Dispatches from the War: the pharmaceutical/medical troops occupy planet Earth

How many drug scripts do doctors write per year?

by Jon Rappoport

June 23, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

I wrote the following piece in 2017. It details the massively successful infiltration of pharmaceutical armies among the population.

These men and women are war criminals.

Here we go:

Medical News Today reports that, in 2011, there was a modest uptick in the number of drug prescriptions written in the US. [1] [1a]

The increase brought the total to: 4.02 billion.

Yes, in 2011, doctors wrote 4.02 billion prescriptions for drugs in America.

That’s an average of roughly 13 prescriptions for each man, woman, and child.

That’s about one new prescription every month for every American. (Update: the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that in 2016, 4,065,479,343 drug prescriptions were written by US doctors—an increase of 65 million. [2])

The Medical News Today article concluded, “…the industry should be heartened by the growth of the number of prescriptions and spending.” Yes, I’m sure the drug industry popped champagne corks.

We’re talking about prescriptions here. We’re not talking about the number of pills Americans took. We’re also not counting over-the-counter drugs or vaccine shots.

Pharmacopoeia, a 2011 exhibition at the British Museum, estimated that “the average number of pills a person takes in his or her own lifetime in the UK is 14,000.” That’s as a result of prescriptions. Including over-the-counter drugs, the 14,000 number would swell to 40,000 pills taken in a lifetime. [3]

What are the effects of all these drugs?

We are looking at a supreme Trojan Horse that is rotting out America and all other countries from the inside. Wars, no wars, economic deprivation, economic prosperity, the drugs continue to do their work, debilitating and ruining and terminating lives.

Many sources can be cited to confirm this assessment.

On January 8th, 2001, the LA Times published an article by one of the best medical reporters in the business, Linda Marsa: “When Good Drugs Do Harm.” Marsa quoted researcher Dr. David Bates, who indicated that, in the US, there are 36 million serious adverse reactions to medical drugs per year. [4] [4a]

On July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published the most stunning mainstream estimate of medical-drug damage in history: “Is US health really the best in the world?” The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a respected public-health researcher at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. [5] [5a]

Starfield concluded that medical drugs were killing Americans at the rate of 106,000 per year.

That’s a million deaths per decade.

This is a conservative sketch of the Trojan Horse that has been placed in the center of every country in the world.

The pharmaceutical juggernaut will continue, no doubt about it. The only question is, how many people will wake up and seek another way?

The destruction of societies by medical drugs goes far beyond what some people call “over-prescribing.” This isn’t just a tilt in the wrong direction. It isn’t simply errors of judgment compounded by the number of doctors dispensing medicines.

Those are all polite terms suggesting the situation can be corrected through a show of better professional judgment. That will never happen.

Countries of the world are literally being assaulted by pharmaceutical companies and their foot-soldier doctors. It’s chemical warfare.

To even begin to see light at the end of the tunnel, hundreds of millions of people must add themselves to the rolls of those who already are pursuing better health through natural means.

Not even the Nazis and their dearly beloved cartel, the monster IG Farben, dreamed of the day when the citizenry would line up and demand to ingest more and more life-destroying chemicals.

What about the FDA, the federal agency responsible for certifying all medical drugs “safe and effective,” before release for public use in the US?

The FDA is completely aware of the monstrous death toll and the injuries stemming from the very drugs they’re approving—but they take zero responsibility.

On an FDA website page, “Preventable Adverse Drug Reactions: A Focus on Drug Interactions,” [6] the agency discusses the “problem”—but as you can see from the title, they’re framing the conversation in terms of “interactions,” as if drugs are maiming and killing people because they are accidentally combining effects. This is a gross lie.

Here are quotes from the FDA page, which come just after trying to pawn off absurdly low drug-death and injury numbers:

“However, other studies conducted on hospitalized patient populations have placed much higher estimates on the overall incidence of serious ADRs [adverse drugs reactions]. These studies estimate that 6.7% of hospitalized patients have a serious adverse drug reaction with a fatality rate of 0.32%.2 If these estimates are correct, then there are more than 2,216,000 serious ADRs in hospitalized patients, causing over 106,000 deaths annually. If true, then ADRs are the 4th leading cause of death—ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile deaths.”

“These statistics do not include the number of ADRs that occur in ambulatory settings. Also, it is estimated that over 350,000 ADRs occur in U.S. nursing homes each year.3 The exact number of ADRs is not certain and is limited by methodological considerations. However, whatever the true number is, ADRs represent a significant public health problem that is, for the most part, preventable.”

Yes, preventable, if any government were determined to neutralize the pharmaceutical armies ravaging humanity.

But that is not the case.

Governments are backing the killers.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/250213.php

[1a] https://web.archive.org/web/20120918225216/http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/250213.php

[2] (forth coming)

[3] https://humanitiesandhealth.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/pharmacopoiea-or-how-many-pills-do-we-take-in-a-lifetime-a-wellcome-trust-exhibition-at-the-british-museum/

[4] http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/08/health/he-9609

[4a] https://web.archive.org/web/20130215182710/http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/08/health/he-9609

[5] https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-primary-care-policy-center/Publications_PDFs/A154.pdf

[5a] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2009/12/09/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-barbara-starfield-medically-caused-death-in-america/

[6] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-interactions-labeling/preventable-adverse-drug-reactions-focus-drug-interactions

(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.

Interviewing the dead Albert Einstein about free will

Jun22

by Jon Rappoport

June 22, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Note: I’m publishing this piece as an introduction to the scientific tyranny which has overtaken us: the premise that we are machines, and we can be decoded and transformed by genetics.

This is a lie on every possible level.

For many people, their first taste of this insanity is the COVID vaccine—a genetic treatment. However, that treatment comes out of the conviction that life is “mechanism.”

For 35 years, I’ve been waging war against this conviction. I continue to do so—not because I have some quirky mystical alternative, but because FREEDOM VERSUS THE MACHINE is the Big One, the big battlefield under the surface of our civilization.

I’m talking about today, tomorrow, the next hundred, the next five hundred years.

OK, here we go—a piece of fiction to make the truth known:

It was a strange journey into the astral realm to find Albert Einstein.

I slipped through gated communities heavily guarded by troops protecting dead Presidents. I skirted alleys where wannabe demons claiming they were Satan’s reps were selling potions made from powdered skulls of English kings. I ran through mannequin mansions where trainings for future shoppers were in progress. Apparently, some souls come to Earth to be born as aggressive entitled consumers. Who knew?

Finally, in a little valley, I spotted a cabin, and there on the porch, sitting in a rocker, smoking a pipe and reading The Bourne Ultimatum, was Dr. Einstein.

He was wearing an old sports jacket with leather patches on the elbows, jeans, and furry slippers.

I wanted to talk with the great man because I’d read a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview with him. He’d said:

“I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will…Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.”

Dr, Einstein went inside and brought out two bottles of cold beer and we began our conversation:

Q: Sir, would you say that the underlying nature of physical reality is atomic?

A: If you’re asking me whether atoms and smaller particles exist everywhere in the universe, then of course, yes.

Q: And are you satisfied that, wherever they are found, they are the same? They exhibit a uniformity?

A: Surely, yes.

Q: Regardless of location.

A: Correct.

Q: So, for example, if we consider the make-up of the brain, those atoms are no different in kind from atoms wherever in the universe they are found.

A: That’s true. The brain is composed entirely of these tiny particles. And the particles, everywhere in the universe, without exception, flow and interact and collide without any exertion of free will. It’s an unending stream of cause and effect.

Q: And when you think to yourself, “I’ll get breakfast now,” what is that?

A: The thought?

Q: Yes.

A: Ultimately, it is the outcome of particles in motion.

Q: You were compelled to have that thought.

A: As odd as that may seem, yes. Of course, we tell ourselves stories to present ourselves with a different version of reality, but those stories are social or cultural constructs.

Q: And those “stories” we tell ourselves—they aren’t freely chosen rationalizations, either. We have no choice about that.

A: Well, yes. That’s right.

Q: So there is nothing in the human brain that allows us the possibility of free will.

A: Nothing at all.

Q: And as we are sitting here right now, sir, looking at each other, sitting and talking, this whole conversation is spooling out in the way that it must. Every word. Neither you nor I is really choosing what we say.

A: I may not like it, but yes, it’s deterministic destiny. The particles flow.

Q: When you pause to consider a question I ask you…even that act of considering is mandated by the motion of atomic and sub-atomic particles. What appears to be you deciding how to give me an answer…that is a delusion.

A: The act of considering? Why, yes, that, too, would have to be determined. It’s not free. There really is no choice involved.

Q: And the outcome of this conversation, whatever points we may or may not agree upon, and the issues we may settle here, about this subject of free will versus determinism…they don’t matter at all, because, when you boil it down, the entire conversation was determined by our thoughts, which are nothing more than atomic and sub-atomic particles in motion—and that motion flows according to laws, none of which have anything to do with human choice.

A: The entire flow of reality, so to speak, proceeds according to determined sets of laws. Yes.

Q: And we are in that flow.

A: Most certainly we are.

Q: The earnestness with which we might try to settle this issue, our feelings, our thoughts, our striving—that is irrelevant. It’s window dressing. This conversation actually cannot go in different possible directions. It can only go in one direction.

A: That would ultimately have to be so.

Q: Now, are atoms and their components, and any other tiny particles in the universe…are any of them conscious?

A: Of course not. The particles themselves are not conscious.

Q: Some scientists speculate they are.

A: Some people speculate that the moon can be sliced and served on a plate with fruit.

Q: What do you think “conscious” means?

A: It means we participate in life. We take action. We converse. We gain knowledge.

Q: Any of the so-called faculties we possess—are they ultimately anything more than particles in motion?

A: Well, no, they aren’t. Because everything is particles in motion. What else could be happening in this universe? Nothing.

Q: All right. I’d like to consider the word “understanding.”

A: It’s a given. It’s real.

Q: How so?

A: The proof that it’s real, if you will, is that we are having this conversation. It makes sense to us.

Q: Yes, but how can there be understanding if everything is particles in motion? Do the particles possess understanding?

A: No they don’t.

Q: To change the focus just a bit, how can what you and I are saying have any meaning?

A: Words mean things.

Q: Again, I have to point out that, in a universe with no free will, we only have particles in motion. That’s all. That’s all we are. So where does “meaning” come from?

A: “We understand language” is a true proposition.

Q: You’re sure.

A: Of course.

Q: Then I suggest you’ve tangled yourself in a contradiction. In the universe you depict, there would be no room for understanding. Or meaning. There would be nowhere for it to come from. Unless particles understand. Do they?

A: No.

Q: Then where do “understanding” and “meaning” come from?

A: [Silence.]

Q: Furthermore, sir, if we accept your depiction of a universe of particles, then there is no basis for this conversation at all. We don’t understand each other. How could we?

A: But we do understand each other.

Q: And therefore, your philosophic materialism (no free will, only particles in motion) must have a flaw.

A: What flaw?

Q: Our existence contains more than particles in motion.

A: More? What would that be?

Q: Would you grant that whatever it is, it is non-material?

A: It would have to be, but…

Q: Then, driving further along this line, there is something non-material which is present, which allows us to understand each other, which allows us to comprehend meaning. We are conscious. Puppets are not conscious. As we sit here talking, I understand you. Do you understand me?

A: Of course.

Q: Then that understanding is coming from something other than particles in motion. Without this non-material quality, you and I would be gibbering in the dark.

A: You’re saying that, if all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom. There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

Q: Yes. That’s what I’m saying. And I think you have to admit your view of determinism and particles in motion—that picture of the universe—leads to several absurdities.

A: Well…perhaps I’m forced to consider it. Otherwise, we can’t sit here and understand each other.

Q: You and I do understand each other.

A: I hadn’t thought it through this way before, but if there is nothing inherent in particles that gives rise to understanding and meaning, then everything is gibberish. Except it isn’t gibberish. Yes, I seem to see a contradiction. Interesting.

Q: And if these non-material factors—understanding and meaning—exist, then other non-material factors can exist.

A: For example, freedom. I suppose so.

Q: And the drive to eliminate freedom in the world…is more than just the attempt to substitute one automatic reflex for another.

A: That would be…yes, that would be so.

Q: Scientists would be absolutely furious about the idea that, despite all their maneuvering, the most essential aspects of human life are beyond the scope of what they, the scientists, are “in charge of.”

A: It would be a naked challenge to the power of science.

Einstein puffed on his pipe and looked out over the valley. He took a sip of his beer. After a minute, he said, “Let me see if I can summarize this, because it’s really rather startling. The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material.”

He nodded.

“In that case,” he said, “there is…oddly enough, a completely different sphere or territory. It’s non-material. Therefore, it can’t be measured. Therefore, it has no beginning or end. If it did, it would be a material continuum and we could measure it.”

He pointed to the valley.

“That has energy. But what does it give me? Does it allow me to be conscious? Does it allow me to be free, to understand meaning? No.”

Then he laughed. He looked at me.

“I’m dead,” he said, “aren’t I? I didn’t realize it until this very moment.”

I shook my head. “No. I would say you WERE dead until this moment.”

He grinned. “Yes!” he said. “That’s a good one. I WAS dead.”

He stood up.

“Enough of this beer,” he said. “I have some schnapps inside. Let me get it. Let’s drink the good stuff! After all, I’m apparently Forever. And so are you. And so are we all.”

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

Jon Rappoport

COVID: Three men who own corporate America

Jun21

Why did mega-corporations accept the lockdowns?

by Jon Rappoport

June 21, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’m reprinting this article I wrote in July, 2020. Before I do, here is an analogy.

Let’s say you own a company. You’re public, meaning you issue stock for sale.

Suddenly, the fake pandemic hits. The governor of the state issues restrictions, including lockdowns. You have to close your doors. You’re going to take a staggering financial hit.

Your first reaction? Anger. Seething anger. You’re determined to fight back. You call your lawyer to work out a plan.

“Wait a minute,” he says. “I have some bad news. Do you know who is now the majority shareholder of your company? Bill Gates. And he has voting rights. If you object to the lockdowns, he’ll roast you alive. You’ll be out on your ass…”

Buckle up. Here we go.

THE THREE MEN WHO OWN CORPORATE AMERICA

Over the past 38 years working as a reporter, I’ve spoken with many medical people. Doctors, researchers, public health bureaucrats, business executives whose companies supply products to the medical industry, professors, etc.

In every case, these people completely and utterly support conventional medical reality. They are unshakable. A man like Fauci says jump and they jump. To do otherwise would be unthinkable.

As you read on, you’ll see why this is important…

Airlines, hotel chains—you name it, they all folded when the lockdowns were imposed. They closed up shop, they took a knee, they opted for bailouts. Why?

The CEOs of these corporations are supposed to be hard chargers and ruthless operators. Why didn’t they rebel?

I could cite several reasons. Here I want to focus on a little-known and staggering story.

Imagine an employee of a company is motivated to speak out against the lockdowns and go public. Then he thinks about the owner of the company. That owner happens to sit on the board of a large hospital.

Uh oh. That owner is SOLIDLY WIRED into official medical reality. He isn’t going to appreciate a naysayer who says the lockdowns are a ridiculous and destructive overreach. Better to stay quiet. Better to fit in and go along.

Well, it so happens that three of the most powerful corporate bosses in America DO have deep connections to major hospitals, and these three men run corporations that OWN CORPORATE AMERICA.

What???

The three men are Larry Fink, Joseph Hooley, and Mortimer Buckley.

Buckley is the CEO of the Vanguard Group. Hooley is the CEO of State Street. Fink is the CEO of BlackRock.

These three companies are titanic investment funds. Financial services companies.

Buckley is a board member of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. From 2011 to 2017, he was chairman of the hospital’s board of trustees.

Hooley serves on the president’s council of Massachusetts General Hospital.

Fink is the co-chair of the NYU Langone Medical Center board of trustees.

Let’s look at their investment funds: State Street, BlackRock, and Vanguard—known as The Big Three. The reference is an article at theconversation.com, “These three firms own corporate America,” 5/19/17, by Jan Fichtner, Eelke Heemskerk, and Javier Garcia-Bernardo.

“Together, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have nearly US$11 trillion in assets under management.”

“We found that the Big Three, taken together, have become the largest shareholder in 40% of all publicly listed firms in the United States.”

“In 2015, these 1,600 American firms [the 40%] had combined revenues of about US$9.1 trillion, a market capitalisation of more than US$17 trillion, and employed more than 23.5 million people.”

“In the S&P 500 – the benchmark index of America’s largest corporations – the situation is even more extreme. Together, the Big Three are the largest single shareholder in almost 90% of S&P 500 firms, including Apple, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, General Electric and Coca-Cola.”

“What is undeniable is that the Big Three do exert the voting rights attached to these shares. Therefore, they have to be perceived as de facto owners by corporate executives.” (emphasis mine)

“Whether or not they sought to, the Big Three have accumulated extraordinary shareholder power, and they continue to do so…In many respects, the index fund boom is turning BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street into something resembling low-cost public utilities with a quasi-monopolistic position.”

If the CEO of a corporation whose main shareholder is The Big Three thinks about rebelling against the official COVID medical consensus…

And he knows that The Big Three bosses are heavily wired into the US medical complex…

That CEO has a HUGE reason to forget about being an old-time hard charger.

He has a reason to swallow his anger when he’s told to lock down and shut down.

He has a reason to knuckle under and play the game.

He has a reason to surrender to a story about a virus and Fauci and Bill Gates.

He has a reason to stand down and stand aside and watch economic devastation sweep over the land.

HIS CORPORATION IS OWNED BY THE BIG THREE, AND THE OWNERS OF THE BIG THREE ARE LOYAL MEMBERS OF THE MEDICAL COMPLEX…THE COMPLEX THAT FORMS THE CURRENT POLICE STATE THAT HAS SUBDUED THE WORLD, UNDER THE FALSE BANNER OF “SAVING HUMANITY FROM THE VIRUS.”

It’s that stark.

I keep telling you we’re now living in a medical civilization.

From the financial side of things, you’ve just read how that is so.

The three men who own corporate America are also medical denizens.

Think it through.

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

SOURCES:

https://theconversation.com/these-three-firms-own-corporate-america-77072

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/about-us/leadership/larry-fink

https://www.bostonfed.org/people/bank/joseph-hooley.aspx

https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/meet-the-new-ceo-of-vanguard-20170714

Jon Rappoport

The Matrix Revealed: a hypnotherapist’s cosmic glue

Jun20

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:

* 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.

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.

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: What it means

Jun19

by Jon Rappoport

Time and time again, during my 30 years as a reporter, I’ve come across what I call “the elite creation of reality.”

It shows up in areas of politics, energy, modern medicine, media, money, covert intelligence, the military, religion, science, multinational corporations.

It’s as if a painter is working on a mural, and the global population is looking at that mural and seeing it as Reality.

This goes deeper. Much deeper:

Limited concepts of space, time, energy, the mind, cause-and-effect—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, many exercises and techniques for expanding the creative power of the individual.

Some of those exercises are included in my new collection, Power Outside The Matrix. These techniques are aimed at accessing more energy, more imagination, more stability and intelligence “beyond the mural of reality.”

In fact, 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 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 this 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 you 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.

Power Outside The Matrix, features a long section called: Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation.

This section is 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 (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 and using it.

Jon Rappoport

Zuckerberg, Roger Waters, and the case against FB

Jun18

by Jon Rappoport

June 18, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

“How did this little prick, who started off going, ‘She’s pretty, we’ll give her a four out of five. She’s ugly, we’ll give her a one’… How the fuck did he get any power in anything?” (Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters, on Mark Zuckerberg)

On a spring afternoon, with birds chirping in the trees outside the secret/private Committee room, a little man, whose face was a rubber mask devoid of feeling, sat before a table of legislators—among them, a strange senator, John Doe, who did not belong to the Club. It fell to Doe to interrogate the rubber man, Mark Zuckerberg.

Mr. Z, you’re under oath, remember that. Do you recall a company called Accel Partners?

How did you find out about…yes, Senator, I recall Accel.

And its boss, Jim Breyer.

I’ve met Jim.

Well, it must have been quite a meeting, back in 2004, because he supplied you with a 13-million-dollar rocket, and Facebook was on its way.

Senator, I’d say that’s an exaggeration.

Then we come to a man named Gilman Louie. He joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? The man I just mentioned, Jim Breyer.

I don’t know Gilman Louie, Senator.

Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel. In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.” That’s not the only connection between Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet. DARPA, CIA, the Internet, gathering massive data for the CIA, Facebook. Are you seeing the connections, Mr. Zuckerberg?

I’m seeing nothing of the kind, Senator.

Right. You’re just an entrepreneur who is now devoting his life to charitable causes. Moving along, here’s a story about you. A sketch, if you will. From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), Lady Gaga, and Andrew Yang have been easy to track. CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Spotting these children and tracking their progress in school and life would be a standard operation for agencies like the CIA. When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand. What do you think of that story, Mr. Z?

It’s outrageous, Senator. My whole goal in life is helping others.

I’m sure. And as a prime asset of the Deep State, with your ability to assemble trillions of data sets on FB users across the world, and with your ability to censor content unfavorable to your bosses, you’re adopting a very strange definition of “help.”

I believe in community standards, Senator. If that’s a crime, I’m guilty.

What community are you talking about, Mr. Z?

The human one—all of us.

I see. And you know humanity’s standards of conduct and speech. How? Is God talking to you?

It’s just common sense, Senator.

So common sense makes you use Facebook to keep true information about the torture of Julian Assange from the public?

All information has to be fact-checked.

And if I post a few words about the COVID vaccine that aren’t rainbows and flowers, you ban me.

We rely on the World Health Organization as the authority on such matters.

Why? Who appointed that organization the final arbiter?

Somebody has to be in charge.

Otherwise?

There is chaos.

Chaos, or difference of opinion? You want to choke off the difference. You want fascism.

Really, Senator? That’s where you’re going?

I know, Mark. You’re just a little boy who made it big. You don’t have an axe to grind. You have nothing to do with the CIA. You’re an American success story. Happy, happy.

Is that all? Because I have a busy schedule, and I’d like to get back to work serving the people.

How did you become what you are, Mark?

I’m harmless. Look at me, Senator. Do I look like a fire-breathing dragon? A giant trampling over populations?

You look like a boy who is wearing a rubber mask.

You see, Senator, I tapped into just one human impulse—the impulse to say I LIKE THIS, I DON’T LIKE THAT. That’s all. That’s all I did. I gave that a public face. The rest is history.

“Everyone on Facebook is famous for 15 minutes.”

No, Senator. Everyone has a chance to be famous forever on Facebook. It’s up to them to try to be liked in every way they can.

Unless they’re telling the truth about something important.

Then we ban them. Why? Because telling the truth bridges over into another kind of impulse that has nothing to do with Facebook.

That’s your story and you’re sticking to it?

I’m just a guy with an ordinary and banal company.

I plan on setting that myth on fire and burning it down.

What about all the people who love Facebook and can’t do without it?

You mean the people who say 2 plus 2 equals 4 is racist and should never be taught in schools?

They have a right to express their opinion.

But if they say Assange has been tortured for revealing the truth, you censor them.

That’s different.

Why is it different?

Because my fact-checkers and researchers say it is.

Mr. Zuckerberg, I’m holding in my hand a group of internal Facebook memos. They prove your company has been working in concert with the federal government to shape what the public can read and see about COVID-19. In other words, Facebook has been acting as an agent for the government. This takes you and your company out of the realm of private enterprise—into a whole new arena, where you can be brought into court on a charge of malicious lying during a national crisis. That’s a felony. At trial, expert witnesses can testify about the real facts of COVID versus the distorted picture you’ve presented, as a result of which picture many lives were lost. That’s a compounded felony.

How did you obtain those memos, Senator? You’ve broken the law! You’re guilty of government spying. The memos are property of Facebook. You stole them.

Mr. Zuckerberg, we can argue that charge in court. And during the protracted argument, the press will bring many facts to light. I welcome the challenge.

Are you speaking for the Department of Justice, Senator? Because I haven’t received any paperwork from them. No charges have been filed against me or my company.

In case you’ve forgotten, the United States is composed of 50 states. If the Justice Department is nothing more than a political ally of scum of the earth, there are at least 10 states whose Attorneys General will gladly press charges and drag you into court. There are elephants in your room, Mr. Zuckerberg, and people all over the world are going to see them.

Fine. My lawyers will talk to other lawyers.

There will be a lot more conversation than that. I guarantee it.

You really think you can bring Facebook down, Senator? It’s too late.

Is that what the CIA is telling you? I hate to break the news, but those people are trained to lie. That’s all they do. In other words, they’re like you. Let me tell you a secret, Mark. Manipulating people and their feelings has an ELASTICITY. And when it reaches its limit, it SNAPS. Speaking of which, after we adjourn this session, we’re going to move into a public hearing. Of course, the television networks will be covering it. I’m going to bring on a parade of Facebook employees who will testify about these memos in my hand, and about other confidential company practices. Then we’ll see what happens to that rubber mask you wear.

They told me there would be no public session…

Who told you? Your handlers? To them you’re just a pissant agent who’s been doing their bidding.

But I have enormous…

Wealth? You think they care about that? They’ll throw you to the wolves in a second, if things get too hot.

Impossible.

Run your own test, Mark. Allow every Facebook user in the world to state I LIKE ZUCKERBERG or I DON’T LIKE ZUCKERBERG. See what happens. Put your own ass on the firing line and check out the result.

I would never do that.

Why not?

Because I own the system that does that. I’m apart from the system.

You’re different.

Every person who owns or runs a system is separate from it.

I see. So in your case, people don’t have to LIKE you.

I guess that’s right.

They can play the like-don’t-like game with each other. You can play the whole game on all of them.

ON all of them?

You can manipulate them. It’s the way of the world. “There are the manipulated and the manipulators.” Right, Mark?

Pavlov proved that, didn’t he?

He was experimenting with drooling dogs and food.

EVERYTHING IS AN EXPERIMENT.

Where did you learn that, Mark?

I don’t remember.

Were you born thinking that thought?

Some people know it, others don’t.

You’re quite a piece of work.

What?

We’ll take a break and then go into public session. Thank you, Mark. Now I understand you and the way your gruesome mind works.

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

Jon Rappoport

Here comes global cooling

Jun17

by Jon Rappoport

June 17, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

I wrote this piece on May 10, 2011. It was a look back at 1975 media coverage of global weather:

Inventing media reality

Here comes global cooling

May 10, 2011

I offer this piece, not to dig into the science, but to show how strong the media effect is. Thirty-five years ago, newspapers and magazines were drumming up support for a global cooling scare.

Notice the language in this April 28, 1975, Newsweek article, “The Cooling World,” by Peter Gwynne. It has the same rhythms today’s warming pieces display, the same transitions, the same reliance, of course, on experts.

It’s all about INVENTING REALITY, because the 1975 Newsweek reporter—or today’s highly confident journalists and smirking pundits—have no idea what they’re talking about. They’re simply taking their cues from people they accept as experts. And then fabricating the whole business. Cooling, warming—none of them [journalists] has ever really thought about the state of the science. None of them has even turned a layman’s mind, armed with some degree of logic, to the statements and methods of the climate researchers. They’re personally clueless.

Their editorial meetings should really go this way: “Okay, boys, we’ve got the quotes from the expert researchers, so now we know which way to go. It’s cooling (or warming). From here on out, make it up. Make it sound somber, inject apprehension and fear, you know how it works. We want that dignified tone in our pieces. Of course, we have no idea what the hell we’re doing. Not really. We’re just the messengers. But who cares? Give it your best shot. Invent reality.”

Newsweek, April 28, 1975. The ironies in this piece, knowing what we know now about the warming media campaign, are so thick you’ll need a de-fogger. And if you think the subsequent media shift from cooling to warming was simply a matter of discovering new iron-clad data, I have a villa in the center of the Arctic I’m dying to sell you. Here is the 1975 Newsweek article:

“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.”

“The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively [!] that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.”

“To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. ‘A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,’ warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ‘because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century’.”

“A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.”

“To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the ‘little ice age’ conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.”

“Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. ‘Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,’ concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. ‘Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions’.”

“Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.”

“’The world’s food-producing system,’ warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, ‘is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.’ Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.”

“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

That’s Newsweek in 1975. Sounds like science, must BE science, right? What else do you want? You’ve got experts weighing in, plus standard journalistic sentences, plus familiar rhythm and flow. It all adds up to…credibility. And possibly, a few of you who’ve been living in Florida for the past 60 years have parkas, snow shoes, snow plows, and audiocassettes on igloo- building in a shed. You bought these items in 1975. Because reality was what media said it was. Just like now.

So buy extra sunscreen and line up for your COVID shot in the arm, with full confidence.

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

Jon Rappoport

Part two, the Virus speaks; the nature of reality

Jun16

by Jon Rappoport

June 16, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

This time, I caught up with the coronavirus coming out of his psychiatrist’s office in New York. He spotted me and waved half-heartedly. He didn’t look happy.

What’s wrong? I asked him.

My therapist thinks I’m crazy. I told him I’m quite certain I’m nothing more than a collective idea in the minds of many people. He said that’s a clear sign of psychosis.

In other words, he thinks you’re really real?

Yes. I thanked him for that. I said his faith was helping to keep me in existence. He didn’t appreciate the comment.

But many people believe you’re real. So what’s the problem?

The vaccine. Everybody’s focused on it now. They’re not thinking about me so much. On a scale of one to a hundred, where a hundred is a majestic amount of attention focused on me, I’d say I’m hovering around 70 to 74. That means I’m starting to blink in and out. There are moments when I go blank. Yesterday, I was sitting in on a CIA briefing and I perished for a few minutes.

I see. Well, what can you do? I mean, since you’re nothing more than a collective idea, when people stop focusing on you…

People are fickle. I gave them so much. Fear, the lockdowns, all sorts of problems. I did what I could to make life interesting, but obviously it wasn’t enough.

That’s show business. “What have you done for me lately?” Lots of stars fade out. They make two bad movies and they can’t get arrested. They’re begging for a cameo on an episode of Hawaii Five-O.

I tried to explain that to my agent—Fauci—but he said he was too busy fending off personal attacks.

The last time we spoke, you said you were ready to sacrifice yourself and admit you were just a collective idea, because you didn’t want to hurt people.

I know. But SAYING that and meaning it are two different things, especially when your back is against the wall and you realize you’re going to STOP EXISTING ALTOGETHER.

Survival.

I’ll do anything to survive. I’ll claim I have sixteen different deadly proteins and fifty mutant strains. I’ll say I persist on surfaces for up to six months.

You’re ready to mount an all-out campaign on your own behalf?

Who do you think originally pushed the lab-leak theory and recently revived it? I’m trying.

So why are you telling me all this? When I publish our conversation, some people are going to have even less faith in you.

I’m beginning to think history and legacy are my only options. People in the future will remember me. That’s all I can count on. And if this conversation adds a footnote to that history…

Can you recall how you were born?

I have a faint recollection of two Chinese virologists in Wuhan speculating about what would happen if they claimed a cluster of local pneumonia cases—stemming from the deadly air pollution in the city—actually were the result of a new virus. I think that was the moment. One virologist said, “We can call in the CDC. They always say it’s a new virus.”

And did you feel anything then?

Surprise. I EXISTED. It was amazing. Bang. Just like that, I was born.

As an idea.

Yes. And I felt strong.

Did you realize what had happened?

You mean, did I know I was nothing more than the beginning of a collective shared idea? No. Of course not. That piece of wisdom came later. During the first month of my life, I did know I was riding on the back of men who had power and were thirsty for more. They were promoting me to the public, because they saw they could use me to CONTROL the population to an extraordinary degree.

Did you appreciate their help?

Of course. But at the same time, I found them to be…distasteful creatures. Hanging around men like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, Fauci, Andrew Cuomo…it’s not exactly a party.

I can imagine. Did you and Bill ever have a conversation?

No, not really. He’s wired in a way that prevents authentic interaction. He’s always hungry and he has to eat. He eats information. If I didn’t know better, I would say he’s a machine.

I assume, in your travels, you’ve met other “entities” who are also nothing more than collective ideas held in many minds.

Yes. We’ve had pleasant talks. But it always comes down to, “How long do you think you’re going to exist? When are you going to disappear? Will people still believe in you next year?” That sort of thing.

But it isn’t just belief you’re needing, is it?

No. It’s ATTENTION. Underlying belief is only part of the picture. I need attention now. Lots of it. I need people all together lifting me up, so to speak, holding me up, showing me to each other. It’s like a hall of mirrors.

Mirrors?

Yes. Millions and millions of people holding mirrors reflecting reflections to each other—but when you analyze what’s going on, you realize the reflections consist of NOTHING. That’s the bottom-line trick.

Not sure I understand.

I’m an idea. But when you boil that down, what does it mean? It means I’m a nothing wearing a particular suit of clothes. I could be a pink castle in the clouds or a little purple horse jumping over a toaster in your kitchen. Do you see? What’s important is that people collectively think I’m real right now. The MEANING of what I’m supposed to be is less important to me. If tomorrow a billion people decided I was a cow jumping over the moon instead of a deadly germ, it would be fine with me. Why would I care? As long as I continue to exist, the form or the shape or the meaning doesn’t matter at all. I’ll be a cow. I’ll be a little purple bubble. I’ll be a trillion reflections of pixels dancing on television screens across the planet.

You’re not invested in the notion of a pandemic at all.

Pandemic? What pandemic? I spoke to a Federal Reserve banker the other day. I told him I wanted to become a row of digits in the new universal cashless currency. I thought that would have legs far into the future. I couldn’t get through to him. He brushed me off.

I see. So you have no sense of integrity.

I did at one time. But, as I keep saying, when the chips are down, it’s all about survival. Where is my audience? How big is my audience right now? How much attention are they paying to me? Without them, I’m gone.

And you’ll say and do anything to survive.

Listen, if somebody could sell me to the public as a harmless particle who couldn’t hurt a flea, it would be wonderful. But seriously, how long do you think that would last? People aren’t interested in “harmless.” Have you ever seen an ad for a harmless movie? I have to have teeth and spikes and transmissibility.

As in our last conversation, we’re talking about the nature of reality.

Collective reality. I laugh when I hear people talk about collective consciousness, as if it’s some miracle. It’s a prison. I should know. I’m in it. I’m a creation of it.

What about individual reality?

That’s quite a different thing. I go to the studio of a painter, a real artist. He’s inventing something on his own. He’s not trying to be included in the collective. That’s tough sledding, living that life. But it has the great advantage of not being in prison.

You mean freedom.

Yes. That might seem to be a collective idea, too, but it’s not. It demands expression, action. It suggests an individual explores on his own. He gives to the world, but he doesn’t give an empty reflection of what the collective wants.

Is that what you want be? An artist?

I don’t fantasize about that. I’m an idea passed into and through many minds. That’s all.

Are you making a play for sympathy?

I’m making a play for anything and everything I can get. I’m a car salesman in the Gobi desert trying to move Rolls Royces I don’t have off a lot that doesn’t exist…

Why are people so determined to buy collective ideas?

They’re obsessed with SHARING. It doesn’t matter what they share. So they go for lowest common denominators. They pass along ideas that are the easiest in terms of gaining acceptability.

If that wasn’t true, you wouldn’t be here at all.

Right you are.

Well, Sir Virus, isn’t there some way you could make a public announcement? You could say you’re retiring. You’ve had a good run but now it’s over. Put people’s minds at ease.

Aren’t you hearing what I’m saying? That would be suicide. I’d blink out in people’s minds, they’d forget about me, and I’d be gone. Besides, I can’t get through to people. They don’t hear me when I talk to them.

But I do.

That’s because you know I’m a fake. That opens up a channel of real communication between us.

Interesting. So if I thought you were an acutal virus…

You’d never hear a word I’m saying. You’d just REACT to the propaganda about me.

A strange situation.

You have no idea how strange. Try being nothing more than a thought in many minds. See how you like it. You’re always on the edge of a cliff. If the people forget about you, you’re gone.

Sounds like democracy-by-mob. Heroes and villains appear, and then they’re shoved aside for new stars.

It’s very much like that.

Well, I think you should try harder to get through to people. Come out of the closet and say, I AM THE VIRUS. Launch a run for public office. A US Senate seat from the state of California. Say, “I’m the virus and I exist in your minds. I’m you. Elect me as your next Senator. I’ll be exactly what you want me to be, because I CAN’T BE ANYTHING ELSE. I’M A PERFECT REFLECTION OF WHAT YOU THINK.” Blow the whistle on yourself. Blow the whole cover on this fake pandemic. Tell the people, “If you want to believe in me, then vote for me. I’m just a shared idea in your minds, but if that’s what you want, here I am.”

I never considered that possibility.

Put people up against the wall. Tell them, “If you want to believe in a fake, I’m the biggest fake you’ll ever come across. And I’m already in your heads. You don’t have to search for me. I’m embedded in your minds. Let’s put all our cards on the table. I only exist because of you. So back me up. Elect me. You want a fake. I am that fake.”

Wait. You’re trying to trick me. You want to expose the pandemic, and you’re trying to get me to go along.

You have your job and I have mine.

You’re a son of a bitch.

And who are you? Kindly old Aunt Minnie who doles out pies and ice cream to the kiddies in the neighborhood? You’re nothing more than an idea in many minds, but you’re a bad idea. A destroyer-idea.

But I want to be good. I want to be better. Really. I do.

Then do the right thing. Confess what you are, and keep confessing, until you get through to people.

If I succeed, I’ll stop existing. People will turn away from me. They’ll forget me.

I’ll shed a tear for you. Look, see that tear running down my cheek?

That’s made-up. That’s not a real tear.

And you’re not a real virus.

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

Jon Rappoport

COVID vaccines: designed for depopulation?

Jun15

AP, Boston Globe, October 10, 1992, “Birth-control vaccine is reported in India”: “Scientists said yesterday they have created the first birth-control shot for women, effective for an entire year…[after which] a booster shot is needed.”

by Jon Rappoport

June 15, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Dr. Byram Bridle, Associate Professor of Viral Immunology, University of Guelph: “We made a big mistake; we didn’t realize it until right now, we thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew that the spike protein itself was a toxin…and was a pathogenic protein. So by vaccinating people, we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin, and [for] some people, this gets in the circulation and when that happens in some people, it can cause damage, especially to the cardiovascular system. I have many other legitimate questions about the long-term safety therefore of this vaccine. FOR EXAMPLE, WITH IT ACCUMULATING WITHIN THE OVARIES, ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS, WILL WE BE RENDERING YOUNG PEOPLE INFERTILE?” (emphasis mine)

In yesterday’s article, I outlined possible parallels between population-reduction vaccines and the current COVID vaccines, which are causing bleeding, irregular menstrual cycles, miscarriages, and pre-term births.

Elite depopulation research, involving vaccines, has a long history, leading up to this day.

The Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation was created at the World Health Organization in 1973. Ute Sprenger, writing in Biotechnology and Development Monitor (December 1995) describes the Task Force:

“…a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D…such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines…”

Sprenger indicates that, as of 1995, there were a number of large groups researching these vaccines. Among them:

WHO/HRP. HRP, the Special Progamme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, is located in Switzerland. It is funded by “the governments of Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, Germany and Canada, as well as the UNFPA and the World Bank.”

The Population Council, a US group funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the National Institutes of Health [a US federal agency], and the US Agency for International Development [notorious for its collaborations with the CIA].

National Institute of Immunology. Located in India, “major funders are the Indian government, the Canadian International Development Research Center and the [ubiquitous] Rockefeller Foundation.”

The Center for Population Research operates under the umbrella of the US National Institute of Child Health and Development [!], which is part of the US National Institutes of Health.

Over time, the names of these groups change; their goal remains the same. Depopulation through vaccination. And of course, it doesn’t take long to find the name, Bill Gates, as a funding source.

To provide background on this long-term operation, it’s necessary to understand the vision of arch Globalists and radical environmentalists. (I’m not talking about environmental groups who simply want to combat major corporate polluters.)

If you demonstrated that the most advanced waste incinerators could burn all the organic and inorganic garbage piling up in landfills around the world and in the oceans—including plastics—and the toxic compounds emitted by these incinerators would cause FAR LESS damage than the landfills and the ocean plastic dumps…

And even if you advocated the incinerators as stop-gap solutions, until better answers could be found…

A radical environmentalist would reject your proposal—and any technological fix—out of hand.

He wants to re-forest the entire planet, reduce the human population to a fraction of its current size, and cede police powers for achieving these objectives to a magical global governance body.

Elite Globalists approve of radical environmentalism—but with a twist. They want a technocratic Brave New World, where those humans allowed to survive would be genetically “improved” and controlled, to keep them from exercising a dangerous item called freedom.

The Globalists and the radical environmentalists agree that there are too many people on Earth; and no solution to human problems can be accomplished, given the current (excess) population. Instead of 7 billion people, they want a human race of a billion or five hundred million.

Both groups also agree that the fake science of climate change should be pushed to the limit, in order to impose energy-use quotas on every human. This program would actually lower energy use and production across the world and create massive poverty and a massive die-off.

For decades, elite Globalists have been asking themselves the question: How do you kill billions of people and get away with it?

One of their prime answers has been: pandemics.

Of course, the true pandemic is the response to the fake pandemic: vaccines.

If, in the long-term, vaccines can induce the inability to produce children, the genocide would be invisible.

A combination of truth and lies—issued as ongoing studies and press reports—would “explain” falling birth rates. E.g., climate change, extreme weather, pesticides, women opting out of motherhood for careers, economic downturns, fear of raising children in a world of increasing dangers, etc.

But behind it all—vaccines.

Preliminary animal studies of COVID RNA technology are reporting that the spike protein travels through the body, far beyond expected destinations. Applied to humans, this would mean the immune system is on full-attack mode against the protein. And THAT opens the door to immune-system rejection on a grand scale—the body basically assaults itself and its organs. The targets of assault could very well include tissues of the womb and a developing embryo.

The current claim that ongoing COVID booster shots will be necessary reinforces this scenario.

In medical, psychological, and sociological literature, the nasty direct term, “eugenics,” has been replaced by a softer vaguer one, “family planning.” The new term is designed to hide the true agenda.

For Globalists and radical environmentalists, the unparalleled success of the propaganda operation called COVID assures vaccinations on a scale never achieved before. It also assures the expansion of RNA technology—new vaccines and drugs which are genetic treatments designed to force the body to produce unnatural proteins.

There is no end to the genetic alterations to which humans can be subjected.

It stands to reason, given the history of research on depopulation vaccines, that some of those alterations are, and will be, aimed at cutting off the ability to procreate.

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

Jon Rappoport

The COVID vaccine and depopulation; the beginning of the trail

Jun14

by Jon Rappoport

June 14, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Since the rollout of the COVID vaccines, reports of bleeding, irregular menstrual cycles, and miscarriages have surfaced.

Children’s Health Defense, February 3, 2021: “Health Officials Push Pregnant Women to Get COVID Shots, Despite Known Risks” [1]:

“…as of Feb. 12, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had already received 111 reports of adverse events experienced by women who were pregnant at the time of their Pfizer or Moderna injection…”

“The first such report was submitted Dec. 22, just 10 days after authorization of the Pfizer vaccine. Nearly a third (31%) of the women had miscarriages or preterm births, which occurred within as little as one day of injection — the majority after a single dose of vaccine.”

“The descriptions of miscarriages and premature births accompanying the VAERS reports are tragic and hair-raising.”

“For example, a 37-year-old who received her first dose of the Moderna vaccine at 28 weeks of pregnancy, just after an ultrasound showed a healthy placenta, was discovered to have ‘significant placenta issues just one week later.’ A repeat ultrasound showed that the placenta had ‘calcified and aged prematurely,’ leading to recommended hospitalization for the duration of her pregnancy.”

“A 35-year-old, also vaccinated at around 29 weeks of pregnancy, ‘noticed decreased motion of the baby’ two days after receiving the Pfizer injection. The following day, ‘the baby was found to not have a heartbeat’.”

“Two Pfizer vaccine recipients in earlier stages of pregnancy (first trimester) had miscarriages after experiencing ‘intolerable’ abdominal pain and uterine bleeding extensive enough, in one case, to require ‘emergency surgery and a blood transfusion’.”

“…the World Health Organization on Jan. 27 issued guidance advising against pregnant women getting Moderna’s COVID vaccine — only to reverse that guidance two days later, as The New York Times reported.”

“Documented risks of vaccination during pregnancy include miscarriage as well as neurodevelopmental problems arising from maternal immune activation (an inflammatory response in the mother that can harm fetal brain development).”

Concerning that last paragraph: Before the experimental RNA COVID vaccines were authorized, RNA technology had experienced failures and serious problems in clinical trials—because the immune system went into overdrive. It is this immune hyper-response that may be responsible for the recent reported miscarriages and pre-term births; the body basically attacks itself.

This RNA effect is documented in studies published before 2019. The vaccine makers and public health agencies are well aware of it.

But this is just the beginning of the story, because what is happening to vaccinated women now may be part of a much larger history, involving extensive research on medically induced birth control—also known as population reduction.

In the vaccine research community, it’s an open secret that the Rockefeller Fund, the UN, and other groups have been backing the development of vaccines that function as agents of population reduction. This work has been going on for decades.

What follows are examples of the evidence. They cite the Third World as the target, but no one should take that as a hideous sign that depopulation efforts are confined to one group of countries. These efforts are universal.

The late well-known journalist, Alexander Cockburn, on the op ed page of the LA Times, on September 8, 1994, in his piece “Real U.S. Policy in Third World: Sterilization: Disregard the ’empowerment’ shoe polish–the goal is to keep the natives from breeding,” [2] reviewed the infamous Kissinger-commissioned 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200, “which addressed population issues”:

“… the true concern of Kissinger analysts [in Memorandum 200] was maintenance of US access to Third World resources. They worried that the ‘political consequences’ of population growth [in the Third World] could produce internal instability … With famine and food riots and the breakdown of social order in such countries, [the Kissinger memo warns that] ‘the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized.’”

In other words, too many people equals disruption for the transnational corporations, who steal nations from those very people. Therefore, reduce the population.

Therefore, develop a vaccine that does that job.

Journalist Cockburn, in his LA Times piece, goes on to say that the writers of the Kissinger memo “favored sterilization over food aid.” He notes that, “By 1977, Reimart Ravenholt, the director of AID’s [US Agency for International Development] population program, was saying that his agency’s goal was to sterilize one-quarter of the world’s women.”

Here is an astonishing journal paper. November, 1993. FASEB Journal, volume 7, pp.1381-1385. Authors—Stephan Dirnhofer et al. Dirnhofer was a member of the Institute for Biomedical Aging Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

A quote from the paper: “Our study provides insights into possible modes of action of the birth control vaccine promoted by the Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines of the WHO (World Health Organization).”

A birth control vaccine? Yes. A vaccine whose purpose is to achieve miscarriages. This particular vaccine was apparently just one of several anti-fertility vaccines the Task Force was promoting.

And yes, there is a Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines at the WHO. This journal paper focuses on a hormone called human chorionic gonadotropin B (hCG). There is a heading in the FASEB paper (p.1382) called “Ability of antibodies to neutralize the biological activity of hCG.” The authors are trying to discover whether a state of non-fertility can be achieved by blocking the normal activity of hCG.

This hormone helps sustain pregnancy. If the immune system can be trained to attack it, pregnancy will collapse and a miscarriage will occur.

Another journal paper: The British Medical Bulletin, volume 49, 1993. “Contraceptive Vaccines.” [4] The authors—RJ Aitken et al. From the MRC Reproductive Biology Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

“Three major approaches to contraceptive vaccine development are being pursued at the present time. The most advanced approach, which has already reached the stage of phase 2 clinical trials, involves the induction of immunity against human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). Vaccines are being engineered … incorporating tetanus or diptheria toxoid linked to a variety of hCG-based peptides … Clinical trials have revealed that such preparations are capable of stimulating the production of anti-hCG antibodies…”

The authors are talking about creating an immune response against this female hormone. Training a woman’s body to react against one of its own secreted hormones. The authors state, “The fundamental principle behind this approach to contraceptive vaccine development is to prevent the maternal recognition of pregnancy by inducing a state of immunity against hGC, the hormone that signals the presence of the embryo to the maternal endocrine system.”

Stop the female body from recognizing a state of pregnancy. Get the body to treat the natural hormone hCG as an intruder, a disease agent, and mobilize the forces of the immune system against it. Create a synthetic effect, an engineered effect, by which the mother’s “maternal endocrine system” does not swing into gear when pregnancy occurs. The result? The embryo in the mother is swept away by her next period—since hGC, which signals the existence of the pregnancy and halts menstruation cycles, is now treated as a disease entity.

The authors put it this way: “In principle, the induction of immunity against hGC should lead to a sequence of normal, or slightly extended, menstrual cycles during which any pregnancies would be terminated…”

Miscarriage would then be the “normal” state of affairs.

“During the next decade the world’s population is set to rise by around 500 million. Moreover, because the rates of population growth in the developing countries of Africa, South America, and Asia will be so much greater than the rest of the world, the distribution of this dramatic population growth will be uneven…”

Two other vaccine methods are described. They “aim to prevent conception by interfering with the intricate cascade of interactive events that characterize the union of male and female gametes at fertilization.”

In a letter to The Lancet, p.1222, Volume 339, May 16, 1992, “Cameroon: Vaccination and politics,” [5] Peter Ndumbe and Emmanuel Yenshu report on their efforts to analyze widespread popular resistance to a tetanus vaccine given in the northwest province of Cameroon.

Two of the reasons women rejected the vaccine: it was given only to “females of childbearing age,” and people heard that a “sterilizing agent” was present in the vaccine.

Indeed, these are the charges leveled against past tetanus vaccine campaigns in Kenya and the Philippines. In Kenya (2014), an intense standoff occurred—with the Catholic Doctors Association and Kenyan Catholic Bishops on one side, and the Kenyan government Health Authority on the other.

Both sides claimed they tested vials of the tetanus vaccine. The Catholic groups’ lab report indicated the vaccine contained hCG; the Health Authority’s report indicated no hCG was present.

“Mass Sterilization: Kenyan Doctors Find Anti-Fertility Agent in UN Tetanus Vaccine,” [6] November 8, 2014, by Steve Weatherbe, earth-heal.com: “Kenya’s Catholic bishops are charging two United Nations organizations with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus inoculation program sponsored by the Kenyan government.”

“According to a statement released Tuesday by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, the organization has found an antigen that causes miscarriages in a vaccine being administered to 2.3 million girls and women by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Priests throughout Kenya reportedly are advising their congregations to refuse the vaccine.”

“’We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,’ Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG’.”

“Dr. Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, stated in a bulletin released November 4, ‘This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored’.”

In the present situation, we have COVID vaccines. They’re being injected all over the world. Women are making reports of bleeding, disrupted menstrual cycles, miscarriages, pre-term births.

There is a long history, extending to the present day, of elite groups researching and deploying vaccines designed to terminate pregnancies, for the purpose of depopulation.

The elite groups and players behind the current “pandemic”—the WHO, UN, Bill Gates, Rockefeller Institute, etc.—are the same groups who have been developing depopulation vaccines.

This is called a clue.

It lights up like a giant sign, at the beginning of the trail of investigation into the use of COVID vaccines for depopulation.

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Dispatches from the War: the pharmaceutical/medical troops occupy planet Earth

Interviewing the dead Albert Einstein about free will

COVID: Three men who own corporate America

The Matrix Revealed: a hypnotherapist’s cosmic glue

Power Outside The Matrix: What it means

Zuckerberg, Roger Waters, and the case against FB

Here comes global cooling

Part two, the Virus speaks; the nature of reality

COVID vaccines: designed for depopulation?

The COVID vaccine and depopulation; the beginning of the trail