Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2017

Thousands of articles have been written about the so-called Russian hack of the US election. The term “Russian hack” suggests the Russkies actually found a way to subvert the results of voting machines.

But of course, no convincing evidence has been presented to support such a charge. In fact, when you drill down a few inches below the surface, you find this charge instead: Russia hacked into email accounts and scooped up Hillary, DNC, and Podesta emails, and passed them to WikiLeaks, who then published them.

No chain of evidence supporting this claim has been presented to the public, either. But even assuming the assertion is true, an important factor is intentionally being ignored: THE CONTENT OF THOSE LEAKED EMAILS.

In other words, if making all this content publicly available cost Hillary the election, and if no one is seriously questioning the authenticity of the emails, then THE TRUTH undermined Hillary. However, no major media outlet is reporting the story from that angle.

After all, how would this headline look? TRUE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS SINKS HILLARY CLINTON. Or this? HILLARY COULDN’T REFUTE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS AND SO SHE LOST THE ELECTION.

Those headlines would attract millions of clicks. Why weren’t they printed? It’s reasonable to assume big news outlets didn’t want readers to think about the story from that perspective.

Why not? Why was the heavy emphasis put on the hacking of the emails? To obscure the importance of their content: for example, DNC collusion to obstruct and undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders.

“Let’s make the story all about WHO we claim stole the emails, rather than WHAT THE EMAILS CONTAINED.”

When a tape surfaced in which Trump spoke about women who were eager to have sex with famous men, did major media make the story all about who had the tape and who released it to the press? No.

Perhaps you remember this 2009 email-hack controversy. Wikipedia sums it up: “The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as “Climategate”) began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.”

One of the most revealing elements in the email exchanges: an obvious attempt to sideline scientific critics of global warming. But major media quickly began to reframe the story. It was all about illegal hacking, and investigations were launched to determine the criminal. The contents of the emails were brushed off as “proprietary work product” and “misleading” because “context was missing.”

The case of Edward Snowden was somewhat different. There the media felt compelled to expose the CONTENT of the NSA documents Snowden stole. They also gave considerable space to Snowden himself. To some degree, this was a fait accompli, because The Guardian newspaper was committed, from the beginning, to publishing NSA documents and an analysis of their meaning—so other media outlets followed suit.

Getting the picture?

Big news media decide whether to focus on the WHO or the WHAT, in each case. “Should we give primary coverage to the leaker or what he leaked?”

But that is not a choice you are making. It’s a choice being made for you.

Government agencies and spokespeople leak news to the press all the time. In these instances, the press doesn’t turn around and launch a probe aimed at exposing the WHO and discovering WHY a particular tidbit was passed along for publication. Newspapers and television news departments simply run with the stories.

“Okay, Bob. Here’s a little gem for you. The White House and the Congress are cooperating on this one. In the next few days, a piece of legislation is going to be inserted into a current bill in the House. It’ll establish a working group to combat ‘fake news’ operations that confuse the public…”

Does Bob bite the hand that feeds him? Does he write a story accusing the White House of trying to knock out independent news competitors who contradict official reality? Of course not. Bob plays along.


power outside the matrix

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


Sometimes, both the WHO and the WHAT are censored. Such was the case with CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, who confessed publicly, in August of 2014, that he and colleagues at the CDC committed fraud in a 2004 study of the MMR vaccine and its possible connection to autism. Thompson admitted the study was cooked, to make it seem the vaccine didn’t increase the risk of autism, when in fact it did. The mainstream press put a chokehold on the story. Aside from scattered references, and official denials, the story faded quickly. The leaker and what he was leaking remained in the shadows. Independent news outlets (such as this one) kept the story percolating.

In summary, there is no logic in the mainstream approach to leaks and leakers. These days, the WHO and WHAT are decided on the basis of serving official interests and agendas—and repressing the public interest.

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.

Russian agent: who gave US uranium to Putin, Trump or Hillary?

Russian agent: who gave US uranium to Putin, Trump or Hillary?

by Jon Rappoport

January 16, 2017

Putin controls 20% of US uranium production. That fact is established. But how did it happen?

Now that we know Trump is a hard-core Russian agent who has been undermining America on behalf of his secret twin brother, Vladimir Putin, it stands to reason Trump was the one who gave 20% of US uranium to the Russkie leader. Right?

I mean, why wouldn’t he? All that uranium was up for grabs, it was there, and Trump somehow engineered the deal. I’m shocked the Washington Post and its CIA pals haven’t reported the story by now.

Anybody who passed that much US uranium to our eternal enemy, Russia, would have to be a secret agent working undercover for the Kremlin. No doubt about it.

Therefore, Trump…

Oh, wait a minute, my mistake.

Oops.

The Clintons were instrumental in making the uranium deal.

For proof, let me go to the irrefutable authority on all news in the known galaxy, The New York Times. They’ll settle the issue.

On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal”.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. The company was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions).

So Putin then possessed 20% of US uranium production!

From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

From the Times: “The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that [Canadian] group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One. [Uranium One controlled 20% of US uranium.]”

Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton…”

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

“At the time, both Rosatom [the Russian energy agency] and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.”

“…the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.”

—The US State Dept. had to sign off on the deal giving Putin control over US uranium. Hillary headed up the State Dept. Much money from Canadian mining executives, who owned the American uranium, who obviously wanted the Russian deal to go through, found its way into the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation concealed these donations.

If you’re Putin and you’re sitting in Moscow, and the uranium deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what’s your reaction—after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered on your face, and you can’t figure out why…and then you remember, oh yes, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Can we give our girl Hillary a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill need any more hookers?


Exit From the Matrix

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


So there it is. By all standards of current mainstream news “logic,” Hillary Clinton is the Russian agent. She and her crooked husband and their Foundation are working for Mr. Putin.

Therefore, Putin didn’t order the hacking of the DNC, Hillary, and Podesta emails and send them to WikiLeaks. No. He never would have torpedoed his own secret agent, Hillary Clinton.

Again, I’m just applying mainstream news “logic” to see where that “reasoning” process goes; and where it goes is: a) the Russians didn’t hack; and b) Hillary Clinton is their secret agent.

Cue the James Bond theme.

Ask yourself: if Trump had been instrumental in turning over 20% of US uranium to Putin, how many decibels of mainstream-news screaming would be assaulting the public day after day after day?

But Hillary and Bill were instrumental. How much screaming do we hear now?

Zero.

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.

Why fake news matters

Why fake news matters

Notes on major media blowing away in the wind

by Jon Rappoport

January 12, 2017

For the past 34 years, I’ve been working as a reporter, in order to expose fake news. My target: major media. Right from the beginning; and always.

The premise is simple: these liars are in the business of putting people into a false reality and keeping them there. How does that audience move out into truth if they’re basing their own ideas on a synthetically created artifact called The News?

Now we have a president-elect who, as I write this, is holding a press conference and calling CNN fake news. Regardless of who Trump is, that is a moment people should understand as a wild departure from what happens in politics. It never happens. But it is happening.

This is shaking the egg until it cracks.

It’s called an opportunity.

—An opportunity for all of us to keep shaking the egg and exposing the liars, until there is no more egg.

Some of my joy comes from knowing reporters and editors in the mainstream who have been parading around, for decades, believing they are untouchable and vital and necessary and beyond reproach. They never thought this day would come. But it is here.

And they know it now. That’s what makes them so crazy.

Out of view, “their children” (audience) have grown up, and aren’t buying what “the adults” are selling. Trump has simply brought all that to a head. He went over the edge with it. He didn’t care. You tell me that some other candidate, who presented himself as more balanced, more measured, more mature, could have pulled this off, and I’ll tell you you’re wrong. A wild cowboy was necessary, and he showed up. Hate him, love him, he showed up.

Don’t let this moment be wasted.

Part of the reason the major media are pulling out all the stops in attacking Trump and blasting him? They want to paint a portrait of a man who isn’t really president. “See, the guy who has been defaming us isn’t a president at all. He’s just a nut. Therefore, don’t take his assault on us seriously. It means nothing.”

Good luck with that strategy. It’s another fail. It’s another goof in a long history of media goofs. The media are saying: “Don’t look at us. We’re fine. We’ve always been fine. Instead, look at Trump. He’s the villain. He’s the loon.”

Yesterday, he was a Russian agent. Today, he’s a John with hookers he paid to desecrate a hotel bed Obama slept in. Tomorrow, he’ll be an alien from the Orion Belt who arrived in a space ship.

“His flying saucer landed on the US-Mexico border. Why wasn’t he vetted by Customs&Immigration? Why was he allowed into the US?”

Well, why is the NY Times in such bad shape that Carlos Slim has to be its largest investor? And why is Jeff Bezos, whose parent company, Amazon, has a $600 million contract with CIA to provide computing services, the sole owner of the Washington Post?

Because those two venerable papers were going down the toilet.

For that matter, why does David Rhodes, the president of CBS News, have a brother, Ben Rhodes, who is Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communication?

Almost without exception, major media are liberal. This means, among other things, they are staunch (covert) supporters of Globalism, which means: a new planetary economic and political order, in which sovereign nations cease to exist—having being supplanted by mega-corporations and mega-banks.

The stories that major media spin have two basic aims: conceal the advances of Globalism, and support those advances under different names.

Working for these media outlets is a snap: aid in the cause and pick up a paycheck, while selling your soul.

No one will ever know what you’re really doing.

But that has changed. The operation has been exposed.

The egg has cracked.

And as in one of those remarkable Hieronymus Bosch paintings, all manner of strange and grotesque creatures are spilling out of the egg and showing their true colors.

Here is a quick quiz. All the following items are part and parcel of the Globalist agenda, because they imply far-reaching measures that help install planetary governance. On which item are major media most insistent and supportive? On which item do outside critics sustain the most virulent media attacks?

A. The green economy
B. Sustainable growth
C. The Smart Grid
D. Climate change

Yes, of course: D. Climate change.

It is the lynch pin for the radical plan forcing all nations to reduce their energy production, in order to “restrain global warming.” It is the most direct tactic for undermining and torpedoing economies.

Induce more drastic worldwide poverty and suffering; release a necessary plan for solving the crisis; make the plan embrace the whole world; quite naturally form an international body of “representatives” (elite Globalist partners) to put the plan into effect. You have a global management system.


The Matrix Revealed

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


So major media double down on global warming. Only morons, evildoers, fake scientists, and the selfishly rich would deny that “the science is settled.” The campaign is relentless. Even Hollywood stars are brought into the mix. They personally know as much about climate as ants know about building BMWs, but they’re given generous space in which to bloviate and signal their virtuous concern.

Whatever Trump is or isn’t, whatever he is going to do or not do, big media are now more vulnerable and exposed than they’ve ever been—and this is the moment.

Exposing their fake news operations is taking the blinders from the eyes of millions of people who never dreamed they would doubt the Egg.

Let us double down and triple down.

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.

Ten basic forms of fake news used by major media

Ten basic forms of fake news used by major media

by Jon Rappoport

January 5, 2017

The basic purpose of these ten forms is the presentation of a false picture of reality.

You could find more forms, or divide these ten into sub-categories.

The ten basic forms are:

* Direct lying about matters of fact.

* Leaving out vital information.

* Limited hangout. (This is an admission of a crime or a mistake, which only partially reveals the whole truth. The idea is that by admitting a fraction of what really happened and burying the biggest revelations, people will be satisfied and go away, and the story will never be covered again.)

* Shutting down the truth after publishing it—includes failing to follow up and investigate a story more deeply.

* Not connecting dots between important pieces of data.

* Censoring the truth, wherever it is found (or calling it “fake news”).

* Using biased “experts” to present slanted or false “facts.”

* Repeating a false story many times—this includes the echo-chamber effect, in which a number of outlets “bounce” the false story among themselves.

* Claiming a reasonable and true consensus exists, when it doesn’t, when there are many important dissenters, who are shut out from offering their analysis.

* Employing a panoply of effects (reputation of the media outlet, voice quality of the anchor, acting skills, dry mechanical language, studio lighting, overlay of electronic transmissions, etc.) to create an impression of elevated authority which is beyond challenge.

These are all traditional forms and methods.


power outside the matrix

(Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, features a long section called:
Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation, click here.)


Here’s an example of a big story that deployed all ten forms of fake news: the Swine Flu pandemic of 2009.

In the spring of 2009, the World Health Organization (elevated authority beyond challenge) announced that Swine Flu was a level-6 pandemic—its highest category of “danger.” In fact, there were only 20 confirmed cases at the time (direct lying about “danger”). And W.H.O. quietly changed the definition of “level-6” so widespread death and damage were no longer required (another aspect of direct lying).

The story was, of course, picked up by major media outlets all over the world (echo chamber effect, fake consensus, never connected dots re W.H.O. lies), and quite soon, Swine Flu case numbers rose into the thousands (direct lying, as we’ll soon see).

Medical experts were brought in to bolster the claims of danger (biased experts; important dissenters never given space to comment).

In the early fall of 2009, Sharyl Attkisson, then a star investigative reporter for CBS News, published a story on the CBS News website. She indicated that the CDC had secretly stopped counting the number of Swine Flu cases in America. No other major news outlet reported this fact (omitting vital information).

Attkisson discovered the reason the CDC had stopped counting: the overwhelming number of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients were coming back from labs with: no trace of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu. Therefore, a gigantic hoax was revealed. The pandemic was a dud, a fake.

Despite Attkisson’s efforts, CBS never followed up on her story (shutting down the truth after exposing it). Never probed the lying by the CDC (failure to connect dots). In a sense, CBS turned Attkisson’s story into a limited hangout—a further investigation would have uncovered acres of criminal behavior by both the CDC and the World Health Organization, to say nothing of the governments and media outlets that supported these lying agencies. The mainstream press essentially censored Attkisson’s revelations.

Then, about three weeks after CBS published Attkisson’s story, WebMD published a piece in which the CDC claimed that its own (lying) estimate of 10,000 or so cases of Swine Flu in the US was a gross understatement. Truly, there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US (doubling-down on lying).

And that was that.

Which leads to an 11th form of fake news: if one lie doesn’t quite fly, tell a much bigger lie.

And these mainstream sources are currently shouting and bloviating about independent media spreading fake news. I guess you could call that number 12: accusing their opponents of committing the crimes they are, in fact, committing.

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.

Hillary hacked (up) the election

Hillary hacked (up) the election

by Jon Rappoport

December 28, 2016

Made relatively few personal appearances. Spouted empty generalities. Collapsed after 9/11 Memorial. Ignored jobless states. Never spoke out against Globalists (being one herself). Used her Foundation to collect billions in pay-for-play schemes. Broke federal law with her personal email server. Thought she was divinely entitled to occupy the Oval Office. Read the NY Times (whose writers kept claiming she was way ahead in the race). Couldn’t sway significant number of voters outside New York and California. Destroyed Libya. Lied about Benghazi. Remained silent about scandalous content in leaked emails. Is still married to Bill. Giggled about defending rapist of young girl.

And she now claims all these factors = Russia hacked the election.

Which is like saying a 20-car pileup on the I-5 was caused by a hippopotamus living under the surface of Mars.

Other than that, she was perfect.

In the language of pop psychology, the entirety of major media are her enablers. And they’re going down, as they fabricate more and more unhinged tales about the election.

It’s like this: a farmer’s young boy plays with matches and burns down the barn. Cops, fire fighters, paramedics, and reporters gather at the scene. The boy is standing there with singed hair, more packs of matches in his pockets, and a print-out of instructions on how to set fire to structures. Everyone is talking about a mysterious arsonist who most certainly walked on to the property, torched the barn, and walked away.

Don’t count Hillary out. She’ll spend the next four years at a Swiss longevity clinic with Huma and make another run in 2020. Her campaign theme will be “unity.”

The media have a serious case of red-ass. They have to blame somebody for their ineptitude, bias, and lack of professionalism. They coached the losing team. They sacrificed every shred of their (pretended) objectivity and bet the house on Hillary. They had no idea how to deal with Trump.

The hard political Left are poor losers. They have a long history of being losers. They’ve made it a virtue, and they call it socialism and Globalism. “Hey, let’s face it. We’re a bunch of losers. Let’s elevate that into a system that will give everybody everything for nothing. Let’s make that into a winner. It’s our only option. We’ll call it universal love. And we privileged ones, among the losers, can parlay our act into million-dollar homes and fat bank accounts. That’s our political philosophy.”


power outside the matrix

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


In the process, their leaders align themselves with the hard political Right, who want endless wars of Empire.

If there’s a shred of a thread of a whisper of a possibility that the fast-talking hustler cowboy Trump won’t pursue such wars, he must go away, no matter how. Because what makes America great is conquest and creating endless enemies.

And anyway, shoulda coulda woulda Hillary is the first uncrowned female president of the United States, and she stands as a symbol of hope for women everywhere, about whom she cares as much as the hippopotamus living under the surface of Mars cares about the 20-car pileup on the I-5.

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.

Mainstream fake news: the devious limited hangout

Mainstream fake-news: the devious limited hangout

by Jon Rappoport

December 27, 2016

Big media attacks “fake news.” Independent reporters rightly point the finger at big media as the predominant purveyor of fake news.

Oops.

Here I want to comment on one of the most devious forms of MSM fake news: the limited hangout.

When necessary, news outlets will do a PARTIAL EXPOSURE of a hidden crime. The assumption is, once the story is published and broadcast, everyone will shake their heads and say, “That’s terrible,” and move on. The whole thing will be forgotten in a matter of days, as if the whole truth has been revealed. Limited hangout.

From media’s point of view, a limited hangout means: “We won’t do any further digging. We’ll shut down further investigation.” Vital questions won’t be asked:

Why did the criminals do what they did? Why are they still at large? Who is refusing to press charges and make arrests? What deeper crimes are still secret?

The mainstream press could set their hounds loose and build a story into a huge wave. Over time, they could bring hidden players out into the open and expose them and wring confessions out of them. They could get some of these players to roll over and point to higher-level criminals. The story could achieve tsunami status, at which point the government would have to make arrests and lay on trials in open courtrooms.

But that doesn’t happen. Limited hangout rules the day.

I’m going to present a story about a crime now. It’s big. Very big. It was covered, to a degree, by the mainstream press. The coverage seemed to be significant. But it was a limited hangout.

As you read on, imagine what might have happened if the press had decided to go in with guns blazing and investigate all the way, over a period of months, releasing new revelations as they discovered them. Imagine the repercussions. Imagine the public outcry. Instead of a limited hangout, we would have seen…well, I’ll leave it to you to fill in the blanks.

In 1975, the US signed on to an international treaty banning the production, use, and stockpiling of biological weapons. Ditto for chemical weapons, in 1993. Another treaty.

Here’s a quote from the Washington Post (9/4/13, “When the US looked the other way on chemical weapons”): “…The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items…including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague…”

Between 1985 and 1989, a US 501C3 firm, American Type Culture Collection, sent Iraq up to 70 shipments of various biowar agents, including 21 strains of anthrax.

Between 1984 and 1989, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control!) sent Iraq at least 80 different biowar agents, including botulinum toxoid, dengue virus, and West Nile antigen and antibody.

This information on the American Type Culture Collection and the CDC comes from a report, “Iraq’s Biological Weapons Program,” prepared by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS).

Then we have a comprehensive article by William Blum (one of the good investigators in this whole story) in the April 1998 Progressive called “Anthrax for Export.” Blum cites a 1994 Senate report confirming that, in this 1985-1989 time period, US shipments of anthrax and other biowar agents to Iraq were licensed by…drum roll, cymbal crash…the US Dept. of Commerce.

Blum quotes from the Senate report: “These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program.”

This 1994 Senate report also indicates that the US exported to Iraq the precursors for chemwar agents, actual plans for chemical and biowar production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment. The exports continued until at least November 28, 1989.

Blum lists a few other biowar agents the US shipped to Iraq. Histoplasma Capsulatum, Brucella Melitensis, Clostridium Perfringens, Clostridium tetani—as well as E. coli, various genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA.

Blum also points out that a 1994 Pentagon report dismissed any connection between all these biowar agents and Gulf War Illness. But the researcher who headed up that study, Joshua Lederberg, was actually a director of the US firm that had provided the most biowar material to Iraq in the 1980s: the American Type Culture Collection.

Newsday revealed that the CEO of the American Type Culture Collection was a member of the US Dept. of Commerce’s Technical Advisory Committee. See, the Dept. of Commerce had to license and approve all those exports of biowar agents carried out by the American Type Culture Collection. Get the picture?

Now, as to other US companies which dealt biowar or chemwar agents to Iraq—all such sales having been approved by the US government—the names of these companies are contained in records of the 1992 Senate hearings, “United States Export Policy Toward Iraq Prior to Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait,” Senate Report 102-996, Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, 102d Congress, Second Session (October 27, 1992):

Mouse Master (Georgia), Sullaire Corp (Charlotte, North Carolina), Pure Aire (Charlotte, North Carolina), Posi Seal (Conn.), Union Carbide (Conn.), Evapco (Maryland), BDM Corp (Virginia), Spectra Physics (Calif.).

There are about a dozen more.

This also from the Blum article: “A larger number of American firms supplied Iraq with the specialized computers, lasers, testing and analyzing equipment, and other instruments and hardware vital to the manufacture of nuclear weapons, missiles, and delivery systems. Computers, in particular, play a key role in nuclear weapons development. Advanced computers make it feasible to avoid carrying out nuclear test explosions, thus preserving the program’s secrecy. The 1992 Senate hearings implicated [Hewlett Packard, Palo Alto, CA — among others].”

Hewlett Packard said that the recipient of its shipments, Saad 16, was some sort of school in Iraq. But in 1990, the Wall St. Journal stated that Saad 16 was a “heavily fortified, state-of-the-art [Iraqi] complex for aircraft construction, missile design, and, almost certainly, nuclear-weapons research.”

If you review and think about all these WMD shipments from the US to Iraq, you understand there were many US officials and corporate employees who knew about them. Knew about them then, in the 1980s, and knew about them later, during 2 US wars in Iraq, when American soldiers were sent to Iraq, and could have been exposed to the bio/chem weapons.

And these officials and employees said nothing.

Officials at the CDC and the Dept. of Commerce said nothing. People at the American Type Culture Collection said nothing. People at the Pentagon and the CIA and the NSA said nothing. Presidents said nothing. Employees of the corporations who supplied germs and chemicals said nothing.


power outside the matrix

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


—Now imagine the NY Times and the Washington Post releasing their hounds to dig deeper into this boggling story. Interviews with the players. Investigations into the role of the CDC. The cover-ups. After a year of relentless probing and publishing, this would have built into an unstoppable tidal wave. The whole country (and the world) would have been agog. Prosecutions would have followed.

But it didn’t happen.

Instead, the story dissolved and went away.

The history that could have been made…

Wasn’t made.

This is fake news at its finest; by omission. By limited hangout.

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.

Why don’t media now claim Hillary’s ill-health was fake news?

Why don’t media now claim Hillary’s ill-health was fake news?

by Jon Rappoport

December 24, 2016

Why aren’t major media now highlighting Hillary’s ill-health as a “vicious fake news item” that was spread around by many sites, including the loathsome and ever-popular Drudge, during the presidential campaign?

Surely, it had to be one of the most damaging claims that helped defeat her. Who wants a president in the White House who can’t walk upright, who falls down, who needs to be helped up stairs, who has to take time off to rest, who has a physically impaired brain, whose judgment is suspect, whose very life is teetering on the edge.

Those charges were super-viral messages that traveled around the world on the Web thousands of times, replete with photos.

Fence-sitting voters, faced with one piece after another about Hillary’s failing health, could easily have opted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, or stayed home on Election Day. Some of them could even have cast a vote for Trump.

Read the current mainstream stories about “fake news” torpedoing Hillary’s bid for the presidency, and try to find one that highlights, front and center, the accusation of ill health as a horrific piece of gossip that truly sank her boat.

***You mean to tell me not one reporter now remembers how important that charge was at the time? All these sharp journalists have selective amnesia on the very same subject?

How convenient.

Or…Hillary’s health issue is being purposely exiled from permitted talking points now.

In the echo chamber of bouncing stories that makes up the fake consensus generated by big media, that item is verboten.

Russia did it? Putin cost Hillary the election? James Comey cost her the election? Julian Assange cost her the election? Fake news in general did her in? Fine. No problem. Those items are on the list of talking points.

But ill health? Front and center? No. That’s out of bounds.

Why?

Because bringing it up now would re-open the door to all sorts of persuasive medical opinion and other assessments from some quite smart people. And that opinion would be: yes, she is in ill-health. And on those grounds alone, it’s a lucky thing she didn’t win the election.

The fake story about the Russia-hack keeps on moving these days, despite a lack of evidence; it’s a dead man walking. There is nothing to keep it alive, except the media’s determination to push it like manure over a vast field.

But the story that has evidence to back it up, the most corrosive story about Hillary—her health—is missing in action. How interesting.


power outside the matrix

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


Here is a conversation between a reporter and his editor that would never take place, because both people understand the rules of the game and need no prompting:

Reporter: Boss, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s add to the list of fake-news charges against Hillary that she was in ill-health. I mean, that was a big one. Remember how she seemed to collapse after the 9/11 Memorial, and they had to pour her into the van like a bag of protoplasm?

Editor: No. That’s not on our list of talking points.

Reporter: Talking points? I didn’t see them.

Editor: Doesn’t matter. I saw them. Hillary’s health is off-limits.

Reporter: Why? Because she’s really sick?

Editor: There is no “really”. There is only what we say there is. If we bring up the health thing now, it’ll come back to life and everybody and his brother will weigh in on it. It’s counter-productive.

Reporter: Counter-productive to what?

Editor: To two things. The first one I won’t mention because who knows who’s listening? The second one is: counter-productive to you and I picking up our paychecks every week. Got it?

Reporter: Got it. Enough said. I’ll do another piece on Putin and his Russian hackers.

Editor: And make it a good one. The Putin story is so damn thin people are laughing at us already.

Bottom line: the actual fake news is coming right out of the major media, and is limited to their shared and agreed-upon talking points.

To boil it down further: “We will say THIS but we won’t say THAT.”

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.