The evening news and the gunslinger called Trump

The evening news and the gunslinger called Trump

by Jon Rappoport

December 8, 2017

Every television newscast: staged reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staged news.

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

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

The news gives them that precise solution, every night.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staged.

They’re marketing thin context.

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

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

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

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

Mind control by eradicating the concept of mind.

That’s quite a trick.

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

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

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

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

The ship is sinking.

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

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

The system is falling apart.

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

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

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

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

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

And it’s far worse when he’s right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overnight, the situation turns surreal.

Up is down, down is up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And you should.

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

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

Which is a good thing, a very good thing.

Even if your hatred of Donald Trump knows no bounds.



The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Top reasons why the Trump dossier is not believable

Top reasons why the Trump dossier is not believable

—an expanded version of my original article on this subject—

by Jon Rappoport

November 27, 2017

I often write articles analyzing mainstream news assertions. I show that the implications of these assertions are titanic absurdities. This is one of those articles.

People don’t seem to understand what the Trump dossier claims.

Among other things, it states that the Russians had, and have, sufficient blackmail information on Trump to control him.

This is quite fantastic. A US president under the thumb of Putin and his top intelligence operatives.

Let that sink in.

Now imagine you’re Putin. You’re holding this gigantic ace in the deck. Through a long and carefully wrought plan, you’ve won the Holy Grail of intelligence work.

To what degree would you protect your secret and your victory? To the greatest degree possible.

Now imagine that a former British spy, Christopher Steele, who, from 1990 to 1992, worked at the British embassy in Moscow under diplomatic cover, waltzes back into the picture, in 2016. Not only does he have remarkable Russian contacts, he can tap them, and after spreading a bit of money around, they spill the beans to him.

One, they actually know about this super-secret successful Russian plan to blackmail and control the president of the United States; and two, at the risk of their own lives, they’re happy to tell Steele all about it.

Because, certainly, if these Russian intelligence operatives talk to Steele, they can be discovered, arrested, and killed—since they are revealing the number-one plum of the Russian intelligence establishment.

And Christopher Steele, who obviously understands all this, nevertheless believes he is being given true information. He blithely accepts the idea that Russian agents are chatty idiots, who have nothing better to do than commit suicide by blowing the whistle on their own operation to control the president of the United States.

Conclusion: The Russians fed Steele a load of disinformation and lies about being able to control Trump; or Steele made it all up.

What about Hillary Clinton’s role in all this? Either her people paid Steele, through several cutouts, to fabricate the dossier; or they paid Steele to collect a bunch of lies from Russian agents. In the latter case, it would be clear that the Russians wanted to defame Trump and help Hillary win the election. In effect, she was the Russian colluder.

Meanwhile, the mainstream press has chosen to ignore the absurdity of Russian agents confessing to their number-one, prime-cut, top secret.

To more fully appreciate the insanity of the dossier, let’s pretend the CIA had (and has) very damaging information on Putin: He visited the US, and while he was here, he paid a few local Washington hookers to deface a bed in a hotel room where Boris Yeltsin once slept.

Containing other horrific information on Putin, this dossier, under lock and key at CIA headquarters, constitutes such heavy blackmail, the CIA can control Putin. He belongs to them. This is an intelligence victory like no other.

Along comes some British ex-spy. He roams around Washington and Virginia, and multiple CIA people, who somehow know about this hush-hush op, chat with the ex-spy and tell him all about how the CIA controls Putin. They sit around and spill the biggest secret the CIA has. No problem.

“See, Putin is really working for us. It’s beautiful. He’s…well, he’s CIA now. We’ve got him. We issue an order, and he follows it. He kneels and does what we tell him to do.”

Sure.

If you buy this scenario, I have beachfront condos on the dark side of the moon. Place your order now. As a bonus to the first thousand customers, Mr. Putin has graciously agreed to personally sign a thousand letters stating: I OWN DONALD TRUMP. Suitable for framing.

Among the various reasons for inventing the Trump dossier: head off at the pass even the possibility that Trump and Putin would decide to cooperate on policies without the seal of approval from the Deep State, The Swamp, Rockefeller Globalists, Israel, and Islamic Caliphate-ists. In other words, Trump and Putin, sitting down, might possibly sort through ways to support sensible nationalism in many countries…

The Clintons had a very good thing going. Their Foundation was acting as a global clearinghouse for billions in donations, whose purpose was securing political and financial favors from the tag-team of former president, Bill Clinton, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The couple looked forward to continuing this massive scam during her presidency. ANY candidate who posed a threat to her winning the election would be attacked ferociously.

Lurking in the background of her election campaign was the Uranium One deal, which in 2013 transferred 20% of US uranium production to Putin. In the spring of 2015 (as I’ve reported in detail), the collusion of the Clintons and their Foundation in this deal was laid bare. What better way to divert attention from such a lethal scandal than claim that Trump and Putin were working together to steal the White House from her, Hillary?

Finally, Trump had to be attacked because, whether or not he was sincere in his statements and promises, whether he was quite the opposite of how he was presenting himself, his anti-Globalist messages were resonating with millions of people around the world. A major threat to the endgame of the “new international order” was building. Every major policy pronouncement of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as the Bilderberger Group, was aimed at demeaning separate nations, erasing national borders, and solidifying a global management system for the planet. The flood of migrants into developed nations was a prime strategy in achieving these goals—and Trump’s constant attacks on open-door immigration were attracting massive support. Again, regardless of whether he was serious about making an immigration-policy turnaround, his words were having a significant negative effect on the plan to redistribute and reshape the demographics of Europe and America. Something had to be done.


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.

After Harvey Weinstein; is Trump next to go down?

After Harvey Weinstein; is Trump next to go down?

The shape of a psyop

by Jon Rappoport

November 7, 2017

(This is Part 1. For Part 2, click here.)

My article here is not about guilt or innocence. Understand that.

It’s about how press reports can be used to build a sense of CONTINUITY, which is vital for the ultimate card that is then played.

Follow along and see how it can be done.

First, the Weinstein story. It is sordid. Ronan Farrow reports, in The New Yorker (11/6):

“In the fall of 2016, Harvey Weinstein set out to suppress allegations that he had sexually harassed or assaulted numerous women. He began to hire private security agencies to collect information on the women and the journalists trying to expose the allegations. According to dozens of pages of documents, and seven people directly involved in the effort, the firms that Weinstein hired included Kroll, which is one of the world’s largest corporate-intelligence companies, and Black Cube, an enterprise run largely by former officers of Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies. Black Cube, which has branches in Tel Aviv, London, and Paris, offers its clients the skills of operatives ‘highly experienced and trained in Israel’s elite military and governmental intelligence units,’ according to its literature.”

“Two private investigators from Black Cube, using false identities, met with the actress Rose McGowan, who eventually publicly accused Weinstein of rape, to extract information from her. One of the investigators pretended to be a women’s-rights advocate and secretly recorded at least four meetings with McGowan. The same operative, using a different false identity and implying that she had an allegation against Weinstein, met twice with a journalist to find out which women were talking to the press. In other cases, journalists directed by Weinstein or the private investigators interviewed women and reported back the details.”

“The explicit goal of the investigations, laid out in one contract with Black Cube, signed in July, was to stop the publication of the abuse allegations against Weinstein that eventually emerged in the New York Times and The New Yorker. Over the course of a year, Weinstein had the agencies ‘target,’ or collect information on, dozens of individuals, and compile psychological profiles that sometimes focussed on their personal or sexual histories. Weinstein monitored the progress of the investigations personally.”

Farrow’s story is well worth reading. By inference, it suggests the outline of covert ops that can be used in many situations:

The pipeline would go from the powerful guilty client, to a law firm, which hires the “security companies.”

Persons who work for the security companies can pose as sources for journalists, pretending to offer information. But actually, they’re fishing. They want to know what the journalist knows and what he’s going to do with it, and when.

Then, the first-hand real sources for the reporter can be contacted and pressured.

These sources—victims of sexual abuse—can also be contacted by “sympathetic helpers” who do more fishing.

The security companies will probe the background and history of the reporter and try find information that can be used against him—either to impeach his reputation, or even for blackmail purposes. Anything to stop negative stories about the client from being published.

It would be only one step from there to enlist the cooperation of “Mockingbird” people in the press—covert CIA assets who work as reporters—if the client is powerful enough.

There are many potential wrinkles in this scenario. I’ll give you one that far exceeds what’s revealed or implied in Farrow’s New Yorker piece. This is how Farrow’s tireless work can be used by others, in a larger context, beyond anything Farrow intended:

Weinstein, who is guilty of various sexual offenses, is used to start the ball rolling downhill. Other celebrities, equally guilty, are exposed by victims. The news stories take on the character of a growing fire storm.

The result? The press is seen as the hero, doing its job for once. No one can cast accusations of a cover-up. They even beat the Mossad!

Then, when the public firmly believes the press is shooting straight from the shoulder…

The Trump accusers surface on cue.

At least a dozen women emerge, with their attorneys. They give their testimony of sexual harassment and abuse.

They add fuel to what is already a roaring blaze.

The public, already in a state of outrage, automatically signs on to the latest revelations.

This is not to defend or accuse Trump.

I’m just pointing out the way the game can be played.

It needs a foundation. It needs prior public “preparation” and belief.

More than anything, it needs a sense of continuity.

Otherwise, women who would come forward and accuse Trump of sexual offenses would be dismissed quickly.

But in the wake of many, many stories exposing public figures, the Trump story would have force.

Aha. First there was Weinstein. Guilty. Then there was Kevin Spacey. Guilty. Then there was Mark Halperin. Guilty. Now there is Trump.”

“Look at how far Weinstein and his hired spies went to cover up his crimes—and they failed. The truth emerged. So now…who can doubt the honesty and sincerity of the press when they hold Trump’s feet to the fire?”

Read this from Washington Post (10/27), headlined: “All of the women who have accused Trump of sexual harassment are lying, White House says”:

“The question was posed during a White House briefing at a time when numerous men in high-profile positions have been undercut of late by allegations of sexual misconduct, including journalist Mark Halperin, who faced accusations this week from former colleagues.”

“’Obviously, sexual harassment has been in the news’,” Jacqueline Alemany of CBS News asked [White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee] Sanders. ‘At least 16 women accused the president of sexually harassing them throughout the course of the campaign. Last week, during a press conference in the Rose Garden, the president called these accusations “fake news.” Is the official White House position that all of these women are lying?’”

“’Yeah, we’ve been clear on that from the beginning, and the president’s spoken on it,’ Sanders said, before quickly pivoting to another reporter to ask a question.”

It’s a perfect news story. First, the headline, which suggests the absurdity of 16 women lying.

Then the claim that the press has slammed one of its own, Mark Halperin, without favor, on behalf of honest journalism. (“We’re fearless.”)

Then the question to the press secretary about Trump: IN LIGHT OF EVERYTHING THAT’S BEEN GOING ON RECENTLY, ARE YOU SAYING ALL THESE TRUMP WOMEN ARE LIARS?

And then the answer: YES.

In light of all the recent revelations about famous sexual offenders, the Post story hits home. It scores.

Again, I’m not saying Trump is guilty or innocent. I’m showing how the game is played. Effectively.

If this follows the Weinstein playbook, one woman will come forward and tell her Trump story.

The press will play it widely and loudly, with details. “Weinstein had his Ashley Judd, Trump now has his (insert name).”

Then another woman will appear and tell her story. And so on.

Media psyops have nothing to do with intrinsic guilt or innocence. They have to do with a final goal—and how to get there. How to achieve credibility with the public.

Working with actual guilt is easier than working with innocence, but the objective is SELLING GUILT.

That’s the trick.

Stay tuned.


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.

The dirty Trump dossier: what no one is talking about

The dirty Trump dossier: what no one is talking about

A British spy’s fantastical story

by Jon Rappoport

October 27, 2017

“Excuse me, can you help me? I’m a spy.” (Doctor Who)

First, a bit of background.

The dirty Trump dossier made several claims:

One: Russia had strong blackmail material on Trump and could thus control him;

Two: Most damning in that material, Trump used prostitutes while he was in Russia, and paid several of them to urinate on a hotel bed Obama had once slept in;

Three: Russia hacked DNC (Democratic National Committee) emails and passed them on WikiLeaks, who published them. The emails were damaging to Hillary and helped Trump win the election;

Four: Russia wanted Trump to win the election.

Major media are now covering the Trump dossier from a new angle—who paid a British ex-spy to assemble it?

And the answer everyone already knew—Hillary Clinton’s camp and the Democratic National Committee—is out in the open.

Follow the bouncing ball. It goes this way:

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the Hillary team and the DNC funneled some $9 million to a Hillary lawyer, Marc Elias, and his law firm, Perkins-Cole.

That money then went to a research firm, GPS Fusion, who passed some part of it on to a British ex-spy, Christopher Steele. Steele had once worked in Russia and allegedly had many connections there.

Steele put together the Trump dossier after consulting with a number of Russians and spreading some money around. He gave the dossier to his employer, GPS Fusion. The dossier found its way to many media outlets, who sat on it for a while and eventually decided to run with it and slam Trump without let-up.

Steele also took the dossier to the FBI (and other intelligence agencies in the US and England). The FBI offered to pay Steele to keep digging up dirt on Trump!—but when the dossier went public and the media trumpeted its claims, the FBI withdrew its offer.

Given that background, let’s go deeper.

The fact that Hillary’s team paid to get damaging info on Trump is no surprise. It’s called opposition research, and many candidates engage in it.

But paying Steele to put together the dossier and hiding the payments —that’s illegal. It’s also a ruse to parlay the un-vetted dossier into a pretext for: Democrat eavesdropping on Trump and his associates, as well as Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump.

The contents of the dossier are open to question. Is Steele’s research accurate?

And here is what no one is examining in any depth. Steele claims, in the dossier, that he was talking with a number of well-placed Russian officials. That’s where he obtained his information.

What? Why would these Russians speak with him? Why would these Russians expose a purported plot, built by their own colleagues, under Putin’s orders, to hand the election to Trump?

If such a plot existed, it would be a tightly controlled secret.

Yet, here are Russian intelligence people spilling the beans to Steele, a former British spy.

And by spilling the beans, they’re risking their own lives, because there is a good chance their Russian colleagues and superiors will be able to track them down and identify them, since they’ve had connections to Steele in the past.

Steele appears to have pulled off an intelligence op for the ages. He goes to Russia, sits down with a number of Russian intel people, asks them questions, and they tell him all about a top-secret plot to sway a US election. No problem.

Keep this in mind as well. While Steele worked for MI-6, the British spy agency, he was stationed in Moscow (1990-92) using a diplomatic cover. In order to put together the numerous Russian sources he was able to tap years later while assembling the Trump dossier, Steele must have blown his cover to pieces as he cultivated those Russian intel sources back in the 1990s. Odd, to say the least.

Let’s imagine a similar scenario playing out in the US. During a campaign to elect a president of Russia, a Russian ex-spy who once worked at the Russian Embassy in Washington, under diplomatic cover, comes to the US and sits down with a few of his old pals from the CIA.

Risking their reputations, careers, and lives, these CIA people tell him that, under orders from the president of the US, they’ve been putting together files on one of the Russian presidential candidates. They tell him they favor this candidate. They tell him they have important blackmail info on this candidate and can control him if he wins the Russian election. THEY HAND HIM THE MOST IMPORTANT INFO IN THE FILES.

Poof. No problem. The Russian ex-spy returns to Russia with the info.

Really? How likely is that?

If we bend and twist credulity, and assume Christopher Steele did extract highly secret info about a Russian plot to hand the election to Trump and then control Trump as a Russian asset—if we assume all that to be true, well, we have just uncovered a MAJOR FRACTURE in the Russian intelligence establishment.

We have uncovered a volatile rebellion in the Russian ranks, a rebellion against Putin himself. This rebellion is so relentless, the Russian instigators are willing to risk life and limb to forward it.

Their hostility toward Putin is so great, they’ve picked this operation—Russia influencing the US election on behalf of Trump—to torpedo the president of Russia.

If you were Putin, what could you do? The answer is obvious, and what you could do would be quite effective:

“All right, men, I’ve brought you here because I trust you, and I’d better be right in that trust. I want you to collect every shred of information that exists on this British spy, Steele, going all the way back to when he was first stationed in Moscow. I want to know everyone he knew, everyone he had coffee and drinks and lunches and dinner with—every single Russian. I want you to unearth every detail, and find out who he tapped a year ago, when he put together this Trump dossier. Give me names. Don’t fail.”

Of course, these Russians who supposedly handed over key information to Steele already knew, at the time, that this would happen. They would be hounded and most likely exposed. But…they didn’t care. They were willing to go to the wall.

OR…Steele never accumulated all the information in the Trump dossier. He made unwarranted leaps of inference. He inflated information. He invented key facts. He wanted to satisfy his employers, GPS Fusion, Hillary Clinton, and the DNC. They wanted dirt on Trump, and he gave them dirt.

For example, Steele claims, in the Trump dossier, that he discovered Russians hacked the DNC servers, extracted thousands of emails, and passed them on WikiLeaks. The implication is, Russian operatives told Steele about the plot.

As we know, there has been a great deal of discussion around this point. Was there a hack of DNC emails, or was it a leak from inside the DNC? Without trying to draw a final conclusion from myriad technical and political analysis, I’ll point to a statement, published in The Nation, by a several analysts from the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS):

“For more than a year, we have been pointing out that any data acquired by a hack would have had to come across the Internet. The blanket coverage of the Internet by the NSA, its UK counterpart GCHQ, and others would be able to produce copies of that data and show where the data originated and where it went. But US intelligence has produced no evidence that hacking by Russia led to it acquiring the DNC e-mails and passing them on to WikiLeaks.”

That’s a cogent point. If Steele really did extract a confession from Russian intelligence officials pointing to a Russian hack of the DNC emails, why doesn’t the NSA or GCHQ confirm it and show us the evidence?

All in all, Steele has built a Trump dossier based on his highly questionable access to Russian intelligence professionals. If at this point, he cares about convincing us he’s on the level, he’ll have to do a lot of talking. At a recent photo op, he declined to comment on anything more than how happy he was to get back to work for his current private-sector company, Chawton Holdings. Otherwise, he was a silent bland egg.

That isn’t going to cut it.

We’re left with a fantastical story about his penetration of Russian higher-ups. Daniel Craig could play the Steele role in a Netflix series, and a bunch of good Russian actors who’ve been hanging around since the early James Bond movies, hoping for work, could step in, but beyond that, Steele has nothing to offer.

I’m working on the Netflix script. Here are the first few lines:

Steele: Hi, Ivan, remember me?

Ivan: Why, it’s Chris Steele! Haven’t seen you in years. Let’s see, you were working for MI-6 in the old days here in Moscow, right? Pretending you were a diplomat. Yes, we had a few lunches back then.

Steele: Right. Look, I was wondering whether you can tell me anything about a super-secret file you guys are building on Donald Trump. This is the off the record, of course.

Ivan: Sure. We’re blackmailing him. If we can help him win the election, he’ll be under our control, completely. This is a Putin operation. I don’t like it myself. I think it’s over the top. Anything I can do to put a thorn in Putin’s side, I’m ready to help. It’s a little noisy here in the restaurant. Why don’t we go over to my office and I’ll show you all the data.

Steele: That’d be great.

Ivan: We also hacked the DNC and stole thousands of emails. We’re leaking them to Julian Assange. Be sure to keep my name out of it.

Steele: Of course.

Ivan: Putin wants Trump to win. I don’t like Trump or Putin. I prefer Hillary. I assume you do, too.

Steele: Well, sure. I’m working for her. That’s why I’m here.

Ivan: Wonderful…

It’s a sure-fire hit.

It’s so believable.


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.

Trump/NFL political theater: who’s winning?

Trump/NFL political theater: who’s winning?

by Jon Rappoport

September 27, 2017

Who’s protesting what?

Players are standing up with arms locked, they’re sitting, they’re kneeling, they’re staying in the locker room during the National Anthem, a few owners have come out of their high offices to join with the players on the field, the networks are suddenly airing the pre-game Anthem because TV viewers want to see the protests and it’s all about ratings and ad revenues; viewership for the games is down, one quarterback who stayed with his team in the locker room confessed he wanted to be out on the field and didn’t want to be known for protesting the Anthem, Trump praised fans in the stands for booing the players, it’s a party, a circus, it’s theater, so who’s winning?

According to counts and a survey, 70% of NFL players are black, and 83% of NFL fans are white.

One biracial player, Colin Kaepernick, started the whole business by kneeling during the National Anthem, to protest police brutality against black people.

Colin Kaepernick’s original message, whatever you may think of it, has exploded into pieces all over the landscape. Now people are talking about the flag, the Anthem, patriotism, the veterans, ungrateful millionaire athletes, “unity,” the League, the Commissioner, racism in general, and Trump as a slavemaster according to Jesse Jackson.

But don’t worry. We’re assured these football protests are part of engaging in a “national dialogue on race.”

How many times have we heard that one before?

What dialogue? The whole country is going to assemble in the geographical center of America and begin talking earnestly to one another?

Yes, Trump is “energizing his base,” as they say. But he’s also gleefully attacking the NFL team owners, some of whom were/are his pals. He likes that kind of theater. He’s sticking the owners with the nasty job of defending the players. If the owners remain silent and go away and hide, they’ll be seen as racists. That’s not a good look. So a few of them appeared on football fields Sunday, “standing in solidarity” with their teams. Now they can run away and hide.

“Jeeves, tell my pilot to gas up the jet. I’ve done my duty. We’re heading to the Cape. Let the staff know they’ll have to open up the summer house again…”

Trump also wants his enemies everywhere to understand he’s willing to attack anyone, even the rich owners of NFL franchises. Fallout, no fallout, he doesn’t care.

So today, a Pittsburgh Steeler offensive tackle few people have ever heard of, a decorated ex-Army Ranger, Alejandro Villanueva, is the most popular player in the League, because he didn’t stay in the locker room with the rest of his team during the playing of the National Anthem. He came outside and made himself visible on the field. Suddenly, his jersey has shot up to number one on the best seller list of NFL merchandise.

That 80% of white fans are buying it.

This is supposed to be part of the “national dialogue,” too?

(Update: Villanueva has now apologized for standing alone and “throwing his teammates under the bus.” What’s the policy on returning NFL merchandise?)

The strategic winner in this big NFL story, so far, is Trump. His America-first rhetoric is making a bigger impact than all the NFL protests.

Joe Scarborough, MSNBC: “This may be unpopular but it is a political reality. Every NFL player refusing to stand for the national anthem helps Trump politically.”

Oops.

Of course, the rest of the politically Left media echo chamber refuses to acknowledge that. The echo-chamber denizens always try to convince themselves they’re creating and owning and controlling the narrative.

“If we say the NFL player protestors are smacking Trump down, the American people will believe us.”

Yes, just as people believed the echo chamber when they elected Trump over Hillary “nothing is my fault” Clinton.

Of course, the echo chamber has to drown out a few voices. For example, a player many think is the greatest NFL athlete of all time, hall of famer Jim Brown: “I’m going to give you the real deal: I’m an American. I don’t desecrate my flag and my national anthem. I’m not gonna do anything against the flag and national anthem. I’m going to work within those situations. But this is my country, and I’ll work out the problems, but I’ll do it in an intelligent manner.”

Hmm. That doesn’t work for the preferred narrative, so put it on the back page.

Where is the wild NFL-Trump-media theater piece heading? It’s obvious, isn’t it? More supporters for Trump. More voters on his side.

And who wants that?

The Russians! Yes. Now we see the light. Vladimir Putin is behind all these NFL player protests because, as a chess player, he understands the end game: Trump wins.

Putin somehow manipulated Colin Kaepernick into staging his original kneel during the National Anthem. That’s the op.

Is WikiLeaks going to play a role? We don’t know yet. Stay tuned.

I’m sure James Comey will fit right in. He can return and testify before Congress:

“Well, we know Ivanka Trump met with Putin eighteen months ago. At the time, he expressed an interest in buying the Dallas Cowboys, with gold bars he found in a Venusian UFO that crashed in Siberia. But then the conversation turned to the possibility of triggering player protests, as a way of garnering support for Donald Trump…”

Putin is also behind Black Lives Matter, Antifa, incidents of violence, riots, cops being shot, because all that, too, will swing support over to Trump.

Note to John McCain: Get moving, John. Put together the Committee hearings on the Hill. We’ve got our man. Putin. We’ve got the tiger by the tail…


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Trump goes to war with NFL: what happened

Trump goes to war with the NFL: what happened

by Jon Rappoport

September 25, 2017

There is a ton of news about what the current NFL protests mean, politically speaking. For the moment, I’m leaving that out. I want to take a different angle.

The first thing to know is that Donald Trump once played a key role in an upstart pro football league called the USFL, which lasted three seasons (1983-85) before it collapsed.

As the owner of the New Jersey Generals and the most powerful force in the League, Trump went up against the NFL. He wanted the USFL to schedule its games opposite the NFL starting in the fall, not the spring. Trump was a key player in suing the NFL for monopolistic practices.

The USFL won that suit, and was awarded the grand sum of…three dollars. Yes.

So The Donald has held a grudge against the NFL for a long time.

His recent tweets and statements, urging the league to take action against players disrespecting the National Anthem, urging teams to fire protesting players…all this has a history.

But there is a deeper story, and it emerges at a time when television ratings for the NFL have already been declining, and the television networks—especially ESPN—are carrying massive billion-dollar contracts with the NFL for the rights to broadcast games.

On top of that, ESPN features show-hosts who are firmly in the Colin Kaepernick, pro-protest camp. These talking heads are politicizing sports every day, and many fans don’t want that.

What do they want from ESPN and from the NFL games they watch? They want sports, competition, heroics on the field. They want their favorite teams to win and the teams they hate to lose. Period.

In theater, there is a phrase, “breaking the fourth wall.” It’s used to describe plays that address the audience directly and shatter the illusion of viewing a self-contained world on stage.

This is where the deeper story of football enters the scene. For fans, the political/sports commentary and the protests on the playing field are breaking the fourth wall.

They can’t watch the games in a trance.

They can’t enjoy the vicarious thrills and chills.

The same thing is happening in the television news business. During the Obama presidency, there was the (promoted) mainstream illusion that White House business was being conducted in the usual hermetically sealed container. It was a controlled stage play—and people could sit in front of their television sets in a popcorn trance and watch it unfold. All in all, with major exceptions, the hypnotic spell held. For a while.

But then along came Trump. He broke the fourth wall. He laughed at the press. He called them idiots. He attacked them mercilessly. He said they were fake.

This was quite disturbing to many news fans. It certainly was disturbing to the major news networks. They make their living by hypnosis.

And now it’s happening to one of the nation’s most cherished institutions of distraction: football.

It isn’t football anymore. It’s a mixed drink. With serious political overtones. What people want to get away from on Sundays, Monday and Thursday nights is what they’re being forced to swallow.

And Trump is making it much worse. He’s lighting the alcohol in the cocktail. He doesn’t care.

Where can millions of trance-seeking Americans go to get their fix? It’s a problem.

The protests have spilled over into the NBA and it looks like Major League Baseball may suffer the same indignity, thanks to Trump.

Here’s a piece of cognitive dissonance for you. At the beginning of yesterday’s NFL games, fans in several stadiums booed players for kneeling during the national Anthem. It’s hard to maintain a hypnotic spell in the middle of that contradiction.

What’s a “normal American” to do? Stay home and guzzle a six-pack while watching Sunday cable re-runs of Cops?

“Give me back my fourth wall!”

When people complain these days that they’re triggered by the contentious political scene in America, when they seek professional help for their disturbed mental state, in many cases they’re simply asking to return to simpler times.

“I want the news to lie to me as it’s always lied to me, and I want to believe. Let me concoct my old fantasies…”

In ancient Rome, it was bread, blood and circuses. Now it’s sponsors like Budweiser and Ford, concussions, and kneeling.

In order to corral millions of people in a news trance or a football trance, you need transmissions without disruptions.

Trump is escalating the disruptions.

Whether people are for or against his tweets about the NFL, the spell is being torn apart.

“I want my football! I want my fourth wall!”

Trump talks about building one wall on the southern border, and he’s ripping the “football wall.”

Aside from making business deals, disruption has always been Trump’s game.

In a nutshell, the major pastime of America, in modern times, is hypnosis. That sport appears to be falling apart.

This is the bigger issue. It comes down to: what is the individual going to do? What is he waking up to? What does he want others to wake up to?

Can the sleeper, jostled in his bed, forced to put his feet on the cold floor, build a better reality? Or will he look for another spell to fall under? Can he recognize he has been sleeping all this time?

Does he think his favorite trance, which is under attack, is the only reality that counts?

Waking up may be hard to do, but these days it is called for.

Think about this: On one side, we have people who love the flag, who support the veterans, who support US wars of empire in any far-flung place, who support the massive destruction of life in Iraq and Afghanistan, who support the government with its unending Surveillance State. On the other side, we have people who want to blame the basic conditions of inner cities on police, who want to avoid talking about gangs and shootings and drugs and the failed war on poverty and race baiters and the theft of jobs by Globalists.

Entering either of these realms is entering a trance. It may be an active trance, but the game is still hypnosis.

“If you can keep your head when all [those] about you are losing theirs…”

Controllers are in the business of pitting one trance against another, for profit, advantage, and power.


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.

Goldman Sachs, president of the US

Goldman Sachs, the president of the US

by Jon Rappoport

August 21, 2017

In this article, I’m not going to trace and list all the Obama and Trump appointees who have ties to Goldman Sachs. The sources are easily available. The Hillary Clinton connections are clear as well.

The point is, Goldman and its allies can exert enormous influence on the direction of the trillion-dollar casino called the stock market.

And the stock market is the universally perceived indicator of the health or illness of the US economy.

The economy is Trump’s trump card. If the stock market plummets and stays down, his credibility as president takes a hit of far more serious proportions than anything we’ve seen so far.

Keep in mind, as well, that giant pension funds all over the US and giant insurance companies (and other entities) invest in the stock market—and these organizations’ stability, as endangered as it is right now, would fracture in far more serious ways, if the stock market collapsed.

Super-banks like Goldman Sachs therefore hold the political fate of a president, any president, in their hands.

“Play ball with us. Otherwise, we can take down the market.”

What does Goldman Sachs want, aside from a free hand to wheel and deal inside and outside the law re investing and trading?

Goldman wants:

The basic survival of Globalist “free trade” (no tariffs)—the cornerstone of mega-corporate control of the world economy.

Through US military threats and interventions and attacks, the prosperity of the military industrial complex.

The continued prosperity of the pharmaceutical cartel—despite its avaricious market practices and outpouring of destructive medical drugs.

These are a few of Goldman’s top priorities.

But of course, Goldman has a Plan B, if they decide Trump’s presidency is too shaky. And now that several corporate CEOs and financiers have left Trump’s corporate council over the recent Charlottesville violence and Trump’s response to it, causing the president to disband that council, Goldman is obviously mulling Plan B.

What would that be?

Another 2008 financial debacle and yet another round of massive federal bailouts?

Or a war? Wars float all financial boats that count in the eyes of elites.

Perhaps the now-departed Steve Bannon, who used to work for Goldman, would have a few interesting points to make on these issues.

During the presidential campaign, Trump issued a number of statements attacking Goldman Sachs and claiming he was immune from their influence. That was false. Trump obviously knew the score, as did Obama, as did Hillary Clinton.

Now he is hoping Goldman will hold the stock market together for him.

At the outset of his presidency, I wrote that I supported Trump on two major counts. He was mercilessly attacking major media news, and he had stopped Hillary Clinton in her tracks. I said everything else was up for grabs.

A lot of that grabbing is being done by Goldman Sachs.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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