Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 105

Thread: Excerpts from Jon Rappoport's "The Matrix Revealed"

  1. #16
    Member on Sabbatical United States WantDisclosure's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    1,542
    Thanked 5,563 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Oh my God.

    The passage I'm about to post is mind-boggling to me in its frankness and its relevance, because a source I followed years ago, Stefan Lanka, said the same thing about the so-called AIDS virus. Only he was/is a scientist, not an insider or a journalist.

    This comes right after the part about bringing down Nixon:

    Q: Did you ever work in that way?

    A: Yes. In Africa. I found reporters and government people who loved the idea that a new germ was on the loose and was going to be a plague. Great story. My job was essentially to find people who would accept the highly suspect idea that Robert Gallo, a man who had experience failing in the War on Cancer, was discovering a germ that would explain a great deal of death and suffering on a continent where the reasons for that had been known for centuries. It was a delicate thing. I had to use World Health Organization experts, and I had the backing of one or two people at the World Bank. I was one of the front men in what was essentially an intelligence operation. A pure disinformation operation.

    THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 18.

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to WantDisclosure For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (15th February 2019), Aragorn (10th February 2019), Dreamtimer (10th February 2019), Elen (10th February 2019), Kathy (10th February 2019)

  3. #17
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    12,927
    Thanks
    57,658
    Thanked 52,954 Times in 12,910 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by WantDisclosure View Post
    Oh my God.

    The passage I'm about to post is mind-boggling to me in its frankness and its relevance, because a source I followed years ago, Stefan Lanka, said the same thing about the so-called AIDS virus. Only he was/is a scientist, not an insider or a journalist.

    This comes right after the part about bringing down Nixon:

    Q: Did you ever work in that way?

    A: Yes. In Africa. I found reporters and government people who loved the idea that a new germ was on the loose and was going to be a plague. Great story. My job was essentially to find people who would accept the highly suspect idea that Robert Gallo, a man who had experience failing in the War on Cancer, was discovering a germ that would explain a great deal of death and suffering on a continent where the reasons for that had been known for centuries. It was a delicate thing. I had to use World Health Organization experts, and I had the backing of one or two people at the World Bank. I was one of the front men in what was essentially an intelligence operation. A pure disinformation operation.

    THE MATRIX REVEALED Volume 1: JON RAPPOPORT Interviews ELLIS MEDAVOY (Part 1 of 3) Copyright © 2011 by Jon Rappoport, page 18.
    So in this excerpt, he is actually saying that they were ─ with the support from people at the World Bank ─ creating a hype regarding an imaginary pandemic. Well, things like that certainly affect the economy, and are therefore quite Machiavellian in nature.

    But that said, my brother and I have both served in the military over here ─ we still had compulsory military duty in those days ─ and my brother was stationed at a NATO communications base. He had a security clearance because he had to process all kinds of classified documents. He told me ─ and this was corroborated by the Colonel in charge of the base at the time ─ that AIDS and Ebola had both been weaponized. Mind you, I'm not saying that they were genetically engineered diseases, but that they had been weaponized, meaning that NATO had devised methods of spreading both diseases.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (15th February 2019), Dreamtimer (10th February 2019), Elen (10th February 2019), Kathy (10th February 2019), WantDisclosure (10th February 2019)

  5. #18
    Member on Sabbatical United States WantDisclosure's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    1,542
    Thanked 5,563 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    So in this excerpt, he is actually saying that they were ─ with the support from people at the World Bank ─ creating a hype regarding an imaginary pandemic. Well, things like that certainly affect the economy, and are therefore quite Machiavellian in nature.

    But that said, my brother and I have both served in the military over here ─ we still had compulsory military duty in those days ─ and my brother was stationed at a NATO communications base. He had a security clearance because he had to process all kinds of classified documents. He told me ─ and this was corroborated by the Colonel in charge of the base at the time ─ that AIDS and Ebola had both been weaponized. Mind you, I'm not saying that they were genetically engineered diseases, but that they had been weaponized, meaning that NATO had devised methods of spreading both diseases.
    The work that Stefan Lanka did had to do with the claim that a virus had been isolated and it caused AIDS. He challenged Gallo's work and he also showed that the real cause of AIDS was extreme drug abuse. Ellis Medavoy seems to be saying that in Africa it has not been an AIDS epidemic it has been extreme poverty and malnutrition.

    But I do think that biological weapons are created in labs.

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to WantDisclosure For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (15th February 2019), Aragorn (10th February 2019), Dreamtimer (10th February 2019), Elen (10th February 2019), Kathy (10th February 2019)

  7. #19
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    12,927
    Thanks
    57,658
    Thanked 52,954 Times in 12,910 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by WantDisclosure View Post
    But I do think that biological weapons are created in labs.
    That they have been and still are being created is a given. Most of the documents my brother had to process pertained to NBC ("nuclear, biological and chemical warfare"). The question however is to what extent they have so far been (and are perhaps still being) deployed.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (15th February 2019), Dreamtimer (10th February 2019), Elen (10th February 2019), Kathy (10th February 2019), WantDisclosure (10th February 2019)

  9. #20
    Super Moderator United States Dreamtimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    8,398
    Thanks
    47,666
    Thanked 37,578 Times in 8,315 Posts
    People are so dumb. Most scientific and medical breakthroughs are accidental. People who think they can control germs which evolve at rates which are still likely beyond our comprehension are just dumb, imo.

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (15th February 2019), Aragorn (10th February 2019), Elen (10th February 2019), Kathy (10th February 2019), WantDisclosure (10th February 2019)

  11. #21
    Member on Sabbatical United States WantDisclosure's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    1,542
    Thanked 5,563 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    That they have been and still are being created is a given. Most of the documents my brother had to process pertained to NBC ("nuclear, biological and chemical warfare"). The question however is to what extent they have so far been (and are perhaps still being) deployed.
    I just don't know about HIV and Ebola. I think Jon Rappoport has written about Ebola. There is so much to learn from him.

    One whole section in this The Matrix Revealed that I'm reading is about AIDS.

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to WantDisclosure For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (15th February 2019), Aragorn (10th February 2019), Dreamtimer (10th February 2019), Elen (10th February 2019), Kathy (10th February 2019)

  13. #22
    Member on Sabbatical United States WantDisclosure's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    1,542
    Thanked 5,563 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by WantDisclosure View Post
    I think Jon Rappoport has written about Ebola.
    Google Advanced Search did not work for Rappoport’s website, so I had to pull this from a re-posting of his work:

    Ebolagate: 47 questions and answers By Jon Rappoport

    October 2, 2014
    Source: www.nomorefakenews.com
    By Jon Rappoport

    I have presented this information, in depth, in other recent articles. Here I present the bare bones.

    Q: What is the major psychological factor at work here?

    A: Above all else, it is people making an automatic connection between their own frightening image of Ebola and the statement, "So-and-so is sick."

    Q: "Sick" doesn't automatically=Ebola?

    A: That's right, even when an authority says some person is sick and in the hospital and has Ebola.

    Q: Is the Ebola epidemic a fraud, in the same way that Swine Flu was a fraud?

    A: In the summer of 2009, the CDC stopped counting cases of Swine Flu in the US.

    Q: Why?

    A: Because lab tests on samples taken from likely and diagnosed Swine Flu cases showed no presence of the Swine Flu virus or any other kind of flu virus.

    Q: So the CDC was caught with its pants down.

    A: Around its ankles. It was claiming tens of thousands of Americans had Swine Flu, when that wasn't the case at all. So why should we believe them now, when they say, "The patient was tested and he has Ebola." The CDC is Fraud Central.

    Q: Where is the fraud now, when it comes to counting Ebola cases and labeling people with the Ebola diagnosis?

    A: The diagnostic tests being run on patients---the antibody and PCR tests are most frequently used---are utterly unreliable and useless.

    Q: Therefore, many, many people could be labeled "Ebola," when that is not the case at all?

    A: Correct.

    Q: But people are sick and dying.

    A: People are always sick and dying. You can find them anywhere you look. That doesn't mean they're Ebola cases.

    Q: In other words, medical authorities can place a kind of theoretical grid over sick and dying people and reinterpret them as "Ebola."

    A: Exactly. The map can be drawn in any number of ways.

    Q: Could an "Ebola patient" have other viruses in his body?

    A: Of course. Many other viruses. The mere presence of a virus does not mean a person is sick or is going to get sick.

    Q: What test needs to be run, in order to say, "This person is sick because of Ebola."

    A: First of all, the Ebola virus would need to be isolated from the patient directly. The two tests I mentioned above are indirect. Then, if Ebola is isolated from the patient directly, a test needs to show that the patient is harboring millions of active Ebola virus---that's called a test for titer.

    Q: Are these procedures being done as a matter of course on people suspected of having Ebola?

    A: No.

    Q: We're told that the Dallas Ebola patient was vomiting profusely outside his apartment, before he was sent to the hospital. Isn't this a symptom of Ebola?

    A: It could be a symptom of many things. Some news reports state that the patient had already been to the hospital, where he was given antibiotics and sent home. All classes of antibiotics list nausea and vomiting as adverse effects.

    Q: So the symptoms of Ebola, like cough, fever, fatigue, diarrhea---these can be attributed to many causes?

    A: Absolutely. The flu, for example.

    Q: Now we're seeing a search operation for contacts of several Ebola patients.

    A: This will whip up hysteria to new heights. But where is the proof that the original patients have Ebola?

    Q: Again, the original patients are sick.

    A: "Sick" does not automatically equal "Ebola."

    Q: What's killing all those people in West Africa?

    A: With the tests being run on them---and many are simply eyeballed and called "Ebola"---there is no proof that any of these people have Ebola.

    Q: There are other long-term reasons for death and dying in West Africa?

    A: Protein-calorie malnutrition, hunger, starvation, extreme poverty, contaminated water supplies, overall lack of basic sanitation, a decade of horrific war, toxic medical drugs, prior toxic vaccine campaigns, etc.

    Q: And the combined effect of these conditions?

    A: Destruction of immune systems. Then, any germ that sweeps through the population, a germ that would ordinarily be defeated, instead kills many people. Why? Because the immune system is too weak to respond. With healthy and strong immune systems, the germs would have no significant effect.

    Q: What about the health workers in West Africa who have died?

    A: Since unreliable diagnostic tests would have been run on them, we don't have any idea why they died. But at least some of them were suffering greatly from working inside hazmat suits, sealed off from the outside. In a one-hour shift, in boiling heat, they were losing five quarts of body fluid, then coming out, rehydrating, disinfecting with toxic chemicals, putting their suits on again, going back to patients for the next shift, losing extraordinary amounts of body fluid again, and so forth and so on. That would cause anyone to collapse.

    Q: But this has to be an Ebola epidemic, with all the press coverage, with statements from the CDC, with announcements from experts.

    A: That's what they said about Swine Flu, which was a dud. This doesn't have to be Ebola just because official sources say it is.

    Q: Let's get back to the psychological factors involved here.

    A: A person has heard all about how dangerous Ebola is. He has a fear of some unknown invisible tiny killer, a virus. He has heard about "bad diseases" coming from Africa. Now, someone from the CDC stands up and talks about the threat of Ebola and says a patient with Ebola is in a Dallas hospital, and is sick. What's the effect? Utter acceptance of the idea that the hospital patient has Ebola. "It's Ebola. It couldn't be anything else."

    Q: But it could be something else?

    A: Of course.

    Q: People don't want to accept that, though. They want to believe in the doctors and the CDC and the tests that are run on people to decide if they have Ebola.

    A: That belief isn't based on anything real.

    Q: People believe in the power of what they're told.

    A: Yes. It's interesting to see people who otherwise call the CDC a fraud suddenly accept the CDC's edict about Ebola. There is no rational substance to that acceptance.

    Q: So to be clear, you're saying there might not be an Ebola epidemic at all.

    A: What do you need to determine whether people have Ebola? Accurate diagnostic tests. Accurate tests aren't being done. So this is an unproven epidemic. And making the assertion of an epidemic is a hoax.

    Q: Like the Swine Flu.

    A: Exactly. As I said, in the summer of 2009, the CDC stopped counting cases of Swine Flu and yet maintained there was an epidemic. The samples of blood from patients they sent to labs showed, in the overwhelmingly number of cases, that there was no Swine Flu virus present.

    Q: And at that time, how many cases of Swine Flu had the CDC already said were present in the US?

    A: Tens of thousands.

    Q: And what did the CDC do next?

    A: Unbelievably, they doubled down and estimated there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US. That's the level of lying we're dealing with here. And now, the CDC says Ebola is loose. The diagnostic tests they're running and relying on are useless. But everybody and his brother believes the CDC.

    Q: Again, people dying doesn't automatically equal Ebola? You'll hear, "What else could it be? It must be Ebola."

    A: People have all sorts of preconceptions that lead them to say, "It must be Ebola." Here is the sequence: We hear nothing about people dying. Then the press reports, "People are dying. It's an outbreak. It's Ebola." And that is automatically accepted. Why? Because populations have been tuned up by decades of propaganda to make those connections.

    Q: Believing what you say here---this would imply such an enormous level of fraud---it's unthinkable.

    A: No, it's not unthinkable. Again, for comparison, I refer you to the Swine Flu hoax. That was absolutely staggering. It was exposed by CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson in October of 2009. She published her work on the CBS website. CBS was about to put the story on the Evening News. Then it was stopped. Attkisson was cut off at the knees. Censored.

    Q: Why?

    A: Because the entire vaccine establishment, including the CDC, which is really a PR agency for pharmaceutical companies, would have been exposed for all to see. By calling Swine Flu an epidemic, millions and millions of Swine Flu shots were given. The CDC, knowing the "epidemic" was a fraud, their own fraud, was pitching the vaccine as if their lives depended on it.

    Q: Was the World Health Organization (WHO) involved in the fraud?

    A: They started it.

    Q: How?

    A: As Peter Doshi has written in BMJ Online, in the spring of 2009, with only 20 cases of Swine Flu in the world---20---the WHO declared Swine Flu a "level 6 pandemic," their highest classification of danger. Not only that, they changed their own definition of "pandemic," so that it no longer had to mean widespread and severe death and dying. They just changed the meaning of word "pandemic." Quite Orwellian.

    Q: But the US government is buying and distributing hazmat suits. People are being quarantined. There is a hunt for contacts of the Dallas patient. Stories in the press are ramping up fear. All these people couldn't be wrong.

    A: I have condos for sale on the moon. I think you might be an ideal customer.

    Q: Speaking of the CDC, a long-term scientist with the agency, William Thompson, recently admitted he committed fraud, when he co-authored a 2004 study that claimed the MMR vaccine had no connection to autism.

    A: Thompson had several co-authors from the CDC on that study. They all committed fraud. Consider the conversations that must have taken place at the CDC to arrange that fraud.

    Q: Do you think the fraud went all the way to the top of the CDC?

    A: In 2004, whistleblower Thompson wrote a letter to Julie Gerberding, the head of the CDC. He warned her he was about to present troubling and sensitive data about the vaccine at an upcoming conference on vaccines and autism. His meaning was clear. He had found a vaccine-autism connection.

    Q: What did Gerberding do?

    A: She never answered Thompson's letter, and his presentation at the conference was canceled.

    Q: Is Gerberding still the head of the CDC?

    A: No. She left the CDC in 2009.

    Q: Where is she now?

    A: She's the president of Merck vaccines.

    Q: What vaccine do they manufacture?

    A: The MMR.

    Q: The same vaccine Thompson found had a connection to autism?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And for 10 years, from 2004 to now, Thompson and his co-authors sat on the knowledge that the MMR vaccine has a connection to autism?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And this is the same CDC that now wants us to believe that there is an Ebola epidemic?

    A: Yes. As I was saying, I have a lovely condo for you on the dark side of the moon. Swimming pool, outdoor grill, playground for the kiddies, nine-hole golf course. Interested?

    Q: No comment. But since we've come this far, perhaps you could explain why the tests for diagnosing Ebola are unreliable and useless.

    A: Let's start with the antibody test. Two problems. First, the test is notorious for what's called "cross-reactions." That means the test isn't really registering, in this case, the presence of Ebola. It's registering one of a whole host of other factors. For example, the patient received a vaccine, and that triggers a falsely positive reading.

    Q: What's the second problem?

    A: The antibody test doesn't say whether a person was sick, is sick, or will get sick. At best, if there are no cross-reactions, it merely says the person had contact with the virus in question. So a positive antibody test for Ebola is far from saying "this person has Ebola." That's a lie. In fact, before 1985, the general conclusion from positive antibody tests was: this is a good sign; the patient's immune system contacted the germ and threw it off, defeated it.

    Q: What about the PCR test for Ebola?

    A: This test is prone to many mistakes, starting with the tiny, tiny sample of material taken from the patient. Is it really genetic material, and is that material really a piece of a virus, or is it just a piece of general and irrelevant debris? The test itself takes that tiny sample and amplifies it millions of times so it can be observed. Assuming it is actually Ebola virus, or a fragment of Ebola virus, there is no indication there is enough of the virus in the patient's body to make him sick. There have to be millions upon millions of active virus in the patient's body to begin to say that virus is causing problems. The PCR test says nothing about that. In fact, why was it necessary to do the PCR test at all? If the patient had enough Ebola virus in his body to cause illness, there was no need to search for a tiny fragment of a hoped-for Ebola virus, to start the PCR test. The virus would have been everywhere.

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

    https://exopolitics.blogs.com/ebolag...rappoport.html
    If I'm not mistaken, Stefan Lanka made exactly the same point about the antibody and PCR tests in relation to HIV and AIDS. When I get time, I'll re-research his work, because I think he was on to something.

    I also have on my list of things to do to look up what happened to CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson in October of 2009.

    William Thompson's story is also interesting. And Julie Gerberding.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to WantDisclosure For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (15th February 2019), Aragorn (11th February 2019), Dreamtimer (10th February 2019), Elen (11th February 2019), Kathy (10th February 2019)

  15. #23
    Senior Member palooka's revenge's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2018
    Location
    atlanta
    Posts
    435
    Thanks
    881
    Thanked 2,317 Times in 434 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by WantDisclosure View Post

    If I'm not mistaken, Stefan Lanka made exactly the same point about the antibody and PCR tests in relation to HIV and AIDS. When I get time, I'll re-research his work, because I think he was on to something.

    I also have on my list of things to do to look up what happened to CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson in October of 2009.

    William Thompson's story is also interesting. And Julie Gerberding.
    i'm looking forward to your reports and thank you for the diggin'. and while i'm at it, thank you to all who post here at TOT, much of which requires further diggin' down even deeper into an already, well dug hole. WE ROCK!!!!!

    btw... WD, welcome back...

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to palooka's revenge For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (15th February 2019), Aragorn (11th February 2019), Dreamtimer (11th February 2019), Elen (11th February 2019), Kathy (12th February 2019), WantDisclosure (11th February 2019)

  17. #24
    Member on Sabbatical United States WantDisclosure's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    1,542
    Thanked 5,563 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by palooka's revenge View Post
    i'm looking forward to your reports and thank you for the diggin'. and while i'm at it, thank you to all who post here at TOT, much of which requires further diggin' down even deeper into an already, well dug hole. WE ROCK!!!!!

    btw... WD, welcome back...
    You are so kind to show appreciation.

    I am compelled to keep reading and listening to Jon Rappoport and others like him. It is very time consuming but worth it.

    And I'm grateful for a place to share without being told I need to be de-programmed, which is what my older sister said to me.

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to WantDisclosure For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (15th February 2019), Aragorn (11th February 2019), Dreamtimer (11th February 2019), Elen (11th February 2019), Kathy (12th February 2019)

  19. #25
    Member on Sabbatical United States WantDisclosure's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    1,542
    Thanked 5,563 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by WantDisclosure View Post
    William Thompson's story is also interesting.
    William Thompson's story is featured in the documentary VAXXED: From Coverup to Catastrophe:

    The Director of the documentary is Andrew Wakefield.

    Years ago I learned about Andrew Wakefield’s experience going up against the international medical mafia.

    In my opinion, he is another Jon Rappoport in his integrity.

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to WantDisclosure For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (15th February 2019), Aragorn (11th February 2019), Dreamtimer (11th February 2019), Kathy (12th February 2019)

  21. #26
    Member on Sabbatical United States WantDisclosure's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    1,542
    Thanked 5,563 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by WantDisclosure View Post
    I also have on my list of things to do to look up what happened to CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson in October of 2009.
    Apparently, Sharyl Attkisson is a supporter of Trump.

    God forbid.

    Am I allowed to talk about it here?

    Yes, I'm a little bit angry.

    Attkisson: Every Smear Tactic Used Against Trump Bounces Off Of Him, He Is Kryptonite To Smear

    Posted By Tim Hains
    On Date July 17, 2017

    Attkisson.jpg

    Sharyl Attkisson, author of The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What you See, What you Think and How You Vote, and host of Full Measure, joins the Daily Caller News Foundation for an interview. Attkisson is a former CBS investigative reporter. She discusses what lessons the media needs to learn about itself in the wake of the 2016 election, and what lessons the public has learned about the media.

    She also discusses President Trump's use of socal media and quips that Obama would have been "heralded" for being "creative" if he had used Twitter more. "Because it is Trump, they are not going to say that about him. And also because of the nature of some of his tweets," she adds.

    "I don't think the media has learned a lesson yet," Attkisson also said.

    But: "For the public though, the lesson was already learned. When you see these narratives, and these overwhelming opinions that are being perpetuated on the news, you can not always rely on those. In fact, I would question most of them. When you see this overwhelming sentiment on one side, because it is usually an effort to try to make you think in a certain way, or a way to make you not look in a different direction at something that they don't want you to pay attention to."

    DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION: You talk pretty clinically about Transactional Journalism, as you call it. But from another point of view, with a lens that I might wear, you can also see it as political warfare. An effort to undermine, delegitimize, and remove a duly elected president, using some pretty threatening tactics. What do you say to that?

    SHARYL ATTKISSON: I think part of this was rooted in an ideological motive to unseat candidate Trump, and now to harm President Trump. And news agencies have admitted as much. We see news organizations, at least like I've never seen before, come forward and say this man is so dangerous, so [antithetical] to their beliefs that he is dangerous and we must suspend our normal rules of journalism, and our normal systems and processes.

    Think about that! Journalists exempting themselves from their own ethical systems and standards because they say this man is such a problem, and as a result, I think that is why we have seen formerly respectable news organizations -- CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times-- make horrible mistakes that wouldn't have been tolerated in journalism school. Reporting mistakes with errors. That is my response to that.

    DAILY CALLER: Chapter six of your book, [The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What you See, What you Think and How You Vote] was rather jaw-dropping to me. Where you did name names, and you got very specific when it comes to Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, trying to get coverage of a Hillary Clinton speech. Or David Aguilar at CPB trying to redefine corruption. And what it meant to people underneath him. Or your whistleblower on Fast and Furious John Dobson. Many of the examples you are naming. Is it hard to name these names and take the flak for doing so?

    ATTKISSON: All I'm using are -- these aren't my words, these are the words of the people operating the system. I quote the smear operators themselves in my book. In the case of what I called transactional journalism -- where the journalists are making ethically inappropriate deals with the people they are reporting on. To report things a certain way, a certain percentage of your story has to discuss this and that, here is the timing, here is how it has to be done. Those are there own words with emails we have [from WikiLeaks]. It is not difficult at all for me to publish and discuss those.

    DAILY CALLER: Why do you think WikiLeaks -- I can see where the FOIA lawsuits have given you some resources to check, but why do you think WikiLeaks exposed all that they did last year?

    ATTKISSON: I think because the documents fell into their lap. If those had fallen into the lap of any journalism organization, or if they had been able to obtain those, you would have made stories out of those as well. WikiLeaks did what news organizations used to do, when they obtained things like that, just publish them and let you decide. You could read the whole email and make of them what you will.

    I think today, if certain news organizations got a hold of those emails, through legal means, they would 't have done the stories on them. Five years ago maybe, but today WikiLeaks was maybe one of the only places that would expose that kind of material. And there was a lot of news in there. It wasn't just salacious gossip and rumors.

    DAILY CALLER: Explain in your book, why you say Trump can be Kryptonite to the Smear.

    ATTKISSON: I call him the anti-smear candidate, because every traditional smear tactic used against him -- very effective tactics against other people -- just kind of bounced off of him. In fact, he was able to grab it and pull it and co-opt it and turn it around in almost every case.

    I argue that if he had apologized in the summer of 2015 when the first attack I noticed was after John McCain called some of his followers crazies, and Trump counterattacked by saying he wasn't a war hero in Vietnam. People were calling for him to get out of the race, they aired more of him thinking that the public would hate him if they saw more of him, but the public liked him. I think if he had apologized then, he would never have made it. But he did the opposite thing that you would intuit for politicians, but it turned out to be the right thing for him to do for his followers…

    I'm not a student of Donald Trump, but maybe his business dealings, which are probably as nasty as politics can be if not nastier, prepped him for this. And him not coming up through the political system where he is surrounded by advisors saying, 'You have to apologize! You have to apologize! You have to apologize! Here's what you have to do.' Instead he was surrounded by people who were a little bit different, maybe that was responsible for him reacting differently…

    On the lessons the media should learn from the election:

    ATTKISSON: There are two lessons. One for us in the media, and one for the public. The lesson for the media should have been a serious reexamination of what we did. And when we got the election so wrong, we said he couldn't win/wasn't going to win/was about to collapse. I put in the book all the headlines and the narratives and they were just 180 degrees wrong.

    So you would expect after the election, you would see an examination and maybe a change. But instead, I see us as having doubled down on these efforts. In fact it has gotten worse, if anything. I don't think the media has learned a lesson yet.

    For the public though, the lesson was already learned. When you see these narratives, and these overwhelming opinions that are being perpetuated on the news, you can not always rely on those. In fact, I would question most of them. When you see this overwhelming sentiment on one side, because it is usually an effort to try to make you think in a certain way, or a way to make you not look in a different direction at something that they don't want you to pay attention to.

    DAILY CALLER: So the Tweets are [President Trump's] fireside chats?

    ATTKISSON: I think so. I don't think a president Obama or Bush would have tweeted out the same provocative things that Trump has, but if either of them had used social media in a similar way -- President Obama did, and it didn't even exist under Bush. But if they had each used it in a creative way, I think in Obama's case he would have been heralded. 'Look at the modern president using modern tools!' Because it is Trump, they are not going to say that about him. And also because of the nature of some of his tweets.

    You do get news. You get the leading edge of information -- mixed in with some weird stuff. So, that's how he uses it.


    (Via Daily Caller News Foundation)

    DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION: You talk pretty clinically about Transactional Journalism, as you call it. But from another point of view, with a lens that I might wear, you can also see it as political warfare. An effort to undermine, delegitimize, and remove a duly elected president, using some pretty threatening tactics. What do you say to that?

    SHARYL ATTKISSON: I think part of this was rooted in an ideological motive to unseat candidate Trump, and now to harm President Trump. And news agencies have admitted as much. We see news organizations, at least like I've never seen before, come forward and say this man is so dangerous, so [antithetical] to their beliefs that he is dangerous and we must suspend our normal rules of journalism, and our normal systems and processes.

    Think about that! Journalists exempting themselves from their own ethical systems and standards because they say this man is such a problem, and as a result, I think that is why we have seen formerly respectable news organizations -- CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times-- make horrible mistakes that wouldn't have been tolerated in journalism school. Reporting mistakes with errors. That is my response to that.

    DAILY CALLER: Chapter six of your book, [The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What you See, What you Think and How You Vote] was rather jaw-dropping to me. Where you did name names, and you got very specific when it comes to Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, trying to get coverage of a Hillary Clinton speech. Or David Aguilar at CPB trying to redefine corruption. And what it meant to people underneath him. Or your whistleblower on Fast and Furious John Dobson. Many of the examples you are naming. Is it hard to name these names and take the flak for doing so?

    ATTKISSON: All I'm using are -- these aren't my words, these are the words of the people operating the system. I quote the smear operators themselves in my book. In the case of what I called transactional journalism -- where the journalists are making ethically inappropriate deals with the people they are reporting on. To report things a certain way, a certain percentage of your story has to discuss this and that, here is the timing, here is how it has to be done. Those are there own words with emails we have [from WikiLeaks]. It is not difficult at all for me to publish and discuss those.

    DAILY CALLER: Why do you think WikiLeaks -- I can see where the FOIA lawsuits have given you some resources to check, but why do you think WikiLeaks exposed all that they did last year?

    ATTKISSON: I think because the documents fell into their lap. If those had fallen into the lap of any journalism organization, or if they had been able to obtain those, you would have made stories out of those as well. WikiLeaks did what news organizations used to do, when they obtained things like that, just publish them and let you decide. You could read the whole email and make of them what you will.

    I think today, if certain news organizations got a hold of those emails, through legal means, they would 't have done the stories on them. Five years ago maybe, but today WikiLeaks was maybe one of the only places that would expose that kind of material. And there was a lot of news in there. It wasn't just salacious gossip and rumors.

    DAILY CALLER: Explain in your book, why you say Trump can be Kryptonite to the Smear.

    ATTKISSON: I call him the anti-smear candidate, because every traditional smear tactic used against him -- very effective tactics against other people -- just kind of bounced off of him. In fact, he was able to grab it and pull it and co-opt it and turn it around in almost every case.

    I argue that if he had apologized in the summer of 2015 when the first attack I noticed was after John McCain called some of his followers crazies, and Trump counterattacked by saying he wasn't a war hero in Vietnam. People were calling for him to get out of the race, they aired more of him thinking that the public would hate him if they saw more of him, but the public liked him. I think if he had apologized then, he would never have made it. But he did the opposite thing that you would intuit for politicians, but it turned out to be the right thing for him to do for his followers…

    I'm not a student of Donald Trump, but maybe his business dealings, which are probably as nasty as politics can be if not nastier, prepped him for this. And him not coming up through the political system where he is surrounded by advisors saying, 'You have to apologize! You have to apologize! You have to apologize! Here's what you have to do.' Instead he was surrounded by people who were a little bit different, maybe that was responsible for him reacting differently…

    On the lessons the media should learn from the election:

    ATTKISSON: There are two lessons. One for us in the media, and one for the public. The lesson for the media should have been a serious reexamination of what we did. And when we got the election so wrong, we said he couldn't win/wasn't going to win/was about to collapse. I put in the book all the headlines and the narratives and they were just 180 degrees wrong.

    So you would expect after the election, you would see an examination and maybe a change. But instead, I see us as having doubled down on these efforts. In fact it has gotten worse, if anything. I don't think the media has learned a lesson yet.

    For the public though, the lesson was already learned. When you see these narratives, and these overwhelming opinions that are being perpetuated on the news, you can not always rely on those. In fact, I would question most of them. When you see this overwhelming sentiment on one side, because it is usually an effort to try to make you think in a certain way, or a way to make you not look in a different direction at something that they don't want you to pay attention to.

    DAILY CALLER: So the Tweets are [President Trump's] fireside chats?

    ATTKISSON: I think so. I don't think a president Obama or Bush would have tweeted out the same provocative things that Trump has, but if either of them had used social media in a similar way -- President Obama did, and it didn't even exist under Bush. But if they had each used it in a creative way, I think in Obama's case he would have been heralded. 'Look at the modern president using modern tools!' Because it is Trump, they are not going to say that about him. And also because of the nature of some of his tweets.

    You do get news. You get the leading edge of information -- mixed in with some weird stuff. So, that's how he uses it.


    (Via Daily Caller News Foundation)

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...standards.html

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WantDisclosure For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (15th February 2019), Aragorn (11th February 2019)

  23. #27
    Super Moderator United States Dreamtimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    8,398
    Thanks
    47,666
    Thanked 37,578 Times in 8,315 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by WantDisclosure View Post
    You are so kind to show appreciation.

    I am compelled to keep reading and listening to Jon Rappoport and others like him. It is very time consuming but worth it.

    And I'm grateful for a place to share without being told I need to be de-programmed, which is what my older sister said to me.
    I was told I was brainwashed. I was also told that I'm extreme. And that happened here. But don't worry. I didn't take it personally and I won't call you any names and I won't judge you either.

    I wore the labels like a badge. Literally. I gave myself badges which are on the Chaos Thread. Sometimes a person just has to stand strong.



    Trump and his supporters are using the media as a blanket excuse for all kinds of things.

    And so, last week, when his intelligence folks spoke before congress and it was broadcast in full, Trump kept saying the media mischaracterized what they said.

    The media broadcast what they said. There was no characterizing. The public heard the intelligence folks' words directly.

    Outright lies like that are what dictators do.

    In case people don't realize that.

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (11th February 2019), Elen (11th February 2019), Kathy (12th February 2019), WantDisclosure (11th February 2019)

  25. #28
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    12,927
    Thanks
    57,658
    Thanked 52,954 Times in 12,910 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by WantDisclosure View Post
    William Thompson's story is featured in the documentary VAXXED: From Coverup to Catastrophe:


    The Director of the documentary is Andrew Wakefield.

    Years ago I learned about Andrew Wakefield’s experience going up against the international medical mafia.

    In my opinion, he is another Jon Rappoport in his integrity.
    I'm afraid you would be wrong in your assessment of Andrew Wakefield, WantDisclosure. First of all, "VAXXED" is deliberately untruthful and serves an agenda, and secondly, there is a reason as to why Wakefield was barred from ever practising medicine again in the UK.

    As someone who comes from ─ among other things ─ a medical and paramedical background training, and who is himself on the autism spectrum, I am insulted in all of my being by Wakefield's claims that autism would be caused by vaccines, because I know and understand that it is a genetically predisposed neurological difference ─ not a disease, but a difference. This has been proven, and several genes responsible for an autism spectrum neurology have already been identified ─ 17 of them, I believe, but there may be more.

    Furthermore, Wakefield has admitted in court that he had falsified his research in order to be able to apply for an extra grant. But his supporters won't tell you that, or they will deny it. Because it's so much more romantic to be able to believe in a hero who goes in against the mainstream than to accept the cold, hard truth that this "hero" is a conman and a liar.

    As always, you have to be careful with these so-called "alternative heroes". Most of them have proven themselves to be narcissists, conmen or psychopaths. Sadly enough, the so-called alternative community is all too eager to accept for true with a knee-jerk what these characters say because they (appear to) go in against the mainstream. And that's exactly why we always keep on chasing our own tails.

    I will leave you with these wise words ─ there's a self-fulfilling joke in it too...:


    "Everyone will readily accept any quote they read on the internet if it happens to confirm their preconceived notions."

    (Martin Luther King)
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (11th February 2019), Elen (11th February 2019), Kathy (12th February 2019), tarka the duck (13th February 2019), WantDisclosure (12th February 2019)

  27. #29
    Member on Sabbatical United States WantDisclosure's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    1,542
    Thanked 5,563 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    Trump and his supporters are using the media as a blanket excuse for all kinds of things.

    And so, last week, when his intelligence folks spoke before congress and it was broadcast in full, Trump kept saying the media mischaracterized what they said.

    The media broadcast what they said. There was no characterizing. The public heard the intelligence folks' words directly.

    Outright lies like that are what dictators do.

    In case people don't realize that.
    I'm not going to ask any follow-up questions this time because I don't have time for a tit-for-tat.

    I am a member of a senior center near where I live. The Trump-bashing there is palpable. Even one of the staff members is guilty of cornering men in a discussion activity called "Mental Muscle Health" where she chose to talk about feminism.

    They serve lunch at the center and I have sat with a group who call Trump a criminal and go on and on about him. One day, one of them said, "My grandson wants to know when he will be assassinated."

    That did it.

    I left before lunch was served.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    I'm afraid you would be wrong in your assessment of Andrew Wakefield, WantDisclosure. First of all, "VAXXED" is deliberately untruthful and serves an agenda, and secondly, there is a reason as to why Wakefield was barred from ever practising medicine again in the UK.

    As someone who comes from ─ among other things ─ a medical and paramedical background training, and who is himself on the autism spectrum, I am insulted in all of my being by Wakefield's claims that autism would be caused by vaccines, because I know and understand that it is a genetically predisposed neurological difference ─ not a disease, but a difference. This has been proven, and several genes responsible for an autism spectrum neurology have already been identified ─ 17 of them, I believe, but there may be more.

    Furthermore, Wakefield has admitted in court that he had falsified his research in order to be able to apply for an extra grant. But his supporters won't tell you that, or they will deny it. Because it's so much more romantic to be able to believe in a hero who goes in against the mainstream than to accept the cold, hard truth that this "hero" is a conman and a liar.

    As always, you have to be careful with these so-called "alternative heroes". Most of them have proven themselves to be narcissists, conmen or psychopaths. Sadly enough, the so-called alternative community is all too eager to accept for true with a knee-jerk what these characters say because they (appear to) go in against the mainstream. And that's exactly why we always keep on chasing our own tails.

    I will leave you with these wise words ─ there's a self-fulfilling joke in it too...:


    "Everyone will readily accept any quote they read on the internet if it happens to confirm their preconceived notions."

    (Martin Luther King)
    I think for myself.

    Let's just agree to disagree.

    I must say, you seem to think you know better from some position of authority.

    I can't imagine where you get that from.

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to WantDisclosure For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (11th February 2019), Elen (11th February 2019), Kathy (12th February 2019)

  29. #30
    Super Moderator Norway Elen's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd July 2015
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    4,138
    Thanks
    53,758
    Thanked 19,026 Times in 4,140 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by WantDisclosure View Post

    I think for myself.

    Let's just agree to disagree.

    I must say, you seem to think you know better from some position of authority.

    I can't imagine where you get that from.
    Hmmmm...in this case I too have to disagree with you as well. Aragorn happens to be Autistic and he is right about: "Autism is NOT a disease". It's a very common condition...much more common than what people would suspect in naturally born children. Aragorn has looked into this in depth I can assure you.

    The most incredible people are Autistic...i.e. Einstein, Tesla, DaVinci, etc. etc. etc. To even think that Genius can be developed by a vaccine is far fetched and as crazy as the idea that vaccines are the cure for all things in life.

    If you feel that an Autistic has "stepped on your toes" and you feel hurt...you just have to get used to it...it is never meant to be an insult toward you personally. OK Sister?
    Whatever is true. Whatever is noble. Whatever is right. Whatever is lovely. Whatever is admirable. Anything of excellence and worthy of praise. Dwell on these things. Jesus Christ (I agree)

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Elen For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (12th February 2019), Dreamtimer (11th February 2019), Kathy (12th February 2019), tarka the duck (13th February 2019), WantDisclosure (12th February 2019)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •