Memo to medical bloggers living in Mommy’s basement

And to medical reporters living in New York and Georgetown pulling down nice paychecks

by Jon Rappoport

May 13, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

You see, bloggers and reporters, here is the problem (one among many, actually). You have no background.

You don’t understand that every time you write a medical piece, there is a context which should inform your every move:

The modern medical system kills and maims huge numbers of people.

To put it another way, THE MODERN MEDICAL SYSTEM KILLS AND MAIMS HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE.

Let me help you out.

ONE: “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and was the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.

Donald Light: “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [6.6 million annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014)

TWO: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998: “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.”

The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:

Every year, in the US, between 76,000 and 137,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs.

Beyond that, every year 2.2 million hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.

The authors write: “…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered.”

So this study had nothing to do with doctor errors, nurse errors, or improper combining of drugs. And it only counted people killed or maimed who were admitted to hospitals. It didn’t begin to tally all the people taking pharmaceuticals who died as consequence of the drugs, at home.

THREE: July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans per year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths. You might want to read that last number again.

In 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield. Here is an excerpt:

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

NO.

Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

—end of interview excerpt—

FOUR: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It [the Institute] calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans. Every public health agency knows the truth.

FIVE: None of the above reports factor in death or injury by vaccine.

The US system for reporting severe adverse effects of vaccines is broken.

Barbara Loe Fisher, of the private National Vaccine Information Center, has put together a reasonable analysis:

“But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]”

“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.”

“Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, ‘Vaccine safety,’ Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]”

“However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events [per year]. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”

SIX: Here is a stunning quote from a doctor who has quite probably read and analyzed as many medical-drug studies as any other doctor in the world:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)


Compare that quote with one from “the father of COVID science,” Tony Fauci. In an interview with the National Geographic, Fauci stated: “Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about…If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”

They take things so seriously at the New England Journal, they routinely publish glowing studies of medical drugs which, as evidence shows, are killing people in great numbers.

So…you medical bloggers living in mommy’s basement, and you medical reporters who live in New York and Georgetown and pull down nice paychecks, you now have some background. Every time you write a Mockingbird article (aka puff piece), you can fathom how deep your lies really go, and how much crime you’re really involved with.

It’s never too late to tell the truth. I’m offering you a way out.


SOURCES:

(forthcoming)


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.

Police shootings vs. Medically caused death; how the news shapes public perception and controls minds

by Jon Rappoport

April 30, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Well, Mr. Wilson, I want to thank you for appearing before this committee today. It’s been many years since you served as the CEO of one of the largest news networks in the world.

Many years since I was ousted, yes.

We’re not here to discuss that today.

No.

We want your point of view on news media in general. How they shape public perception.

Mr. Chairman, let me start with this. Every year in the US, people commit about 1.2 million violent crimes. That would be murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery.

That many?

Yes. Have you ever seen a full-length news documentary revealing, step by step, the recovery of a victim of one of those crimes?

Why, no. I haven’t.

If such a documentary were produced, it would show the surgeries to repair the wounds, the hospital stay, the period of rehabilitation in another facility, the arrival at home, the anguish of friends and family, the economic hardship, the attempt at psychological recovery, and so on—over a long period of time.

I’ve never seen anything like that on television.

I’ll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. Viewers watching it would finally understand, up close, the effects of violent crime. And therefore, they would hold the perpetrators, the criminals, more accountable and responsible. And THAT would bring about a change in our culture. News media don’t want that change to occur.

Why not?

Because news media are devoted to enlisting public sympathy for the criminal. That’s their agenda. It’s a destructive agenda.

That’s a very serious charge, Mr. Wilson.

Yes, sir, it is. But it’s just the beginning of what I have to say here today. Let me continue. According to available statistics, the police in America shoot and kill about 1200 people a year. A few of those shootings cause major upheavals in society. Protests and riots. Every year, in America, the medical system kills 225,000 people. There is no upheaval. The news media don’t cover this fact in any way at all.

Are you sure about that medical statistic, Mr. Wilson?

It’s a conservative estimate, Mr. Chairman. I’ll offer one citation out of several. Author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert at Johns Hopkins. July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association. Her review was titled, “Is US Health really the Best in the World?” She stated: 106,000 deaths result from the administration of FDA-approved medicines. 119,000 deaths come as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals.

That’s astounding, Mr. Wilson.

Yes, it is. Yet, no coverage from the news media. The police shoot and kill 1200 Americans a year. The medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. So imagine would happen if the media covered the medical deaths in the same way they cover four or five police shootings that lead to protests and riots.

And you’re saying the news media intentionally ignore the medically caused deaths?

Yes. Of course.

Well, television news is supported to a great degree by pharmaceutical advertisers.

Correct. And those advertisers would remove their money if medically caused death suddenly became a leading story, night after night, on the evening news. But there is more to the story.

Which is?

The medical system is a cornerstone, a pillar, a foundation of society. People pay homage to it. In order to maintain the kind of society we have now, people must believe in the foundation. Otherwise…a collapse would occur.

You’re really saying the news media are propping up—

Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. Take that figure—the medical system causes 225,000 deaths in America every year. That would be 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade. And we’re not even talking about the millions of other people who are maimed by the medical system and manage to survive.

I’m trying to picture what you’re—

Let me go even further, Mr. Chairman. Suppose one news network devoted a week of coverage to ONE PERSON killed by the medical system. Up close. The period of suffering, the death, the effect on family, the incredible emotional distress and pain and turmoil, the financial burden, and so on. And then, at the end of the week, the news anchor stated: THIS HAPPENS TO 225,000 PEOPLE IN AMERICA EVERY YEAR. 2.25 MILLION PEOPLE EVERY DECADE.

There would be a national uproar.

And, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, this is the only way the US medical system can be reformed and rebuilt from the top. But it will never happen. The news media will not permit it. Therefore, the medical system has to be rebuilt from lower levels—ultimately, by the people themselves.

So how are news media shaping the public perception of the medical system?

I hope that’s a rhetorical question, Mr. Chairman. The public is led to believe we have a system with only RARE adverse effects. This belief is created and cultured by news media. They are complicit in the crime.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

The Pandemic on Television

by Jon Rappoport

April 27, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

It should obvious to all but the most addled minds that television news anchors, their script writers, and editors never question the following (false) assertions:

SARS-CoV-2 is real. It was discovered and sequenced.

The test for the virus is accurate.

Every positive test denotes a “case of COVID-19.”

The case numbers and death numbers are accurate.

Masks, distancing, and lockdowns are necessary, in order to prevent further spread of the virus.

The COVID vaccine is safe and effective.

People who take the vaccine should nevertheless continue to wear masks and limit their exposure to non-family groups.

The mainstream news denizens accept these presumptions without investigation. They’re taking dictation from public health agencies (CDC, WHO).

Therefore, of what value is the news? Instead of elaborate broadcasts, why don’t the networks simply present, once a day, announcements from CDC spokespeople delivered from bland bureaucratic offices?

The answer, of course, is: commercials. Ad revenues. News divisions are expected to make money. They’re not public charities.

News is business.

Lester Holt (NBC) makes $10 million a year. Norah O’Donnell (CBS) makes $6 million a year. David Muir (ABC) makes $5 million a year. Wolf Blitzer (CNN) makes $5 million a year.

News also dresses up content. Instead of a CDC bureaucrat saying, “4000 new cases in Michigan today,” Norah can say, “ALARMING REPORT OF 4000 NEW CASES IN MICHIGAN,” with accompanying quick cuts of charts and graphs, footage of people waiting in line for the vaccine and lab workers fiddling with vials and EMT personnel wheeling a patient down a hospital corridor and Anthony Fauci sitting in the Oval Office across from Joe Biden.

Cut to the Michigan governor at a podium: “The pandemic is far from over. We have a lot of work to do…”

A general in full-dress uniform tells Norah, “Right now, we’re working on a vaccine that will protect against any virus, even ones we’ve never seen or discovered…”

For 60 seconds, two talking heads offer points of view on “the disproportionate dispensing of the vaccine to minority communities.”

A U of Michigan assistant athletic director speculates on whether home football this fall will be played in a packed stadium.

And “We’ll be back after this.”

COMMERCIALS. A drug that causes heart attacks. A drug that causes brain damage. A public service announcement for COVID vaccination. Chevy truck. Teaser for upcoming premiere of a new CBS cop show. One dollar special for double burger and fries and egg and bacon and cheese breakfast at McKing. Save money on your car insurance, click or call. Thick or thin crust, square or round pizza. A drug that makes your hair fall out. Tires that hold the road in the Arctic. Teaser for upcoming special: A Life Well Lived, the Man Who Changed America: Anthony Fauci.

And—back to the news.

That’s not hard work. It’s not intelligent work. It’s certainly not investigative work.

Truth be told, thousands of people could do it, could head up network television news coverage. The quality of American education aside, there are still MANY literate high school and college cheerleaders, drama majors, athletes, and self-assured nerds who could stand in for these high-priced anchors and deliver the goods.

If you peruse the bios of Lester Holt and David Muir, for example, you find they worked their up through positions as local anchors—meaning news readers. They also, up close and personal, “covered hot spots around the world.” Plane crashes, revolutions, hurricanes. In other words, they spoke with official sources in those places, and repeated the official versions of events, while standing under umbrellas whipping in the rain or on evening city rooftops wearing a Dan Rather-style bush jacket or flak jacket.

It goes without saying that network talent spotters are looking for young stars who are INCURIOUS. No digging beneath the surface on stories. Instead—shift horizontally across the top layer and find sweet spots that align with politically designated objectives, when necessary.

“I really like this kid in Cincinnati. He has good teeth, a strong jaw, and his hair looks like it’s made out of iron. Smooth baritone. Occasional self-effacing smile.”

“Yeah, I don’t know. He’s Clark Kent. Too straight.”

“We can work with that. Road trips. Send him to the Ukraine for a few weeks, Poland, El Salvador. Give him some seasoning. Hey, David Muir’s doing all right and he looks like he just stepped out of a men’s underwear catalog.”

“The Cincinnati kid played football at a small college in Nebraska. We could put him with the Bengals reporting on racial issues. That ought to give him a rough edge or two…”

“Wait. Here’s a red flag. Three months ago, he had this lawyer on his broadcast. The lawyer’s filing a suit against a university lab. Claims the COVID PCR test is spitting out false-positives like a fire hose.”

“Crap. Was it just a one-time screw-up?”

“No. Our boy tried to take it further. He brought a crew to the university lab. Got some quotes from techs there.”

“That’s not good. He’s an anchor and he thinks he’s making the news.”

Indeed, that isn’t good. Anchors don’t make news. They don’t ferret it out. They take what’s there and make it sound important.

You or I could go into a college drama department, stand in front of a hundred students, and say, “We’re looking for people who can read text without mistakes and make it sound important”—

And voila, we’d discover a few young men and women who could, with a few weeks of training, assume the role of a local TV news anchor and do a credible job.

In the history of television news, I know of two elite network anchors who—if not in their coverage of stories, but in their manner and attitude—transmitted a significant dissatisfaction with their roles, their limitations, and their virtual imprisonments: Peter Jennings and Jessica Savitch.

Jennings came across as “the man who knew more but wasn’t allowed to report it.” Savitch was a tiger caged at a circus, pacing back and forth in her cell, angry, wanting to rip the bars and jump out. Savitch died at 36, Jennings at 67.

Jennings managed to keep on his staff, for six years, an ACTUAL medical journalist, the late Nick Regush. Regush spent many hours digging below the surface. For example, in 1999, in a blistering ABC report, he expressed serious doubt that the Hepatitis C virus exists. After his departure from the network, he echoed that report:

“Consider this a challenge in progress. This scientific adventure raises the question of whether the hepatitis C virus, blamed for a major silent epidemic of liver disease and even cancer, actually exists. That’s right. You read this correctly: I am raising a question that may disturb scientists and hepatitis C patients alike. But I’m raising it anyway because it is vital to do so in the interests of public health. I’m issuing a challenge to the scientific community to present me with the published, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that such a virus actually exists—namely that it has been properly isolated, according to accepted, fundamental principles of virology.”

Were Regush working for ABC today, he would last about five minutes before being fired.

“Don’t DISCOVER news, RELAY it.”


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

The unanimous News conforms

by Jon Rappoport

April 16, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

The rise of television news, and its power over the mind, necessitated an agreement among the major networks:

On most issues, the networks would have to mirror each other’s coverage. Otherwise, the audience would experience an unacceptable level of confusion and cognitive dissonance.

This principle of agreement was basically about the rules of propaganda—and nowhere was it more evident than in matters of medical science.

For example, suppose, recently, the COVID PCR test became an occasion for disagreement among NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and FOX?

Three networks fell into line with the CDC and the WHO in claiming the test was accurate and meaningful, while the other two strenuously reported on the irreparable and fatal flaws in the test. (I’ve exhaustively detailed those flaws in many articles.)

The network dissonance would upset a huge apple cart smack in the middle of COVID “science.” The public wouldn’t know where to turn.

Therefore, the truth of the matter had to take a back seat to conformity. All the major networks robotically echoed the CDC/WHO.

And the network anchors had to sell the PCR lies. Lester Holt (Lurch/ the Addams family); David Muir (Sears underwear model); Norah O’Donnell (student council president); Wolf Blitzer (“smart bombs went right down chimneys in Iraq”); a collection of shiny suits at FOX; they all had to pretend they’d looked at more than the opening lines of public health press releases.

The guiding light of network news is unanimity, and social media have adopted that m.o. as well.

Truth is the first casualty of The News.

Long before television secured its hold on the public (1923-1928), Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda, wrote: “This is an age of mass production. In the mass production of materials a broad technique has been developed and applied to their distribution. In this age, too, there must be a technique for the mass distribution of ideas.”

“Domination to-day is not a product of armies or navies or wealth or policies. It is a domination based on the one hand upon accomplished unity, and on the other hand upon the fact that opposition is generally characterized by a high degree of disunity.”

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”

Today, vast numbers of people DO cooperate; they watch the news, which is a virtual construct.

The network editors, writers, on-air talent, and crews conspire and collaborate, every day, to fulfill Bernays’ prescriptions for society. And, for the most part, these plotters are true believers. They think they’re presenting fact.

This is what habit does to the mind.

The CIA has played its role in securing network unanimity of coverage. As soon as the Agency was created, in 1947, it set about researching mind control (MKULTRA). It planted agents in newsrooms. It followed the tenets of Bernays.

Human society had to be hypnotized. Otherwise, profound decentralization would occur.

Consider this simple fact about the PCR test—which any news reporter should be able to spot in a minute, but doesn’t: a person who tests positive is called “a case of COVID-19.”

That isn’t even done with HIV/AIDS. A person who tests positive is called “HIV positive.” If he develops symptoms, then he’s called “a case of AIDS.”

Imagine this conversation: “Hi, Phil, how’s your son?”

“He has the flu.”

Oh. Is he in bed?”

“No. He ran the marathon yesterday.”

“What? You said he has the flu.”

“He does. He tested positive for the virus.”

Absurd.

In 1913, political commentator Walter Lippmann wrote: “Ours is a problem in which deception has become organized and strong; where truth is poisoned at its source; one in which the skill of the shrewdest brains is devoted to misleading a bewildered people.”

If the CDC says the sky is falling, all the networks will report it—and will censor the fact that it isn’t falling.

“…in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” Adolph Hitler, 1925

The distortion of the truth applies to the past as well as to the present. As George Orwell puts it, in 1984:

“The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had been actually destroyed. For how could you establish even the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside your own memory?…To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself…That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.”

Why all this subterfuge? In order to produce mass uniformity of belief and consensus. You can be sure that, in the future, the history of COVID will be transmitted in a way that covers up all the lies and obfuscations. COVID will be invoked to prove contradictory propositions (both A and not-A), when it suits the propagandists.

Over the years, in speaking with mainstream reporters, I’ve gleaned that some of them are aware they’re on an Orwellian path. They squelch that perception. But they know they’re a) believing what they report is true and b) disbelieving what they report.

They understand they’re parrot-performers on a stage under the lights, and yet they accept their roles as absolutely authentic reflections of honesty.

They rationalize this contradiction in the same way that Edward Bernays did in 1928: “Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner [by accepting propaganda as fact] if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”

Under hypnosis.

Have you ever seen a first-class hypnotist perform his act? The basic requirement—he must appear to know exactly what he’s doing. That skill is paramount.

And this is the standard toward which all television news anchors aspire.


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.

Dispatches from the War: Epidemics are staged on television

Network: the last great film about The News

by Jon Rappoport

April 12, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

When a new epidemic is launched and promoted, despite the lack of good science and good evidence, it is jacked up on television screens. Images begin to flow:

An emergency medical vehicle on a street. EMT personnel, in hazmat suits, load a man strapped down to a stretcher, into the van. On another street, a man collapses on the sidewalk. We see a quarantined man sitting inside a huge plastic bubble on a third street. Cut to an airport lobby. Soldiers are patrolling the space among the crowds. Cut to a lab. Close-up of vials of liquid. Camera pulls back. Techs in light green scrubs are placing the vials into slots of a table-top machine. Auditorium—a man on a platform, wearing a doctor’s white coat, is pointing a wand at a large screen, on which a chart is displayed, for the audience. Back to the street. People are wearing face masks.

These images wash over the television viewer. Meanwhile, the anchor is imparting his prepared meaning: “The government today issued a ban on all travel into and out of the city…hundreds of plane flights have been cancelled. Scientists are rushing to develop a vaccine…”

The television audience has an IMPRESSION of knowing something. They’re in the flow, the flow of the news…they’re in the images…

Network, the 1976 film written by Paddy Chayefsky, reveals what media kings would do if they unchained their basic instincts and galloped all the way into the madness of slash-and-burn Roman Circus.

The audience is jaded beyond recall. It needs new shocks to the system every day. The adrenaline must flow. The line between reporting the news and inventing it? Erase it. Celebrate the erasure. Watch ratings soar.

Why pretend anymore? Why spend countless hours preparing and broadcasting synthetic artificial news, as if it were real? Does the audience care about such niceties? The audience just wants action.

The film proceeds from these premises.

Arthur Jensen, head of the corporation that owns the Network, speaks to unhinged Network newsman, Howard Beale, who has revealed, on-air, a piece of the real planetary power structure in a few moments of sanity: “You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it!! Is that clear?!… You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!”

Head of programming for the Network, Diana Christensen, shifts the whole news department over to the entertainment division.

Thus emerge new shows with soaring ratings: Howard Beale, [Religious] Prophet of the Air Waves; The Mao Tse-Tung Hour, in which a guerrilla group films itself carrying out armed bank robberies; and Sybil the Soothsayer, a Tarot reader.

Diana becomes the network’s new executive star.

There is no longer even a pretense of a need for news anchors to appear authoritative, objective, or rational.

Diana Christensen is unstoppable. She sees, with burning clarity, that audiences are bored to the point of exhaustion; they now require, as at the end of the Roman Empire, extreme entertainment. They want more violence, more insanity, out in the open. On television.

In promoting her kind of news division, she tells network executives:

“Look, we’ve got a bunch of
hobgoblin radicals called the
Ecumenical Liberation Army who
go around taking home movies
of themselves robbing banks.
Maybe they’ll take movies of
themselves kidnapping heiresses,
hijacking 747’s, bombing bridges,
assassinating ambassadors.
We’d open each week’s segment
with that authentic footage,
hire a couple of writers to
write some story behind that
footage, and we’ve got
ourselves a series…

“Did you see the overnights on the
Network News? It has an 8 in New
York and a 9 in L.A. and a 27 share
in both cities. Last night, Howard
Beale went on the air [as a newscaster] and yelled
‘BULLSHIT’ for two minutes, and I
can tell you right now that tonight’s
show will get a 30 share at least.
I think we’ve lucked into something…

“I see Howard Beale as a latter-day
prophet, a magnificent messianic
figure, inveighing against the
hypocrisies of our times, a strip
Savonarola, Monday through Friday.
I tell you, Frank, that could just
go through the roof…Do you want to figure out
the revenues of a strip show that
sells for a hundred thousand bucks
a minute? One show like that could
pull this whole network right out
of the hole! Now, Frank, it’s being
handed to us on a plate; let’s not
blow it!”

Television in the “real world” isn’t all the way there yet, but it’s close.

In Network, Diana Christensen personifies the news. She is the electric, thrill-seeking, non-stop force that is terrified of silence.

She lives and feeds on adrenaline. So does the viewing public. Nothing else ultimately matters. Ratings are the top line and the bottom line. The individual and his thoughts are completely irrelevant.

Howard Beale, over the cliff, a news man screaming on-air about the insanity of the news, is perfectly acceptable, because the audience is simply responding to Beale’s inchoate outrage and their own. Nothing deeper is explored. What could have resulted in a true popular rebellion is short-circuited. Beale becomes a crazy loon, a novelty item. Yet one more distraction.

When, in a brief interlude of clarity, he begins telling his audience about the takeover of society by mega-corporations and mega-money, his show droops. Ratings collapse. Diana is no longer interested in him; she wants to sack him.

However, Arthur Jensen, the head of the corporation that owns the television network, wants to keep Beale on the air, as a messenger of the “galactic truth” about the beneficial integration of all human activity under the rubric of global money and global power. He converts Beale to his cause.

Diana sees only one way out of this ratings disaster: kill Beale; on-air; during his show. And so it is done.


Network also shows us the audience becoming actor, player, participant. The audience is jumping out of its skin to be recognized, courted, and adored as a mighty rolling force embodying no particular meaning.

Audience wants to be a star. Audience wants to BE news; audience wants its actions to be shown on television. That establishes its legitimacy. Nothing else is necessary.

Diana knows it, and she is more than willing to accommodate this frantic desire, if only her bosses will let her go all the way.

The best film ever made about television’s war on the population, Network stages only a few minutes of on-air television.

The rest of the film is dialogue and monologue about television. Thus you could say that, in this case, word defeats image. Which was scriptwriter Paddy Chayefsky’s intent.

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

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

It is Beale’s language and the passion with which he delivers it that constitutes his dangerous weapon. Therefore, the Network transforms him into a cheap religious figure, whose audience slathers him with absurd adoration.

Television’s enemy is the word. Its currency is image.

Beale occasionally breaks through the image and defiles it. He cracks the egg. He stops the picture-flow. He brings back the sound and rhythm of spoken poetry. That is his true transgression against the medium that employs him.

The modern matrix has everything to do with how knowledge is acquired.

Television, in the main, does not attempt to impart knowledge. It strives to give the viewer the impression that he knows something. There is a difference.

The impression of knowing is a feeling, a conviction, a belief the viewer holds, after he has watched moving images on a screen and listened to a narrator. THIS is what the viewer prefers. He wants no part of knowledge.

A basic premise of modern age is: “everything is (connected to) everything.” This fits quite well with the experience of watching video flow.

Example: we see angry crowds on the street of a foreign city. Then young people on their cell phones sitting in an outdoor café. Then the marble lobby of a government building where men in suits are walking, standing in groups talking to each other. Then at night, rockets exploding in the sky. Then armored vehicles moving through a gate into the city. Then clouds of smoke on another street and people running, chased by police.

A flow of consecutive images. The sequence, obviously, has been assembled by a news editor, but most of the viewing audience isn’t aware of that. They’re watching the “interconnected” images and listening to a news anchor tell a story that colors (infects) every image: “This is revolution for democracy, created by the technology of cell phones…”

Viewers thus believe something. Television has imparted a sensation to them.

Therefore: a short circuit occurs in the mind.

When you export this pattern out to a whole society, you are talking about a dominant method through which “knowledge” is groped and held close.

“Did you see that fantastic video about the Iraq War? It showed that Saddam actually had bioweapons.”

“Really? How did they show that?”

“Well, I don’t remember. But watch it. You’ll see.”

And that’s another feature of the modern acquisition of “knowledge”: amnesia about details.

The viewer can’t recall key features of what he saw. Or if he can, he can’t describe them, because he was inside them, busy building up his impression of knowing something.

Narrative-visual-television story strips out and discards conceptual analysis. To the extent it exists, it’s wrapped around and inside the image and the narration.

Paddy Chayefsky made his pen a sword, because he was writing a movie about television, against television. He was pitting Word against Image.

When a technology (television) turns into a method of perception, reality is turned inside out. People watch TV through TV eyes.

Mind control is no longer something merely imposed from the outside. It is a matrix of a self-feeding, self-demanding loop.

Willing Devotees of the Image WANT images, food stamps of the programmed society.

The triumph of Network is that it makes its words win over pictures, IN a picture, IN a film.


A pandemic, the false pandemic I’ve been rejecting in many articles, is delivered through video flow and narration. Stacked and cut images.

There is no challenge to the flow in any basic way, through the intrusion of actual knowledge, because that would shut down the parade of images and nullify the reasons for broadcasting them in the first place.

The old theater adage, “the show must go on,” when adapted for television, becomes, “the flow must go on.” Once its course is set, there can be no turning back.

The television audience, imprisoned in homes, rides the river…


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.

Senate meets AG nominee; treats her like lethal poison

by Jon Rappoport

March 29, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

On January 29, 2027, the new president announced his choice for Attorney General, Claire Washington. Five days, later, she appeared at her confirmation hearing. Senator Grove Fatheringill III opened his folder and consulted his list of questions—

First of all, Ms. Washington, I want to offer my congratulations on your nomination. It’s about time we had another woman of color as—

Senator, I consider that an insult. I’m not here because I’m black. I’m here because the president thinks I’m qualified to serve. My skin is black. I was raised in what you could call “black culture.” But I’m my own person, which is to say, I’m an individual. My thoughts and actions aren’t black and they aren’t white. And frankly, I don’t care what people think of that remark. I’m not fronting for a particular culture. I happen to believe in the US Constitution. And if I may raise a few more hackles among those people waving their banners of political correctness, I am a sister to two brothers in my family, but I’m a not a “sister” to anyone else.

Ms. Washington, I didn’t mean to imply that as an African-American, you—

I’m not African American. My ancestors have lived in the United States for four generations. Are you British-American, Senator?

No. I was just…Ms. Washington, why don’t you tell us what your background…how your background and education equip you for the position of Attorney General?

I’m not sure they do. But I will say this. My first act upon gaining confirmation would be to pursue wide-ranging RICO cases against major gangs in the inner cities of America.

Excuse me, what?

Termination. Ending. Abolishment. Cancelation. Disbanding. Prosecution. Incarceration. Of gangs. As continuing criminal enterprises. Gangs continue to destroy the quality of life wherever they make their money.

What are the socio-economic causes that lead to the formation of gangs?

I’m interested in what the gangs are causing, as they sell toxic drugs, shoot and kill people, recruit innocent children into their ranks, destroy families, and make streets lethally unsafe.

But—

For decades, the Department of Justice has failed to mount RICO cases against gangs. Do you know why? Because the gangs sell drugs for cartels, and the cartels launder their money in banks. The cartels and the banks are protected, because IMPORTANT PEOPLE are making huge profits from the drug business. If you confirm me, all that will end like the snow ends when spring comes.

Are you accusing—

Yes, Senator, I am. Whoever you were about to ask me about, I am accusing them.

I didn’t even get a chance to—

My second line of attack will be against the CEOs of major corporations that pollute the environment—not with CO2—which is not killing anyone—but with highly dangerous chemicals. Certain key pesticides, for example.

However, you surely understand that modern industrial-scale agriculture—

And three, I will make sure pharmaceutical companies that sell highly toxic medicines are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which means their CEOs will go to prison for very long terms.

Opioids, for example? Because we’re already—

Senator, this goes far beyond opioids. Every year in the US, FDA- approved drugs kill at least 100,000 people. That’s a million deaths per decade. Since the year 2000, when those numbers were published, the federal government has done NOTHING to remedy what amounts to a continuing holocaust. Under my administration, the complacence and negligence will end. I assure you.

But highly reputable medical journals publish studies of those drugs and—

The most prestigious journals are complicit in the continuing crime. They knowingly publish studies which are criminally deceptive. I will relentlessly prosecute their editors and reviewers.

Hold on. Are you talking about—

I’m talking about the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other publications. I’m also talking about FDA executives, who will become prime targets for DOJ prosecutions.

Criminal charges against—

Yes, Senator. Very serious criminal charges.

Ms. Washington, what about the guns? We have to take away the guns from people.

After every mass shooting, the usual politicians bray about taking guns away from the people who didn’t commit the crime. That’s not going to happen under my watch. I look at a map—as any citizen can—and I see where, in this country, people are shooting other people in large numbers. We will go into those areas and clean out the killers. The gangs.

That doesn’t make any sense.

It makes perfect sense. If America were attacked by China, would you want us to respond by assaulting Greenland?

China? My God, what are you talking about?

As any person with a few brain cells would understand, I was making a comparison to illustrate a point. I don’t envision an attack against the US from China.

The press and social media will be all over that China remark.

So what? The press and social media take perverse delight in twisting people’s statements. I don’t run my life by fear of what others will say. Do you?

Of course not. But—

Senator, I’ve just sketched out the top issues on my agenda. If you confirm me as the next Attorney General of the United States, you can expect to see action against those crimes from day one. And any prosecutor in the Department of Justice who doesn’t take my assignments seriously and honestly and with great zeal will be fired summarily. I want tigers, not house cats.

There are so many other crimes that need—

Yes there are. And I will go after the perpetrators. I don’t care what color their skin is. I don’t care where they live. I don’t care about their position in life or their reputation.

When it comes to protests in the streets of America—

If crimes are committed during these protests and riots, such as looting, burning, and assault, the states should arrest and prosecute the criminals. If they don’t, we will sue the states in court. If we find judges who refuse to hear our serious cases, we will do everything possible to bring those judges to justice.

Judges?? But there are many peaceful protests that—

Peaceful protests are of no concern, except when local law-enforcement tries to squash them for obvious political reasons. Then we would become involved. And I mean INVOLVED.

Ms. Washington, I want to return to the subject of opioids—

So do I, Senator. Because in 2016, both house of Congress passed a bill President Obama signed—and I know, for a fact, that the unanimous vote on that bill in both the House and the Senate was a sham, and virtually no one read the bill—

How can you say that?

Because it’s true. The bill, which became a law, has made it almost impossible for the DEA to enter the premises of pharmaceutical companies that are clearly TRAFFICKING opioids and put a stop to the crime of murder. It’s a detestable law. It’s called the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2016, and it was signed by President Obama on 4/9/16. Perhaps you recall that the Washington Post ran an article on that opioid scandal.

I seem to remember—

The article mentioned an attempt was made to reach President Obama for a comment. He declined.

Ms. Washington, I don’t know about the other senators gathered here today, but I could never confirm you as the next Attorney General of the United States.

I assumed my confirmation would run into roadblocks. However, it occurs to me that the American people—many of them—would take a different view from yours. Who knows? If so, I suggest they contact your office.

Now wait a minute—

As we speak, several colleagues of mine are publishing, at my personal site, a list of all the bills you’ve voted to approve during your long and distinguished career in the Senate; and who, specifically, those votes benefited, and how much money in campaign donations you’ve accepted from those who’ve benefited. I assure you, the chart makes interesting reading.

THERE WAS AN UPROAR IN THE CHAMBER.

The networks cut the live feed.

Later that day, a bevy of reporters hungry for more red meat caught up with Claire Washington at her office. Before live television cameras, she said:

“Here it is, ladies and gentlemen. I don’t live or work on a plantation. Not in the fields, not in the house. I’m not black or white or red or yellow or purple or blue. I’m a free American. My only standard is the Constitution. For decades, the Department of Justice has served special interests. Under my watch, all that would end. I don’t fear the biggest corporate CEOs in the country, or the lowest gang killers in Chicago, or US Senators. If you want a racket and crime busting Attorney General, here I am. My bloodhound law partners are already preparing a case against Pfizer and Moderna for lying to the public about the safety and efficacy of their COVID vaccines—“

The television networks cut the live feed again.

But they had a bit of the problem, as they would discover in the next few days. Whenever the face of Claire Washington appeared on screens, ratings shot up to all-time levels…

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social media rabidly deleted posts that supported the AG nominee, but it didn’t seem to matter.

As Chris Wallace of FOX commented, “Something in the soul of American culture has been unleashed. We don’t know what it is, but it’s moving up and out like a hurricane. We’d probably like to say it’s a rerun of the Trump effect, but it’s bigger than that…”

Two weeks later, with the Senate confirmation hearings still in mysterious adjournment, Claire Washington sat down for an interview with 60 Minutes’ Tom Dooley. She jumped in with both feet:

“Censorship has overtaken America, Tommy. If I win appointment as the next Attorney General—and opinion polls are showing the American people want me in that office—I’m going to go after social media giants with a vengeance. They’re the public square and the town hall, whether they like it or not, and they have no right to set off a bomb in the middle of the 1st Amendment. Frankly, these CEOs are some of the scummiest aristocrats I’ve ever come across. I’ll tell you a little secret. Ending censorship would eventually put social media operations in a hole. With an adequate spread of opinion across the whole cultural and political spectrum, tension and drama would deflate like an old bag. Finally, nobody would care. It’s censorship that actually drives the popularity of these sleazy social media outfits…”

Mark Zuckerberg and his wife promptly left the country for a visit to China.


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.

Super Bowl CNN Karen calls cops on maskless people in Tampa

by Jon Rappoport

February 11, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Hello, this is 911, Tampa police.

O the horror!

What?

This is CNN Karen. I’m a reporter covering the Super Bowl. I’m near the stadium and people are sitting in cafes without masks! The horror!

Not wearing masks?

Dozens of them. Hundreds. I’m filming them, so you can hunt them down.

Are you wearing a mask, Karen?

I’m wearing two! To protect myself.

Try three.

What?

If two are better than one, three are better than two.

Is that a wisecrack? Because if it is, my network has connections all the way into the White House.

You mean Joe Biden will come down here and personally arrest me?

There are people standing in the street with drinks in their hands, and they aren’t wearing masks!

Are you aware the governor has issued an order against fining people for mask-less-ness?

No.

It’s true. You should do a little background research for your report. I understand it helps.

Who the hell is this?

I’m not permitted to give out my name, Karen. Rest assured, I’m a member of the Tampa police.

Did you vote for Trump?

I voted for the man in the moon, on a write-in ballot. I’m a registered independent. Let me ask you, Karen, are you in any physical danger at the moment?

No one has approached me yet, but it could happen.

Why do you say that?

Because I’m a reporter.

We don’t automatically hate reporters in Florida. The state, in fact, has a number of newspapers. To say nothing of television channels. I believe CNN broadcasts to Floridians.

I’m going to skewer you.

I’m trembling, Karen.

We’re in the middle of a pandemic!

And you’re doing your duty as a snitch. Let me ask you another question, Karen. Do you have a family?

I don’t identify in that way.

Excuse me? We’re having a GENDER conversation now? How DO you identify, Karen?

None of your business!

Let’s see…I have your bio page on my screen. You’re 36, you live in Greenwich, Connecticut. Married, two children. Your husband is an investment banker. He’s probably looking for good deals for his clients. You know, distressed properties. Businesses that have been destroyed by the lockdowns. I’m sure he’s doing quite well.

How dare you!

I just like to know who I’m dealing with. Wait. Here’s a photo of you at a restaurant with friends. What do you know, you’re not wearing a mask.

That was just the one time! I had a cold. I was having trouble breathing.

All those people you’re telling me about right now? In the cafes, in the streets, without masks? I’m sure they’ve been having trouble breathing…and working, too, and earning a living, because their businesses have been destroyed. They’re trying to have a little fun.

I’m going to report you to your superiors.

That’s it? Come on. Include me in your story. I want to be heard in my own words. I’ll send you a recording of this call.

I need police assistance!

Well, I’m looking further…yes, I thought I remembered you. You did several stories on defunding the police. It was pretty clear you were on the side of the people who demanded defunding. But now you want my help. I find that odd, to say the least.

There are extraordinary moments when we all need the police.

You’re saying that now, when you’re afraid, but when you’re with your friends and colleagues, you want to put us out of business. You’d like to see me out on the street without a job. You don’t care that some poor bastard is having his home invaded or his store burned down and he can’t get help.

Look, I’m just trying to say people are out here right now spreading the virus. That’s all.

No, that’s not all. Have you checked the official number of flu cases, Karen? Has it ever occurred to you that people with ordinary flu are being re-labeled COVID-19? Of course not. Why would it occur to you?

Did I really reach 911? Is it possible my phone is being hijacked, and this call was rerouted to someone who works for Tucker Carlson?

Bingo. You caught me, Karen. Tucker has a vast network of spies, more than 500,000 people. We’re everywhere, and we’re all connected. We roam the landscape and expose people like you. I’m actually in a suite at the Four Seasons. Three grand a night, and Tucker is personally paying for it. He owns oil wells in Saudi Arabia.

I’m starting to sniffle. I feel feverish. I think I just caught the virus.

I don’t doubt it. You see, we have special weapons that shoot the virus, and we pinpoint our enemies. It’s all commanded remotely, from our headquarters in Moonshine, Tennessee. We’re the bitter clingers, with our guns and religion. We never went to school, but we have a native craftiness. We built these virus-shooting weapons from simple tubing and gunpowder.

Get an ambulance over here. I feel faint.

It must be the MUTANT STRAIN. It originally comes from Mars. Did you know that, Karen? CNN has access to Fauci. Get him on camera and grill him. He’ll admit it. You see, Karen, there are basically two groups of people in America. There are YOUR PEOPLE, and then there are OURS, and all of us are QAnon. That’s right. Those three huge Trump rallies in Washington DC? ALL of us—the three million people—are sworn members of the official Q Group. ALL three million of us planned the Capitol break-in. The brainstorming took place in the Arizona desert months and months ago. We were ALL there for a week. We lived on canned Spam, cactus juice, and hope. That goofy schmuck wearing fur with the Viking helmet and horns? He’s our leader. He’s actually a genius. He works with Tucker. Out there in the desert, we all took a vote and decided to break into the Capitol and kidnap Nancy Pelosi and take her to the backroom of a deli in Brooklyn. We’d exchange her for a new law declaring that Trump would be appointed Commander General of the United States for Life. That was the operation. We bribed the Capitol Police with six hundred cans of Spam, so they would let us in. But at the last minute, Trump backed down. In his speech, he was supposed to say, SPAM FAKE NEWS DRAIN SWAMP ATTACK NOW OVERTHROW CREEPY JOE, but he never gave the signal. So the whole op collapsed. I’m giving you the inside scoop, Karen. Report it. CNN’s ratings will go through the roof.

I think I’m passing out.

Courage, Karen. You’re a JOURNALIST. Don’t fade. You’ve got the story of the century. You’ll be an instant star.

A star?…You swear you’re telling me the truth about all this?

Scout’s honor. It’s pure gold.

I can say “a source inside the Tampa Police confirmed…”?

Yes. That’s the ticket. Hit it hard. Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you, Karen. Report THE NEWS.

I think I feel a little better.

Of course you do. You’ve got a sacred mission now.

…Is it really GO time?

Launch, baby, launch…

“Hello…HELLOHELLOHELLO, red alert, this is CNN Karen, live, and I’m standing on the streets of Tampa, Florida, where people who are part of a vast conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States are partying like there’s no tomorrow. Buckle up. An unimpeachable law-enforcement source has just handed me the bottom line on a story that will shake the foundations of this nation. I’m going to remove my masks because I want to make sure you receive my message with unmistakable clarity. Three million sworn blood-oath QAnon members almost killed America, and here’s how it happened. It all started on a cloudless day in the Arizona desert. A day of Spam, cactus juice, and hope…”


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.

Writers, of all people, are now censors

They should never call themselves writers again

by Jon Rappoport

January 19, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

It had to happen.

People who call themselves WRITERS are signing a letter pressuring publishers to ban Trump, and anyone who has worked for him:

Do not publish a Trump memoir. Stay away from him.

The letter was penned by Barry Lyga. Who?

LA Times, January 15 [1]: “More than 250 authors, editors, agents, professors and others in the American literary community signed an open letter this week opposing any publisher that signs book deals with President Donald Trump or members of his administration.”

“Former DC Comics president Paul Levitz, journalist Sarah Weinman and ‘Little Fires Everywhere’ author Celeste Ng are among signatories to the letter, written by novelist Barry Lyga and titled ‘No Book Deals for Traitors’.”

“’We all love book publishing, but we have to be honest — our country is where it is in part because publishing has chased the money and notoriety of some pretty sketchy people, and has granted those same people both the imprimatur of respectability and a lot of money through sweetheart book deals,’ the letter read. ‘We affirm that participation in the administration of Donald Trump must be considered a uniquely mitigating criterion for publishing houses when considering book deals’.”

“’Consequently, we believe: No participant in an administration that caged children, performed involuntary surgeries on captive women, and scoffed at science as millions were infected with a deadly virus should be enriched by the almost rote largesse of a big book deal. And no one who incited, suborned, instigated, or otherwise supported the January 6, 2021 coup attempt should have their philosophies remunerated and disseminated through our beloved publishing houses’.”

Beloved publishing houses? I’m sure no writer, in the last ten thousand years, has ever used that phrase.

Are the author, and the signers of this letter, down on their knees, looking for their own book deals?

Since the invention of language, writers have fought to win the freedom to WRITE without interference. In the process, they’ve been arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered. That’s the history of the war.

And now this little venal band of scum—writers—wants censorship.

Here’s a chapter from that history; Giordano Bruno, 16th century Dominican friar, poet, and philosopher. For teaching a theory of reincarnation, for stating the universe was infinite, for discussing the possibility of life on other planets, on February 17, 1600 in the Campo de’ Fiori Square, “field of flowers,” the Roman Church burned him at the stake.

Yes, this happened. It wasn’t a Netflix movie. It was one stop along the way in the war for freedom.

But all right. These contemporary buffoons want to cancel Trump. Fine. Who’s next?

What about beloved Obama? I have evidence to support retroactive censorship against him. All his books, wherever they can be found, should be assembled in a great pile, in Freedom Plaza, and burned.

His publishers should demand the return of all advances and royalties, and if Obama can’t come up with the cash, a court should empower the publishers to take over his homes and sell them off.

The evidence?

The Guardian, January 9, 2017, “America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama’s reign,” by Medea Benjamin [2]:

“…in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.”

“While most of these air attacks were in Syria and Iraq, US bombs also rained down on people in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. That’s seven majority-Muslim countries.”

“One bombing technique that President Obama championed is drone strikes. As drone-warrior-in-chief, he spread the use of drones outside the declared battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, mainly to Pakistan and Yemen. Obama authorized over 10 times more drone strikes than George W Bush, and automatically painted all males of military age in these regions as combatants, making them fair game for remote controlled killing.”

“President Obama has claimed that his overseas military adventures are legal under the 2001 and 2003 authorizations for the use of military force passed by Congress to go after al-Qaida. But today’s wars have little or nothing to do with those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.”

“Given that drones account for only a small portion of the munitions dropped in the past eight years, the numbers of civilians killed by Obama’s bombs could be in the thousands. But we can’t know for sure as the administration, and the mainstream media, has been virtually silent about the civilian toll of the administration’s failed interventions.”

“In May 2013, I interrupted President Obama during his foreign policy address at the National Defense University. I had just returned from visiting the families of innocent people killed by US drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan, including the Rehman children who saw their grandmother blown to bits while in the field picking okra.”

“Speaking out on behalf of grieving families whose losses have never been acknowledged by the US government, I asked President Obama to apologize to them. As I was being dragged out, President Obama said: ‘The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to’.”

“Too bad he never did.”

If you petty little band of censors—who call yourselves writers—want to shut down Trump, then you have to go after Obama.

And then GW Bush, and Clinton, and so on. Don’t stop there.

There are lots of American politicians you can assail, going back to the 17th century.

You’re every censor who ever existed. You think you’ve got a special case in Trump. You don’t have a clue.

You don’t know anything about the history of writers.

I wouldn’t trade three dried-out yak turds for one of your books.

But those books won’t be censored. That’s how generous and consoling freedom is. I could say you should try freedom yourselves, but I know better than that.

I see who you are.

Miniature gargoyles, peddling your virtue-signaling inquisition.


SOURCES:

[1] https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2021-01-15/book-world-signs-letter-to-block-trump-book-deals

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy


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.

Why Twitter and FB must ban the NY Times

by Jon Rappoport

January 19, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Message to Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey: you have to ban the NY Times. Now.

I’ve got the hard evidence.

The Times, on at least three separate occasions, has published terribly corrosive information that would destroy the official COVID narrative.

Do you realize what that means? People could form a different picture of the pandemic. They could, after reading the Times, decide the situation ISN’T DANGEROUS, AND THE LOCKDOWNS AREN’T NECESSARY. THEY COULD DECIDE ONLY A FOOL WOULD LINE UP FOR THE VACCINE.

I’ll lay it all out for you, dear reader. I’m sure you’ll agree Twitter and FB must take action at once.

ONE: September 22, 2020, the Times: “These Coronavirus Trials Don’t Answer the One Question We Need to Know”:

“If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?”

“The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.”

“But that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.”

“According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”

“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine.”

TAKEAWAY FROM THE TIMES: The vaccine clinical trials are ONLY designed to show effectiveness in preventing mild cases of COVID, which nobody should care about, because mild cases naturally run their course and cause no harm. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.

Therefore, the leading vaccine clinical trials are useless, irrelevant, misleading, and deceptive.

Therefore, what rational human would choose to receive the COVID vaccine?

TWO: On August 29, 2020, the New York Times published a long article headlined, “Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.”

Its main message? “The standard [COVID PCR] tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus…Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…”

“In three sets of testing data…compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

“On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.”

TAKEAWAY FROM THE Times: The 90% of people tested, who “carry barely any virus,” are FALSE POSITIVES. Up to 90% of ALL people who have been labeled “COVID cases” are not COVID cases. This fact would downgrade the pandemic to “just another flu season.” And there would be no reason for lockdowns.

THREE: NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in Quick Tests [PCR Tests] Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.”

“Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing…”

“For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.”

“Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”

“Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them astray.”

“There are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said.”

“Many of the new molecular [PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called ‘home brews,’ are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.”

“’You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,’ with the new molecular [PCR] tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ‘All bets are off on exact performance’.”

“With pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, ‘there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,’ and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. ‘We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,’ Dr. Kretsinger added.”

“Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.”

“’The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,’ Dr. Petti said. ‘No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R’.”

TAKEAWAY FROM THE TIMES: No large study validating the uniformity of PCR results, from lab to lab, has ever been done. At least a dozen very large studies should have checked for uniform results, before unleashing the PCR on the public; but no, this was not the case. It is still not the case.

Now imagine the scandalous information in these three NY Times articles appearing everywhere—on Twitter, FB, Instagram, etc. It would be terrible for Bill Gates, Fauci, and other great leaders in the Holy Church of Biological Mysticism.

Political leaders and public health experts would have, on their hands, a major refutation of their whole narrative about the “deadly pandemic.”

We can’t allow that.

We must protect the public from the Times.

The only way to achieve this is through censorship.

Ban the NY Times from Twitter and Facebook.

Do it now.

If Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg refuse, Attorneys General of all 50 states should sue them at once.

Freeze their personal and corporate bank accounts.

Place them on a special list of “COVID insurrectionists.”

As for the Times, seize their assets, remove them from online platforms, stop the distribution of their newspapers—using military force, if necessary—and cut off all communication from their wire service to other news outlets.

Keeping the public safe is paramount. This is our duty.

CENSORSHIP IS FREEDOM.

MIND CONTROL IS LOVE.

LOCKDOWNS LEAD TO PROSPERITY.

That is all for now.


SOURCES:

[1] nytimes.com/2020/09/22/opinion/covid-vaccine-coronavirus.html

[2] nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

[3] nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html


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.