A totalitarian society has totalitarian science

Totalitarian science lets you know you’re living in a totalitarian society.

The government, the press, the mega-corporations, the prestigious foundations, the academic institutions, the “humanitarian” organizations say:

“This is the disease. This is its name. This is what causes it. This is the drug that treats it. This is the vaccine that prevents it.”

“This is how accurate diagnosis is done. These are the tests. These are the possible results and what they mean.”

“Here are the genes. This is what they do. This is how they can be changed and substituted and manipulated. These are the outcomes.”

“These are the data and the statistics. They are correct. There can be no argument about them.”

“This is life. These are the components of life. All change and improvement result from our management of the components.”

“This is the path. It is governed by truth which science reveals. Walk the path. We will inform you when you stray. We will report new improvements.”

“This is the end. You can go no farther. You must give up the ghost. We will remember you.””

We are now witnessing the acceleration of Official Science. Of course, that term is an internal contradiction. But the state shrugs and moves forward.

The notion that the state can put its seal on favored science, enforce it and punish its competitors, is anathema to a free society.

For example:

  • Declaring that psychiatrists can appear in court as expert witnesses, when none of the so-called mental disorders listed in the psychiatric literature are diagnosed by laboratory tests.
  • Stating that vaccination is mandatory, in order to protect the vaccinated (who are supposed to be immune) from the unvaccinated. An absurdity on its face.
  • Announcing that the science of climate change is “settled,” when there are, in fact, huge numbers of researchers who disagree. And then, drafting legislation and issuing executive orders based on the decidedly unsettled science.
  • Officially approving the release and sale of medical drugs (“safe and effective”) which go on to kill, at a conservative estimate, 100,000 Americans every year. And then refusing to investigate or punish the purveyors of these drug approvals (the FDA).
  • Permitting the widespread use of genetically modified food crops, based on no long-term studies of their impact on human health. And then, arbitrarily announcing that the herbicide, Roundup, for which many of these crops are specifically designed, is non-toxic.
  • Declaring and promoting the existence of various epidemics, when the viruses purportedly causing them are not proven to exist and/or not proven to cause human illness (SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, etc.)

A few of you reading this have been with me since 1988, when I published my first book, “AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century”. Among other conclusions, I pointed out that HIV had never been shown to cause human illness; the front-line drug given to AIDS patients, AZT, was overwhelmingly toxic; and what was being called AIDS was actually a diverse number immune-suppressing conditions.

Others of you have found my work more recently, since I started this site in 2001. I always return to the subject of false science, because it is the most powerful long-term instrument for repression, political control, and destruction of human life.

I thank you for your support and interest.

As I’ve stated on many occasions, medical science is ideal for mounting and launching covert ops aimed at populations– because it appears to be politically neutral, without any allegiance to state interests.

Unfortunately, medical science, on many fronts, has been hijacked and taken over. The profit motive is one objective, but beyond that, there is a more embracing goal: Totalitarian control.

It aims to replace your freedom, consciousness and intelligence with its own synthetic versions.


-Jon Rappoport

CDC vaccine whistleblower given immunity to testify

Patrick Howley at The Daily Caller reports that William Thompson, CDC whistleblower, has been given immunity from prosecution, by the federal government, to testify before Congress about vaccine fraud at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Cautionary note: So far, The Daily Caller is the sole source on this story.

On Aug. 27, 2014, Thompson, a long-time researcher at the CDC, published a statement through his lawyer, Rick Morgan, admitting that he and colleagues at the CDC violated the protocol in a study on the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine’s connection to autism.

The study, which was published in the journal Pediatrics in 2004, exonerated the vaccine. However, the study omitted vital data on a group of black babies who showed an increased risk for autism after receiving the MMR vaccine.

Since releasing his Aug. 27 statement, Thompson has maintained silence and has refused to talk to reporters.

Now, it appears he’s ready to step into the light — if there is a congressional hearing. That’s a big “if.”

Thompson is working with Rep. William Posey (R-Fla.). Posey serves on the Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s Subcommittee on Oversight.

A congressional hearing could be explosive, if members of the committee ask Thompson the right questions, probe deeply and find out exactly how an arrangement was made inside the CDC to cover up the MMR vaccine’s connection to autism.

The study in question had several authors, two of whom — Frank DeStefano and Coleen Boyle — are now high-ranking CDC executives in the area of vaccine safety.

If Thompson convincingly shows they were in on the fix, the whole business would explode and the CDC would be exposed as rank liars and threats to human health before the public.

On the other hand, if this is a one-day hearing, at which the testimony devolves into a boring “he said/she said” proposition, and if the press barely takes notice, the outcome (and the truth) will rest entirely in the hands of alternative media.

No congressional hearing has thus far been scheduled.

Another major CDC figure in this scandal is Julie Gerberding, M.D., who was head of the CDC in 2004. Would she be subpoenaed to testify?

In 2004, Thompson wrote Gerberding a letter in which he warned her that he had sensitive and troubling data about the MMR vaccine’s connection to autism. He was due to present the data shortly at a major vaccine/autism conference.

Apparently, Gerberding didn’t answer the letter, and Thompson’s presentation was canceled.

(After Gerberding left the CDC in 2009, she ascended to the position of president of Merck Vaccines. Merck manufactures the MMR vaccine. Get the picture?)

Interestingly, in December 2014, Merck removed Gerberding from her august position and placed her in a new role, a role that never existed within the company before: executive vice president for “strategic communications, global public policy and population health.”

Did Merck make this move to shield Gerberding, to protect her from a possible scandal tying her to the 2004 MMR-autism fraud at the CDC? If there is a congressional hearing, will Gerberding be conveniently unavailable because she is overseas tending to her new international duties at Merck?

Meanwhile, as these developments play out, there is a political battle taking place regarding mandatory vaccination versus parents’ right to choose whether to vaccinate their children.

Presidential candidates Chris Christie and Rand Paul have made statements supporting, to one degree or another, parents’ right to choose. The “medical experts” have invaded television news to slam these statements as grossly irresponsible.

These are the same experts who always answer the call when some element of the medical cartel is under threat of exposure. Their job is to provide cover, sound authoritative and make medical critics into “dangerous people.”

As I’ve documented over the years, these professional experts are actually sitting on a powder keg that threatens to blow the whole medical system sky-high. What’s the issue that must never be revealed?

It’s medically caused death and human destruction.

Here are a few citations and facts that remain state secrets, as far as major news outlets are concerned. Reading them, think about how much credibility the “medical experts” really have whenever they open their mouths about public health in ANY form.

Citation: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

Jeanne Lenzer referred to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It 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.”

And here is the final dagger. 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.

Previously, I have documented that the FDA knows because the FDA has a page on its own website that admits — without taking blame — 100,000 people are killed every year by medical drugs, and 2 million more people are severely injured by the drugs. (Do an Internet search for “FDA why learn about adverse drug reactions.”)

And for the past five years or so, I have been writing about and citing a published report by the late Barbara Starfield, M.D., that indicated 106,000 people in the U.S. are killed by medical drugs every year. Until her death in 2011, Starfield worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her report “Is U.S. health really the best in the world?” was published in the Journal of American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

Do an extrapolation: 106,000 people killed every year in the U.S. by medical drugs equals 1 million deaths per decade.

Starfield didn’t stop there. She also attributed 119,000 deaths per year to mistreatment and medical errors in hospitals, bringing the annual total of U.S. medically caused deaths to 225,000.

Here’s another study: April 15, 1998, Journal of the American Medical Association, “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.” It, too, is mind-boggling.

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:

In a given year, in the US, 106,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs. Beyond that, 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 and administered.”

Roughly 1.5 million American soldiers have died in all wars in U.S. history.

In any given 10 years of modern medical treatment, there were 2.25 million deaths, according to Starfield.

Consider how much suppression is necessary to keep the medical-death numbers under wraps.

Now think about these “medical experts” who appear on television news programs and assure the public that modern medicine is perfectly safe.

When they blithely state that vaccines only rarely cause problems of any kind and when they state that vaccines have absolutely no connection to neurological damage in children, what is their level of credibility?

It may interest you to know that the U.S. system of reporting severe adverse effects of vaccines is broken. There are no reliable numbers. That’s because the reporting is done by patients or doctors.

Barbara Loe Fisher of the private National Vaccine Information Center has put together a reasonable estimate.

“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. 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.”

Now you have the background to assess what Thompson may say if there is a congressional hearing on CDC vaccine-autism fraud.

Thompson states that he was part of egregious lying in a published study.

Well, how in the world do you suppose the medically caused death and damage I’ve cited in this article is suppressed and covered up and papered over?

Every single medical drug and vaccine that creates the death and damage has been written about and called safe in at least one study published in a “reputable” medical journal.

Get it?

Rank fraud in published medical studies is everywhere all the time.

Indeed, here is a devastating statement from a doctor who has examined more published medical studies than any expert who shows up on television and spouts off about our perfectly safe medical system.

For two decades, she was the editor of one of the most prestigious medical journals 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,” stated Marcia Angell, M.D. (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009).

Hello, Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, David Muir, Wolf Blitzer, Bill O’Reilly, Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh and all the so-called medical reporters for mainstream television and print outlets across America. Do you have the courage, brains and will to cover and hammer on the biggest story of your lives: medically caused death and destruction?

–Jon Rappoport

Why is it illegal for communities to protect themselves from harm?

Why is it illegal for communities to protect themselves from harm?

The supposed answer to that question is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 6, paragraph 2:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

By inference, the individual states declare their own supremacy when local communities try to nullify or avoid state statutes.

Keep in mind that the U.S. Constitution enumerates powers granted to the federal government and reserves all other powers for the states or the people. But this restraint has been trampled on so many times it’s barely visible under the tonnage of federal law and regulation.

Therefore, the Supremacy Clause becomes: “We, the federal government, can do anything we want to, and the states and the people are bound by it.”

So what happens when the people of a community decide that a medical drug or pesticide or genetically modified organism or fracking chemical or vaccine is poisonous and must be banned?

The state pre-empts the community. And if the state doesn’t, the federal government will move in and assert its ultimate authority.

Take the case of Roundup, or any of the pesticides that contain the toxic glyphosate. If the EPA or the USDA or the FDA decides glyphosate is harmless and if their “science” is a sham and if they are merely caving in to big corporations who want to sell it, the people would have no recourse.

“It’s the law, and you have to submit to liver and kidney damage at the very least.”

That’s the absurdity.

If health and life aren’t the basis of law, if they are ignored, if they are necessary sacrifices on the altar of federal or state control, then all bets are off.

For the past 25 years, I’ve been documenting exactly this: medical and scientific fraud that leads to great harm. This fraud is not only permitted, it’s embodied in federal and state regulations.

I frequently cite Dr. Barbara Starfield’s stunning review, “Is US health really the best in the world?” It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

At the time, Starfield was a widely respected public health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

Her credentials and those of JAMA were impeccably mainstream.

She concluded that, every year, FDA-approved medical drugs killed 106,000 Americans. That adds up to more than a million deaths per decade.

In the wake of her published review and for the next nine years, as she told me in a 2009 interview, no one in the federal government approached her to help remedy this ongoing plague of destruction. Nor was she aware of any systematic remedial federal effort.

But you see, the FDA is a federal agency set up by federal law. It is tasked with approving all medical drugs as safe and effective before they are released for public use.

So if a local community decided, on its own, to ban a deadly medicine, its vote would be struck down from above.

“Suffer. Die. It’s the law.”

There are people who are happy to settle for choice. “As long as I’m free to refuse the medicine, I’m good. Let others take it if they want to.”

But we’re not talking about a choice between pears and oranges. We’re talking about poison.

And despite recalls, lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies and heavy fines, the killing continues.

Therefore, on the basis of self-protection, a community has the right to enact a ban — unless self-protection must surrender to the system. Then, we are looking at lawless government pretending to be lawful.

These phrases come to mind:

  • “…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”
  • “…in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

Making these goals come to fruition when communities are under toxic attack is impossible. Therefore, governments that support and enshrine such attacks are violating the very origin of laws.

–Jon Rappoport

My FOIA request to the CDC

“The Reality Manufacturing Company enjoys creating and selling components that are invisible.” — “The Underground,” Jon Rappoport

On Monday, I sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For those of you who’ve been reading my articles about Ebola (archived here), it’ll be self-explanatory:

This is a request for published records, data, studies, electron microscope photographs, work notes, and internal correspondence relating to and describing, in detail, the direct isolation of the Ebola virus from human beings.

Note: My request does not seek information on this subject which is derived from antibody tests, PCR tests, or virus cultured and grown outside the human body. Nor does it seek electron microscope photographs which are, in fact, simulations or the result of computer models.

I am, however, seeking electron microscope photos of diseased human tissue.

That’s it.

Of course, I’m not holding my breath. I have no expectations.

But people need to be aware that this is an issue — a vital issue.

Disease hoaxes start at square one, where the fundamental assumptions are made. And one of the first assumptions is that humans who are labeled with a germ-caused disease house that germ in their bodies.

This seems like a tautology. But it isn’t because there are cases in which an “outbreak” is promoted, yet the virus which is said to be at the root of the outbreak can’t be found.

It can’t be found in the body. Or it can’t be found in sufficient quantity to cause disease.

Its presence and influence can be inferred only through faulty and/or deceptive means.

That’s why, in email correspondence with me, David Rasnick, Ph.D., announced this shocking finding:

I have examined in detail the literature on isolation and Ems [EM: electron microscope pictures] of both Ebola and Marburg viruses. I have not found any convincing evidence that Ebola virus (and for that matter Marburg) has been isolated from humans. There is certainly no confirmatory evidence of human isolation.

Unless and until I see convincing evidence to the contrary, that’s called a knockout punch.

–Jon Rappoport

The Ebola fear

Transmission of the virus is what everybody is worried about now — transmission through this route and that route.

I have news. Transmission does not automatically equal getting sick.

If it did, the entire human race would have been wiped out centuries ago.

People transfer germs to each other all the time. They house untold numbers of germs, and they transfer them.

I know there are many people out there who are afraid of germs. They use chemical wipes, and they do all sorts of things to stay free of germs — as if that were possible.

The mere transferring of a virus from person A to person B says absolutely nothing about whether person B will get sick. Nothing.

What makes a person sick to the point where illness threatens his life? His immune system, which would ordinarily throw off germs, has been rendered too weak, by non-germ factors, to do its job.

Then you will find millions and millions of a particular active germ in his body. Then he can get sick and even die. The germs are the end result, not the cause.

Nothing about any of this is mentioned in public-health warnings.

The public is led to believe that passing a germ from person A to person B is a potentially fatal act, all by itself.

This is false.

If person B’s immune system is already on the ropes, he is sick or will get sick from any old germ passing through.

If his immune system is healthy, he will remain healthy. If a load of germs does enter his body, he may, under certain circumstances fall ill; but he will recover.

It’s important to note an exception: When doctors are injecting germs (and toxic chemicals) into the body, which happens during vaccination, then even a person with a strong immune system can be badly affected, far beyond temporary illness. Why? Because the injection is unnatural in that it bypasses portals of immune defense. And because toxic chemicals are poison.

The real worry is the vaccine, not the virus in the wild.

The propaganda says: If someone passes you a virus, that act in itself constitutes a life-threatening danger.


The truth is if your immune system is weak, you need to find ways to become healthier and stronger.

Or you can submit to the massive fear-mongering about, say, Ebola and accept the notion that merely “catching” Ebola threatens your life.

For more than a century, researchers and doctors on the fringes of conventional medicine, excluded from The Club, have argued that it is the condition of the terrain of the body and not the germ that determines health and illness.

The volume and weight of official germ propaganda have drowned them out.

The rise of the pharmaceutical industry has paralleled the broad spread of this propaganda — and not by accident.

Two situations: one, a person with a strong healthy immune system meets the Ebola virus; two, a person whose immune system is decimated meets an ordinary flu virus.

Which is the major threat?

Situation two.

–Jon Rappoport

When The Elite Showed Its Hand

This article originally appeared on No More Fake News

In a minute, I’m going to present a stunning 1978 conversation between a U.S. reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission.

I discovered the conversation in the late 1980s. Ever since then, I’ve been looking at it from various angles, finding new implications. Here, I want to point out that the conversation was public knowledge at the time.

Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media and in think tanks had access to it and understood its meaning.

But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one protested loudly.

The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running U.S. national policy were agents of an elite shadow group. No question about it.

And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Department of Justice made no moves; Congress undertook no serious inquiries; and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements. Carter was himself a covert agent in the White House, a willing pawn. And despite his proclaimed religious values, he was nothing more than a rank con artist, a hustler.

To boil down the 1978 conversation between the reporter and two Trilateral Commission members, and the follow-up response:

“The U.S. has been taken over.”

“Yeah, so?”

By the way, the infamous Trilateral Commission still exists.

Many people think the TC, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.

Think again.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. President Barack Obama appointed 11 of them to posts in his Administration, for example:

  • Tim Geithner, treasury secretary.
  • James Jones, national security adviser.
  • Paul Volker, chairman, Economic Recovery Committee.
  • Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence.

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members: George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney and Al Gore.

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 Presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, Rockefeller: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

OK. Here is a close-up snapshot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s through the looking glass — a conversation between reporter Jeremiah Novak and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during Carter’s Administration, was formulating U.S. economic and political policy.

The careless and offhand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying: “What we’re revealing is already out in the open. It’s too late to do anything about it. Why are you so worked up? We’ve already won.”

Here’s the interview as published in Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, edited by Holly Sklar:

Reporter: Is it true that a committee led by Henry Owen of the U.S. and made up of representatives of the U.S., U.K., West Germany, Japan, France, and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries?

Cooper: Yes. They have met three times.

Reporter: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize “this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.” Who are you afraid of?

Kaiser: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these meetings.

Cooper: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination.

Reporter: But this committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support?

Cooper: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

Reporter: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that economic and political power is being coordinated by a committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

Cooper: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

Kaiser: It just hasn’t become an issue.

This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say it was ignored and buried.

U.S. economic and political policy was run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission. The Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski.

When Carter won the Presidential election, his aide Hamilton Jordan said that if, after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser: “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost — because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

–Jon Rappoport

Al Sharpton: How Deep Does The Con Go?

Here’s the current breaking Al Sharpton story from April 7 by The Smoking Gun:

The former mob snitch [Sharpton] has become a regular in the White House, where he has met with the 44th president in the East Room, the Roosevelt Room, and the Oval Office. He has also attended Obama Christmas parties, speeches, policy announcements, and even watched a Super Bowl with the First Family…

His [Sharpton’s] former confederates were a decidedly dicier lot: ex-convicts, extortionists, heroin traffickers, and mob henchmen. The man’s [Sharpton’s] surreptitious recordings, FBI records show, aided his government handlers in the successful targeting of powerful Mafia figures with nicknames like Benny Eggs, Chin, Fritzy, Corky, and Baldy Dom…

In fact, by any measure, Sharpton himself was a Mafia “associate,” the law enforcement designation given to mob affiliates who, while not initiated, work with and for crime family members.

But let’s travel back to 2004. Reporter Doug Ireland, who has written for The Nation, TomPaine.com, In These Times and LA Weekly, went deeper in evaluating Sharpton’s motives and allies.

From here to the end of this article, I’m quoting Ireland’s Feb. 21, 2004, article, “Rev. Al Sharpton: FBI Informant-Roger Stone’s Bitch,” originally published in LA Weekly and at webstonne.com, and then Conspiracy Planet:

In his 2003 autobiography, Al on America, the Rev. Alfred Charles Sharpton Jr. admits, “I have been guilty of letting ungodly things around me.” And that was never more true than with the latest [2004] revelations about Sharpton, who has now been exposed as a cat’s-paw for the national Republican Party.

Rev. Al has a long and sordid history of posing as the champion of the have-nots, while renting himself out to the greedy have-everythings, which predates his ’04 GOP-funded presidential campaign. In 1986, he endorsed N.Y. Senator Al D’Amato for re-election — although D’Amato, a conservative Republican pit bull, was anathema to more issues-attuned black leaders. In 1994, he helped dampen down the black vote for [Democratic] Governor Mario Cuomo by making a media-hyped appearance with successful conservative Republican candidate George Pataki just days before the election. In the 2001 New York mayoral campaign, he connived with GOP billionaire Michael Bloomberg in the defeat of the Democratic candidate, Mark Green.

But Sharpton has not limited himself simply to supporting candidates considered by most to be inimical to the interests of the impoverished black community. A 1988 investigation by the Long Island daily Newsday revealed that Sharpton, who denounces African-American leaders who disagree with him as “yellow n*****s,” had been a longtime FBI informant in a scheme to entrap black leaders and personalities on drug-related matters, even going so far as to wear a wire to record their conversations for the feds.

How did the FBI turn Sharpton into their bitch? Why, they caught Rev. Al up to his hairdo in a drug-money Laundromat in which Don King, the much-indicted boxing promoter and a longtime pal of Sharpton’s, was a central figure. What’s more, the drug deal was an FBI sting — and the feds had it all on videotape, too. Just two years ago [2002], Bryant Gumbel — the second most popular black on television next to Oprah — aired on his HBO Real Sports show an FBI videotape of Sharpton discussing laundering money from a South American drug dealer via King with Michael “Sonny” Franzese, a former Colombo family captain. Sharpton was going to arrange a meeting with King and the coke peddler to set up the deal. But the “South American” was an FBI agent, Franzese had already been turned by the feds into an informant — and Sharpton fell right into their trap. Sharpton became a sting artist for the feds when he was himself stung. After the tape aired, Sharpton announced he was going to sue HBO for a billion bucks. Nothing has been heard of the lawsuit since then.

Now, in his current presidential campaign [2004], Sharpton has been revealed as a wholly owned Republican subsidiary. Sharpton has been used by Republican operatives to discredit real contenders for the Democratic nomination. And the more prominent a place on the Democratic stage Sharpton can command, all the way to Boston, the more the Republicans can use the wisecracking but polarizing preacher-without-a-church as a bogeyman to frighten moderate voters away from the Democratic ticket. That’s the story behind the blockbuster report in the February 5 Village Voice — the L.A. Weekly’s sister paper — in which veteran Voice investigative reporter Wayne Barrett and his team unveiled the malevolent forces keeping Sharpton’s campaign alive: “Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Rev. Al Sharpton.”

Who is Roger Stone? A slash-and-burn Republican black-bag election tamperer and consultant… Stone first made news in the Nixon Watergate scandal, when it was revealed that the 19-year-old apprentice McCarthyite had infiltrated George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign as part of CREEP’s sabotage plan. A few other highlights of Stone’s career as the boastful black prince of Republican sleaze: Stone helped Ollie North raise money for the Nicaraguan contras, and was a close associate of the notorious Lee Atwater (the GOP hit man who created the race-baiting Willie Horton TV spots for Bush père’s 1988 presidential campaign).

The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin — in his excellent book, Too Close To Call, about the 2000 Florida election — details how Stone was summoned by Bush recount chief James Baker to disrupt the vote counting (Stone and his Cuban wife, Nydia, organized a screaming mob of Miami Cubans outside the headquarters of the canvassing board — Stone directed the mob by walkie-talkie from across the street — and intimidated the board into ending the count). On the stump, Rev. Al has frequently denounced the theft of the presidential election in Florida — which depended in large measure on invalidating black votes. For example, he told a Democratic National Committee meeting last October that “We are witnessing a nonmilitary civil war — it started with the recount in Florida.” So, hopping into bed with Stone might strike many African-Americans as “ungodly” hypocrisy. But the tale gets worse.

When Sharpton launched a vicious attack on [Democrat] Howard Dean for his supposed “anti-black agenda,” the man behind the curtain was Stone, who crowed to The New York Times that he “helped set the tone and direction” of the blast at Dean, while the research for it was provided by the man Stone had installed as Sharpton’s campaign manager, Charles Halloran, one of a half-dozen top aides to Sharpton who worked for Stone in previous campaigns.

A member of Stone’s stable who stays at Stone’s Central Park South apartment in New York while working for Sharpton, Halloran — just before taking over the Sharpton campaign — had been managing the parliamentary campaign for one of Stone’s numerous foreign clients: the United Bermuda Party, a white-led party trying to oust the resort island’s first black government. Since Rev. Al’s presidential campaign [2004] is really all about trying to succeed Jesse Jackson as America’s premier black political leader, the installation of Halloran is thus an odd choice indeed, one that can be explained only by Sharpton’s dependence on the money funneled into his campaign by Stone. (Halloran’s wife works for the infamous Carlyle Group, the military-industrial-complex giant of which Bush père was a longtime officer.)

Stone has acknowledged that he “helped Sharpton” meet the 20-state, $5,000-contribution threshold required for federal matching funds.

Sharpton’s almost penniless campaign has been sustained only by money given or raised by [Republican] Stone or by Stone-arranged credit with consultants — without which the campaign would collapse. The Voice alleges that Stone loaned some $270,000 to Sharpton laundered through Rev. Al’s National Action Network (NAN), and that Stone rang up $18,000 on his credit card for Sharpton’s campaign-travel and other expenses. In the wake of these revelations, the Federal Election Commission is about to consider [2004] whether the Sharpton campaign expenses picked up by NAN with the money provided by Stone, and other unpaid-for campaign services provided by Stone and his chums, constitute illegal campaign contributions, according to The New York Times.

The Stone revelations show that Rev. Al’s presidential campaign is nothing more than another scam he’s running on black Americans, one designed to undermine the movement to defeat George Bush. Fortunately, black voters aren’t as gullible as the cynical Sharpton thinks they are — they know an unprincipled huckster when they see one. Which is why Sharpton — despite the help from his GOP bedmates on which his campaign depends — has been rejected by significant majorities of African-Americans this year at the polls.

Doug Ireland is a New York-based media critic and commentator whose articles appear regularly in The Nation, Tom Paine.com, and In These Times among many others. This article first appeared in the LA Weekly.

–Jon Rappoport

Apple, Microsoft, Google, NFL: Suicide By Greed

The old movie line, “Stop me before I kill again,” comes to mind. In this case, however, it’s “Stop me before I kill myself.”

PandoDaily has uncovered a wide-ranging scandal among tech giants. It’s basically an illegal scheme to limit wages by agreeing not to lure employees away from each other with the promise of higher salaries (see also this link).

How many companies are involved? At first, there were just a few. But Pando has found evidence that many giants are in on the scheme, and “all told, the combined workforces of the companies involved totals well over a million employees.”

The companies are Google, Apple, Microsoft, Pixar, Intuit, Lucasfilm, IBM, Dell, eBay, Comcast, Clear Channel, Dreamworks, Adobe, Genentech. That’s quite a list.

Obviously, these corporations fear dents in their bottom lines. Prior to wage-fixing agreements, they were engaged in escalating bidding wars to grab employees from each other.

“They’re only paying you X over there? We’ll offer you X plus 100!”

Well, whose fault is that? Who created the problem in the first place? The companies themselves did, through their willingness to pay wild amounts of money to prospective talent.

It was nobody’s fault but their own.

You see the same problem in pro sports. The NFL, the NBA, Major League Baseball. Bidding wars for players. Salaries through the roof.

So the team owners agree to various wage-fixing schemes, including paying fines, “luxury taxes,” for excessive payrolls.

Television networks have gotten into the act, too. In their competition to sign contracts to broadcast the games, they’re paying out billions of dollars to these sports leagues.

Therefore, the networks have to turn around and charge outlandish prices to corporations who want to advertise during the games. Some of these corporations are now opting out of sponsorship. They can’t afford it.

For those who can, for example, cough up $4 million for a single 30-second ad during the Super Bowl, there is yet another level of insane competition: Who produced the most creative commercial?

Yes, there are postgame rankings of these ads published every year. In a final irony, Communicas has published a study showing that only one out of five Super Bowl ads results in the sale of a product.

It’s apparently the “creativity” of the ad that makes the TV viewer fail to associate the ad with the brand name of the sponsor. Beautiful.

Escalating greed eventually has consequences.

Meanwhile, a McDonald’s tries to figure out how little it can pay its employees and keep them alive enough to show up for work.

Selling a trillion toxic burgers a day doesn’t quite result in sufficient profits.

I don’t want to get into the pharmaceutical cartel, because I’ll be here all day. But as I recently wrote, Gilead Sciences’ new blockbuster-selling drug, Sovaldi, costs $84,000 for a 12-week treatment. That’s $1,000 a pill.

Sovaldi treats hepatitis C. The late ABC News reporter Nick Regush, one of the last true mainstream investigative medical reporters in America, offered evidence that the virus “causing” hepatitis C was a complete fake. It had never been isolated and identified as existing at all.

Regush challenged researchers to a public debate. No one took him up on it.

A thousand dollars a pill to kill a virus that doesn’t exist. Now, that’s a business strategy for the ages.

–Jon Rappoport

Is Edward Snowden Lying?

I’ve written several articles questioning Edward Snowden’s past history.

Now, another serious point comes to light.

Snowden claims he raised concerns about NSA spying more than 10 times before he went rogue with stolen files.

Here is the quote from the Washington Post (March 7):

Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden said he repeatedly tried to go through official channels to raise concerns about government snooping programs but that his warnings fell on the deaf ears. In testimony to the European Parliament released Friday morning, Snowden wrote that he reported policy or legal issues related to spying programs to more than 10 officials, but as a contractor he had no legal avenue to pursue further whistleblowing.

‘Yes [said Snowden]. I had reported these clearly problematic [NSA] programs to more than ten distinct officials, none of whom took any action to address them…’

As I’ve written before, we are supposed to believe that the NSA, the biggest, richest and smartest spying agency in the world just happened to forget to secure its own data against theft from its own employees and hired hands.

NSA just forgot to do that. No compartmentalization of secret data. Just a clear open shot all the way to the top for an internal analyst who wanted to take tens of thousands of files. Or a million files. Snowden waltzed into work, and was given free access to everything and grabbed it.

But if Snowden is telling the truth now, in his latest statement, the likelihood of his data grab shrinks even further.

Because according to Snowden, he raised concerns about illegal NSA spying to his own supervisors and executives more than 10 times, before he walked away from his job with all those files.

Snowden painted a target on his chest with his complaints about illegal spying. But no red flags were raised at the NSA. Nobody put Snowden under close inspection.

Nobody said, “Hey, this kid is trouble. Big trouble. He’s working for us and he’s objecting to our programs, policies and secret operations. We have to track every move this kid makes. We have to spy on every inch of his life, at work and at home.”

Nobody did that.

Checking news stories about Snowden’s work history at NSA, the longest period he was alleged to be there was four years. Which means Snowden was filing roughly three claims of illegal spying per year with his bosses. Could he be more obvious? And yet no one at NSA thought he was a risk. No one put a heavy watch on his activities and caught him with his hand in the cookie jar.

And finally, when Snowden told his superiors he was leaving his job to seek medical treatment, no one interceded. No one reacted with suspicion.

Snowden, working at NSA, became familiar enough with the Agency’s complex architecture to steal anywhere from 20,000 to 1.2 million files, also lodged over 10 complaints about illegal NSA spying, and walked away into the night without so much as a peep from the biggest spying apparatus in the world.

If you believe that, I’ve got beachfront condos for sale on Jupiter.

For background, here is an excerpt from a piece I wrote last July about Snowden, the NSA, and the inconsistencies in the official story:

Let’s begin here: If you absolutely must have a hero, watch Superman movies.

If your need for a hero is so great, so cloying, so heavy, so juicy that it swamps your curiosity, don’t read this.

If you can’t separate the value of Snowden’s revelations from the question of who he is, if you can’t entertain the notion that covert ops and intelligence-agency games are reeking with cover stories, false trails and limited hangouts, you need more fun in your life.

Okay. Let’s look at Snowden’s brief history as reported by The Guardian. Are there any holes?

Is the Pope Catholic?

In 2003, at age 19, without a high school diploma, Snowden enlists in the Army. He begins a training program to join the Special Forces. At what point after enlistment can a new soldier start this elite training program?

Snowden breaks both legs in an exercise. He’s discharged from the Army. Is that automatic? How about healing and then resuming service?

If he was accepted in the Special Forces training program because he had special computer skills, then why discharge him simply because he broke both legs?

“Sorry, Ed, but with two broken legs we just don’t think you can hack into terrorist data anymore. You were good, but not now. Try Wal-Mart. They always have openings.”

Snowden shifts jobs. Boom. He’s now in the CIA, in IT. He has no high school diploma.

In 2007, Snowden is sent to Geneva. He’s only 23 years old. The CIA gives him diplomatic cover there. He’s put in charge of maintaining computer-network security. Major job. Obviously, he has access to a wide range of classified documents. Sound a little odd? He’s just a kid. Maybe he has his GED. Otherwise, he still doesn’t have a high school diploma.

Was Snowden being groomed for an operation that was to come? Was he, knowingly or unknowingly, being set up to do something big?

Snowden says that during this period, in Geneva, one of the incidents that really sours him on the CIA is the “turning of a Swiss banker.” One night, CIA guys get a banker drunk, encourage him to drive home, the banker gets busted, the CIA guys help him out, and then with that bond formed, they eventually get the banker to reveal deep secrets to the Agency.

This sours Snowden? He’s that naïve? He doesn’t know by now that the CIA does this sort of thing all the time? He’s shocked? He “didn’t sign up for this?” Come on.

In 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA. Why? Presumably because he’s disillusioned. Or did he actually stay on with the CIA as a covert operative?

It should noted here that Snowden claimed he could do very heavy damage to the entire US intelligence community in 2008, but decided to wait because he thought Obama, just coming into the Presidency, might keep his “transparency” promise.

After two years with the CIA in Geneva, Snowden really had the capability to take down the whole US inter-agency intelligence network, or a major chunk of it? Or did he have an inflated sense of self-importance—in which case, he would have made a good target for a later mission “to shake up the whole world.”

In 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA and goes to work in the private sector. Dell, Booze Allen Hamilton. In this latter job, Snowden is assigned to work at the NSA.

He’s an outsider, but, again, he claims to have so much access to so much sensitive NSA data that he can take down the whole US intelligence network in a single day. The. Whole. US. Intelligence. Network.

This is Ed Snowden’s sketchy legend. It’s all red flags, alarm bells, sirens, flashing lights.

“Let’s see. We have a new guy coming to work for us here at NSA today? Oh, a whiz kid. Ed Snowden. Outside contractor. Booz Allen. He’s not really a full-time employee of the NSA. Twenty-nine years old. No high school diploma. Has a GED. He worked for the CIA and quit. Hmm. Why did he quit? Oh, never mind, who cares? No problem.

“Tell you what. Let’s give this kid access to our most sensitive data. Sure. Why not? Everything. That stuff we keep behind 986 walls? Where you have to pledge the life of your first-born against the possibility you’ll go rogue? Let Snowden see it all. Sure. What the hell. I’m feeling charitable. He seems like a nice kid.”

Here is a more likely scenario.

Snowden never took any of those thousands of documents on an NSA computer. Never happened. He didn’t hack in. He didn’t steal anything.

He was working an op, either as a dupe or knowingly. He was working for…well, let’s see, who would that be?

Who was he working for before he entered the private sector and wound up at NSA?

The CIA.

Would that be the same CIA who hates the NSA with a venomous fervor?

Would that be the same CIA who’s been engaged in a turf war with NSA for decades?

The same CIA who’s watched their own prestige and funding diminish, as human intelligence has given way to electronic snooping?

Yes, it would be. CIA just can’t match the NSA when it comes to gathering signals-intell.

Wired Magazine, June 2013 issue. James Bamford, author of three books on the NSA, states:

“In April, as part of its 2014 budget request, the Pentagon [which rules the NSA] asked Congress for $4.7 billion for increased ‘cyberspace operations,’ nearly $1 billion more than the 2013 allocation. At the same time, budgets for the CIA and other intelligence agencies were cut by almost the same amount, $4.4 billion. A portion of the money going to…[NSA] will be used to create 13 cyberattack teams.”

That means spying money. Far more for NSA, far less for CIA.

Turf war.

People at the CIA, who were planning this operation for quite some time, were able to access those NSA documents, and they gave the documents to Snowden and he ran with them.

The CIA, of course, couldn’t be seen as the NSA leaker. They needed a guy. They needed a guy who could appear to be from the NSA, to make things look worse for the NSA and shield the CIA.

They had Ed Snowden. He had worked for the CIA in Geneva, in a high-level position, overseeing computer-systems security.

Somewhere in his CIA past, Ed meets a fellow CIA guy who sits down with him and says, “You know, Ed, things have gone too damn far. The NSA is spying on everybody all the time. I can show you proof. They’ve gone beyond the point of trying to catch terrorists. They’re doing something else. They’re expanding a Surveillance State, which can only lead to one thing: the destruction of America, what America stands for, what you and I know America is supposed to be. The NSA isn’t like us, Ed. We go after terrorists for real. That’s it. Whereas NSA goes after everybody. We have to stop it. We need a guy… and there are those of us who think you might be that guy…”

During the course of this one disingenuous conversation, the CIA is killing 37 innocent civilians all over the world with drones, but that’s beside the point. Ahem.

Ed says, “Tell me more. I’m intrigued.”

He eventually buys in.

Put two scenarios on the truth scale and assess them. Which is more likely? The tale Snowden told to Glenn Greenwald, with all its holes, with its super-naive implications about the fumbling, bumbling NSA, or a scenario in which Snowden is the CIA’s boy?

And if Snowden is still working for the CIA, he and his buds aren’t the only people who want to take the NSA down a notch. No. Because, for example, NSA has been spying on everybody inside the Beltway.

Spying on politicians with secrets.


So imagine this conversation taking place, in a car, on a lonely road outside Washington, late at night. The speakers are Congressman X and a private operative representing the NSA:

“Well, Congressman, do you remember January 6th? A Monday afternoon, a men’s room in the park off—”

“What the hell are you talking about!”

“A stall in the men’s room. The kid. He was wearing white high-tops. A Skins cap. T-shirt. Dark hair. Scar across his left cheek. Blue tattoo on his right thigh.”


“We have very good audio and video. Anytime you want to watch it, let me know.”

Dead silence.

“What do you want?”

“Right now, Congressman? We want you to come down hard on Snowden. Press it. He’s a traitor. He should tried and convicted.”

The Congressmen pulls himself together:

“Yeah, well, of course I’ll pound on Snowden publicly and call him a traitor. Sure. But I have to tell you, I know a dozen Washington players who’d like the NSA to take a hit. They’re pissed off. They don’t like to be spied on.”

If you’re a Congressman or a Senator, and you have nasty little secrets, and you know NSA is spying on you, because it’s spying on everyone in the Congress, who’s your potential best friend?

Somebody who can go up against the NSA, somebody who wants to go up against the NSA.

And who might that be?

The CIA.

It’s not perfect, but it’s the best you can do.

You get down on your knees and pray that Ed Snowden is still working for the CIA.

Who else, besides the CIA and numerous politicians inside the Beltway, would be aching to take the NSA down a notch? Who else would be rooting hard for this former (?) CIA employee, Snowden, to succeed?

How about certain players on Wall Street?

Still waiting to be uncovered? NSA spying to collect elite financial data, spying on the people who have that data: the major investment banks. NSA scooping up that data to predict, manipulate and profit from trading markets all over the world.

A trillion-dollar operation.

Snowden worked for Booz Allen, which is owned by the Carlyle Group ($170 billion in assets). Carlyle, the infamous. Their money is making money in 160 investment funds.

A few of Carlyle’s famous front men in its history: George H.W. Bush, James Baker (U.S. Secretary of State), Frank Carlucci (U.S. Secretary of Defense and CIA Deputy Director), John Major (British Prime Minister), Arthur Levitt (Chairman of the SEC).

Suppose you’re one of the princes in the NSA castle, and Ed Snowden has just gone public with your documents. You’re saying, “Let’s see, this kid worked for Booz Allen, which is owned by the Carlyle Group. We (NSA) have been spying over Carlyle’s shoulder, stealing their proprietary financial data. What are the chances they’re getting a little revenge on us now?”

So there is the CIA, Congress and Wall Street players, all of whom would like, privately, to get the NSA off their backs.

Snowden’s true CIA bosses know how to access NSA files. They do it, and they give those files to their secret front man, Snowden.

Perhaps we could be talking about a small number of genuine patriots within the CIA who want to take down the NSA a few notches, for laudable reasons.

But if you don’t like this CIA-Snowden scenario, feel free to assume the NSA is such a competent and brilliant organization when it comes to spying on the global population… but they just can’t get it together to stop one man from logging in and stealing their own farm and strolling away.

They can’t stop one man, who now says he filed over 10 official complaints about illegal spying while he was working at their Agency.

–Jon Rappoport

Ukraine: The Endgame

On one level, the struggle over Ukraine is a deadly U.S./EU/Russian game of territory, involving governments, intelligence agencies, corporations and banks.

But at a higher level, as usual, sit the elite globalist players. And their motives are different. They see every conflict as an opportunity to negotiate the aftermath.

And that negotiation produces a codified structure of cooperation between the enemies that is larger than the previous structure.

For example, there were banks and corporations (Standard Oil, ITT, IBM, etc.) who were aiding both sides in World War II. And in the aftermath, a much larger market for goods (Europe, U.S.) was created.

The U.S. government, in its European rebuilding efforts, made sure of that.

Post-World War II, Europe itself started on the road toward creating the current European Union, which is a vast bureaucracy that sits over the entire continent.

This is the globalist principle: Instigate conflicts in order to build larger cooperative structures in the aftermath. And control those cooperative structures.

That way, you put more people, land, resources and labor under the umbrella.

There is only one exception. If either of the conflicting parties, in the aftermath, refuses to build those cooperative bridges, the globalist scheme doesn’t work.

So, vis-à-vis the Ukraine conflict, if Russia or the Unites States, in the aftermath, says no to building new cooperative structures (either out in the open or behind closed doors), that “defector” is now a globalist target for further chaos and destabilization — until it relents and joins the club.

Above the saber rattling, angry accusations and characterizations of “a new Cold War,” Ukraine is a pawn in the globalist game of bringing Russian and U.S. power players into closer accord — kicking and screaming, if necessary.

In accord, but not in a good way. In a globalist way.

Because the globalist agenda is a planet of one nation, where all borders are ultimately erased; and the ruling class of money, corporate power and political torque is enthroned.

This program is neither left nor right. It hides behind exacerbated conflict between left and right.

It engenders a reality in which left versus right appears to be the only political game in town.

But it isn’t the only game.

You could call the globalist agenda socialism, communism, fascism, corporatism, liberal, conservative and other names. And each one of those names would contain a kernel of truth. But in fact, globalism is simply control from above. Period.

Yes, there must be certain issues on which the left and right disagree. There must be differences. And these issues must be hot — hot enough to rally supporters who scream at each other across the barricades.

Because that is the kind of distraction globalism needs to do its methodical work in secret.

If Ukraine follows the blueprint, at the end of the conflict, the U.S. and Russia will be seething at each other. And then, a mediating figure will appear, perhaps from the Rockefeller camp.

And in a private meeting, he will say, “Boys, cool down. We have a plan. And in this plan, everybody wins. You’ll all go home with something. Look. Look at this. And this. And this.”

The peacemaker.

–Jon Rappoport

Guns, Schools, Mind Control, Revolution

“Padre, there are subtleties! We are not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime and with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He will be your true Christian, ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the heart at the thought of killing a fly. Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it works. ” — Minister in “A Clockwork Orange,” an adaptation of Anthony Burgess’ 1962 dystopian novella of the same name

Fingers pointed like a gun. A Pop Tart chewed into the shape of a gun. A toy gun.

All over America, schools are exercising what they call zero-tolerance policy to suspend young children packing “suggestions of guns.”

Behind this practice is the idea that populations can be conditioned against owning real guns. Start early, indoctrinate the kids and society will change.

In turn, such thinking rests on the premise that human beings are Pavlovian dogs, programmed biological machines. If the program currently running is faulty and fails to obey the mandate of “greatest good for the greatest number,” change the program.

If the brain reveals a chemical imbalance (although no research has even established a baseline for normal balance), insert psychiatric drugs and correct the problem.

Maintain surveillance on the entire population, thus convincing millions they may be potential law-breakers, and they will modify their behavior, toe the line, march straight ahead and keep their mouths shut.

As this sort of flawed reasoning expands and spreads, people begin to believe that a model of radical reconstruction is viable and good.

For instance, how many people would now respond favorably to the idea that everyone can be programmed to forget guns even exist?

How many people would agree to a program that “guaranteed” racial prejudice would be wiped from human memory?

How many people would happily respond to the notion that environmental destruction, as an impulse, could be removed from the brain?

How many of these people would even notice that such programs were eliminating freedom? And if they did notice, how many would care?

Operant conditioning and mind control could have side effects? What does that mean, if freedom was never real in the first place?

A recent opinion piece in The Harvard Crimson by student Sandra Y.L. Korn was subtitled: “Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice.” Korn asserted that academic research promoting “oppression” should be stopped. Perhaps you can imagine what a university council, convened to define and rule on “justice,” would look and sound like.

(Question for consideration by the Committee: Should University funds for African-American left-handed lesbians supersede money devoted to correcting unequal treatment of differently abled, wheelchair-bound Hispanic immigrants whose parents descend from bloodlines of Spanish conquistadors in the New World?)

The idea that you can obliterate “bad parts” of the brain and preserve the good parts is now embedded in standard science. It is childish, absurd and dangerous to the extreme.

Brain researchers are, on the whole, disinterested in the law. They aim to create a new species for whom no laws will be needed. People will do the right thing, because their upgraded brains tell them to.

If these researchers and their allies succeed, what we are now calling revolutions will be as Pop Tarts are to intercontinental ballistic missiles. We’ll have mass uprisings that will shake the Earth.

Because when freedom is slipping away — is actually being drained away — and when people know it in their bones, when they can no longer deny it or sleep through it, they will show exactly how important they think it is.

They will no longer believe that all this programming and brain research are aimed at curing illness. They will understand the madness being visited on them.

–Jon Rappoport

Buying A Ticket To The War

Peter Pundit, who has appeared on more than 1,000 television news shows, sits in front of a mirror and combs his hair. He applies a bit of powder to his cheeks.

His specialty is war. When troops invade and bombs drop, he’s busy making trenchant comments on the news. These days, things are rather quiet.

He longs for the war that wasn’t. Syria.

A voice in Pundit’s head begins talking. He’s heard it before. It’s strong, too strong for television. But he likes it. He wishes he could use it in public.

The voice says:

You’re just a click away on your remote. Get the popcorn. It’s a blast. This one has moral stature. They used chemical weapons, so they’ll pay.

Welcome to the Syrian theater! All the players are assembled. Which one will intervene and turn a two-day blitz into a global conflagration?

We realize you don’t have whatever it takes to actually enlist in the Armed Forces and do six insane tours in Afghanistan building A-frames and wondering when one of those villagers will shoot you in the head. No problem. You can experience a very good simulacrum in your own mind. The anticipation. The adrenaline flow. The sweaty palms. Then the limbic thrust of revenge. Just watch the news.

Boom! You’re there. The attack is on! The sky over Damascus lights up! What unknown newsman, standing on a rooftop, narrating the unfolding scene, will emerge from the carnage with name recognition and a sudden career bump that makes his colleagues want to murder him in his sleep.

America is united again. Feel it. What took us so long to find each other once more? Post your experience on Facebook. Share your ecstasy with faux friends. Recite the Pledge of Allegiance against a hip-hop track and hope it goes viral.

This is the Show! This is what counts! Pretext? Invented provocation? False flag? Don’t bother me, I’m eating war!

If only we still had the Rat Pack around. Frank, Dean, Sammy, Lawford, and Joey Bishop. They could do a Sarin Night at the Desert Inn and wow the crowd with their support for the guys who launch the Tomahawks.

If your brother-in-law is over at the house as you watch the missile strike and he says, “You know, there’s no good proof Assad used poison gas,” poke him in the eye with a sizzling hot dog on a stick and yell, “USA! USA! USA!”

You might also try, “Obamacare! Immigration reform! Climate change! Carbon tax! NSA! Surveillance State! Gun control! Drone attacks!”

Who cares about Fast And Furious, the IRS nonprofit division, Benghazi? They’re in the rearview mirror and we’re accelerating down the superhighway.

Mind-controlled androids? Yup. This is who we are! Love it, live it, watch it, soak it in!

God bless Congress for giving Obama back Constitutional authority to kill the enemy of the terrorists we’re backing.

The voice in Pundit’s head fades out, and he’s left sitting in front of the mirror wishing for what might have been. He could have done “Meet the Press” and “Face the Nation” on the same Sunday. He could have been the man with his prurient hand on the pulse of the nation.

He could have praised the President, the troops, the State Department and the Joint Chiefs for their perspicacity. He could have looked onto the camera with stony eyes, as if he were a warrior instead of a second-rate chess player in the Club at Yale so many years ago (when his fantasies went down the drain).

Perhaps he could have parlayed his Syrian TV stint into a diplomatic assignment abroad: London, Paris, where people still knew what intellect meant.

He could have spread tax dollars around for dinners with beautiful women. And then somewhere, in a dark hotel room, he could have heard one of those women whisper in his ear, “Peter Pundit, you’re a man. A lion.”

Oh, well. Perhaps it’s time to change the tune. He could develop a new specialty. The share-and-care agenda. We’re all in this together. Help the poor. With this in tow, he’d surely obtain some face time on television. No more stony gaze. Instead, a look of empathy. Sprinkle in pepper bits of outrage. Yes.

And he could still live in his nice house in the suburbs and really not care one whit about those who are suffering.

There’s always a payoff.

–Jon Rappoport

Exposed: Sandy Hook Shooter’s Biggest Threat Still Lives

Adam Lanza, the purported Sandy Hook school shooter, is the subject of an ongoing investigation in Connecticut. No, it’s not a police probe; it’s about “mental health.”

The investigation is all about Lanza’s medical history, what diagnoses were made, who the doctors were and what psychiatric drugs they prescribed Lanza.

The Governor of Connecticut is ultimately in charge, in order to make recommendations about improving “mental health” in the State and preventing future violent tragedies.

But the inquiry has stalled.

Despite multiple agencies apparently having possession of Lanza’s medical and psychiatric history, these reports have been held close to the vest and not released.


There are a number of reasons.

First and obviously, the psychiatric drugs didn’t make Lanza better; they made him worse. And some of those drugs, like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are known to cause violent behavior, including homicide.

The Assistant Attorney General of Connecticut, Patrick Kwanashie, remarked, when asked why the list of psychiatric drugs Lanza took over his lifetime wasn’t being exposed: “[Y]ou can cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.”

Rightly or wrongly cause people to stop? Kwanishie meant wrongly, but the truth is: rightly.

Here are telling quotes from two recent Sheila Matthews AbleChild.org articles that suggest further reasons why Lanza’s psychiatric history isn’t being revealed in detail:

  • “What is known is that Adam was treated over many years, by many mental health care practitioners, for his disorders.” Can’t expose all these doctors’ failures.
  • “Adam’s primary psychiatrist was Dr. Paul Fox who, in 2011, surrendered his license to practice medicine in Connecticut and New York, destroyed his records and moved to New Zealand.” Well, doesn’t that raise some juicy questions.
  • “The last acknowledged mental health treatment was provided by the Yale Child Studies Center when Adam was fifteen years old, abruptly ending in February of 2007. Apparently, Nancy Lanza had reported to Kathleen Koenig that there had been an adverse reaction to the psychiatric drug, Celexa, Adam had been prescribed by the Yale Center.” Celexa is an SSRI antidepressant, and as mentioned above, all the SSRIs are known to produce violent behavior in patients.

To further indict Yale (an eternal Connecticut institution of great prestige), AbleChild.org reported:

After all, according to the State Police Report, it was Dr. Robert A. King of the Yale Child Study Center who indicated “that serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) agents such as Zoloft, Luvox, Celexa, Lexapro or Paxil, are useful in reducing these symptoms, sometimes in conjunction with a low dose of an atypical neuroleptic such as Risperidone.”

I suggest you read the work of psychiatrist Peter Breggin to discover the actual effects of these drugs: destabilization, manic states, violence, etc. Start with Breggin’s landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry.

Yet more reasons why Lanza’s true and complete psychiatric-drug history hasn’t been published thus far? Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy has, at the very least, a strong sentimental attachment to Yale, since he is a lifelong dyslexic and Yale has a center devoted to the study of dyslexia.

More importantly, to the degree that Yale could be exposed and absorb tremendous negative publicity regarding Lanza, the Governor of Connecticut wants to protect that institution. It’s part of his job description.

Then there is the little matter of the Governor’s son, Ben, being arrested on a 2009 charge of trying to steal marijuana from a man. The Governor remarks that Ben was suffering from severe depression, is in treatment now and is doing well.

Does this mean the criminal charge was vacated in favor of psychiatric treatment? Does the Governor want to risk negative exposure for a psychiatric system that saved his son from doing jail time?

But above and beyond all these reasons why Lanza’s complete and detailed psychiatric-drug history has been hidden, there is this: Connecticut is home to a collection of important pharmaceutical companies. And yes, Virginia, there is something called the domino effect. If Lanza’s meds were publicly connected to the Sandy Hook shooting, it would be bad for the overall medical-drug business. Very bad.

These drugs companies protect each other when the chips are down, because they’re all selling highly toxic drugs and that basic secret has to stay in the closet.

Here is a list of drug and medical research companies that have either corporate headquarters or significant research facilities in Connecticut: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingleheim, Rib-X Pharmaceuticals, Purdue Pharma, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Achillion Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer.

Pfizer, of course, manufactures Zoloft (an SSRI antidepressant) and Xanax, a highly addictive drug given for anxiety and panic attacks.

Do all these corporate brethren of toxic drugs exert major influence in Connecticut State politics?

Is the pope Catholic?

Circling the wagons to prevent Lanza’s psychiatric-drug history from exposure would be on their to-do list.

Finally, all roads in Connecticut lead to Yale. The University engages in a boggling amount of medical research and teaching activity. Who pays for it? Here is a reported list of some of its corporate funding partners who engage in pharmaceutical-related business: Boehringer, Bristol-Myers, Roche, Merck, Ziopharm Oncology, Achillion, CuraGen Corp., Metrum Research Group and Orbi Med, a company that does asset management in the “global health sciences” sector and has $5 billion in assets.

A 2008 Archstone Consulting study concluded pharma companies added more than $14 billion to the Connecticut economy in that year. And Connecticut colleges and universities laid out about $600 million for bioscience research in 2008, which was 81 percent of their whole academic research-and-development pie.

Connecticut is a relatively small state. To have all these pharmaceutical titans converge on it (and especially at the State’s most famous institution, Yale) versus releasing one boy’s psychiatric-drug history (an event that could start a domino effect within the whole pharmaceutical industry), who is going to exert pressure? Who is going to play its cards? Who is going to call in favors to keep secrets?

The names Sandy Hook and Newtown, however, are now so famous that, somehow, we may see Lanza’s concealed psychiatric records emerge into the light of day.

Peter Lanza, Adam’s father, says he has his son’s medical and psychiatric records and is willing to release them to the investigating commission.

However, that doesn’t mean the public will ever see them.

Big Pharma, day in and day out, celebrates its massive proliferation of drugs for every condition under the sun, including those conditions that are invented out of whole cloth. It creates the illusion that the drugs are absolutely necessary in order to maintain health.

Admitting that this is all propaganda and further confessing that some of its drugs routinely kill people and push them over the edge into violence are not part of their program.

And when it comes to an event as explosive as Sandy Hook, accepting blame because the accused shooter was ingesting, for years, psychiatric drugs that scramble neurotransmitters and cause extremely violent behavior… that is out of the question.

The pharmaceutical illusion must be maintained.

A film in which I was interviewed, and on which I worked as associate producer, “American Addict,”  is now available at Netflix and other platforms. Breggin is interviewed, as well Barbara Starfield, M.D., the late revered public health expert who blew the whistle on medically caused deaths in her landmark study “Is US Health Really the Best in the World” (JAMA, July 26, 2000).

–Jon Rappoport

Social Sciences And The Destruction Of The Individual

You may or not be interested in the sexual practices of Trobriand Islanders. You may or not be interested in what some tribe in the Amazon jungle is doing on a slow Thursday.

But what sociologists and anthropologists have written about such subjects is as much science as your sitting in a park and writing notes on what people are doing in the playground.

One of the founders of sociology, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), coined the phrase “collective consciousness.” Durkheim insisted there were “inherent” qualities that existed in society apart from individuals. Exposing his own absurd theory, he went so far as to claim suicide was one of those qualities, as if the “phenomenon” were present beyond any individual choice to end life.

He wrote: “Man is the more vulnerable to self-destruction the more he is detached from any collectivity, that is to say, the more he lives as an egoist.”

In other words, according to Burkheim, the individual who rejects the norms of society must be wrapped up in himself in some morally repugnant way. There are no other alternatives.

In his 1893 book, The Division of Labour in Society, Burkheim spun moral conscience in the following fashion: “… Equip yourself to fulfil usefully a specific function.” He cited this as a kind of command issued by collective consciousness. This is the presentation of the individual human as a cog in the machine.

From the mud of sociology’s beginnings, the long sordid history of the academic discipline brings us to something like this. Peter Callero, a sociology professor at Western Oregon University, wrote in 2013 in the second edition of his book The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives: “Most people today view personhood from a psychological perspective where the individual and society are assumed to be distinct entities. … [S]ociologists offer compelling evidence that the individual and society are one in the same, mutually supportive, and necessarily intertwined. The fact that most of us believe otherwise is evidence of a powerful cultural myth — the myth of individualism.”

Callero is talking about an absence of any uniqueness from person to person. He’s asserting there is no significant distinction between any two people. There aren’t two individuals to begin with. They’re a group.

This downgrading of the individual human spirit is far from accidental. It’s launched as a sustained propaganda campaign, the purpose of which is top-down control.

In 1931, Charles A. Beard wrote in Harper’s: “The cold truth is that the individualist creed of everybody for himself and the devil take the hindmost is principally responsible for the distress in which Western civilization finds itself — with investment racketeering at one end and labor racketeering at the other. Whatever merits the creed may have had in days of primitive agriculture and industry, it is not applicable in an age of technology, science, and rationalized economy. Once useful, it has become a danger to society.”

Beard, a celebrated historian, appears to see no difference between individual racketeering and the individual freely choosing and living his own life. For him, society must rely on organization, and the individual takes the leftovers.

In 1956, Jacob Bronowski wrote in Science and Human Values: “British empiricist philosophy is individualist. And it is of course clear that if the only criterion of true and false which a man accepts is that man’s, then he has no base for social agreement. The question of how man ought to behave is a social question, which always involves several people; and if he accepts no evidence and no judgement except his own, he has no tools with which to frame an answer.”

Bronowski is quite sure that hearing other people’s evidence and then keeping one’s own counsel is wrong. One has to accept that evidence on its face? This is sheer idiocy. Individuals are capable of deciding, on their own, what social agreements to enter into.

Even more to the point, Beard and Bronowski were both high-achieving individuals — who then turned around and celebrated the kind of society that would try to flatten and level the individual to an average.

The world has many such experts. They rise high enough, and then they preach collectivism. They become social meddlers. They believe they have the tools to plan what kind of world we should live in — since they are not part of that world anymore.

Freed from the obligations with which they want to bind us, they can pontificate and scheme and fantasize about social, economic and political constructs in which the group is all.

This is elitism par excellence.

I’ll stick with George Orwell, who wrote in a review for the Observer in 1944: “It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of.”

The people who take it upon themselves to impose a planned society on everyone else don’t have much to say about freedom. Why would they? It’s a wild card, and it belongs to the individual, whom they consider merely an obstacle to the so-called progress of the group.

The very basis of sociology and anthropology, with which college students’ heads are filled, is: Know the group. These pseudo-disciplines have thrived because elites with real power are doing everything they can to eradicate the concept of the individual.

Why would anyone perpetuate the myth that these two academic subjects are social sciences? There is nothing scientific about them. Their practitioners may devise computer models and debate the merits of one generality about cultures versus another. But otherwise, we’re looking at nothing more than a gateway into planning a world management system — in which the individual plays no part.

–Jon Rappoport

Hope In The Holiday Season

Untold millions (billions?) of people across the world are waking up to official lies, cover stories and conspiracies.

These people are crossing the bridge, so to speak, to see what’s on the other side.

The question is, do they stay there once they’ve crossed over, or do they try to retreat back to their former positions as ordinary citizens with dimmed perception?

It’s quite a trick to a) maintain the status of “normal person” while b) seeing through the enormous ruse.

In fact, in the long run, it’s impossible.

Therefore, the retreat backward involves self-induced mind control. In other words, the enlightened person un-enlightens himself. He re-educates himself to accept all the lies he saw through.

He “rejoins the church” he once quit. And he does so with a fervor.

Not long ago, I spoke with a college professor who detailed that journey: “About 10 years into my career as a teacher, I became aware that I was educating my students into a whole series of official stories that were egregiously false. So I began to expose the lies in my classroom.

“This led to a clash with officials at my school. I realized my neck was on the line. I had to make a choice.

“I decided to survive. I went back to accepting what I knew was false. The process by which I did this was… you could call it self-administered brainwashing.

“I’m certainly not proud of it. But that’s what I did.”

The teacher went on to tell me he knew a number of other professors at various colleges who’d done the same thing. They weren’t proud of it, either, but they’d made their bed.

In our society, our culture, the pendulum is swinging back and forth. People are discovering truth, and then they are denying its implications.

In some cases, these people work for companies they know are part of the problem. Others work for government agencies. Others are in the military or the police. They’re caught in the middle.

This is one reason why we live in a surveillance state, one reason why psychiatrists have become far more important authority figures, one reason why dependence on government is being pushed as never before.

The intention is to drive people back into their lives as obedient citizens, as opposed to free people who are seeing more and more of the truth.

Television, of course, plays a central role in this effort. Aside from what is laughingly called the news, the endless proliferation of crime dramas and sports coverage fulfills the desire for well-defined outcomes.

Good triumphs over evil. The good guys arrest the bad guys. One team wins, the other team loses. It’s clear-cut. Simple. With relatively few exceptions, things resolve the way they’re supposed to.

If the fictional hero is “fighting against the establishment,” it’s revealed he’s really battling “a rogue element.”

So the television audience can rest easy. It’s all OK. The authorities are on the side of the angels.

People caught in the middle tend to see retreat as their best option. They first looked for some stable platform on which they could stand, in order to send the old order to its demise; but not finding it, they opted for safety.

However, the itch and discomfort and the moral crisis don’t dissolve. They remain.

It is in this tension that new ideas and new solutions are born.

We are brought up to believe that if something is wrong, there is a prescribed solution; if not, nothing was really wrong.

This is the big lie. This is a prominent piece of mind control. It’s successful because official bodies are full of prescribed solutions. They appoint themselves princes of solutions. They breathe and excrete solutions every day.

Promoting and bringing about a wider gulf between the rich and the poor is another official strategy designed to force people to fall in line. Those on the edge of sinking into poverty are less likely to step out and defend conspiracy researchers and citizen reporters.

So it’s all the more unusual and forceful that we are seeing this relentless building wave of anti-establishment research. It means that people all over the world are fed up with the status quo and the official scenarios put in place to protect it.

There was a time, 30 years ago, when the best way I could get information out was to give lectures, have them taped on audio cassette, and send the tapes to friends and allies.

Fortunately, that time has passed. Now, thousands and thousands of researchers are being read, seen and heard online.

On some days, it doesn’t seem like we’re winning. But we are.

Keep it up. Find ways to cross that bridge from official stories to the truth and stay there. No one said it would be easy. It’s always tempting to sink back into a trance.

But we do have an inherent desire to see things through. It’s strong. It’s compelling. It’s real.

Some years ago, a painter friend sent me the following note. Its implications are universal:

I used to be a house divided. I knew the work I wanted to do wouldn’t become popular in the marketplace. I was torn in half. I knew how to please the powers-that-be. But then it occurred to me: what would happen if I catered to the dominant culture and still failed to prosper? That would be the ultimate irony. If I went my own way, to the hilt, and did the work I wanted to do, I would have freedom, and the joy of looking at what I had produced. I wouldn’t go to sleep every night wondering what the hell I was doing. I would know.

That spirit is very hard to kill. In the long run, it’s impossible to destroy it.

It keeps resurfacing, like a dream that is more real than waking life.

–Jon Rappoport

The Individual Versus The Planned Society

At the outbreak of World War II, the Council on Foreign Relations began making plans for the post-war world.

The question it posed was this: Could America exist as a self-sufficient nation, or would it have to go outside its borders for vital resources?

Predictably, the answer was: imperial empire.

The United States would not only need to obtain natural resources abroad, it would have to embark on endless conquest to assure continued access.

The CFR, of course, wasn’t just some think tank. It was connected to the highest levels of U.S. government, through the State Department. A front for Rockefeller interests, it actually stood above the government.

Behind all its machinations was the presumption that planned societies were the future of the planet — not open societies.

Through wars, clandestine operations, legislation, treaties, manipulation of nations’ debt, and control of banks and money supplies, countries could be turned into “managed units.”

Increasingly, the populations of countries would be regulated and directed and held in thrall to the state.

And the individual? He would go the way of other extinct species.

For several decades, the pseudo-discipline called “social science” had been turning out reams of studies and reports on tribes, societal groupings and so-called classes of people.

Deeply embedded in the social sciences were psychological warfare specialists who, after World War II, emerged with a new academic status and new field of study: mass communications.

Their objective? The broadcasting of messages that would, in accordance with political goals, provoke hostility or pacified acceptance in the masses — hostility in support of new wars and acceptance of greater domestic government control.

Nowhere in these formulas was the individual protected. He was considered a wild card, a loose cannon; and he needed to be demeaned, made an outsider and characterized as a criminal who opposed the needs of the collective.

As the years and decades passed, this notion of the collective and its requirements, in a “humane civilization,” expanded. Never mind that out of view, the rich were getting richer and poor were getting poorer. That fact was downplayed, and the cover story — “share and care” — took center stage.

On every level of society, people were urged to think of themselves as part of a greater group. The individual and his hopes, his unique dreams, his desires and energies, his determination and willpower were all portrayed as relics of an unworkable and deluded past.

In many cases, lone pioneers who were innovating in directions that could, in fact, benefit all of humanity, were absorbed into the one body of the collective, heralded as humane and then dumped on the side of the road with their inventions.

Their breakthroughs could upset favored monopolies and actually elevate the lives of people. Therefore, men like Nikola Tesla and Buckminster Fuller had to be buried.

In other cases, there was very little praise before burial: Wilhelm Reich, Dr. William Frederick Koch, Royal Rife.

In the planned society, no one rises above the mass, except those men who run, operate and propagandize the mass.

In order to affect the illusion of individual success, as a kind of safety valve for the yearnings of millions of people, the cult of celebrity emerged. But even there, extraordinary tales of rise and then precipitous fall, glory and then humiliation, were and are presented as cautionary melodramas.

The onrush of technocracy gears its wild promises to genetic manipulation, brain-machine interfaces, and other automatic downloads assuring “greater life.” No effort required. Plug in, and ascend to new heights.

If the individual has any place in this future, it is: working at a job, keeping his or her head down, supporting the family, gradually wearing down, and dying. In more and more cases, the job is within, or attached to, government.

Freedom? Independence? Old flickering dreams vicariously viewed on a screen.

Individual greatness, imagination, creative power? A sunken galleon loaded with treasure that, upon closer investigation, was never there to begin with.

The plan is all that is important. The plan involves universal surveillance, in order to map the lives of billions of people, move by move. In order to design systems of control within which those billions live, day to day.

But the worst outcome of all is: The individual cannot even conceive of his own life and future in large terms. The individual responds to tighter and control with a shrug, as if to say, “What difference does it make?”

He has bought the collectivist package. His own uniqueness and inner resources are submerged under layers of passive acceptance of the consensus.

And make no mistake about it, this consensus reality, for all its exaltation of the group, is not heraldic in any sense. The propagandized veneer covers a cynical exploitation of every man, woman and child.

Strapped by amnesia about his own freedom and what it can truly mean, the individual opts for a place in the collective gloom. He may grumble and complain, but he fits in.

He can’t remember another possibility.

Every enterprise in which he finds himself turns out to be a pale copy of the real thing.

This is why I have been so critical of the recent ballot initiatives urging labeling of genetically modified food. The group, in this case, is the mass of consumers, people who buy. This is the apotheosis of a movement against a titan, a monster, Monsanto. “Know what you buy, know what you eat, and we will triumph over evil.”

The prospect of victory on these terms is, in the long run, non-existent. Why? Because the deep energies and power and desire for freedom remain untapped.

Based on supposed knowledge of what works in the political arena, the men who have been dictating the terms of the “good message” are shortchanging this opportunity.

As businessmen, they are tuned to the marketplace. But that is not where this struggle really lives. It lives in the hidden places of every repressed individual who wants out, who wants to come back to himself, who wants to stride out on a stage and take the battle to the enemy.

And these failed political campaigns are an example of what millions of people in this country want on a much broader level.

They want freedom and power again. They want to feel alive. They want to feel they’re fighting and winning in the true space where the heart and soul of the struggle can be experienced in the deepest way, where their own amnesia shatters and they remember who they are and they see what evil is trying to accomplish, in order to keep them in a trance.

When a political campaign taps into that, it will have legs. It will have legs and wings, it will mean something about victory in this stolen nation.

And it will mean that the extinct individual returns.

–Jon Rappoport

Turning Mass Shootings Into A Police State And Other Games

Now that everybody knows (cough, cough) the Los Angeles International Airport shooter was “anti-government,” it follows as night from day that a) he must have developed his political views from conspiracy websites and b) those sites are culpable, right?

Is J.D. Salinger dead enough yet? Can we prosecute his corpse because Mark David Chapman read his dreary novel Catcher in the Rye and then killed John Lennon?

How about all those young men who found “the good pages” in an embargoed copy of Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer and then left home and family, or the later generation of boys who imbibed Jack Kerouac’s On the Road and joined the Beat Generation? Surely some able lawyer can mount a class-action suit against the estates of those two dead authors.

Any day now, I’m expecting the White House to announce the formation of a new cabinet post: the Inflammatory Rhetoric Department.

Hiring: analysts, evaluation experts and SWAT teams trained for home and workplace invasions.

“What are you contemplating, Mr. Smith? Where did you get your information?”

Mass communication psychologists (aka psyop specialists) are working overtime to forge connections between accused criminals and their prior “influences.”

Note from the Editor: Under the Obama Administration, the NSA, the IRS, and the State and Justice departments are blatantly stepping on Americans’ privacy—and these are just the breaches we’re aware of. I’ve arranged for readers to get a free copy of The Ultimate Privacy Guide so you can be protected from any form of surveillance by anyone—government, corporate or criminal. Click here for your free copy.

No longer is it enough to say, “The criminal made his own choices. He did what he did. He’s responsible.”

That went out when the state began taking seriously psychiatrists’ testimony in court.

But recently, things have gotten far more intense. So-called anti-government statements, wherever they are found, are taken to be assaults on Mommy and Daddy.

“How could anyone think the government is bad? It’s absurd. Government Daddy works all day at the office to help us, and at night he comes home and pats us on the head and government Mommy gives us hot chocolate…”

And therefore (against any semblance of logic), if a criminal makes statements against the government, that government and its allied stooges must track down where these ideas came from and pin the blame there, at the source, where it belongs.

“No, the shooter would never have turned into the shooter had he not read volatile statements on website X. Once he did, he was hooked. His mind was transformed into receptive mush. He was helpless. He picked up a gun and walked into the mall and opened fire.”

The “new analysis” stems from the notion that humans are nothing more than reflex biological machines.

So in the spirit of contributing to this new field of inquiry, I have a couple of choices of my own that need serious investigating.

First, remember a little outfit called Project for the New American Century? Coming to power after 9/11, its highly influential chiefs lobbied hard for an invasion of Iraq. Talk about inflammatory rhetoric.

Add up the subsequent planes with bombs, the missiles, the soldiers with tanks, the deaths on both sides. Now that was a mass shooting, in full view of the American public.

And if you want to wander back much further into that hated territory called history, you’ll come upon another wild-eyed bunch called the Council on Foreign Relations.

In the early days of World War II, they were already making plans for the post-war peace. They designated a committee to determine whether the United States could survive as an isolated entity or whether it needed to go out beyond its borders for vital resources.

The CFR naturally concluded the latter and, doubling down, decided that the United States should install, through force and clandestine operations, a Pax Americanus covering the whole globe. Imperial empire.

Those CFR boys knew how to inflame. And they had marvelous connections at the State Department, which, in turn, had a clear pipeline to Franklin Roosevelt, the President.

As a matter of fact, right now somebody should be investigating what the White House is reading. Because with all those drone strikes and with all this nonstop surveillance, it’s obvious they’re on some pretty nasty websites.

One more, while I’m at it: I want to know which conspiracy website the U.S. Supreme Court is wrapped up in. Because its decision to allow a corporation or labor union to spend big money to advocate for or against a political candidate… well, those Justices are obviously being driven crazy by some master conspiracists.

Meanwhile, what about the millions of people who absorb their knowledge from The New York Times, plus the three clowns anchoring the evening network news? That insane and monstrous influence should be investigated immediately, because the victims are dying, drip by drip, from terminal brain damage.

Whenever Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Dianne (“don’t cry for me, America”) Sawyer speak, neurons are irretrievably lost.

Here are a few more treasonous anti-government people who should be investigated, in absentia:

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost immediately he comes to the conclusion that government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable…” (HL Mencken, 1919)

“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” (Mark Twain, 1881)

“Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)

Where are these men? We must curtail their operations. What websites are they running? Who might they influence to pick up a gun and commit a crime? We must locate these three men and get them to a psychiatrist, so they can be diagnosed with the correct mental disorders and treated with the appropriate drugs.

–Jon Rappoport

How Many Lies Can The White House Tell Before The Walls Collapse?

President Barack Obama has no one to blame but himself.

He was the one who campaigned in 2008 on hope and change. He was the one who deployed high-flying rhetoric to promise a new day in Washington politics.

He was the one who said he was going elevate the level of discourse and make government transparent. He positioned himself as a new kind of leader. He was the one who turned his candidacy into a religious experience.

He was the one who convinced voters he stood above the fray, as a man and as a symbol. And on that basis, they boarded his train and rode it all the way.

He was the one who, inheriting a desperate economy, made his signature move upon gaining office: Obamacare.

Not jobs. Not prosecutions of corporate and banking criminals.

He made devastating choices for all Americans.

He was and is the one who has presided over a sinking economic ship.

Given his proclivity for big and bigger government, he could have launched a serious public program, one which really put people back to work, repairing the infrastructure of the Nation. But even this was beyond him.

And getting out of the way and letting Americans expand their small businesses and supporting them with the same intensity of rhetoric he used to win his election? Out of the question. Not in the playbook. Not for a second.

His big play out of the gate, Obamacare, shocked his closest advisers. They assumed jobs would be his No. 1 priority. They were dead wrong.

And what about “post-racial” America? That was not only a dud; it was a disaster. Division and polarization are the order of the day.

How about dependence and government as the solver of all problems, as the beneficent giver? How has that worked out? How can it possibly work out? America is going to become one big Sweden? Really?

It’s one thing for a Clinton or a Bush to lie and skate and divert and play the usual horrific games. But Obama set himself up as a man who was fundamentally different. That was his ace. That was how he won the Presidency. That was what people bought into.

So he falls further, even as his media supporters keep launching blizzards of lies to prop him up.

Many of his loyal followers believe “powerful forces” have fenced in Obama and sabotaged his efforts to work positive transformations. If so, then as a transcendent figure, he should step forward and use his oratorical powers to expose the criminal enterprise that surrounds the Presidency. He should speak directly to the American people and lay it on the line.

Or else he confesses that he is, in fact, another Clinton, another Bush.

The public loves fairy tales and myths, but considering the shape this country is in, that fascination is wearing very thin. It isn’t going to sustain the next three years of Obama in the White House.

Ninety million people are out of the workforce. Fifty million are on food stamps. Recovery? Is the President really going to keep pushing that narrative?

Admitting the truth might, as a long shot, create a platform from which Obama could launch a real campaign to restore jobs. But faking the unemployment crisis has been his chosen path.

The government Obamacare website is a shambles. It doesn’t appear that a simple fix is possible, which means chaos will continue for many months, perhaps longer. Private insurance companies are canceling hundreds of thousands of policies.

The past seven years of American political life have added up to a disaster. Blaming it all on Congressional gridlock, on delaying the ability of the White House to invent trillions more dollars in debt at the drop of a hat, isn’t working.

So many actions and omissions of madness… it leaves us with the reasonable conclusion that Obama’s Presidency was designed from the outset to flame out and fail.

And the principal target was the economy.

The President, fresh off an election victory in 2008 and in that glow, could have used his monumental leverage to put people back to work. He could have hammered on it day and night. He could have rallied support and energized the country.

But now, what do we have? Welfare America to the nth degree — beyond what anyone thought was possible. And media traitors are backing it.

For decades, for more than a hundred years, power has been in the wrong place.

It belongs with you and with me.

–Jon Rappoport

The Devastating Truth Behind Obamacare

I want my Obamacare! I want my Obamacare!

It’s vital to look at the real meaning of this sinister plan. It’s all about the toxic effects of mainstream medicine. That’s what the sold-out press is refusing to examine.

A year ago, I discussed the case of a young Michigan boy whose parents had been taken to court three times to force them to submit their child to intensely toxic chemotherapy treatments, despite these facts:

  • The boy’s latest scans revealed no sign of cancer.
  • The drugs that would be forced on him can cause cancer.
  • The drugs have not been approved to treat children.

And I warned: This is what waits for you and your children, up the line.

The “share and care” humanitarian mask will be peeled away. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will create, as ordered, a complete list of approved treatments for every disease label under the sun. And everyone in the insurance plan will be forced to take what the doctor tells him to take.

For a bonus, unapproved treatments will be banned. People and practitioners who try to use alternative treatments will find themselves in trouble.

This is the hidden agenda of Obamacare. This is what it will morph into in the future.

I’m not dreaming or fantasizing. I’ve been following and reporting on the medical cartel for 30 years, and I know the mindset of these people, these doctors, these bureaucrats, these pharmaceutical string-pullers behind the scenes. Obamacare is right up their alley. It’s about control, so it’s an answer to their prayers.

So what do we know about their mainstream medicine, the hospital-based drug-addled modern version?

On July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a landmark paper by Dr. Barbara Starfield: “Is US health really the best in the world?” In it, Starfield revealed what many people inside the medical establishment already knew: Every year, like clockwork, the medical system was killing huge numbers of people.

Each year in the U.S., as Starfield reported, there are:

  • 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries.
  • 7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals.
  • 20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals.
  • 80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals.
  • 106,000 deaths from Food and Drug Administration-approved correctly prescribed medicines.

The total number of medically caused deaths in the U.S. every year is 225,000 (a conservative estimate).

This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease and cancer.

In the wake of Starfield’s devastating report, other facts came to light: 2.1 million people in America, every year, are hospitalized as a result of reactions to FDA-approved medicines. Annually, 36 million serious adverse reactions to those drugs occur.

So inclusive health coverage for many more Americans under the Obama plan means these horrendous figures will rise.

This is the dirty secret.

Obama and his allies are promoting a medical system that is the third leading cause of death in America. It’s that stark, and it’s that simple.

The Obama plan involves appointing an “expert panel” to decide what treatments Americans should be given for what diseases, under the new regime.

Only a certified idiot would assume that, over time, alternative non-mainstream therapies would survive such an ongoing vetting. Hope may spring eternal, but common sense makes it easy to grasp the realities on the ground.

In the long run, alternative therapies will be edged out. Those that remain will be permitted for a narrow range of conditions, or as adjuncts to standard drug treatments and surgery.

Chiropractors and acupuncturists, who are temporarily basking in the notion that Obama “really cares,” are in for a very rude awakening. Their careers and practices will be significantly reduced. Not today and not tomorrow, but it will happen.

Doctors, under the plan, will be telling patients they may not take nutritional supplements while in treatment. This will assume the status of an irreversible edict. In many cases, “while in treatment” will mean years.

What happens to a person, conscripted into the mandated Insurance plan, who is told by his doctor that he should/must receive a vaccine? Suppose this person says no? What are the consequences? Will he then be labeled a defector? What penalties will he suffer?

Does a diagnosis of cancer imply a patient must submit to chemotherapy, radiation and surgery? Can these treatments be forced upon him?

Perhaps, in the early days of the plan, nothing untoward will happen. But then, as time passes and the system assumes tighter and tighter controls, the hand of government will close around the recalcitrant patient’s neck.

“Take this vaccine. Take this chemo drug. If you don’t, you’re in violation of the rules.”

Doctors, who are an integral part of the plan, will surely be punished if they give unapproved (alternative) treatments to patients.

And in order to make the plan operate on a day-to-day basis, the records and bookkeeping data of every healthcare practitioner in America will eventually be tracked on government computer networks.

Every person in America will have a traceable and trackable medical ID package. Government-issued. There is no way around it.  The monitoring apparatus can’t work without it.

Orwellian consequences lie up the road in the field of psychiatric practice. In case you hadn’t noticed, the invention of “disorders” by committee is the preferred method for “discovering” more and more mental illnesses.

Yet, the science is completely fraudulent. For evidence, consult the many works of psychiatrist Peter Breggin, who has done more than any other person to expose the guts of his own profession. Breggin establishes that mental disorders are not authoritatively diagnosed by a chemical or biological test. Conclusive tests do not exist. And, worse, in this undefined and arbitrary territory, the drugs that follow diagnoses are killers: for example, 300,000 cases of motor brain damage, as a result of the administration of major tranquilizers.

Under the Obama plan, you can bet your bottom dollar that psychiatric care will eventually become mandatory. A patient suddenly diagnosed with clinical depression or bipolar disorder will be told he must take the drugs — and suffer their adverse effects.

Very young children will be given more and more debilitating and dangerous brain drugs.

Under the Obama plan, it will be very convenient to declare new pandemics every few seasons, because these phony non-epidemics provide an opportunity to herd the sheep into clinics and remind them who is running the show. Go here, take this vaccine; go there, take that drug; the epidemic is endangering the herd, and you must help your brothers and sisters.

These are the figures on the past several “epidemics.” They are not yearly; they are grand totals, to date; global totals, except in the case of West Nile (U.S. only):

  • SARS: 774 deaths.
  • West Nile: 1159 deaths.
  • Bird flu: 262 deaths.
  • Smallpox (terrorist threat): 0 deaths.
  • Swine flu: 18,500 deaths.

To give perspective, globally, 250,000 to 500,000 people die of ordinary flu-like illness every year. Yet this higher death rate accrues no interest as an epidemic. It is only the “teaching (brainwashing) moments” of the phony epidemics that are promoted by health agencies (e.g., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization) and their pharmaceutical allies, who rake in billions of dollars by manufacturing new vaccines.

Yes, under the Obama plan, there will be more declared health emergencies; and they will serve to cement the citizen to his new role as eternal patient in the medical march along bleak streets of the future.

Can you perceive the loss of individual freedom implicit in this universal system of health control?

The widespread (and false) assumption is that more medical care for more people is a good thing. That’s what the politicians and the press tell us. That’s what the medical bureaucrats and the drug companies tell us. This is the central piece of brainwashing.

It’s a bald-faced lie. It’s a death-dealing lie.

And now the American people are saddled with it.

Unless the current rebellion against Obamacare expands all over the country.

–Jon Rappoport

MKULTRA? Patsy? Aaron Alexis’ Portrait: Painted For Gun Control

Mentally unstable man in the military gains legal access to gun, goes on rampage. That’s the portrait.

Heavily promoted details: “Should never have been allowed to buy a gun, but prior red-flag arrests weren’t prosecuted. Slipped through the cracks. Heard voices, claimed he was being assaulted with microwaves that prevented him from sleeping. Obvious nut job. But still, he was able to buy a gun.”

Bottom line: Do whatever is necessary to grab guns from private citizens. Tighten laws. Step up psychiatric interventions across the land, to prevent shootings before they occur.

Perfect. You couldn’t have scripted a better sales campaign for gun control.

Therefore, one can legitimately ask: Did somebody script the word-picture of Alexis for that very purpose?

Until official sources retracted the claim that Aaron Alexis had an AR-15 at the Navy Yard, it was: James Holmes (Aurora), Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) and Alexis all supposedly firing the semi-auto weapon. Bottom line: “Stop selling the AR-15 and any other semi-auto.”

When it comes to characterizing Alexis as mentally unstable, you need to ask yourself this: If someone were, in fact, deploying available technology to produce the sounds of voices talking to you and hitting you with microwaves to keep you awake night after night, what could you do to make people believe that story?

I’ll tell you what: nothing. You’d be sunk.

Let’s assume Alexis was already somewhat unstable. That would make him a better candidate for harassment.

At that point, there would be two ways to go, if you wanted to engineer a mass shooting. Make Alexis an innocent patsy. Or actually turn him into a Manchurian candidate, an MKULTRA subject who would kill.

If your objective is gun control, you’d achieve your aim either way.

And here is the bonus: In the wake of the Navy Yard shooting, you could institute more psychiatric control of the citizenry, which means (when you strip away the baloney) more fake mental-disorder diagnoses and more drugs that cause violent behavior, including suicide and homicide.

Afterwards, you can make an even better case for universal gun banning, because people on those drugs would be committing murders from coast to coast in greater numbers.

Of course, when television viewers pray at the altar of the major news networks, they would never entertain, for a moment, what I’m suggesting here. Why not? Because, as consumers, they’ve allowed themselves to be conditioned, for many years, by the kinds of tales these media outlets tell. If well-known “journalists” don’t speak of “patsy” or “mind control,” there’s nothing to know about.


Patsy at the scene? How would that work? Several possibilities. Alexis is there, but another shooter is doing the killing. He kills Alexis, who becomes the focus of the story, the “shooter.” A shotgun and AR-15 are placed near his body.

The problem to overcome: witness statements.

So far, I find two witnesses, Terry Durham and Todd Brundige, executive assistants in Building 197, who claim they saw “the shooter” down a long hallway fire a gun at them.

In their television interview, which you can find at YouTube (BBC, other outlets), they claim they couldn’t see the shooter’s face. However, The Washington Times reports Durham saying, “I could see his face.” That’s quite odd, when we have her on camera saying the reverse.

Other news outlets use headlines to suggest these two witnesses did see (“confronted,” “came face-to-face with”) the killer’s face, but the body of text finally confesses this is not the case, despite some slippery language (“came around a corner and saw the killer”).

Obviously, media outlets are trying to make more out of less.

It seems somewhat curious that we don’t have many witnesses who are specifically making positive IDs of Alexis killing people in the building. For example, in the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting, a number of witnesses say they saw the shooter. Of course, he was masked.

Well, what about police statements? We’re told cops killed Alexis in a shootout. How many cops? Unknown. Five, 10, one? I find one report of a canine cop (unnamed) who traded shots with “a gunman” and was seriously wounded in both legs. He was in surgery at the time of the report, and was expected to undergo a number of operations, in an attempt to save his legs.

Perhaps there are other witness statements out there which positively ID Alexis as the shooter. I have not found them.

Turning Alexis into an MKULTRA Manchurian candidate, who would, as a result of mind control, go into the building and kill people is an entirely different matter.

In that case, the microwave harassment and the broadcast voices would serve as a softening-up process. But much more would have to be done.

(I should note here that when Alexis reported the voices and the microwave harassment to the Rhode Island police, he refused to say what the voices were telling him. If his basic story is true, perhaps he was receiving commands and instructions, although, in my opinion, such commands — “kill,” “attack,” etc. — would be insufficient to program him specifically.)

Although there are patents one could search to try to learn about modern mind-control technology and statements from people who were past victims of mind control, many blank areas remain. This is because the experiments are secret.

Here is a bit of background on MKULTRA secrecy.

Back in the early 1990s, I interviewed John Marks, author of The Search for the Manchurian Candidate (1979). This was the book that exposed the existence of the CIA MKULTRA program.

Marks related the following to me. He had filed many Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the CIA for documents relating to its mind-control program. He got nothing back.

Finally, as if to play a joke on him, someone at the CIA sent him 10 boxes of financial and accounting records. The attitude was, “Here, see what you can do with this.”

I’ve seen some of those records. They’re very boring reading.

But Marks went through them; and, lo and behold, he found he could piece together MKULTRA projects, based on the funding data.

Eventually, he assembled enough information to begin naming names. He conducted interviews. The shape of MKULTRA swam into view. And so he wrote his book, The Search for the Manchurian Candidate.

He told me that three important books had been written about MKULTRA and that they all, in a sense, stemmed from those 10 boxes of CIA financial records. There was his own book, Operation Mind Control by Walter Bowart and The Mind Manipulators by Alan Scheflin and Edward Opton.

Marks continued to press the CIA for more MKULTRA information. He explained to me what then happened. A CIA official told him the following: In 1962, after 10 years of mind-control experiments, the whole MKULTRA program had been shifted over to another internal CIA department, the Office of Research and Development (ORD).

The ORD had 100 boxes of information on the MKULTRA work; and there was no way under the sun, Marks was told, that he was ever going to get his hands on any of it. It was over. It didn’t matter how many FOIA requests Marks filed. He was done. The door was shut. Goodbye.

The CIA had gone darker than it ever had before. No leaks of any kind would be permitted.

In case there is any doubt about it, the idea of relying on the CIA to admit what it has done in the mind-control area, what it is doing and what it will do should be put to bed by Marks’ statements. The CIA always has been, and will continue to be, a rogue agency beyond the reach of the law.

To give you just a hint about how far the CIA, the U.S. military and its allied academics will go in MKULTRA “research,” here are two brief excerpts from a piece I wrote in 1995 about human experiments. My information was based on the three key books I mentioned above, as well as Martin Lee’s classic, Acid Dreams:

Dr. Robert Heath of Tulane University, as early as 1955, working for the Army, gave patients LSD while he had electrodes implanted deep inside their brains.

In the mid-1950’s, Paul Hoch, M.D., a man who would become Commissioner of Mental Hygiene for the State of New York, then a laborer in the field for the CIA, gave a “pseudoneurotic schizophrenic” patient mescaline. The patient had a not-unfamiliar heaven-and-hell journey on the compound. But Hoch followed this up with a transorbital leucotomy [aka lobotomy]… Hoch also gave a patient LSD, and a local anesthetic, and then proceeded to remove pieces of his cerebral cortex, asking at various moments whether the patient’s perceptions were changing.

Because “more psychiatric treatment” is a prime agenda, pushed after every one of these mass shootings, people need to understand how the history of mind control and psychiatry are interwoven, and how the madmen and murderers within these “professions” are content to use torture in the name of science.

From a NaturalNews article by Dr. Peter Breggin (“Never again! The real history of psychiatry”), we get insight into one aspect of that history:

[Before World War II in America], organized psychiatry had been sterilizing tens of thousands of Americans. For a time in California, you couldn’t be discharged from a state [mental] hospital unless you were sterilized. In Virginia the retarded were targeted. American advocates of sterilization went to Berlin to help the Nazis plan their sterilization program. These Americans reassured the Germans that they would meet no opposition from America in sterilizing their mentally and physically “unfit” citizens.

While the murder of mental patients was going full swing in Germany, knowledgeable American psychiatrists and neurologists didn’t want to be left out. In 1942, the American Psychiatric Association held a debate about whether to sterilize or to murder low IQ “retarded” children when they reached the age of five. Those were the only two alternatives in the debate: sterilization or death.

After the debate, the official journal of the American Psychiatric Association published an editorial in which it chose sides in favor of murder (“Euthanasia” in the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1942, volume 99, pp. 141-143). It said psychiatrists would have to muster their psychological skills to keep parents from feeling guilty about agreeing to have their children killed.

Breggin, in his books, including Toxic Psychiatry and Medication Madness, demonstrates that this “healing profession” is still tilling the same soil. Because of its reach with toxic drugs, it’s more dangerous and deadly than ever. Only its PR has improved.

I obviously can’t prove or conclude that Alexis was MKULTRA-programmed. But I can say the CIA and other allied agencies have an extensive track record of carrying out horrendous mind-control experiments, concealing them, concealing the technology and making bland statements to the public and the press denying their contemporary use of mind-control.

If Alexis was, in fact, the man who killed people in the Navy Yard and he wasn’t overtly programmed to do it, then recent accounts strongly suggest he was taking psychiatric drugs. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), in particular, have a long track record of pushing patients over the edge into suicidal and murderous violence.

Psychiatry is a form of MKULTRA. It operates according to a different plan, what I call the Johnny Appleseed approach. Drop enough drugs into enough bodies, and then stand back and watch the killings sprout here and there and here and there, across the land.

–Jon Rappoport

Michael Corleone Says Yes To War In Syria

The Godfather saga is clear on one point: The world of the mob has no exit.

Michael Corleone takes his family deeper and deeper into destruction.

Why? First of all, the Corleone life is crime. They cheat, lie, steal, intimidate and murder. No matter how attractive they are, that’s what they do. It’s the source of their wealth.

From that foundation, they venture out into the world and they find enemies — competing families. They can try to broker peace and sign treaties, or they can attack.

Corleone chooses to attack. He has his reasons. They make practical and emotional sense. But eternal war is just that. There is no turning back.

It may seem to Corleone that he’s being “pulled back in” over and over. But his choice, his game, his territory and his actions are what shape his fate and bring about the death of his family.

There are always new enemies, and old ones, too: Sollozzo, Barzini and behind him, Hyman Roth, the kingpin. And Roth isn’t enough. The war has to be taken to the Vatican and its money machine.

Corleone is like one of the late Roman emperors, wielding the sword at the end of the line after the nation had already sealed its fate by opting for imperial empire and conquest. The lethal blowback has already been guaranteed.

Corleone would have seen a Syria as an enemy purely on the basis that the natural gas pipeline, if stalled or if canceled, would deal a blow to Russia, his foe. Therefore, attack.

The imperial mindset automatically multiplies enemies.

The Federal government of the United States can squirm, feint, dodge, preach and pontificate. But it has set itself up as a crime family. All that remain are the details.

There will be war and there will be enemies.

The elasticity of conquest has limits. At some point, the connections snap and the structure and the supply lines collapse.

“Sir, here is a blueprint of the entire Mideast. You can apply all this data to Africa as well. We can destabilize virtually every nation in the Mideast. We can set ethnic group against ethnic group. We can topple dictators. We can bring on long nights of chaos. For a while, we can let the homegrown crazies rule there. Then we can step in and take over. With our elite financial partners, we can own those countries by ‘rescuing’ them.

“We can destroy Barzini and the five crime families. We can take over New York and the whole East Coast and expand our activities into Las Vegas. We can finance legitimate businesses. No one will be able to challenge us.”

Sitting in the wings waiting is America’s greatest enemy. These men appear to be allies. In certain ventures, they are. But they see farther. They know more. They’re calmer. They are the globalists, and the destruction of this country is on their planetary agenda. They see the United States as the U.S. government sees Iraq or Libya. They want America to go to war again and again. They understand how war weakens a country, destabilizes it, bankrupts it and saps its spirit.

Like the forces of evil in Italy who were waiting for Corleone to make his move and expand his empire into that region so they could spring their trap, the globalists are watching the machinations of the U.S. government and are drawing it closer to the flame, where the temperature burns the moth that is obsessed by the false light.

–Jon Rappoport

Excuse Me, Are You A Robot In The Surveillance State?

“President Barack Obama has ordered federal employees to report suspicious actions of their colleagues based on behavioral profiling techniques that are not scientifically proven to work, according to experts and government documents.” — McClatchey News

In 1959, two friends of mine, Carl and Michael, staged a spy experiment at the small Ithaca, N.Y., airport. They were students at Cornell University.

Michael was coming in on a little commercial plane from New York late at night.

In the one-room terminal, Carl waited for him and paced around, wearing a British raincoat and sunglasses. Occasionally, he’d look at his watch and glance out at the airstrip.

Finally, the plane arrived.

Michael, also wearing a British raincoat, descended the steps from the plane, and Carl walked out to meet him on the tarmac. They stood, head to head, for a few minutes, talking to each other. They gestured toward the terminal.

Security personnel arrested them — on suspicion of seeming suspicious, which was the point of the experiment.

Since America is now a spy state, where everyone is expected to snoop and snitch on everyone, why not play the game?

A hundred college students walk into a large coffee shop and sit down.

They starting passing notes to each other (1950s spy-iconography).

A few of these students approach the counter, ask for the manager and, when he appears, inform him that the waiters and waitresses are doing suspicious things: staring, avoiding eye contact and lingering too long at tables while taking orders.

This little stage play is repeated every day, until media pick up on the story.

A few hundred college students gather in front of a government building. As employees come out at the end of the day, the students pull out cellphones and pretend to make calls. They talk loudly, mentioning that they’re seeing suspicious activity from government workers.

Repeat daily, until media pick up on the story.

In a small town, 100 parents bake cookies in the shape of guns. They give them to their kids to take to school on the same day.

Repeat every day until the literal robot-minds of school officials implode.

I think everyone in the United States should have a screensaver with a picture of a gun on it.

Five hundred students hold a birthday party and picnic in a park. They all wear very large badges hanging from their necks: “Citizen Spy.” They pretend to make phone calls, reporting suspicious activity, while pointing at other people in the park. It’s sure to garner some attention after two or three days.

What? You might be arrested for these activities? Oh, I see. Yes. The entire country is on lockdown. That’s right. We can’t interfere with Federal and State agencies doing their jobs, 24/7, to protect us from ourselves.

On a website, Secular Confessions, people are invited to confess their own “suspicious activity” in detail. You can add, as a bonus, a section for thought crimes.

“I thought about plotting the overthrow of Monsanto. I confess. I’m guilty; and I want expiation, if not excommunication.”

“I considered masturbating when DHS tanks rolled through my town. I don’t know why. I was suddenly gripped by an uncontrollable impulse.”

“During work today at USDA, where I inspect samples of wheat, I started feeling that I was a suspicious character. I thought about lifting the whole building in one hand and turning it upside down and dropping it on Henry Kissinger’s head. I’m a very bad person.”

Let’s all confess.

I personally am suspicious (it should be “suspect,” shouldn’t it?) because I have a lingering obsession about the Bill of Rights. I’ve tried to purge it from my consciousness in favor of the far more cogent, “we’re all in this together,” but I can’t. I need re-education.

And I have strange thoughts when I drive through an intersection outfitted with video cameras. I want to burn those cameras in a bonfire. I want to see thousands of those cameras burn together. Why does that image produce such unalloyed joy? Something must be wrong with me, right?

I’m guilty of another thought crime. I want to see Russ Tice, a longtime employee of the intelligence community, featured on page one of The New York Times. I want to see his assertion that the National Security Agency was spying on Barack Obama in 2004 plastered in a giant headline across the top of the page.

I want to see Chris Matthews, up to his Obama-tingling legs in muck, working in a giant industrial pig farm in Mexico. This thought surely marks me as a danger to the state. I must be plotting something. I just don’t know what it is yet.

I’m reporting Brian Williams, Scott Pelley and Dianne Sawyer as suspicious characters engaged in a mass hypnosis operation. I want action. It must stop. Every night, these morons appear in millions of homes and frame the news in terms even Mickey Mouse could see through.

I want the Reality Manufacturing Company to cease doing business at once.

I’m suspicious; you’re suspicious; we’re all suspicious. Let’s form a new nation based on that irrefutable premise. Let’s quit piddling around. Let’s be suspicious.

Stop smiling. Start looking at things sideways. Squint. Learn how to growl convincingly like a dog. Screw Labor Day. It should be Suspicion Day.

Paint on the back of your shirt: “We are all NSA.”

Get into it.

“We’re all NSA. We’re all suspicious. We’re all spying. We’re all guilty.”

Go for the home run ball.

It’s a game. I can spy on you faster than you can spy on me.

“Are you saying your neighbor is a suspicious character because he’s spying on you?”

“No, he’s suspicious because he isn’t spying on me enough.”

Confess. Report.

“My neighbor is growing Chinese cabbage on her front lawn.”

“Chinese? Thanks. We’ll get right on it. You just earned a gold star, Ms. Good Citizen.”

This is the era of the busybody. The scum rises to the top.

That old lady who lives down the block and peeks between her curtains at whatever is going on outside is beginning to feel like King Kong. The world is catching up to her at last.

It’s the time of the literal mind, which operates blind to context. In the middle of a conversation, a phrase like “they should be shot” or “I’d like to blow the whole thing to kingdom come” surfaces; and certain faces register a pause, a flinch. Hmm. “That might be dangerous. He shouldn’t have said that.”

One of my favorite media glosses is: “understandably nervous in the wake of.”

This is used to justify grand-slam law-enforcement officers reacting to harmless events and innocent civilians.

There is always a prior event that can used to rationalize a robot response.

“Understandably nervous in the wake of the Great Flood, officials took a man named Noah into custody today after he let two rabbits and two hamsters loose in his garden.”

The real objective of the War on Terror is the creation of literal minds, entrained to think in lowest-common-denominator terms.

“There will be no metaphors, no distinctions. Automatons forever.”

The literal mind lives, every day of its existence, guilty of obstruction of justice. It functions at the level of an insect and delivers far less.

This is what the surveillance state is meant to induce.

Operant conditioning is based on the premise that, in their native state, humans are nothing more than programmed biological machines. Therefore, replacing one program with another is perfectly apt.

When I was 5 years old, in 1943, I went to a nursery school around the corner from our apartment in New York. The first day I was there, a teacher gave me preliminary instructions. I can’t remember the specifics, although I do recall they were inane. I replied, “OK.”

She froze. Then she smiled one of those big fake smiles. “No,” she said. “We don’t say ‘OK.’ We say ‘all right.'”

From that moment on, I remained on guard because I knew I was in an alien environment.

I soon learned that the goal of this school was socialization. Pretended harmony.

Say the proper thing. Share and care. Be polite. Don’t be frank, be earnest. Smile. Achtung.

For the rest of the term, I observed this strange, cockeyed little world. I said little. I was from another planet, called 19th Street; and I wanted to understand how these lunatics at the school were operating.

On the last day of imprisonment, as we were all assembled in the yard, the head gooney bird approached me and thanked me for my “cooperation.” She thought I had surrendered.

I don’t remember whether a politeness certificate was involved, but I did recognize this was a wild misunderstanding on her part.

Homogenized America is now moving to a new level: Wherever you see cream separating, report it to the authorities and they’ll shake and stir.

See anything, say everything.

To any literal minds who may be reading this article by accident: Don’t worry your pretty little heads. There’s a flower growing over there. Report it. Report the breeze, the summer, the moon. And don’t forget the most important thing of all: Pick up the phone and dial DHS and say, “I want to turn in the Federal government. They’re committing crimes.”

You’ll be right, every day.

What’s left of the idea of a Republic is a memory. Now, the people in charge want to take the final step and turn it into a Pavlovacracy.

They want the Matrix to report to the Matrix.

The most pernicious advocates of the New Age preach that, in order to pass into next phase of evolution, humans must purify their thoughts, dispensing with all negativity. Otherwise, they’ll be left behind the iron gate of the past to suffer great pain and turmoil.

This is a quite adequate description of what the surveillance state is doing.

Self-flagellation is making a comeback. You watch. Just as people show up at police stations and confess to crimes they haven’t committed, we’re going to see a wave of demented souls reporting on themselves for “suspicious behavior.”

It’s a natural offshoot for the class of those whose aspire to victim status, but don’t possess authentic qualifications.

I welcome the phenomenon. It’s exactly what the surveillance state deserves for inventing a new category of immolation: clogged-up phone lines and email boxes.

“I want to report that I said something I shouldn’t have said.”

“Excuse me?”

“No, really. I’m a suspicious person. I need to be on some kind of list.”

In the 13th century, people started walking around in long lines, beating themselves with whips. By the 14th century, the Roman church became so exasperated it excommunicated all flagellants en masse.

Too much bad press. Original sin was fine, but people were taking it to a whole new level.

It’s going to happen again in the surveillance state. Get your popcorn ready. Go to work, Dr. Phil.

–Jon Rappoport

Ed Snowden, NSA And Fairy Tales A Child Could See Through

Sometimes, cognitive dissonance, which used to be called contradiction, rings a gong so loud it knocks you off your chair.

But if you’re an android in this marvelous world of synthetic reality, you get up, put a smile back on your face and trudge on.

Let’s see. The National Security Agency is the most awesome spying agency ever devised in this world. If you cross the street in Podunk, Anywhere, U.S.A., to buy an ice cream soda on a Tuesday afternoon in July, it knows.

It knows if you sit at the counter and drink that soda or take it and move to the only table in the store. It knows if you lick the foam from the top of the glass with your tongue or pick the foam with your straw and then lick it.

It knows if you keep the receipt for the soda or leave it on the counter.

It knows whether you’re wearing shoes or sneakers. It knows the brand of your underwear. It knows your shaving cream and precisely which container it came out of.

But this agency, with all its vast power and its dollars, can’t track one of its own — a man who came to work every day, a man who made up a story about needing treatment in Hong Kong for epilepsy and then skipped the country.

It just can’t find him.

It can’t find him in Hong Kong, where he does a sit-down video interview with Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian. It can’t find that “safe house” or that “hotel” where he’s staying.

No. It can’t find him or spy on his communications while he’s in Hong Kong. Can’t figure out he’s booked a flight to Russia. It can’t intercept him at the airport before he leaves for Russia. Too difficult.

And this man, this employee, is walking around with four laptops that contain the keys to all the secret spying knowledge in the known cosmos.

It can’t locate those laptops. It can’t hack into them to see what’s there. It can’t access the laptops or the data. The most brilliant technical minds of this or any other generation can find a computer in Outer Mongolia in the middle of a blizzard, but these walking-around computers in Hong Kong are somehow beyond reach.

And before this man, Snowden, this employee, skipped Hawaii, he was able to access the layout of the entire U.S. intelligence network. Yes. He was able to use a thumb drive.

He walked into work with a thumb drive, plugged in and stole… everything. He stole enough to “take down the entire U.S. intelligence network in a single afternoon.”

Not only that, but anyone who worked at this super-agency as an analyst, as a systems-analyst supervisor, could have done the same thing, could have stolen the keys to the kingdom.

This is why NSA geniuses with IQs of more than 180 have decided, now, in the midst of the Snowden affair, that they need to draft “tighter rules and procedures” for their employees. Right.

Now, a few pieces of internal security they hadn’t realized they needed before will be put in place.

This is, let me remind you, the most secretive spying agency in the world. The richest spying agency. The smartest spying agency.

But somehow, over the years, it overlooked this corner of its own security. It left a door open, so that any one of its own analysts could steal everything, could take it all, could just snatch it away and copy it and store it on a few laptops.

But now — yes, now — having been made aware of this vulnerability, the agency will make corrections.


And reporters for elite U.S. media don’t find any of this hard to swallow.

A smart sixth-grader could see through this tower of fabricated baloney in a minute, but veteran grizzled reporters are clueless.

Recently, on Charlie Rose, in an episode that left me breathless, a gaggle of pundits/newspeople warned that Snowden, walking around with those four laptops, could be an easy target for Chinese spies or Russian spies who could get access to the data on those computers. The spies could just hack in.

But the NSA can’t. No. The NSA can’t find out what Snowden has. It can only speculate.

It’s charades within charades.

This whole Snowden affair is an op. It’s the kind of op that works because people are prepared to believe anything.

The tightest, strongest, richest and smartest spying agency in the world can’t find its own employee. It’s in the business of tracking, and it can’t find him.

It’s in the business of security, and it can’t protect its own data from its employees.

If you believe that, I have timeshares to sell in the black hole in the center of the Milky Way.

In previous articles on No More Fake News, I’ve made a case for Snowden being a CIA operative who still works for his former employer. He was handed a bunch of NSA data by the CIA. He didn’t steal anything. The CIA wants to punch a hole in the NSA. It’s called an internal turf war. It’s been going on as long as those agencies have existed side by side.

For example, look at the money.

In the June issue of Wired Magazine, James Bamford, author of three books on the NSA, states:

“In April, as part of its 2014 budget request, the Pentagon [which rules the NSA] asked Congress for $4.7 billion for increased ‘cyberspace operations,’ nearly $1 billion more than the 2013 allocation. At the same time, budgets for the CIA and other intelligence agencies were cut by almost the same amount, $4.4 billion. A portion of the money going to… [NSA] will be used to create 13 cyberattack teams.”

That means spying money: far more for NSA and far less for CIA. It’s a turf war.

But in this article, let’s stay focused on the fairy tales, which are the cover stories floated to the press, the public and the politicians.

We have reporters at The Washington Post and at The Guardian. We have Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks. They’re all talking to Snowden. The NSA can spy on them, right? It can listen to their calls,read their emails and hack into their notes. Just like people have been hacking into the work and home computers of Sharyl Attkisson, star CBS investigative reporter.

But the NSA can’t do all this spying and then use it to find Snowden. It just can’t manage it.

Everybody in the world with a computer has passwords. The NSA can cut through them like a sword through hot butter. But Assange, The Post, The Guardian and Snowden must have super-special passwords.

They got these passwords by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope, along with 25 cents and a top from a cereal box, to The Lone Ranger. These passwords are charged with atomic clouds that obscure men’s minds so they cannot see or spy. They’re immortal and invulnerable.

The NSA can spy on anyone else in the world, but it can’t get its foot in the door when it comes to The Post, The Guardian and Assange.

And if Snowden winds up in Ecuador, that, too, will become an insurmountable mystery.

“Nope, we don’t know where he is. He’s vanished. Ecuador has a Romulan shield surrounding it. The cloaking technology is too advanced.”

Perhaps you recall that, in the early days of this scandal, Snowden claimed he could spy on anyone in the United States, including a Federal judge or even the President, if he had their email addresses.

Uh-huh. But the combined talents of the NSA agents, now, can’t spy on Snowden. I guess they just can’t find his email address.

Snowden isn’t the only savvy computer kid in the country. There must be a million people, at minimum, who can cook up email addresses that evade the reach of the NSA. Yes?

What we have here are contradictions piled on contradictions piled on lies.

And in the midst of this, a whole lot of people are saying: “Don’t look too closely. Snowden is a hero and he exposed the NSA and that’s a wonderful thing.”

And a whole lot of other people are saying: “Snowden is a traitor and he should be tried for treason or killed overseas. That’s all you need to know.”

The truth? Well, the truth, as they say, is the first casualty in war. But in the spying business, the truth was never there to begin with. That’s one of the requirements of the industry.

“Son, if you think you’ve lied before, you haven’t got a clue. We’re going to tell you to do things that’ll make your head spin. That’s the game we’re in. We’re going to make you tell lies in your sleep.”

And these are the people the public believes.

It’s a beautiful thing. It really is. The fairy tales are made of sugar; and the public, the press and the people eat them. And then they ask for more.

–Jon Rappoport