David Rasnick: new strain of the coronavirus, or a giant con? How deep do the lies go?

by Jon Rappoport

January 25, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

David Rasnick [1], PhD chemist, with a long history working in the pharmaceutical industry (Abbott, Prototek, Arris), broke away from official science and served as the president of Rethinking AIDS: the group for the scientific reappraisal of the HIV hypothesis. He was a member of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel of South Africa.

Here is a recent explosive statement Rasnick made [2] about SARS-CoV-2 and HIV. Digesting it brings about a breakthrough revelation:

“Viruses are unstable, RNA [e.g, SARS-Cov-2] viruses especially. They are so unstable, there is no such thing as an un-mutated RNA virus. They are like snow flakes, no two are identical.”

“HIV is an RNA virus with 9,800 nucleotides. You can download the HIV Sequence Compendium here:” [3]

“In the Preface it says:”

“’The number of [genetic] sequences in the HIV database is still increasing. In total, at the end of 2017, there were 812,586 sequences in the HIV Sequence Database, an increase of 8.5% since the previous year.”

“None of the sequences of the world destroying [sarcasm], computer generated coronavirus with its 30,000 or so nucleotides, are identical.”

“The virus maniacs use computers to compare the menagerie of sequences to come up with ‘A Consensus Sequence’ for HIV, Coronavirus, and all the rest. The consensus sequence exists in two places: in computers and in strings of RNA synthesized in the lab.”

“Even consensus sequences are not stable. Different groups, using a variety of computer algorithms will invariably come up with different ‘consensus sequences’.”

The implications of Rasnick’s statement are enormous.

First of all, forget about the idea that SARS-Cov-2 has one genetic sequence.

And these multiple sequences aren’t assembled by looking through a magic microscope. They’re put together by computer programs which have pre-set algorithms.

In other words, the sequences are built by ASSUMPTIONS (not evidence) embedded in the algorithms.

ANY vaccine developed for SARS-Cov-2 (even if you believe in the theory of how vaccines are supposed to work) would face the task of producing immunity to an ever-mutating virus—not just one mutated strain, but endless numbers of mutations.

You would have an analog to seasonal flu, in which researchers make a guess about what the new version of the virus will look like every year and develop a new vaccine for that guess.

How well is this working out? Public health agencies report that, each and every year, there are a BILLION cases of seasonal flu, worldwide.

Going still deeper, if the genetic sequences of the ever-mutating viruses are not discovered, but concocted via computer programs, how likely is it that a vaccine utilizing that “data” would work?

And at the bottom of the whole pile of guesswork, is, of course, the realization that, if these genetic sequences are concocted—where is the ACTUAL isolated virus? WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT IT EXISTS?

Where is it, when, as I’ve been reporting for months now, researchers twist and torture the meaning of “isolated,” so that it indicates “the virus is somewhere in a soup in a dish in a lab”—definitely UN-isolated.

Such is the “science” of modern virology.

But don’t worry, be happy, the test “for the coronavirus” must be accurate, the case and death numbers must be accurate, and the consequent lockdowns which are destroying national economies and hundreds of millions of lives are necessary…right?

Sure. Why not? Let’s say it’s all, all right. Everybody can go back to sleep and let tyrants demolish Earth civilization.

OR, you can REBEL against the Police State built on a house-of-cards hoax called “science.”

As opposed to “the virus,” liberty and freedom are quite real. People can feel them in their bones, in their minds and souls. Even and especially if they are slaves, they can feel them.

Speaking of whether a virus actually exists, here is an article I’ve reposted several times:

DOES HIV EXIST? AN EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW

Before we get to Christine Johnson’s interview, a bit of background.

My first book, AIDS INC., was published in 1988. The research I engaged in then formed a foundation for my recent work in exposing the vast fraud called COVID-19.

In 1987-88, my main question eventually became: does HIV cause AIDS? For months, I had blithely assumed the obvious answer was yes. This created havoc in my investigation, because I was facing contradictions I couldn’t solve.

For example, in parts of Africa, people who were chronically ill and dying obviously needed no push from a new virus. All their “AIDS” conditions and symptoms could be explained by their environment: contaminated water supplies; sewage pumped directly into the drinking water; protein-calorie malnutrition; hunger, starvation; medical treatment with immunosuppressive vaccines and drugs; toxic pesticides; fertile farm land stolen by corporations and governments; wars; extreme poverty. The virus cover story actually obscured all these ongoing crimes.

Finally, in the summer of 1987, I found several researchers who were rejecting the notion that HIV caused AIDS. Their reports were persuasive.

I’m shortcutting a great deal of my 1987-8 investigation here, but once HIV was out of the picture for me, many pieces fell into place. I discovered that, in EVERY group supposedly at “high-risk” for AIDS, their conditions and symptoms could be entirely explained by factors that had nothing to do with a new virus.

AIDS was not one condition. It was an umbrella label, used to re-package a number of immunosuppressive conditions and create the illusion of a new and unique and single “pandemic.”

Several years after the publication of AIDS INC., I became aware of a quite different emerging debate going on under the surface of research: DOES HIV EXIST?

Was the purported virus ever truly discovered?

And THAT question led to: what is the correct procedure for discovering a new virus?

The following 1997 interview, conducted by brilliant freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:

How should researchers prove that a particular virus exists? How should they isolate it? What are the correct steps?

These questions, and their answers, reside at the heart of most disease research—and yet, overwhelmingly, doctors never explore them or even consider them.

Johnson interviews Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…”

Here I’m publishing and highlighting excerpts from the interview [4] [5]. Technical issues are discussed. Grasping them is not the easiest exercise you’ve ever done, but I believe the serious reader can comprehend the vital essentials.

CJ: Does HIV cause AIDS?

EP: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

… CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.

CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?

EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

… CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.

EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.

The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.

That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.

CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?

EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.

CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?

EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.

CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.

EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.

CJ: And what was that method?

EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.

CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?

EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.

CJ: But what about their pictures?

EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…”

—end of interview excerpt—

If you grasp the essentials of this discussion, you’ll see there is every reason to doubt the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving its existence were not followed.

And so…as I’ve reported these past few months, there is every reason to doubt and reject the existence of the COVID virus, since correct large-scale electron microscope studies have never been done.

I kept the Christine Johnson interview, and other similar information, in mind when, for example, I explored the dud epidemics called SARS and 2009 Swine Flu.

How many viruses have been named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist?

Of course, conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at any attempt to raise these issues. For them, “the science is settled.” Meaning: they don’t want to think. They don’t want to stir the waters.

A few years ago, chemist David Rasnick sent a request to the CDC, asking for evidence demonstrating that the Ebola virus had ever been isolated from a human. The answers he received did not begin to approach a level of certainty.

After 30 years working as a reporter in the area of deep medical-research fraud, I’ve seen that false science occurs in levels.

The deeper you go, the stranger it gets. To put it another way: the deeper you go, the worse it gets.

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.davidrasnick.com/

[2] personal communication

[3] https://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-18-25673

[4] http://virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjinterviewep.htm

[5] https://www.immunity.org.uk/articles/christine-johnson/

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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.

How I assembled The Matrix Revealed: The Key Symbol

Jan24

by Jon Rappoport

The key was handed to me by a colleague and friend.

In 1987, when I was researching my book, AIDS INC., I took a side road. It was prompted by a conversation I had with the brilliant hypnotherapist, Jack True. He was telling me about experiences he’d had with his patients under hypnosis.

“Some patients encounter a ‘monolith’,” he said. “They come across a symbol that is there in the subconscious. Sometimes it looks like a closed door. Sometimes it shows up as a blank wall. Sometimes it’s a geometric shape. One patient actually called it a ‘brick sky’.”

“But in every case, it locked up the patient’s ability to recall or explore under hypnosis. It was like a giant obstruction on a road. However, these patients could describe something about the nature of the symbol. They said it was broadcasting a message: ‘THIS IS REALITY’.”

“The patients were in awe of the symbol. It had a deep emotional effect on them. It was as if many different realities had come together to form this single symbol, like separate pieces clicking into place.”

Jack went further. He stated that the symbol induced a profound passivity in his patients…

Jack subsequently devised strategies to take apart the symbol, so these patients could rid themselves of their passivity and access huge amounts of previously blocked energies.

Well, I was shocked, because my research on my book had followed a parallel course. I’ll explain.

The AIDS cover story that had been invented by medical researchers was all about One Reality, one disease condition caused by one virus, one label, one symbol for the condition: “AIDS”.

When, in fact, that was “the obstruction on the road” which was blocking further investigation. In fact, the whole “Oneness” myth was a lie. A gigantic lie.

A very, very convincing lie. An awesome lie.

The truth was, so-called AIDS was many different conditions (realities) which had been falsely “clicked” together, through massive propaganda.

That was the key to unlocking the puzzle. And it was the key for me to move into new territory with new energy and confidence.

I’d been stalled at the wall, but now I could advance.

The awesome symbol, “AIDS,” had been shattered to pieces.

Since the publication of my book, I’ve of course investigated a number of other subjects, and in each case, there was a symbol, a monolith, an obstruction, and in every case I’ve taken the monolith apart to discover that it’s hiding a plurality of scandals and crimes and deceptions and realities.

The One False Unity concealing The Many.

These monoliths are very, very effective because—and this is vitally important to understand—they mirror the tendency of the subconscious mind to fall to its knees before A Single Symbol.

People gravitate to single causes, single symbols in every area of life, and they don’t penetrate further.

This is an aspect of the Matrix.

False Unities are the meat and potatoes of very high-level propaganda. They are launched in politics, economics, organized religion, science, psychology, the military, mind control, in all the academic disciplines.

As an analogy, consider a painting in which the three-dimensional perspective has been radically shortened to eliminate the background. But the background is really where all the action is. The foreground is the false Oneness.

Grasping all of this allowed me to go further than I thought possible in putting together The Matrix Revealed. My method of investigation altered radically, and I hit paydirt.

The Matrix is a multi-layered, multi-dimensional operation, seeded with symbols that broadcast FALSE UNITY.

And these symbols collaborate with the subconscious tendency to buy those UNITIES.

Your freedom and power emerge when the subconscious tendency is made conscious and can be seen in the light of day.

That is the purpose of my collection, The Matrix Revealed.

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

Here are the contents of The Matrix Revealed:

* 250 megabytes of information.

* Over 1100 pages of text.

* Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

* My complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and audio to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

* The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

* JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages.

* ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

* RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

Also included:

* Several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix. 53 pages.

* The ten and a half hours of mp3 audio are my solo presentation, based on these interviews and my own research. Title: The Multi-Dimensional Planetary Chessboard—The Matrix vs. the Un-Conditioning of the Individual.

(All the material is digital. Upon ordering it, you’ll receive an email with a link to it.)

Understanding Matrix is also understanding your capacity and power, and that is the way to approach this subject. Because liberation is the goal. And liberation has no limit.

I invite you to a new exploration and a great adventure.

Jon Rappoport

Power Outside The Matrix: Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation

Jan23

by Jon Rappoport

My “ordeal by fire” came in 1987, while I was writing my first book, AIDS INC.

I had dozens of sources telling me contradictory stories about HIV, what HIV really was and wasn’t; and that was just the beginning of the AIDS information/opinion flooding in from all quarters.

I had to find a way to judge all these data. I had to separate value from non-value. I had to discover a few bottom lines that would serve as context, against which I could make judgments.

When the dust cleared, I knew I had reached a high point. I knew I was launched. Never again would serious disinformation and misinformation cook my brain.

Since then, I’ve made extensive notes on “Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation”—which happens to be the title of one section of my collection, Power Outside The Matrix.

Here are the contents of Power Outside The Matrix:

These are audio presentations. 55 total hours.

* Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation (11.5-hours)

* Writer’s Tutorial (8.5-hours)

* Power Outside The Matrix and The Invention of New Reality (6.5-hours)

Then you will receive the following audio presentations I have previously done:

* The Third Philosophy of Imagination (1-hour)

* The Infinite Imagination (3-hours)

* The Mass Projection of Events (1.5-hours)

* The Decentralization of Power (1.5-hours)

* Creating the Future (6-hours)

* Pictures of Reality (6-hours)

* The Real History of America (2-hours)

* Corporations: The New Gods (7.5-hours)

I have included an additional bonus section:

* The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst (and how to analyze them). I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

* A 2-hour radio interview I did on AIDS in Dec 1987 with host Roy Tuckman on KPFK in Los Angeles, California.

* My book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies

(All the audio presentations are mp3 files and the books are pdf files. You download the files upon purchase. You’ll receive an email with a link to the entire collection.)

At the core of consciousness, there are two impulses in the individual. The first is: give in, surrender. The second is: express power without limit.

The teaching of every civilization and society is: don’t use your power. When you follow the second path, when you express your power without limits, remarkable things happen.

The veil of illusion melts away.

You meet yourself on new ground.

You know what your freedom is for.

Without imposing on the freedom of others, you live the life you always wanted.

That’s what Power Outside The Matrix is all about.

Jon Rappoport

How is Joe Biden like a ham sandwich?

Jan22

by Jon Rappoport

January 22, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

The movie, which will never be made, is called, HOW IS JOE BIDEN LIKE A HAM SANDWICH?

SCENE: A small deli, two days after the reported theft of a ham sandwich.

Owner, his son, assistant city prosecutor.

Prosecutor: I just want to check a few things. You saw the suspect steal the ham sandwich.

Owner: Yes, I was right here. I made the sandwich for a customer, I put it on the counter, and then the thief walked by, picked it up and ran out of the store.

Prosecutor: You’ll swear to that, sign a statement, testify in court.

Owner: Of course. And I have the surveillance video.

Prosecutor: Yes, I’ve seen it. We have statements from five people who were in the store, too.

Owner: So what’s the problem? Is there a problem?

Prosecutor: Well, yes. When the police caught the suspect, he didn’t have the sandwich.

Owner: Did you check for crumbs?

Prosecutor: Excuse me?

Owner: I’m suggesting the thief didn’t have the sandwich because he ate it. That’s why he stole it.

Prosecutor: Oh. Right. But you see, that presents another issue. He stole it because he needed it. He was hungry.

Owner: So? And?

Prosecutor: That means you and the witnesses in the store don’t have standing in court.

Son: Wait a minute, sir. I’m an attorney. My father owns this store. If he doesn’t have standing, who would? The thief stole the sandwich right here.

Prosecutor: Mayor Biden, last month, issued an executive order redefining certain crimes. The major factor became NEED. If a suspect needed the item he took, then our office wouldn’t prosecute him. And food is one of those items. Because of the lockdowns, food theft is now on the same level as mail-in ballots.

Son: What?

Prosecutor: Because of the pandemic, citizens were permitted to vote by mail. Because of the pandemic, which led to the lockdowns and economic hardship, a hungry person can steal food. Besides that, our office feels we’d come under fire if we tried to prosecute this ham sandwich case. We’d be massacred on social media. In fact, Twitter could suspend our account. We’d be called insurrectionists. You see, there’s a widespread feeling these days that NEED is the predominate factor in many instances. What a person needs justifies what he does. If we prosecuted this case, we’d be trying to overturn that principle.

Owner: Suddenly I feel I’m back living in the Soviet Union.

Son: Do we know the man who stole our sandwich needed it?

Prosecutor: No. That’s moot. It’s hard to define need. It can be a gray area. To a degree, we have to rely on the suspect’s own statements. If he says he needed it, we tend to accept his word. And in this particular case, we just don’t know, because he’s from out of state, and we don’t have the time and resources to do a background check on him. Now, there is one thing you can do. It’s difficult, but you could walk down a different road.

Son: What road is that?

Prosecutor: You could challenge Mayor Biden’s executive order. You would have to argue he doesn’t have the power to “make law.” Only the legislature can do that. But during the pandemic, that’s also a gray area. You would have to provide evidence, and expert witness testimony, claiming the lockdowns are unnecessary, because the science underpinning the pandemic contains significant errors. That’s a very tough case to make. First of all, in order to have standing, you would need to find plaintiffs who say they’re being adversely impacted by the lockdowns. You’d need to file a lawsuit on their behalf. The kicker is, you’d want to do Discovery. You’d want to subpoena public health experts who believe the pandemic science is valid. You’d want to bring them in and grill them under oath. These experts would do everything in their power to avoid that. They’d have their own government lawyers, and they wouldn’t be paying them a dime. They’d stall…

Son: I get the picture. You’re saying that, in order to win a case for a ham sandwich, we’d have to overturn, in court, the whole rationale for the pandemic.

Prosecutor: It looks that way. The event of the theft is finished. Your property is gone. The thief ate it. Now we’re in a territory that is after the fact. What good can come from pursuing your goal? You’ll never get the sandwich back. I can tell you, in the current climate, no judge will thoughtfully consider your argument. He’ll say, too late, the property doesn’t exist anymore. If a policeman had been in the store and caught the thief in the act…then things might be different. Maybe.

Son: Suppose we find the thief and steal something from him?

Prosecutor: You could try to argue that you can’t serve customers at tables anymore, and therefore you have a need, too. But you’re an owner. The thief isn’t. Your act would be viewed as revenge. Not good for you.

Son: No?

Prosecutor: We’re in the new normal. There are two local judges who could hear that case. They’re both planning to run for elected office in the next few years. They have Facebook pages. If it came out they ruled in a favor of a business owner stealing from a hungry man, social media would swarm them and wipe them out.

Son: What about Mayor Biden?

Prosecutor: Just between you and me, his executive order establishing NEED as the primary factor in criminal cases? That was a public relations move. He was leveraging a city program to feed the poor. After he issued the executive order, he got the city council to approve much higher funding for that program. Then he awarded the contract to his cousin, Petro, a Ukrainian businessman who knows nothing about food. But I wouldn’t try making that charge. No media outlet would cover it. The mayor has good connections.

Son: There’s nothing we can…

Prosecutor: The operative phrase here is AFTER THE FACT. Think of the theft as the past, not the present. The past is over.

Son: It’s not over for us.

Prosecutor: It’s a sandwich. One sandwich.

Son: No. It’s justice.

Prosecutor: It’s now social justice. That’s a different concept.

Son: You tell this thief if he comes in here, we’ll give him a free sandwich every day for a week. All he has to do is sign a statement saying he stole the first sandwich. We’ll frame the statement and hang it on the wall.

Prosecutor: My opinion? He won’t come in. He’s already stolen items from three more stores. He’s a thief. Let me fill you in here. We’re aware there’s an organized group of about a hundred of these guys. They’re stealing all kinds of stuff, and not just from stores. They steal from delivery trucks and warehouses. They take the stuff to Petro, Mayor Biden’s Ukrainian cousin. This is an operation. Petro sells the loot. The mayor’s involved. See, the mayor’s really working for Petro. Petro’s got him over a barrel. If the mayor steps out of line, Petro’s got enough information to bury him.

Son: So Petro is the one we should really be after.

Prosecutor: I’m not suggesting that.

Son: We just own a deli, but we know people. We’re part of a community. We’re not a gang. My father came here, to this country, to earn a living, to work, to own his own business. He thought he’d be free of all that Soviet Union insanity in America, but I guess not. We’re not going to take this lying down…Petro. The mayor. You’ll see.

Prosecutor: We’re talking about a ham sandwich.

Son: Sliced very thin, with mustard, on real rye bread.

Owner: Sit down, we’ll make you one. You’ll tell us more about Mayor Biden and this Petro.

Prosecutor: You’re not supposed to serve me at a table.

Owner: When you remember secret police arresting your friends for saying the wrong thing, sitting down isn’t a problem.

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

Jon Rappoport

Lockdown extremism: an obsession for the insane and the fascists

Jan21

by Jon Rappoport

January 21, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

As my readers know, I’ve spent the last year refuting every so-called COVID fact promoted by public health officials—including the false notion that SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist.

In this article, I’m simply showing that devotees of the Cult of COVID are contradicting their own assumptions. For purposes of argument only, we’ll assume the virus exists, spreads rapidly, and causes illness.

If so, lockdowns don’t work.

This is shown by reports from almost every nation in the world. The longer the lockdowns, the greater the number of COVID cases.

The virus is unstoppable. It travels to all corners of the globe at lightning speed.

Conclusion? The only way to achieve herd immunity is to have the whole population of the planet live and work out in the open, fight through the pandemic, and eventually win.

That’s the inference to draw, once you accept the mainstream view of the virus and the pandemic.

But of course, opening up the world is not the conclusion of the experts or the political leaders. They take the opposite view: more lockdowns.

They’re acting against their own “science.”

Why?

Obviously, because they want to imprison populations, destroy lives and economies. Or, at the very least, they’re going along with the people who want to.

What about the vaccine as a method of inducing herd immunity? We’re already hearing about a second mutated strain of the COVID virus. If there are two strains, there will certainly be more. Many more. This sets up an analog to the flu vaccine: a new version every year, with the hope of predicting the latest mutation.

How is that working for the flu? Is it producing anything faintly resembling herd immunity? Far from it. Public health agencies report a BILLION cases of the flu each and every year, worldwide. Could the protective effects of the vaccine be any weaker?

Note: Has anyone recommended locking down the planet because of the flu? Of course not. A billion cases a year are just “what we have to live with.”

Why not adopt the same strategy for COVID?

Public officials should be demanding an end to lockdowns.

Dr. Scott Atlas, former White House coronavirus advisor: “We know the lockdowns don’t work, they do not eliminate the virus, we see it all over the world. We have 80% of people in the US wearing masks, we have all these various levels of restrictions on businesses, on in-person schools, and the virus is not eliminated by that.”

Researchers Sunetra Gupta (Oxford University), Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford University), Martin Kildorff (Harvard): “Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.”

Dr. John Ioannidis, professor of Medicine, Epidemiology and Population Health, and of Biomedical Data Science, and Statistics at Stanford University, responding to a question about laying on lockdowns in Greece: “It would be a devastating mistake to do so and it will run the risk of severely damaging and crippling the country.”

The Lancet, July 21, 2020: “…government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality,”

2006 paper in Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, “Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza” by Thomas V. Inglesby, Jennifer B. Nuzzo, Tara O’Toole, and D.A. Henderson. The authors conclude: “There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza.”

This is a just a sprinkling of mainstream references from a much larger trove, indicating that lockdowns are harmful and don’t work.

Well, they work when a police state is the goal.

The conventional mainstream scientific view of the virus and its ability to spread inevitably leads to the conclusion: stopping it through lockdowns is like trying to keep water out of a forest.

“Well, if we build a canopy above all the trees, if we wrap each tree in layers of plastic, if we install underground suction pumps every six feet, if we spray chemicals in the sky to disperse cloud formation, if we drain every brook and stream, if we build dams in the mountains to keep the melting snow contained…we’ll still fail.”

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

Jon Rappoport

Writers, of all people, are now censors

Jan20

They should never call themselves writers again

by Jon Rappoport

January 20, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

It had to happen.

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

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

The letter was penned by Barry Lyga. Who?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Too bad he never did.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see who you are.

Miniature gargoyles, peddling your virtue-signaling inquisition.

SOURCES:

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

Why Twitter and FB must ban the NY Times

Jan19

by Jon Rappoport

January 19, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

I’ve got the hard evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can’t allow that.

We must protect the public from the Times.

The only way to achieve this is through censorship.

Ban the NY Times from Twitter and Facebook.

Do it now.

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

Freeze their personal and corporate bank accounts.

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

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

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

CENSORSHIP IS FREEDOM.

MIND CONTROL IS LOVE.

LOCKDOWNS LEAD TO PROSPERITY.

That is all for now.

SOURCES:

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

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

How soon will the Left eat their own?

Jan18

by Jon Rappoport

January 18, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Hey. I’m always here to offer advice to the Left, to make their road smoother, to point them in the direction of fellow travelers they should cancel for deficiencies of “wokeness.”

Let’s start with the issue of GMOs, poisonous Roundup, and Monsanto (now swallowed up by Bayer).

Joe Biden is going to appoint Mr. Monsanto, Tom Vilsack, as his Secretary of Agriculture. Tommy boy held that post under Obama.

The Organic Consumers Association writes [1] (see also [2], [3], [4]): “If, like us, you dream of an organic, regenerative food system led by independent family farmers, then news that Joe Biden has asked Tom Vilsack to return to his Obama Era post as Secretary of Agriculture should be a real cause for concern.”

“…when you look behind the curtains to see what Vilsack was really doing at USDA from 2009 through 2017, it’s not pretty.”

“He pushed through a corporate agribusiness agenda that began with his approval of more new genetically modified crops than any other Secretary, culminated in his shepherding of a bill to kill GMO labels through Congress, and included his racist firing of African American land trust hero Shirley Sherrod and his distortion of data to conceal decades of discrimination against black farmers. Between 2006 and 2016, the USDA [US Dept. of Agriculture] was six times more likely to foreclose on a black farmer than a white farmer.”

“But, Biden doesn’t care about any of this. Vilsack is Biden’s buddy and that’s all that matters to him. As the American Prospect reports, Vilsack has had ‘a decades-long relationship with Joe Biden, going back to when he endorsed him for president while mayor of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, in 1988’.”

“Vilsack has remained very loyal to Biden. In the last year, he gave Biden more than $8,000 in campaign contributions (excluding money from his wife or to Democratic Party committees).”

“This support didn’t just get him a job in the cabinet, he wrote Biden’s campaign platform on agriculture issues, stuffing it full of false solutions like corn ethanol and methane digesters run on factory farm dairy waste.”

“We need a USDA Secretary of Agriculture who will be a hero, steering our food and farming system toward a brighter, regenerative future—not a Secretary who will continue to be a pawn for the same corporate interests that are causing, and profiting from, the mess we are in.”

Good luck with that dream under Biden.

Let’s go further. Here’s a piece I wrote during the Obama years—you know, when we were all living in paradise—about the president’s GMO program.

Keep in mind that Biden’s new secretary of agriculture, Tom Vilsack, was on board every step of the way, with Obama. Vilsack was enabler, expert, political operative, cheerleader—

MEET MONSANTO’S MAN IN WASHINGTON, BARACK OBAMA

Obama? A warrior against corporations on behalf of the people? It’s long past the time for ripping that false mask away.

During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the GMO/Roundup issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.

These activists weren’t just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said: “Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”

Making the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama, unlike the FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.

Beyond that, Obama was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant in assuring that, if elected, his administration wouldn’t do business “the old way.” He would be “responsive to people’s needs.”

Then came the reality.

After the election, people who had been working to label GMO food and warn the public of its huge dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had been pulling a bait and switch.

After the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

A GMO papaya strain.

And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.

You don’t attain that position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

From this perspective, Michelle Obama’s campaign for gardens and clean, organic, nutritious food is nothing more than a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.

Nor is it coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

We are talking about a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual.

Not only was that a wrong assessment, Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto’s man in Washington.

To those people who fight for GMO labeling and the outlawing of GMO crops, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:

Wake up.

—end of 2014 article—

Well, well. Tom Vilsack is back. Biden is about to betray the Left on a key issue.

Dear Lefties: Are you going to sit still for this?

Start tweeting and FBing.

I wonder whether you’ll get censored by your comrades in Big Tech…

SOURCES:

[1] https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/25412/action/1

[2] https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/tom-vilsack-agriculture-secretary-everything-thats-wrong-democratic-party

[3] https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/back-future-tom-mr-monsanto-vilsack-part-i

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/21/joe-biden-tom-vilsack-agriculture-secretary

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

Jon Rappoport

The Matrix Revealed: a hypnotherapist’s cosmic glue

Jan17

by Jon Rappoport

In my mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, I interview the most brilliant hypnotherapist on the planet, Jack True, 43 times, over the course of 320 pages.

Jack was one of the “milestone people” for me. Through his insights, I saw how to advance my own research.

For example, he discussed how, under hypnosis, some of his patients exhibited signs of “cosmic glue.” Jack was referring to their obsession to “build one reality out of many separate realities.” To “glue it all together.”

Jack explained how this was one of those mind programs that actually increased a person’s suggestibility and decreased his freedom. It was happening on a subconscious level.

Eventually, a person would build such a huge (and erroneous) reality he would surrender himself, his freedom, and his power to it.

Jack’s mission in life was to liberate individuals from their own “gargantuan constructions,” as he put it. What Jack has to say about his path and his discoveries is invaluable. And this is just one aspect of my mega-collection.

Here are the full contents of my mega-collection The Matrix Revealed. You can order it here:

Here are the contents of The Matrix Revealed:

* 250 megabytes of information.

* Over 1100 pages of text.

* Ten and a half hours of audio.

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

* ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

* RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

Also included:

* Several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix. 53 pages.

(All the material is digital. Upon ordering it, you’ll receive an email with a link to it.)

Understanding Matrix is also understanding your capacity and power, and that is the way to approach this subject. Because liberation is the goal. And liberation has no limit.

I invite you to a new exploration and a great adventure.

Jon Rappoport

Power Outside The Matrix: Inventing New Reality

Jan16

by Jon Rappoport

There are two major effects of overall mind control.

The first is the distracting and confusing of thought processes.

This is defeated and kept at bay by logic, a discipline employed by Plato 2400 years ago and refined by his student, Aristotle.

Today, logic needs to be expanded and updated to deal with the flood of information and misinformation we encounter every day.

The second overall effect of mind control is the repression of the individual’s creative impulse. Creation and imagination are, of course, the energies that bring about the invention of new realities.

All forms of mind control target the individual so that he passively accepts the reality presented to him.

Taken together, logic and imagination are the most formidable force in the liberation of the individual—his consciousness and his action.

That liberation should be the goal of any sane teaching.

It is the goal of my collection, Power Outside The Matrix.

Expanding one’s own power involves the conscious projection of new realities.

Previously, the notion of “projection” has been the property of the pseudoscience called psychology. The concept has been twisted to mean the blind projection of one’s own “negative images and feelings” on to other people.

Beyond this blip on the radar of human existence, there emerges a far greater kind of projection: conscious and imaginative invention of new futures. That is where liberated individual power travels and operates and works.

The objective of my third and most recent collection, Power Outside The Matrix, is the launching (and stabilizing) of this breakthrough.

This collection contains a long section called, Analyzing Disinformation in the Age of Information.

It explains the buying and selling of false realities—a major occupation in the Matrix.

The key is having the tools to analyze realities, take them apart, and apply logic and other critical methods to these structures.

I’ve been at this for 30 years. In this section of Power Outside The Matrix, I offer key examples from my own extensive investigations.

The cults in charge of selling false realities try to bypass the rational mind and instead covertly appeal to automatic reflex functions.

The most important of these reflex functions is: investing emotions in presented images. This is the primary strategy of informational mind control on the planet.

During my 30 years as a reporter covering “the news behind the news,” I’ve seen countless instances in which the Matrix shows up, swims into view.

The Matrix, the central image, is a lie. But not just any lie.

It is very deep, shared, hypnotic picture of reality.

People need more power—more individual power, so they can both stand and operate outside the Matrix.

Limited concepts of space, time, and energy—these, too, are “given” to human beings as the be-all and end-all of a story. A story that ultimately short-circuits and short-changes what the individual is really capable of.

The entire mural of imposed Reality is aimed at radically diminishing the individual’s power.

So in addition to my work as an investigative reporter, I’ve been researching the individual’s ability to go beyond this mural of reality.

In the late 1980s, in concert with the brilliant hypnotherapist Jack True (who gave up doing hypnosis with his patients), I developed many exercises and techniques for expanding the creative power of the individual. Both Jack and I were continuing a tradition that goes all the way back to early Tibet.

Some of those exercises are included in a section titled Power Outside The Matrix and The Invention of New Reality. These techniques are aimed at accessing more energy, more imagination, more stability and intelligence “beyond the mural of reality.”

Power Outside The Matrix is all about being able to think, act, and create both outside and inside The Matrix. Because that’s the goal: to be able to function in both places.

People are consciously or unconsciously fixated on boundaries and systems. They are hoping for whatever can be delivered through a system.

That fixation is a form of mind control.

Freedom isn’t a system.

But freedom needs creative power, otherwise it just sits there and becomes a lonely statue gathering dust in an abandoned park.

At one time or another, every human being who has ever lived on this planet has abandoned his creative power. The question is: does he want to get it back?

It never really goes away. It is always there. It is the basis of a life that can be lived. A life that can be chosen. People instead choose roles that don’t require that power. They think this is a winning strategy.

It isn’t.

A section of my mega-collection, titled Power Outside The Matrix and The Invention of New Reality, features creative exercises you do on a daily basis that will help a committed individual move toward the goal of power outside The Matrix. The exercises are all about increasing your energy and stability—and about the invention of new spaces.

Access to your internal energy, in huge amounts, is necessary for a life outside The Matrix—rather than relying on the illusory energy that The Matrix seems to provide.

I’ve developed the exercises for exactly that purpose: your energy, your dynamism.

As I just mentioned, Power Outside The Matrix also features a long section called: Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation.

It’s filled with specific examples of my past investigations. Based on 25 years of experience, it shows you how to take apart and put together data that lead to valid conclusions.

It is far more than a logic course.

It’s an advanced approach to analysis.

Establishing power outside The Matrix requires that a person be able to deal with today’s flood of information, misinformation, and disinformation. I’ve left no stone unturned in bringing you a workable approach to analysis.

There is a further extensive section titled, A Writer’s Tutorial. People have been asking me to provide this Tutorial, and here it is in spades. But it’s not just for writers. It’s for any creative person who wants to grasp his own power, understand it, and use it to reach out into the world.

The Tutorial exposes you to lessons that go far beyond what is normally taught in writer’s seminars. In fact, several core concepts in the Tutorial contradict ordinary writer’s seminars, and thus give you access to inner resources that would otherwise be ignored.

And finally, I have included a number of audio seminars that offer a wider perspective about The Matrix and what it means to live and work outside it.

Here are the particulars. These are audio presentations. 55 total hours.

* Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation (11.5-hours)

* Writer’s Tutorial (8.5-hours)

* Power Outside The Matrix and The Invention of New Reality—creative techniques (6.5-hours)

Then you will receive the following audio presentations I have previously done:

* The Third Philosophy of Imagination (1-hour)

* The Infinite Imagination (3-hours)

* The Mass Projection of Events (1.5-hours)

* The Decentralization of Power (1.5-hours)

* Creating the Future (6-hours)

* Pictures of Reality (6-hours)

* The Real History of America (2-hours)

* Corporations: The New Gods (7.5-hours)

I have included an additional bonus section:

* The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst (and how to analyze them). I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

* A 2-hour radio interview I did on AIDS in Dec 1987 with host Roy Tuckman on KPFK in Los Angeles, California.

* My book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies

(All the audio presentations are mp3 files and the books are pdf files. You download them upon purchase. You’ll receive an email with a link to the entire collection.)

This is about your power. Not as an abstract idea, but as a living core of your being. This is about accessing that power, expanding it, and using it.

On this road, there are no limits.

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

David Rasnick: new strain of the coronavirus, or a giant con? How deep do the lies go?

How I assembled The Matrix Revealed: The Key Symbol

Power Outside The Matrix: Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation

How is Joe Biden like a ham sandwich?

Lockdown extremism: an obsession for the insane and the fascists

Writers, of all people, are now censors

Why Twitter and FB must ban the NY Times

How soon will the Left eat their own?

The Matrix Revealed: a hypnotherapist’s cosmic glue

Power Outside The Matrix: Inventing New Reality