the 7,000-plus papers have been cited roughly 214,000 times, Science reported last year.”

“And that’s just two cell lines. All told, more than 400 cell lines either lack evidence of origin or have become cross-contaminated with human or other animal cells at some point in their laboratory lineage. Cell lines are often chosen for their ability to reproduce and be bred for long periods of time, so they’re hardy buggers that can move around a lab if they end up on a researcher’s gloves, for example. ‘It’s astonishingly easy for cell lines to become contaminated,’ wrote Amanda Capes-Davis, chair of the International Cell Line Authentication Committee, in a guest post for Retraction Watch. ‘When cells are first placed into culture, they usually pass through a period of time when there is little or no growth, before a cell line emerges. A single cell introduced from elsewhere during that time can outgrow the original culture without anyone being aware of the change in identity’.”

Getting the picture?

HUGE numbers of published studies are based on knowing which cells are being used and tested. And much of the time, the researchers don’t know. They pretend they do, but they don’t.

Their work is completely unreliable.

Everyone involved (for decades) looks the other way.

It’s the secret no one wants to talk about.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of medical studies are useless, and their conclusions are unfounded, and turn out to be random.

This is like saying, “Well, we built all those buildings in the city, but the concrete we used was probably cardboard. Let’s not talk about it. Let’s just wait and see what happens.”

Millions of patients who are taking drugs are guinea pigs. Researchers originally tested the toxicity of drugs on cells they assumed were relevant, but they were wrong. They said the drugs were safe, but they were working with cells that had no bearing on safety.

This is one reason why, on July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a highly respected public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, could conclude, in the Journal of the American Association, that FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans every year—which becomes a MILLION deaths per decade.

The original researchers on those drugs pretended they knew what they were doing.

Pretended.

Everything I’m describing and citing in this article?

The FDA knows about it.

The CDC knows about it.

The World Health Organization knows.

National health departments all over the world know.

Medical schools know.

Many doctors know.

Many, many researchers know.

Many hospital executives know.

All pharmaceutical executives know.

Many mainstream medical reporters know.

All medical journals know.

But they continue to promote life-destroying fake news.

Blog that.


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

My memories from the fake news business

My memories from the fake news business

by Jon Rappoport

February 13, 2017

“The true job of a reporter is using facts to overturn reality. Things are already upside down, and his job is to show that. In his work, he has to be relentless. This inevitably leads him to publishing his own words, on his own, because entrenched press outlets are in the business of propping up the very reality he aims to expose. He can’t go to them for publication. Once he learns that, he’s launched, and his life is never the same. It improves exponentially.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

There was the time a newspaper publisher inserted his own paragraph at the top of my story, under my name, as if I wrote it. He didn’t tell me. I found out later when the paper came out. I called him up. He was clueless. To him, his intrusion meant nothing. It was my story, but it was his newspaper. I learned something. If you want your own words, and only your words, to stand, publish them yourself.

There was the time I wrote a story about a dubious drug/supplement people were selling under the counter at health food stores. I took the supplement for a week and folded my experiences into the article, which was mainly about the unfounded “scientific background” in the package insert. The editor couldn’t fathom how a story could contain “two separate threads.” He axed half my story. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

There was the time I wrote a piece about widespread fraud in psychiatric diagnosis. The editor claimed I had employed “too much logic” and not enough “expert opinion.” He said “original research” was “out.” To no avail, I pointed out that logic was in the public domain, and therefore my “original research” could be checked. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

An editor once told me an article I’d written criticizing a senator wouldn’t be published. My harsh criticism was valid, he said, but readers might infer that the newspaper was turning against the senator’s political party. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

Once my career as a reporter was launched, magazine editors began contacting me with all sorts of proposed assignments. The subjects of the stories were boring, to say the least. I soon realized the editors were using those stories to fill out their no-context version of reality. I learned something. If you don’t want your words to be published, don’t submit them.

A newspaper editor once told me (paraphrasing from memory): “This story you wrote…part of the reason we don’t want to publish it is we don’t want to give it the contagion factor. If we publish it, other news outlets will pick up on it. We’re in an echo chamber. We ricochet stories back and forth. We all use the same experts to bolster our stories. So we take your controversial story and publish it, and then when the roar gets loud enough in the echo chamber, people are going to object. And we’ll be the ones they blame because we started it.”

I said to an editor, a year or so after 9/11: If I could give you ironclad evidence, from many reputable sources, proving that the planes crashing into the Towers couldn’t have caused them to fall, would you print the story? He said: The official story is already in place. There’s no way anyone could dislodge it now. I said: So it doesn’t matter what the truth is. He said: It matters, maybe 30 years in the future, but probably not.

A publisher once told me: We have our own definition of “controversial.” We decide what that is. It’s not your definition. It’s okay to write about impeaching a president, but if you find out there are people behind the scenes who are managing the presidency, people who aren’t in government, we wouldn’t touch that. If we did, that would break the mold. Everything would be up for grabs. People would realize most of what we publish is a tempest in a teapot, because there are more powerful forces at work.

An editor told me: After a big environmental catastrophe, we cover the story for a little while and then we let it go. We don’t want to look like we’re attacking the polluters too hard. So we don’t track what’s happening every day or every week. We let it go, and then after a few months or a year, we write a follow-up piece. We’re not crusaders. We don’t want to look like we’re out to get somebody. That would injure our reputation. We’re not muckrakers. We might favor a point of view, but we don’t lean on it too hard.

These and other similar encounters convinced me, 25 years ago, to step away from the news business. “Somebody else” is always running things. Their quirks and agendas are corrosive. They’ve gained their positions through compromise. They know that and accept it. And then they set about forgetting it.

Now, in the “information age,” these mainstream professionals are howling about fake news; they’re burying, even deeper, their knowledge that they are the prime fakers.

“I fake it, I bury my fakery deeper and deeper, and then I scream at other people for faking it.”

These are the actions of a temperamental child. And indeed, these people are angry little children in adult bodies. Luckily, they’ve found a business that honors that grotesque configuration. They’ve found a home.


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.

How the mind treats “impossible things that couldn’t be happening”

How the mind treats “impossible things that couldn’t be happening”

by Jon Rappoport

February 13, 2017

I recently published an article that highlighted the numbers of medically caused deaths in America.

When little fragmentary stories about this fact emerge in the mainstream press, they’re one-offs. There is no serious follow-up and no deep investigation. Therefore, the public isn’t aroused.

On May 3, 2016, the Washington Post ran an article detailing deaths from medical errors. This bomb dropped: doctors’ errors account for “about 9.5 percent of all deaths annually in the United States.”

Let that sink in.

Roughly one out of every 10 deaths in the US is caused by medical errors. (Under “errors,” you can include a wide range of toxic treatment.)

No major newspaper or news network pounds on this factoid day after day. It’s here and then it’s gone. It’s on the level of: “The last seven presidents have been assassinated. And now, here’s the weather.”

Something else is going on, too. I’ll lay it out for you.

Most of the general public, and many reporters, can’t even begin to absorb that medical-death statistic. It bounces off them.

They either reject it out of hand, misread it, or fail to transport it to the part of their mind where they think about things.

The statistic is virtually invisible to them.

“Let’s see, 10% of all deaths in America are caused by the medical system. REJECTED.”

I even had one person tell me ten percent “wasn’t very much.”

I’ve had people change the subject rapidly when I presented them with the statistic.

“Car accidents are terrible. My aunt was in a car crash and she…”

So it isn’t just major media. People are running their own fake news operation on themselves.

This has been called “cognitive dissonance” or some other fancy name.

It’s just the “bounce phenomenon.” A fact bounces off a person. It has no effect.

I’ve dealt with this for more than 30 years as a reporter. I’m in the business of presenting “bounce-able” facts. I’ve seen the full array of reactions, time and time again.

ONE OUT OF EVERY TEN DEATHS IN AMERICA IS CAUSED BY THE MEDICAL SYSTEM.

Bounce, bounce, bounce.

Here is another process that goes on in the mind. It starts this way: WELL, IF THAT WERE TRUE, THEN…

The person starts to think about the boggling fact. He starts to flesh out the implications. And he stops. Because the implications are too much. His mental processes and his basic orientation aren’t flexible enough to deal with them.

I’ve been interviewed and watched this happen. The interviewer begins to absorb what I’ve just told him, and he quickly backs away and redirects the conversation. Or tries to. I bring him back to the boggling fact. But it’s like trying to drive a faulty car. He just can’t make it. He stalls. His wheels spin, and then he gets out of the car and moves on to something else.

Here is a paraphrase of such an exchange. The interviewer was telling me about the purported effects of a disease he claimed was being caused by a virus. I happened to know the virus had never been isolated from a single human being, so I asked him:

“How many deaths would you say occur from the disease, every year in the US?”

He puffed up his chest a bit and said, “At least a thousand. It’s terrible.”

I said, “Well, did you know that the medical system is the third leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease and cancer?”

BOUNCE. NOTHING REGISTERED.

He said, “This virus I’m talking about can spread rapidly…”

Bounce.

Perhaps the most interesting conversation I’ve ever had illustrating the bounce phenomenon occurred at the home of an acquaintance who is a psychologist. I mentioned that every year in the US the medical system kills a minimum of 225,000 people, and then I got part-way into explaining how most people don’t even register the fact when they come across it.

He launched into a major lecture about cognitive dissonance, deploying a few pseudo-technical terms I’d never heard of. I let him go on for a few minutes and then I stopped him. I asked, “Can you remember what I said that started you down this path?”

He scratched his chin, thought about it, and said no.

In his case, the bounce brought on a case of outright amnesia.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Of course, I’ve mentioned medically caused death to doctors. Their comments go something like this: “That couldn’t be true.” “That was just one study.”

Then I say no, there are other confirming studies, and I cite them. At that point the big bounce happens, and they change the subject. Or they look at their watches. Or they walk away.

I’ve found reporters more honest—as long as I’m talking to them off the record, and preferably after a few drinks. One reporter said, “I know. But we can’t write about that. We’d get reamed out.”

I don’t care what journalism schools and editors claim the profession is all about. I know what it’s about. You overturn reality. That’s what you do.

In the process, you reveal there are people who are creating that reality for all of us.

And if that is true, and it is, then each individual is capable of inventing his own reality. A better one.

Along the way, certain facts are going to jump up out of the hopper that tear conventional thinking and perception to shreds.

TEN PERCENT OF ALL DEATHS IN AMERICA ARE CAUSED BY THE MEDICAL SYSTEM.

“Wow. That would make it the third leading cause of death. That means the more people who are in the system, the more deaths. The public has to know about this…”

No bounce.

Ah, now we’re on to something.

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.

Fake news: actors, robots, androids, television creations

Fake news: actors, robots, androids, television creations

—Notes on media invention—

—Notes on interviewees who try to appear normal on television and who are bizarre to the nth degree. These interviewees are so bizarre, in part, because they ARE trying to appear normal—

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2017

I wrote this Sandy Hook article in 2013. It’s about the soap opera called television. I’ve added some new comments:

Online investigations of what really happened at Sandy Hook easily number in the thousands by now. Among other reporters, I have listed and described many contradictions and lies in the official scenario, and I’ve offered alternative explanations.

People have concluded:

No one was really killed in Sandy Hook, it was all faked;

The killings were real, but Adam Lanza wasn’t the shooter, he was the patsy;

Lanza was the killer, compelled by psychiatric drugs.

A Satanic group was behind the killings;

Players in the federal government secretly contracted the killings in order to take guns away…

No matter what the conclusion, many of the investigations and analyses have turned up startling and useful information.

On YouTube, clips of Sandy Hook citizens being interviewed reveal astonishing reactions and non-reactions that are light years away from what you would expect to see in the immediate wake of such a tragedy.

You can look for YouTube interview clips featuring “the people of Sandy Hook”: Robbie Parker, the Sotos family, Sally Cox, H Wayne Carver, Gene Rosen, Kaitlin Roig, etc.

Their reactions, non-reactions, strange behavior, inexplicable attitudes are stunning.

First of all, you have to realize that only certain people get on television. That’s fact #1, and it’s a major key. Only certain people are interviewed.

Television is the filter through which we see.

Parents who are completely grief-stricken, who have fallen apart and are incoherent (which is what you would expect): not interviewed.

Parents who are very angry and outraged: not interviewed.

Parents who demand answers from a full investigation, who aren’t satisfied with the emerging media-controlled story line: not interviewed.

Then we have parents who refuse to be engaged by any media person, who feel any media contact is insane and invasive and massively insensitive: obviously not approached for an interview.

We don’t see these people, because they aren’t on television. So making some vast generalization about all of the Sandy Hook community is sketchy at best.

Then, on top of that, television news people are creating a story line about what happened at the school and in the town, and they are finding people who will corroborate that plot line, or can be convinced by news producers to corroborate it. This further narrows the field of acceptable interviews.

We have interviewees who have never been on television before, but have watched thousands of television interviews. They have a strong tendency to “act like people are supposed to act” when they are put on camera.

They speak like television, they act like television, they think like television, they admire what television admires. They learn how to behave from television. They learn what is appropriate from television.

In this sense, television is the Stepford Village enabler. It invades a town during a tragedy, it sets up, it rolls out a story line that is independent from reality, and it cues selected people to be the robots who confirm that story line, no matter how grotesque the distortion.

“I know you’ve just lost your daughter, and I can’t imagine how you feel at this moment, but you see, when we interview you, we want to honor her life. This is your chance to let people all over the world know what and who she was. Her spirit, her interests, her hobbies, what her friends felt about her. You can show the world how alive she was and how happy she was, and you can remember that and you can even smile…”

And the mother of that daughter hesitates, pauses, thinks about what she really feels, and then decides the television producer is right and she’ll go along with it. On camera, she tries to act normal. She tries to fulfill her television role. And she comes across as a twisted android.

Some of the Sandy Hook interviewees appear to be machine-made cartoons. Something leaps out of them when they appear on television. They laugh, they smile, they act casual, they act “efficient” and stone-faced, they act placid and calm, they act polite, they act as if they’ve been cast for a stage play that has nothing to do with Sandy Hook.

They act as if they have no resource or experience that allows them to contact what they actually are. As if a wall has been built between what they are and how they are behaving.

In my opinion, this is a lot worse than if they had been (badly) trained at an actor’s school to intentionally provide material for an all-out hoax.

It’s a lot worse, because the manufactured front is their only reference point. As such, it takes only minimal direction to move them to any chosen square on the media-controlled checkerboard.

“How do I need to behave to fit myself into the situation as an acceptable person?” This is the guiding question they ask themselves. The answer plugs in immediately. It is always going to be wrong, because every situation is, to some degree, alive, and their answer dictates dead behavior. Machine behavior.

We need to understand that these extraordinary and stunning and bizarre interviews from Sandy Hook are mirrored in other places. For example, what are we to say about thousands of soldiers who are duped into a war that had no sane reason to exist in the first place?

But there the soldiers are, on the battlefield. They are living and breathing and mouthing sentiments that have absolutely nothing to do with the situation in which they have been placed.

The war is promoted as necessary. It is heralded as an opportunity to do service, to protect freedom, but those are gross lies.

Is a typical soldier in such a war going to look any less strange than one of those parents interviewed at Sandy Hook?

Two of the most egregious Sandy Hook interviews, with Robbie Parker, father of a six-year-old girl who was just reported killed in the school, and with H Wayne Carver, the Connecticut medical examiner, are mind-boggling.

First of all, you can confirm that Parker is a real person with a real background by searching Utah newspapers; e.g., The Deseret News. Parker is seen, in his now-famous Sandy Hook interview, smiling broadly and chuckling and having a good time just prior to stepping in front of the microphone to make a public statement, at which point he huffs and puffs and tries to get into the character of a grieving father.

It’s hideous.

Carver, in response to press questions, not only gives absurd and completely inappropriate answers, he guffaws once or twice, as if he’s out of control.

In Carver’s case, I would say he’s covering up some gigantic medical lies about the case. He’s trying to dissemble and, underneath his shaky exterior, he’s very nervous and scared that something is going to jump out of the hopper. He doesn’t know what to do. At moments, it looks as if he’s going to come apart at the seams.

If by some miracle, we had been able to see long uncensored interviews with many, many citizens of Sandy Hook; if we could have seen and heard, unvarnished, everything the people of Sandy Hook were experiencing; what would we think? What would we know? (And since the events in Sandy Hook, why haven’t we seen 20 or 30 long open interviews with parents of the schoolchildren? Who put a lid on that?)

Whatever the truth is about what happened and didn’t happen in that town, whatever the true operation that was mounted and carried out there—the role of television is central.

It is the prime programmer.

Television is the calculated average on display for the average viewer. It is the hyper-normal maniac.

The people who own and run television for the masses are bringers of an emotional wasteland.

Why are they successful?

They plug into a deep cynicism that underlies the robotic behavior and thought of millions of people.

This inner cynicism comes about because people already feel cut off from their own wide emotional range.

Television magnifies and exacerbates that disconnectedness.

Some high priest, some dictator, generalissimo, president, elite news anchor, some numbers cruncher who sees this modern world as a playground in which to forward market research, looks for the golden average, the emotional sweet spot on which gobbling maggots can prey.

I have no ax to grind here. The people who honestly conclude that Sandy Hook was one great hoax from the beginning and no one died; the people who conclude that Lanza was the patsy for professionals who did the killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School; the people who believe Lanza was the killer driven over the edge by psychiatric drugs: the people who believe the Sandy Hook killings were a secret-society operation or a black-ops horror designed to grab the guns of Americans; all these people will continue to explore their paths and they will unearth important information.

What I’m offering here is a perspective on how much of what we see is delivered to us through the twisted lens of television.

The great goal of media and its controllers is reduction, so populations will accept whatever seems “more efficient,” more ordered, more systematic, more organized, more automatic, more predictable, more repetitive.

Television could, if it chose to, make Sandy Hook look and feel like Columbine or the McMartin School…

Feeling, thought, data, facts—television can rearrange these to fit its purposes.

It can emphasize the grief, or the police actions, or the horror, or the need for new laws…in any proportions it chooses.

It also could, if it chose to (but never would) highlight the outrage of local citizens who are demanding a deeper investigation by law-enforcement; at which point, the whole course of the story would change.

Keep in mind that, at Sandy Hook or any other major news event, the field reporters and anchors on the scene are NEVER digging up the story. They’re working off of statements from the police or the FBI. There is no reason for media to be there, aside from ratings. They could be assembling the storyline back in the studio.

“Yes, folks, we have our reporters out there in Sandy Hook, but they’re not actually doing anything, they’re just telling you what the cops are saying. But we want to give you the impression that you’re there, too, so you plug into the horror and the grief. We want to give you the impression that we’re discovering, on our own, new facts every few minutes. Suspense, mystery.”

The media learned a few lessons from Sandy Hook. Among them: don’t put a medical examiner on camera until he’s been vetted, until it’s clear he’ll present a bland summary of findings; don’t release footage of interviewees (e.g., Robbie Parker) before they make their official statement.

Consider an analogy to sports. The players on the field are the main attraction and focus. The referees, who make important decisions, stay in the background. But in media, the roles are reversed. The anchors and reporters (referees) are in the foreground. The witnesses, victims, and perpetrators (the players) are kept in the background. Why? Because media are the story. Media take over. They position themselves front and center. They believe they own the news. They don’t piece together the story from witnesses. They unroll the story based on law-enforcement statements. The witnesses are merely used for flavor. This, of course, is absurd.

But it’s par for the course for media.

“We own the news. We make the news. We report the news. We invent the news. We are the news.”

If the media are the news, then we need reporters who will report on the media.

And now, online, we have just that, exactly that.

And it’s taking apart and destroying the news as it was, as it has been for a long time.

The best film ever made about television’s war on the population is Paddy Chayefsky’s scorching masterpiece, Network (1976).

Network bursts forth with lines like these, from newsman Howard Beale, at the end of his rope, on-camera, speaking to his in-studio audience and millions of people in their homes:

“So, you listen to me. Listen to me! Television is not the truth. Television’s a god-damned amusement park. Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We’re in the boredom-killing business… We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God’s name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion.”

The media, as I say, not only believe they make the news and own the news; they believe they are the news. They are trapped in that “model.” They can’t get out.

Now, in 2017, as they rail against fake news, they’re basically exclaiming, “The news couldn’t exist without us, because we embody and encircle what news IS.”

This rises to the level of insane metaphysics. The tree falling in the forest doesn’t make a sound unless CNN is there to film it and broadcast the audio.

And if CNN decides the falling tree is singing Deutschland, Deutschland über alles on the way down, and rigs the audio to make it so, then that’s what’s happening.

This is an Empire that’s supposed to last forever?

The pillars are crumbling, and we don’t need CNN to hear it.

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.