The Number One Mind Control Program At US Colleges

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 7, 2017

Here is a staggering statistic from the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI): “More than 25 percent of college students have been diagnosed or treated by a professional for a mental health condition within the past year.”

Let that sink in. 25 percent.

Colleges are basically clinics. Psychiatric centers.

Colleges have been taken over. A soft coup has occurred, out of view.

You want to know where all this victim-oriented “I’m triggered” and “I need a safe space” comes from? You just found it.

It’s a short step from being diagnosed with a mental disorder to adopting the role of being super-sensitive to “triggers.” You could call it a self-fulfilling prophecy. “If I have a mental disorder, then I’m a victim, and then what people say and do around me is going disturb me…and I’ll prove it.”

The dangerous and destabilizing effects of psychiatric drugs confirm this attitude. The drugs DO, in fact, produce an exaggerated and distorted sensitivity to a person’s environment.

You want to know where a certain amount of violent aggressive behavior on campuses comes from? You just found it. The psychiatric drugs. In particular, antidepressants and speed-type medications for ADHD.

You want to know why so many college students can’t focus on their studies? You just found one reason. The brain effects of the drugs.

The usual variety of student problems are translated into pseudoscientific categories of “mental disorders”—and toxic drugging ensues.

A college student says to himself, “I’m having trouble with my courses. I don’t understand what my professors want. My reading level isn’t good enough. I don’t like the professors who have a political bias. I’m confused. I miss my friends back home. I feel like a stranger on campus. I’d like to date, but I don’t know where to start. There are groups on campus. Should I join one? Well, maybe I need help. I should go to the counseling center and talk to a psychologist. That’s what they’re there for. Maybe I have a problem I don’t know about…”

And so it begins.

The student is looking for an explanation of his problems. But this search will morph into: having a socially acceptable excuse for not doing well. Understand the distinction.

After a bit of counseling, the student is referred to a psychiatrist, who makes a diagnosis of depression, and prescribes a drug. Now the student says, “That’s a relief. Now I know why I have a problem. I have a mental disorder. I never knew that. I’m operating at a disadvantage. I’m a victim of a brain abnormality. Okay. That means I really shouldn’t be expected to succeed. Situations affect my mood. What people say affects my mood.”

And pretty soon, the whole idea of being triggered and needing a safe space makes sense to the student. He’s heading down a slippery slope, but he doesn’t grasp what’s actually going on. On top of that, the drug he’s taking is disrupting his thoughts and his brain activity. But of course, the psychiatrist tells him no, it’s not the drug, it’s the condition, the clinical depression, which is worsening and making it harder to think clearly. He needs a different drug. The student is now firmly in the system. He’s a patient. He’s expected to have trouble coping. And on and on it goes.

Buckle up. Here is the background. Here is what psychiatry is all about—

Wherever you see organized psychiatry operating, you see it trying to expand its domain and its dominance. The Hippocratic Oath to do no harm? Are you kidding?

The first question to ask is: do these mental disorders have any scientific basis? There are now roughly 300 of them. They multiply like fruit flies.

An open secret has been bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

In a PBS Frontline episode, Does ADHD Exist?, Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, unintentionally spelled out the fraud.

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY: That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid… There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]

Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 297 mental disorders. They’re all hoaxes. Because there are no defining tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.

You can sway and tap dance and bloviate all you like and you won’t escape the noose around your neck. We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.

There’s more. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been obliquely referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.

If this is medical science, a duck is a rocket ship.

To repeat, Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definitions of Bipolar and ADHD were expanded to include more people.

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

* acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;
* life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;
* brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

* intercranial pressure leading to blindness;
* peripheral circulatory collapse;
* stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

* serious impairment of cognitive function;
* fainting;
* restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

Dr. Frances self-admitted label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of choice.

So…what about Ritalin?

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published an important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse effects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

* Paranoid delusions
* Paranoid psychosis
* Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
* Activation of psychotic symptoms
* Toxic psychosis
* Visual hallucinations
* Auditory hallucinations
* Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
* Effects pathological thought processes
* Extreme withdrawal
* Terrified affect
* Started screaming
* Aggressiveness
* Insomnia
* Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
* Psychic dependence
* High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
* Decreased REM sleep
* When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
* Convulsions
* Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week? They are in harness.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

Let’s take a little trip back in time and review how one psychiatric drug, Prozac, escaped a bitter fate, by hook and by crook. It’s an instructive case.

Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a while. Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.”

She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”

Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”

In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin mentions that the Donahue show (Feb. 28, 1991) “put together a group of individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response confirmed the problem.”

A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes:

“Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

An instructive article, “Protecting Prozac,” by Michael Grinfeld, in the December 1998 California Lawyer, opens several doors. Grinfeld notes that “in the past year nearly a dozen cases involving Prozac have disappeared from the court record.” He was talking about law suits against the manufacturer, Eli Lilly, and he was saying that those cases had apparently been settled, without trial, in such a quiet and final way, with such strict confidentiality, that it is almost as if they never happened.

Grinfeld details a set of maneuvers involving attorney Paul Smith, who in the early 1990s became the lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the famous Fentress lawsuit against Eli Lilly.

The plaintiffs made the accusation that Prozac had induced a man to commit murder. This was the first action involving Prozac to reach a trial and jury, so it would establish a major precedent for a large number of other pending suits against the manufacturer.

The case: On September 14, 1989, Joseph Wesbecker, a former employee of Standard Gravure, in Louisville, Kentucky, walked into the workplace, with an AK-47 and a SIG Sauer pistol, killed eight people, wounded 12 others, and committed suicide. Family members of the victims subsequently sued Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, on the grounds that Wesbecker had been pushed over the edge into violence by the drug.

The trial: After what many people thought was a very weak attack on Lilly by plaintiffs’ lawyer Smith, the jury came back in five hours with an easy verdict favoring Lilly and Prozac.

Grinfeld writes, “Lilly’s defense attorneys predicted the verdict would be the death knell for [anti-]Prozac litigation.”

But that wasn’t the end of the Fentress case. “Rumors began to circulate that [the plaintiffs’ attorney] Smith had made several [prior] oral agreements with Lilly concerning the evidence that would be presented [in the Fentress case], the structure of a post-verdict settlement, and the potential resolution of Smith’s other [anti-Prozac] cases.”

In other words, the rumors declared: This plaintiff’s lawyer, Smith, made a deal with Lilly to present a weak attack, to omit evidence damaging to Prozac, so that the jury would find Lilly innocent of all charges. In return, the case would be settled secretly, with Lilly paying out big monies to Smith’s client. In this way, Lilly would avoid the exposure of a public settlement, and through the innocent verdict, would discourage other potential plaintiffs from suing it over Prozac.

The rumors congealed. The judge in the Fentress case, John Potter, asked lawyers on both sides if “money had changed hands.” He wanted to know if the fix was in. The lawyers said no money had been paid, “without acknowledging that an agreement was in place.”

Judge Potter didn’t stop there. In April 1995, Grinfeld notes, “In court papers, Potter wrote that he was surprised that the plaintiffs’ attorneys [Smith] hadn’t introduced evidence that Lilly had been charged criminally for failing to report deaths from another of its drugs to the Food and Drug Administration. Smith had fought hard [during the Fentress trial] to convince Potter to admit that evidence, and then unaccountably withheld it.”

In Judge Potter’s motion, he alleged that “Lilly [in the Fentress case] sought to buy not just the verdict, but the court’s judgment as well.”

In 1996, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued an opinion: “…there was a serious lack of candor with the trial court [during Fentress] and there may have been deception, bad faith conduct, abuse of the judicial process or perhaps even fraud.”

After the Supreme Court remanded the Fentress case back to the state attorney general’s office, the whole matter dribbled away, and then resurfaced in a different form, in another venue. At the time of the California Lawyer article, a new action against attorney Smith was unresolved. Eventually, Eli Lilly escaped punishment.

Based on the rigged Fentress case, Eli Lilly silenced many lawsuits based on Prozac inducing murder and suicide.

Quite a story.

And it all really starts with the institution of psychiatry inventing a whole branch of science that doesn’t exist, thereby defining 300 mental disorders that don’t exist.

Here are data about psychiatric drugs and violence from several studies:

February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed `intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment.’ The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding `suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”

An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Dr. Peter Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

The well-known publication, California Lawyer, in a December 1998 article called “Protecting Prozac,” details some of the suspect maneuvers of Eli Lilly in its handling of suits against Prozac. California Lawyer also mentions other highly qualified critics of the drug: “David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events. An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”

When pressed, proponents of these SSRI antidepressant drugs (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) sometimes say, “Well, the benefits for the general population far outweigh the risk.” But the issue of benefits will not go away on that basis. A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

In wide use. This despite such contrary information and the negative, dangerous effects of these drugs.

There are other studies: “Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al. It reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”

September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.

Here’s a coda:

This one is big.

The so-called “chemical-imbalance theory of mental disorders” is dead. The notion that an underlying chemical imbalance in the brain causes mental disorders: dead.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”

Boom.

However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.

In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to protect his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:

“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”

Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.

And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…

…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…

…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?

Here’s what’s happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They’re taking heavy flack on many fronts.

The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage.

So the shrinks need to move into another model, another con, another fraud. And they’re looking for one.

For example, genes plus “psycho-social factors.” A mish-mash of more unproven science.

“New breakthrough research on the functioning of the brain is paying dividends and holds great promise…” Professional gibberish.

It’s all gibberish, all the way down.

Meanwhile, the business model still demands drugs for sale.

So even though the chemical-imbalance nonsense has been discredited, it will continue on as a dead man walking, a zombie.

Big Pharma isn’t going to back off. Trillions of dollars are at stake.
And in the wake of Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Naval Yard, and other mass shootings, the hype is expanding: “We must have new community mental-health centers all over America.”

More fake diagnosis of mental disorders, more devastating drugs.

You want to fight for a right? Fight for the right to refuse toxic medication. Fight for the right of every parent to refuse toxic medication for his/her child.

Here is a story Dr. Breggin tells in his classic book, Toxic Psychiatry. It says it all:

“Roberta was a college student, getting good grades, mostly A’s, when she first became depressed and sought psychiatric help at the recommendation of her university health service. She was eighteen at the time, bright and well motivated, and a very good candidate for psychotherapy. She was going through a sophomore-year identity crisis about dating men, succeeding in school, and planning a future. She could have thrived with a sensitive therapist who had an awareness of women’s issues.

“Instead of moral support and insight, her doctor gave her Haldol. Over the next four years, six different physicians watched her deteriorate neurologically without warning her or her family about tardive dyskinesia [motor brain damage] and without making the [tardive dyskinesia] diagnosis, even when she was overtly twitching in her arms and legs. Instead they switched her from one neuroleptic [anti-psychotic drug] to another, including Navane, Stelazine, and Thorazine. Eventually a rehabilitation therapist became concerned enough to send her to a general physician, who made the diagnosis [of medical drug damage]. By then she was permanently physically disabled, with a loss of 30 percent of her IQ.

“…my medical evaluation described her condition: Roberta is a grossly disfigured and severely disabled human being who can no longer control her body. She suffers from extreme…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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

Brand New Elite Whistleblower Smashes Global Warming Science

Awarded Climate Medal By Obama – Now He Finds Enormous Fraud & Exposes It

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 6, 2017

A highly respected, medal-winning climate scientist just wound up and threw a giant monkey wrench into global warming science.

His name? John Bates. His target? A recent fraudulent study that claimed the uncomfortable “pause” in warming was really no pause at all. That study, pretending warming had never stopped, was timed to help negotiating nations at the Climate Summit in Paris. It was timed to help them enact draconian economic measures to reduce warming.

But, Bates reveals, that study was cooked on several counts. It was such a mess no self-respecting scientist would sign on to it. However, scientists did sign on to it. And a prestigious journal, Science, published it. Apparently, the brains at Science were on vacation. Or they were determined to play ball and assist the Globalist plan to drastically reduce CO2-producing energy production in nations across the globe, thus escalating poverty, in order to “save us” all from frying.

Here are choice quotes from David Rose’s exclusive Daily Mail article that exposes the far-reaching deception:

“The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.”

“A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed [fraudulent] report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”

“The [fraudulent] report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.”

“But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”

“It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.”

“His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the [fraudulent] Pausebuster paper.”

“His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.”

“In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation…in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.”

“Both datasets [used in the fraudulent study] were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.”

“The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.”

“The paper [fraudulent study] relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.”

“None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.”

“Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.”

“Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.”

“The [fraudulent] paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported [warming] ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.”

“But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.”

“Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer’.”

“Moreover, the…software [used in the fraudulent study] was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results.”

“Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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

Reporters Tell Me The Truth Off The Record: The Fake News Business

fakenews

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 23, 2017

During my 34 years of working as a reporter, I’ve had many informal conversations with mainstream journalists. They were illuminating.

Here, from my notes (1982-2011), taken after the conversations, are what these guardians on the watchtower revealed:

ONE: “Investigative reporting has been dying. There’s no money for it. If I work on a piece for three months, while my paper is paying me, suppose at the end I come up dry? It happens. I can’t make my case. I’ve got nothing to show for it, and my paper is out whatever they’ve been paying me. They don’t like that. The other thing is, investigative work makes my bosses nervous. They don’t know where it’ll lead. Worst case, I might come up with something that’ll put the paper in a bad light. It’s like an intelligence agent in the field who wanders off the reservation. He’s got an assignment, but he sees something better, more important, and that’s where he goes. He ends up finding out something about his own agency. Something bad. I’ve seen that happen. A reporter finds out his own paper has been covering up a heavy scandal. It’s an intrinsic part of the story. What’s he going to do now? Go to his editor and tell him what’s going on? Chances are, his editor already knows. Now the reporter’s jammed up. He’s in a bad spot. A guy I know came to me with that exact problem. You know what I told him? Burn your notes. That’s what I said.”

TWO: “Most reporters who cover major issues are de facto intelligence assets. Some know it, most don’t. They’re all taking their information from controlled sources. It’s like somebody giving you talking points as if they’re the honest truth. In these talking points, you’re told who the players are in a story and what they’re doing. But they aren’t the important players, and what they’re doing is just a cover for what’s really going on. It’s all about misdirection. I’ve managed to get a few stories published about illusion vs. reality. But the thing is, no one follows up on that. It’s in print, and then it dies. One night, I had a little heart to heart with my editor. I told him it would be a lot easier if I just had a desk at the CIA in Langley. He agreed. He said we could move the whole paper there. But then the spooks would realize they didn’t need us at all. They could put out the paper themselves.”

THREE: “We’re in a business. We’re selling a product. That’s our role. If our bosses don’t like what we’re submitting to them, they let us know we’re giving them the wrong product. Our company makes product A and we’re giving them product B. Most reporters wouldn’t even understand what I’m saying, because they’re mentally in the camp of product A. That’s where they live. So as far as they’re concerned, they have lots of leeway. I don’t like talking to those guys. They’re dumb.”

FOUR: “I can write an article that’s critical of what a drug company is specifically doing, but I can’t criticize the company. If I did, my editor would read me the riot act. He knows if he published that article, his boss would get a visit from the company. They would threaten to pull their advertising. Everybody would be in serious trouble. There is a fine line. Sometimes, the evidence against a drug company is huge, and we can get away with a critical article. But most of the time, it’s a no-go area. I could lose my job. If I did, I would have a hell of a time trying to find another position on the same level. I might be subject to an industry-wide demotion.”

FIVE: “I thought I could quit working for my paper and get hired by somebody else, who would give me more freedom to write the stories I wanted to. I made a few quiet inquiries. Turned out I was wrong. They’re all pretty much the same. I could get hired by some small paper and write whatever I wanted to, but I would make very little money. I’d be screwed. They don’t cover this in journalism school.”

SIX: “Sometimes an order comes down. By the time I get it, it isn’t sounding exactly like an order. It’s more like ‘this is what we’re doing’. We need to go after a politician and bury him. That kind of thing. Nobody is complicit. You can’t find somebody and blame him for issuing the order. It’s vague enough that everyone escapes blame. And you don’t want to talk to your colleagues too much about it. You don’t want to be seen as making waves. It’s sort of like a game plan in football. You’re going to execute the plan. You’re not going to start talking about what a lousy plan it is.”

SEVEN: “I’m a guy who’s expected to put out baloney for our audience. I can slice it a few different ways, but it’s the same basic thing. After a few years, I can do it in my sleep. I know the routine.”

EIGHT: “You talk about who’s really running things behind the scene. I know something about that. But I can’t write it in a story. That would be called original research. I’m not allowed to do that. I can only quote authorities on two sides of an issue. And the guy I quote first—he carries the point of view of the story. The other guy is the doubter. I place him in the weaker position. I get to choose, but I already know what’s needed and required.”

NINE: “Reporters in my business have two choices. They can lower their IQs and become cynics, or they can maintain their intelligence and get booted out. That’s what it comes down to. Anybody with an IQ over 90 can see we have agendas. The whole business is agenda-driven. The main job of a reporter who wants to keep working is developing a cover—pretending he’s speaking the truth. This is a cover for his real identity. A guy who pleases his bosses. Several of us had the whole Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky story before it was published. We wanted to go with it, but we were told to sit on it. So it was our job to agree with that assessment. We had to pretend we didn’t have enough proof yet. We had the proof, but we had to make it seem like we were responsible journalists and needed more. That was a bunch of crap. The agenda was to protect ourselves from the wrath of the White House. That’s what the editors and the publishers were talking about among themselves. Sure—protect the president. But the real thing was the fear that he and his people would strike back at us and do us damage.”

TEN: “My decision to get out of the news business was pretty easy. I wanted to write a story about the influence of the Council on Foreign Relations on government policy, since World War Two. The way I was told to forget about it was like a cop talking to a drug dealer. All of a sudden, I was the bad guy. I really got into it with my editor. I saw what a phony he was. The thing is, I knew he had a cozy thing going with the CIA. Several people knew it. In my years in the business, I got a first-hand education in what selling out means. I came pretty close to the edge. There’s a weird adrenaline kick to it. You see your whole future laid out in front of you. It’s very…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

__________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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

 

The Big One: How Environmental Killing Becomes A Medical Disease

The giant pig farm disaster: a medical hoax and cover story

The full truth has never been told—until now

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 18, 2017

“To handle all that [pig-farm feces] waste, farmers in North Carolina use a standard practice called the lagoon and spray field system. They flush feces and urine from barns into open-air pits called lagoons, which turn the color of Pepto-Bismol when pink-colored bacteria colonize the waste. To keep the lagoons from overflowing, farmers spray liquid manure on their fields nearby. The result, says Steve Wing, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is this: ‘The eastern part of North Carolina is covered with shit’.” —National Geographic, 10/30/14

The above quote describes corporate pig farming around the world.

In order to carry out this operation, giant companies like Smithfield have influenced legislators and government-agency officials. Environmental laws and regulations are ignored, or changed. Lawsuits are fought, hammer and tongs.

Here is what Robert F Kennedy Jr. told radio interviewer, Rachel Lewis Hilburn on 6/3/16: “…a hog produces ten times the amount of fecal waste by weight as a human being, so if you have a facility that has ten thousand hogs in it, it’s producing as much sewage as a city of a hundred thousand people. Smithfield has one plant in Utah—they call it Circle Four Farms—that has a million hogs on it, so it’s producing the same amount of waste as New York City every day.”

Here is Kennedy’s kicker:

“There’s no difference between hog waste and human waste in terms of its danger to human health. They [Smithfield and other giant corporate pig operations] ought to have to have a sewage treatment plant that cleans it up. And yet, if they had to build that sewage treatment plan, it would drive the price of hogs up so that they could no longer function in the marketplace… they ought to have to build sewage treatment facilities but nobody’s making them do that because they have used political clout…”

All right, that’s a bit of background. Now I’m going to shift to the subject of Swine Flu, the phony epidemic of 2009.

Where did it start?

At a Smithfield pig-raising operation in Perote, Mexico; in a village called La Gloria. Smithfield raises 950,000 hogs a year there.

Press reports described outdoor “pig feces lagoons” on the property. When workers began to get sick, the area was sprayed with unknown chemicals. More workers fell ill and died.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of public health could testify that this combination of mind-boggling (non-) sanitation, plus strong germicides, plus other toxic chemicals routinely dumped in the feces lagoons, could and would cause human disease.

In fact, it doesn’t matter which particular germs are present in the mix.

People at the CDC had to be well aware of this. Yet, in 2009, their choice was to rush researchers to the Smithfield operation in La Gloria, Mexico, armed with the unfounded assumption that some novel virus, never before seen, was the culprit, and their job was to take blood samples and discover what the new germ was.

Why? Why assume, when workers who operate in that kind of environment get sick, there is some new disease at work? The symptoms of the workers were not unusual, given the circumstances.

Workers dying in that vat of filth and chemical soup should be expected.

But, up front, based on no evidence, the CDC on-site team was going for a new germ and a new disease, and that’s what they announced they had found. A gullible world, fed by press reports, bought in.

And that’s how the fake epidemic called Swine Flu was launched.

All the focus that could have centered on the highly toxic Smithfield pig operation in La Gloria was diverted.

Diverted to a virus.

H1N1 it was called. The Swine Flu virus.

Suddenly, it was a medical problem. Not an environmental disaster.

It was RE-INVENTED as a medical problem.

If you don’t yet get what I’m pointing out here, imagine this: you’re living in an old sewage tunnel under a city. You’re surrounded by human excrement and biting insects and fetid waste water and foul air—and when you fall ill, you suddenly see virus-hunting researchers, not haz-mat rescue workers, approach you and take blood samples. Are they crazy?

No, they’re just doing what their bosses tell them to do. Because the CDC is fronting for, and protecting, major corporate agricultural criminals. Because your illness has to be shifted over to a “new disease and a new virus.”

On top of all this, the virus that these “researchers” do find, which, by the way, is in no way proven to cause disease, can be found all over the world. Why? Because it’s been around for a long, long time, and it has never caused any dire condition at all.

This is how the game works.

This is the medical hoax.

In the case of Swine Flu, it gets worse. It turns out that the virus is not so prevalent after all. That is why, in the early autumn of 2009, CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson discovered that the CDC, ignoring its mandate and charter, had secretly stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. You see, the overwhelming percentage of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, when sent to labs for testing, were coming back with no trace of the so-called Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus. CBS put Attkisson’s published report on the shelf and never followed up on it.

Again, the virus as the cause of illness, was the cover story. Intelligence agencies float cover stories on a regular basis. It’s no accident that CDC has a large unit of virus hunters called the Epidemic Intelligence Service.

Right off the top, I can tell you they create disinformation on a scale that must make the CIA jealous.

Graduates of this EIS program, as proudly stated by the CDC, have gone on to occupy key positions in the overall medical cartel: Surgeons General; CDC directors; medical school deans and professors; medical foundation executives; drug-company and insurance executives; state health officials; medical editors and reporters in major media outlets.

It’s a loyal insider’s club. They collaborate to float prime-cut, A-number-one cover stories of extraordinary dimensions. They invent medical reality out of thin air.

Here is a brief excerpt from the CDC’s website, “50 Years of the Epidemic Intelligence Service”:

“In 1951, EIS was established by CDC following the start of the Korean War as an early-warning system against biologic warfare and man-made epidemics. EIS officers selected for 2-year field assignments were primarily medical doctors and other health professionals…who focused on infectious disease outbreaks. EIS has expanded to include a range of public health professionals, such as postdoctoral scientists in statistics, epidemiology, microbiology, anthropology, sociology, and behavioral sciences. Since 1951, approximately 2500 EIS officers have responded to requests for epidemiologic assistance within the United States and throughout the world. Each year, EIS officers are involved in several hundred investigations of disease and injury problems, enabling CDC and its public health partners to make recommendations to improve the public’s health and safety.”

Several hundred investigations a year. An unparalleled opportunity to shape the truth into propaganda. Control of information about disease. Control out in the field, where EIS agents rush to the scene of “outbreaks,” all the way back through the hallowed halls of academia, into the press, into Big Pharma, into the government.

When I say control of information, I mean disinformation. That’s what the EIS is for. They’ve never met a virus they didn’t love, and if…

Continue Reading At: JonRappaport.wordpress.com
_____________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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

25 Quotes About The Power Of Imagination

create
Source: OutsideTheRealityMachine.wordpress.com | NomoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 9, 2017

I wrote these notes after releasing my second collection, Exit From The Matrix. This collection contains over 50 imagination exercises designed to increase an individual’s creative power:

“Consciousness wants to create new consciousness, and it can. Imagination is how it does it. If there were some ultimate state of consciousness, imagination would always be able to play another card and take it further.”

“If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we’ve flattered reality enough. It doesn’t need any more. Reality needs a massive injection of imagination.”

“Imagination can be used to invent a better shade of nail polish or a universe. In a society devoted to nail polish, imagination is not to blame.”

“Imagination has extraordinary equanimity. It is just as happy to entertain and embody two conflicting realities as it is to spool out one uniform reality.”

“You can create the same thing over and over, and eventually you’ll be about as alive as a table. Inject imagination into the mix, and everything suddenly changes. You can go anywhere you want to. You can build worlds.”

“The lowest common denominator of consensus implies an absence of imagination. Everyone agrees; everyone is bored; everyone is obedient. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are massive floods of unique individual creation, and that sought-after thing called abundance is as natural as the sun rising in the morning.”

“Sitting around in a cosmic bus station waiting for reality is what reality is. Everything else is imagination.”

“There are those who believe life is a museum. You walk through the rooms, find one painting, stroll into it and take up permanent residence. But the museum is endless. And if you were a painter, you’d never decide to live inside one of your canvases forever. You’d keep on painting.”

“Traveling to places one has never seen is far different from creating something that never existed before.”

“The relentless and obsessive search for all those things on which we can agree is a confession of bankruptcy. Instead, build one new thing.”

“We re-learn to live through and by imagination, and then we enter and invent new space and time. But space and time aren’t the superior forces. They operate and come into being at the tap of imagination.”

“With imagination, one can solve a problem. More importantly, one can skip ahead of the problem and render it null and void.”

“You can enter imagination as if were an infinitely fluid medium, or you can give it sharp lines and edges. You can balance left and right, or you can tilt it eighty degrees to the right. You can do anything you want to. You can put a million pink quarks in a bowl and turn the bowl upside down in the sky. It’s Tuesday or it’s Thursday. It’s raining. The sun is out. It’s raining and the sun is out.”

“There are a billion murals on a billion walls, and the person chooses one and falls down before it and devotes himself to it. He spends a thousand years trying to decipher it. So be it. Eventually, he’ll wind his way out of the labyrinth. Then he’ll enter another labyrinth and undergo the same process. He’ll do this on and on and on, and finally he’ll see that he can imagine his own labyrinth. So he does. He invents many labyrinths. Then one day, it’ll occur to him that he can imagine whatever he wants to. It doesn’t have to be labyrinth.”

“What feeds back to you from the product of your imagination is far less important than the fact that you imagined it. People love to ensnare themselves in what they have imagined. They try to inject meaning into it, so much meaning that they become tied up in useless interpretations. They are the ‘product people’. Dreams, paintings, collections of ideas and thoughts—they are obsessed with what they have invented. Just look at what you’ve created it, enjoy it, revel in it, and go on to create something else. This is the path.”

“You can imagine a cosmos that is a forgery of, and a substitute for, the individual. In fact, historically, people have done that on a continuous basis. It’s called organized religion.”

“Imagination isn’t a system. It might invent systems, but it is non-material. It’s a capacity. It feels no compulsion to imitate reality. It makes realities. Its scope is limited only by a person’s imagining of…

Continue Reading At: OutsideTheRealityMachine.wordpress.com

______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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

 

The Op: Unelected Agents Now Infiltrating ‘Critical Infrastructures’

Massive Collection Of Data
A covert op for the ages: Technocracy United
Technocracy: “control of society by a technical elite”

technocracy
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 9, 2017

Note to readers: the people in charge of, yes, running the future are counting on a populace who can’t think beyond a few weeks or months. That’s their ace in the hole. The long-term future must always seem blurry and vague—and a waste of time to consider. Why? It’s obvious. The people in charge are always building the long-term future, brick by brick, and if very few citizens can grasp what it looks like, how can they object or resist or sound an alarm?

If you want to illegally take over an area, you need to invent an external threat justifying the takeover. We’ve been seeing exactly that recently, as Russia has suddenly been painted as a hostile force trying to destroy our “open democracy.”

Therefore, the Department of Homeland Security is now in charge of US elections, to “combat the Russian hackers.”

And it isn’t only elections.

In the release, last Friday, that gave control of US elections to the Department of Homeland Security (a naked coup), we also have this, from ABC News:

“A 2013 presidential directive identified 16 sectors as critical infrastructures, including energy, financial services, health care, transportation, food and agriculture and communications.”

“The designation announced Friday places responsibilities on the Homeland Security secretary to identify and prioritize those sectors, considering physical and cyber threats against them. The secretary is also required to conduct security checks and provide information about emerging and imminent threats.”

ABC got it wrong. The responsibilities (excluding elections) placed on the head of Homeland Security weren’t invented last Friday. They kicked off in 2013, and they represent a technocratic op to infiltrate and exert power over every aspect of American life.

The 2013 Policy Directive, issued by President Obama, was titled: “Critical Infrastructure Security and Review.” It enumerated no less than 16 areas of so-called US “critical infrastructure” where Homeland Security would muscle in:

Chemical; Commercial Facilities; Communications; Critical Manufacturing; Dams; Defense Industrial Base; Emergency Services; Energy; Final Services; Food and Agriculture; Government Facilities; Healthcare and Public Health; Information Technology; Nuclear Reactors, Materials, and Waste; Transportation Systems; Water and Wastewater Systems.

These are the areas where the head of Homeland Security is expected to “manage risk and strengthen security.” HS will also, of course, take charge of integrating and monitoring ALL the data networks of these 16 sectors.

It sounds reasonable to the average person. But the true theme is control. Planning, control, execution. Move in on these areas and exert operational command from the top.

This IS, in fact, the technocratic blueprint for global management of a new system. We’re talking about the re-engineering of society.

Capturing the 16 areas (and their data) above was always the long-term aim, when the Department of Homeland Security was invented in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. If you recall, there was considerable grousing then about the word “Homeland,” because it emitted a strong whiff of Fascism.

If the goal is engineering a new society—and it is—all systems of data collection, communication, and surveillance must be gathered under one roof.

The social and political engineer (aka the technocrat) views every person (unit) as a biological machine that must be profiled six ways from Sunday, for the purpose of inserting him into an overall pattern. As Patrick Wood explains in his brilliant book, Technocracy Rising, “[technology] is being rapidly implemented…to exhaustively monitor, measure and control every facet of individual activity and every ampere of energy delivered and consumed in the life of such individual[s].”

In truth, the Dept. of Homeland Security is spearheading a movement to connect, cross reference, and integrate every major apparatus of data- collection in both the private and public sectors.

This is the ongoing op.

It is not partisan. It flies the banner of no political party. It pretends to protect the citizenry.

But, in fact, it is the major long-term threat to the citizenry.

It is planning a national and global civilization that does not ask for permission to exist.

No one is voting, because if a vote were required, and people were informed about what is really happening, they would overwhelmingly reject technocracy.

Which is why new enemies must be invented on a continuous basis—to justify the “proactive measures that will keep us safe.”

Homeland Security, with its 240,000 employees and its 24 agencies, is in the business of securing untold trillions…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
______________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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

Fourth Open Letter To Home Schoolers

studying
Source:NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 6, 2017

These days, I’m coming across a phenomenon I call The Disconnected Mind more frequently.

In its most extreme form, it goes this way. I write a piece on the American Republic, and someone sends me an email that begins: “Yes, limited government is the foundation of the Republic. The oil spill is on the news all the time. I live in Michigan. I wish I had a dog. The government can’t afford to fix the potholes…”

What? Excuse me? Time out!

There are other forms of The Disconnected Mind. The most pervasive type stems from high school and college education. The student steps out into the world and quickly realizes he doesn’t have a clue about the way things work. All that education, and it seems to vanish behind him like vapor.

In this shaky situation, a young person gropes around for something to cling to. He encounters all sorts of quasi-philosophy and political propaganda—delivered by people who appear quite sure of themselves.

How does a newly minted adult assemble his attitude toward his own future? How does he fend off propaganda?

He’s missing one great asset. He can’t analyze information and separate the wheat from the chaff.

He thought he could back in school, but that turned out to be an illusion.

He’s paralyzed.

Part of the fault can be laid at the door of political correctness. The material he dealt with in school was sanitized and scrubbed. Any sentence that might have remotely offended some group was eliminated from text books.

He was operating in a pleasant abstract vacuum and he didn’t really know it. Now he pays the price.

It turns out that information comes in all shapes and sizes. Some of it drifts in on the breeze and some of it is launched from propaganda guns at high velocity.

A lot of it is disjointed. It contains holes that reflect the state of mind of the author. No one can really make sense out of it, because it wasn’t written to make sense. It was written to persuade.

In the end, most people surrender. They stagger under a particular umbrella of information, and they stop thinking. They consider themselves lucky because they’ve gotten out of the rain.

In retrospect, their prized education was almost worthless. It was, at best, a huge waste of time.

All in all, I would say the most egregious problem people have with information is this: they can’t follow a train of thought. They can’t see there is “connective tissue” between several sequential ideas. They believe it’s all right to plug into an article at any point and see if they agree with what’s being said.

To grasp this state of affairs, imagine a person who gets on a train while it’s moving. He isn’t aware that the train started somewhere, will make certain stops, and end up at a terminal destination. He just jumps on.

The consequence? He winds up at a place he didn’t intend to. He comes to believe this is the journey of life. You arrive at a place and you get used to it. Other people say it’s a good place, so you buy into that.

There is another way.

It starts with a thorough course in logic. The student learns he can analyze information and see the flaws. He can dig into the logic and illogic of an argument its author is trying to make. He can follow a train of thought—or if there isn’t one, he can…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
___________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

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

 

Will California Secede From The US? I Hope So

File:Bolinas California aerial view.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 4, 201

Not going to happen, but it’s interesting to imagine it.

Several groups in California are pushing for a ballot measure that, if passed, would allow the state’s voters to decide, in a direct referendum, whether to remain part of the US or become an independent country.

I’d like to see California secede, on the basis that they want a green economy and they want to “adjust” their immigration policies. It would be a sight to behold. Wide open borders and wind propellers everywhere. I’d give CA five years until total collapse.

It would be first state to secede and then beg to be let back into the country.

Its president, Jerry Brown, would release a statement: “This is a big oops. We miscalculated. It turns out we can’t afford open borders. And I’m not just talking about the upsurge in crime and terror attacks. The social services we provide all immigrants are overwhelming our institutions and our financial resources. No one wants to underwrite the loans we require. We’re screwed and we’re sorry. Please re-admit us to the Union. We need to become the biggest Welfare State in history right away.”

Yes, let’s see the green revolution and social justice play out on a large stage. Let’s see the consequences.

How about this potential news story: “Lawmakers in California have been exposed for lying about global warming in their new country. After spending several billion dollars they didn’t have, to put up a satellite to measure climate change, it turned out the reported numbers were fudged because, as one legislator stated (off the record): ‘What did you expect? The actual numbers showed there was no warming, but we couldn’t admit that. Are you kidding? After we spent six billion to get the figures, we ended up with zilch. It was a disaster. We had to lie, to protect the reputation of our new nation.”

The vice-president of California, Barbara Boxer, would announce: “The policy of forcing two women into top executive positions at our major corporations for every man has failed. Corporate warfare has broken out. In boardrooms across the state, a poisonous atmosphere prevails. We must backtrack and reconsider.”

Several pro-immigration groups would issue a joint statement: “Consequences are irrelevant. The point is, this is a battle to take back California for Mexico. Our whole goal is extending the nation of Mexico to the north, and nothing will stop us. Anyone living in the nation of California who isn’t a Mexican is an illegal. We’re righting a wrong, and that’s all that matters. Our Treasury must replace dollars with pesos, and it must issue as many trillions as necessary to give our people a free standard of living.”

The California Dept. of Energy would release a new regulation: “In view of the current energy shortages, our Weather Control Department is hereby empowered to create continuous massive storms, in order to dramatically increase air flow for our wind power installations.”

And then there would be this…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
____________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

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

 

Another Look At Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s Death

athink
Source: NoMoreFakenews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 3, 2017

I’m taking another look because I have a new statement about a related case: Melaney Parker, a woman found dead on the railroad tracks in Marfa, Texas, in 2013, after a train hit her.

The same judge who inexplicably decided Scalia needed no autopsy, after he died in Texas, in 2016, came to the same conclusion in the Melaney Parker case.

That Texas judge is Cinderela Guevara.

Heavy.com summarizes the questions surrounding the 2013 death of Melaney Parker and Guevara’s role:

“Liz Parker, Melaney’s mom, questioned how Guevara handled the investigation of her daughter’s death, The Daily Kos reported. Melaney was hit by a Union Pacific Railroad train and, Liz wrote, a Union Pacific representative told her that it appeared that her body had been placed on the tracks while she was unconscious. Liz asked the Justice of the Peace and the Sheriff to open the case as a homicide investigation, but they would not. Guevara, who was a Justice of the Peace at the time, did not order a rape kit or an autopsy, Liz wrote, because a doctor at the scene said the cause of death was obvious.”

“Liz later wrote a letter to the editor, published in Big Bend Now, in which she said that Guevara had asked for God to give her an answer [!] about whether Melaney’s death was suicide. Liz wrote that Guevara told her: ‘Yes, this was a tragedy, but the true tragedy was that she died without accepting Jesus Christ as her savior’.” [!!]

“Big Bend Now also published a story about the controversial investigation. Melaney’s cousin, Aspen Parker, wrote a letter to Fox News in 2013 saying that Guevara’s cause of death ruling mentioned that Melaney had submitted a letter of resignation to her employers before her death. Aspen wrote that he called Melaney’s employers and they said that wasn’t true.”

The death of Melaney Parker sounds like a case begging to be reopened. I now have a new statement on it.

According to someone with knowledge of the investigation (or non-investigation), the crime scene was a mess. The day after the police initially visited it, Melaney Parker’s eyeglasses were still there. They hadn’t been picked up as evidence.

Pieces of Parker’s flesh were there as well. The engineer of the train that hit Parker said Parker had been positioned with one arm above her head, which suggested she might have been killed somewhere else and then dragged to the railroad tracks.

After toxicology tests were completed, Parker’s remains were cremated without her family’s permission.

If all this is true, Judge Guevara’s decision to skip an autopsy and accept the ruling of suicide is even more suspect.

And then three years later, when Justice Scalia dies, Guevara issues the same long-distance ruling, on the phone. No autopsy necessary.

Here is what I originally wrote about Scalia’s death. It’s extensive. Six articles. Some of the information overlaps:

ONE: “’Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was the senior member of the U. S. Supreme Court and one of the 10 most important public servants in the country. For better or worse over the course of his 29 years on the Court, he was arguably the most influential person in America’.” Eric Mink, Huffington Post, 2/17.

We start here—from the NY Post:

“Lethal poisoning could have left Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s body in virtually the same condition in which it was found, a top forensic pathologist told The Post on Wednesday.

“’It would look like he’s asleep. It [poisoning] doesn’t show anything on the body,’ said Dr. Michael Baden, who spent 25 years in the city’s chief Medical Examiner’s Office.

“Still, Baden stressed that natural causes was a plausible explanation.”

However, the official pronouncement of natural causes carries a burden with it. The burden of some semblance of proof. In this case, there was none.

And if you think “none” should be SOP in the case of a US Supreme Court Justice, you need to think again.

Judge Cinderela Guevara, miles away from Scalia’s body, sitting on the phone, rendered the judgment of natural causes after talking with marshals, none of whom had forensic training; and after talking with Scalia’s doctor, who was a few thousand miles from the Texas ranch where Scalia died.

Apparently, Scalia’s doctor told Judge Guevara that Scalia had a heart condition. Yes? And? This is proof a US Supreme Court Justice died of a heart attack?

Guevara, like a true bumbling amateur (or was something more ominous going on here?), decided no autopsy of the body was necessary. She decided she was too busy (doing what?) to climb in her car and drive to the ranch, to oversee the situation and talk to people at the scene.

So she said, on the phone, “Natural causes. No autopsy.”

In the case of a US Supreme Court Justice. In the biggest moment of Judge Guevara’s professional life.

And the Department of Justice, the FBI, the President, and all the members of US Congress immediately bought it.

No objections. No questions. No outrage.

Just the silence of the lambs.

In a city where blabbermouths never stop talking, suddenly—silence.

Paralysis.

And thereafter: no chain of custody for bodily evidence.

The body of a US Supreme Court Justice wasn’t put on a plane, from the mile-long airstrip at Cibolo Ranch, under supervision, and flown back immediately to Washington DC for analysis. No.

Instead, it was driven to the Sunset Funeral Home in El Paso, 230 miles from the Ranch. It could have been driven 65 miles to the Alpine Memorial Funeral Home in Alpine, but it wasn’t.

At the Sunset Funeral Home in El Paso, it was promptly embalmed—ruling out the possibility of a conventional autopsy. Even then, forensic pathologist Michael Baden states, toxicology tests could be done by sophisticated analysis. According to Wayne Madsen, reporting for Infowars, no bodily fluids were collected at the funeral home for later analysis.

Roughly 10 hours after the embalming, Scalia’s body was loaded on a plane and flown to Virginia, where Scalia’s family lives.

But “most people think Scalia died of natural causes.” That argument, for impaired minds, carries the day. Nothing more to see, nothing more to know.

“Old man, in ill-health, heart condition. He dies. What else could it possibly be? Natural causes.”

As reported by Eric Mink at the Huffington Post (2/17), in an excellent piece, there were 35-40 guests at the Cibolo Ranch on the weekend Scalia died. Who were they? Was this merely a quail-hunting outing? Or was it another kind of get-together?

No word. Silence. Why haven’t any of those guests spoken to the press? Do they know something that would shed a different light on the official story? Are they afraid? Did someone at the federal level throw a blanket over them?

Judge Cinderela Guevara spoke to a lawyer representing the Scalia family. He said the family didn’t want an autopsy. Who is he? Why hasn’t his name surfaced? Since when is a client’s lawyer’s name a secret?

Scalia traveled to the ranch with a friend. No one is saying who the friend is. That’s also a state secret?

Does the Cibolo Ranch have medical personnel on staff? If so, were any of them called when Scalia was discovered dead in his room?

The official narrative is: old man, long-time public servant, dies peacefully in his sleep of natural causes. This is the thin gloss that prevents any Washington politician with clout from demanding an investigation? This quiets and paralyzes the entire federal establishment, including eight Justices of the Supreme Court?

Cowards and lambs.

Not an ounce of conscience among them.

Neutered.

And/or told to stay silent.

In the wake of this titanic silence, the narrative is quickly and expertly shifted to the question of who will replace Scalia on the bench. That’s the certified subject of chatter. Should Obama appoint a nominee, or should nomination wait for the next President? What is the rule? The Republicans cross swords with the Democrats. Precedents are cited. The man isn’t in his grave, and the hangars-on and petty power players are arguing over his successor. It’s a B movie. Pundits prepare talking points, clean their suits, see their hair stylists, and sidle into their minutes of face time on news shows. The shows deliver filler between commercials.

This is the wet concrete that sets over the death of a US Supreme Court Justice.

The one man who could have swept aside all objections, and ordered an investigation, visits the flag-covered casket in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court, stands before it for 30 seconds, moves to a painted portrait of the deceased Justice, lingers there for one minute, and then goes home, to the Oval Office, to vet nominees, a herculean task that will unfortunately prevent him from attending the funeral.

Omerta.

TWO: Four days before he died, Supreme Court Justice Scalia voted to stall Obama’s plan to force drastic EPA climate-change rules on the American economy. The vote was 5-4.

With Scalia now gone, the vote would be 4-4.

With a new Obama Supreme Court appointee, if Obama could ram his choice through, the vote would be 5-4 in the President’s favor. Ditto, if the next President shares Obama’s position. And the climate-change agenda would roll ahead.

We’re not talking about small climate-change rules. We’re talking about the Big Ones.

And note: such rules could very well dovetail with the Brave New World spelled out in the upcoming TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership).

It’s a wedge formation, a squeeze play, a pincer movement featuring new EPA climate-change regulations on one side, and new draconian possibilities embedded in the TPP.

If Scalia was murdered, the above agenda was sufficient reason, because the climate agenda has the force to transform life on the planet.

If Scalia’s murder were a movie, he would have been told, as a warning: “You have no idea how big this thing is; you really don’t understand the forces you’re messing with.”

Of course, most Americans don’t believe a political murder along this line could happen in real life. They can only accept it in a movie, where it makes perfect sense. That tells you something about the schizoid nature of the public mind:

Adrenaline-driven in front of a screen; tranquilized and programmed to be passive and accepting of recognized authority, otherwise.

“Don’t be silly. Scalia, murdered, and murdered for that reason? It couldn’t happen. That’s so…barbaric. We’re civilized.” That opinion and $6 will get you a rainbow smoothie.

Obama’s climate-change plan uses the EPA to act out international agreements signed at the recent Paris summit. But in order to, yes, scam these agreements into force in the US, the EPA has to stretch and bend and distort already-existing US law. And it has done so.

However, a number of states have sued to stop the EPA, which wants to make all states cut CO2 emissions from electrical power production by 32% in the next 15 years. Aimed mainly at coal-burning plants, these regulations would create deep reductions in the overall US energy supply and output—a primary mission of the economy-wrecking Rockefeller Globalists.

The US Supreme Court, four days before Scalia’s death, with his vote, declared a narrow 5-4 halt to the Obama plan, pending a lower-court decision on the issue. The 5-4 vote didn’t knock out the plan, but it stalled it. And if Scalia had stayed alive, his vote going forward on the Obama plan could have remained crucial.

The pending TPP, another Globalist trade treaty, contains a section that allows endless changes and additions in the text as years pass. In other words, the passion for cutting energy production for the US, and the rest of the planet, can easily be folded into the treaty.

The TPP also reveals a cynical attitude toward the “humanitarian goal of saving the planet from CO2 death.” Major corporations that burn coal and employ other ways of releasing CO2 can relocate to far-off lands (e.g., Vietnam) and spew CO2 to their hearts’ content, without messy environmental controls.

In other words, the true underlying Globalist scheme, vis-à-vis climate change has nothing to do with messianic rescue: it has to do with lowering energy production.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

New York Times 1989: No Global Warming Trend

athink
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
December 29, 2016

The New York Times, the “paper of record,” published a very interesting piece on January 26, 1989. The headline read: “US Data since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend.”

Here are a few key paragraphs:

“After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.”

“While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.”

“The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.”

Then comes the revisionist stepping-back from the explosive finding:

“Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ‘cast doubt’ on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures…He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.”

That’s a beauty, isn’t it? The US, with its massive spewing industrial/automotive output of CO2 is—owing to a mysterious force—not warming. It’s angels, of course. Angels scrubbing the sky.

Actually, later in the Times article, “Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan” offers this gem: “Another possibility, he [Hansen] said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.”

But I suppose, through a REVERSE miracle, the droplets do allow heat generated at ground level to escape upward. If the droplets did trap heat at ground level, temperatures would rise—and the study showed that wasn’t occurring. More angels. The magic droplets deflect heat coming down, but not going up.

The Times had no follow-up questions.

But don’t worry…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_________________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

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