Tag Archive: Pulitzer Prize


Published on Sep 30, 2013

Abby Martin gives props to world renowned journalist Seymour Hersh, for calling out the abysmal failure of the corporate media in the US, saying that the MSM should fire 90 percent of its reporters and that “not one word” of the bin laden death narrative is true.


Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the ‘pathetic’ American media

Pulitzer Prize winner explains how to fix journalism, saying press should ‘fire 90% of editors and promote ones you can’t control’

Seymour Hersh

Seymour Hersh exposed the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war, for which he won the Pulitzer Prize. Photograph: Wally McNamee/Corbis

Seymour Hersh has got some extreme ideas on how to fix journalism – close down the news bureaus of NBC and ABC, sack 90% of editors in publishing and get back to the fundamental job of journalists which, he says, is to be an outsider.

It doesn’t take much to fire up Hersh, the investigative journalist who has been the nemesis of US presidents since the 1960s and who was once described by the Republican party as “the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist”.

He is angry about the timidity of journalists in America, their failure to challenge the White House and be an unpopular messenger of truth.

Don’t even get him started on the New York Times which, he says, spends “so much more time carrying water for Obama than I ever thought they would” – or the death of Osama bin Laden. “Nothing’s been done about that story, it’s one big lie, not one word of it is true,” he says of the dramatic US Navy Seals raid in 2011.

Hersh is writing a book about national security and has devoted a chapter to the bin Laden killing. He says a recent report put out by an “independent” Pakistani commission about life in the Abottabad compound in which Bin Laden was holed up would not stand up to scrutiny. “The Pakistanis put out a report, don’t get me going on it. Let’s put it this way, it was done with considerable American input. It’s a bullshit report,” he says hinting of revelations to come in his book.

The Obama administration lies systematically, he claims, yet none of the leviathans of American media, the TV networks or big print titles, challenge him.

“It’s pathetic, they are more than obsequious, they are afraid to pick on this guy [Obama],” he declares in an interview with the Guardian.

“It used to be when you were in a situation when something very dramatic happened, the president and the minions around the president had control of the narrative, you would pretty much know they would do the best they could to tell the story straight. Now that doesn’t happen any more. Now they take advantage of something like that and they work out how to re-elect the president.

He isn’t even sure if the recent revelations about the depth and breadth of surveillance by the National Security Agency will have a lasting effect.

Snowden changed the debate on surveillance

He is certain that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden “changed the whole nature of the debate” about surveillance. Hersh says he and other journalists had written about surveillance, but Snowden was significant because he provided documentary evidence – although he is sceptical about whether the revelations will change the US government’s policy.

“Duncan Campbell [the British investigative journalist who broke the Zircon cover-up story], James Bamford [US journalist] and Julian Assange and me and the New Yorker, we’ve all written the notion there’s constant surveillance, but he [Snowden] produced a document and that changed the whole nature of the debate, it’s real now,” Hersh says.

“Editors love documents. Chicken-shit editors who wouldn’t touch stories like that, they love documents, so he changed the whole ball game,” he adds, before qualifying his remarks.

“But I don’t know if it’s going to mean anything in the long [run] because the polls I see in America – the president can still say to voters ‘al-Qaida, al-Qaida’ and the public will vote two to one for this kind of surveillance, which is so idiotic,” he says.

Holding court to a packed audience at City University in London’s summer school on investigative journalism, 76-year-old Hersh is on full throttle, a whirlwind of amazing stories of how journalism used to be; how he exposed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, how he got the Abu Ghraib pictures of American soldiers brutalising Iraqi prisoners, and what he thinks of Edward Snowden.

Hope of redemption

Despite his concern about the timidity of journalism he believes the trade still offers hope of redemption.

“I have this sort of heuristic view that journalism, we possibly offer hope because the world is clearly run by total nincompoops more than ever … Not that journalism is always wonderful, it’s not, but at least we offer some way out, some integrity.”

His story of how he uncovered the My Lai atrocity is one of old-fashioned shoe-leather journalism and doggedness. Back in 1969, he got a tip about a 26-year-old platoon leader, William Calley, who had been charged by the army with alleged mass murder.

Instead of picking up the phone to a press officer, he got into his car and started looking for him in the army camp of Fort Benning in Georgia, where he heard he had been detained. From door to door he searched the vast compound, sometimes blagging his way, marching up to the reception, slamming his fist on the table and shouting: “Sergeant, I want Calley out now.”

Read More Here


Enhanced by Zemanta

Breaking: New York creates psychiatric police state


by: Jon Rappoport

(NaturalNews) It’s a done deal.

Governor Cuomo, along with Democrat and Republican legislators, is ramming through a bill to restrict gun ownership, re-classify weapons in order to ban them — and, in a far-reaching move, create psychiatrists as cops who must report patients to law-enforcement, in order to keep the patients from owning a weapon.

Psychiatrists must report patients “who could potentially harm themselves or others.” If such a patient owns a gun, it will be confiscated.

This means a comprehensive data base, accessible by law-enforcement personnel and anyone else involved in doing background checks These “problematic” patients will be kept from buying a new weapon, too. Otherwise, the law would have no teeth.

As usual, the devil is in the details. Psychiatrists will err on the side of caution and report many patients. No shrink wants to blink into television cameras after one of his patients has just shot his father.

Patients who want to own weapons will lie to psychiatrists about their thoughts and feelings, never admitting they’re considering suicide or murder.

After such a murder, a psychiatrist will say: “He never said anything about killing anybody. Here, look at my notes. There’s nothing there.”

For this and other reasons, such as the existence of the data base, doctor-patient confidentiality will go out the window.

Therefore, the practice of psychiatry, which already minimizes talk therapy and merely dispenses drugs, will move even further in that direction. Tight-lipped patients, who don’t want to go on a police list, will seek an office visit with the sole motive of obtaining a drug.

Since all the emphasis is now on “mentally ill patients who are prone to violence,” the possibility of indicting the drugs in violence will recede over the horizon.

SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) and other brain drugs do, in fact, cause people to go crazy and commit violent crimes, including murder. This is an open secret in the psychiatric profession, and the public is becoming more aware of it every day.

But it will be swept under the carpet.

Under the new law, a psychiatrist can’t be prosecuted for failing to report a patient who later commits murder, as long as the psychiatrist “acted in good faith.” The meaning of that phrase is broad enough to automatically cast blanket exoneration on most shrinks, which closes off the chance a psychiatrist will be pilloried for prescribing a drug he knows can induce violence in the patient.

This New York law will be copied and passed by other states, and in the end, we will see a national data base of psychiatric patients.

The official attitude will be: anyone who sees a psychiatrist is a potential killer.

This will give rise to protests on behalf of “a new underclass”: psychiatric patients. Advocates will arise to take up their cause. Court cases will abound. The whole business will devolve into a complete mess.

But out of it will come a hands-on partnership between cops and shrinks, who’ll march should to shoulder into their version of a psychiatric police state.

Seventy-two hour mandatory holds in psych wards for “observation” will expand. During this period of incarceration, shrinks will dose inmates hard with drugs, in order to make them more docile, because no psych ward wants to be accused of releasing a patient who then goes on to kill people.

Drugs to subdue the mind in that way are very powerful. They are called anti-psychotics, or major tranquilizers. As has been shown, they induce tremors, which are signals of motor brain damage.

We can expect to see hundreds of thousands more people, perhaps millions, who are damaged, permanently, by these drugs.

The motto will become: destroy the patient, before he can destroy others.

As the crown on all this, people who have ever professed political ideas outside the mainstream, and so end up in a database of “potential threats to the State,” can be kept from owning a weapon, merely by finding a way to get them into a psychiatrist’s office, on any pretext. Once there, the psychiatrist can report them as prone to harming themselves or others, and that will function as a bar to possessing a gun.

New York has just created a door that swings in both directions. A huge number of people who are seeing psychiatrists can be kept from gun ownership. And people who can see with their eyes what this country has turned into can be turned, on cooked-up technicalities, into psychiatric patients. Once in the system, they, too, can be denied all 2nd Amendment rights.

It will undoubtedly be called “The 2nd Amendment Exclusion.”

Coming to your neighborhood.

Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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

Uploaded on Feb 23, 2012

The Obama Administration has approved five times the number of covert drone strikes that his predecessor did. Thomson Reuters Digital Editor Chrystia Freeland sits down with Reuters’ Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist David Rohde to discuss his special report detailing the quiet expansion of presidential power under Obama.

Crossroads News : Changes In The World Around Us And Our Place In It

Complacency / Apathy –  Racism  :  Community – Coexistence – Unconditional Acceptance – Unconditional Love

Alice Walker: “Go to the Places That Scare You”


Alice Walker photo by Harley Soltes

Photo by Harley Soltes.

Alice Walker is a poet, essayist, and commentator, but she’s best known for her prodigious accomplishments as a writer of literary fiction. Her novel The Color Purple won the Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award in 1983 and quickly became a classic of world literature. Set in an African-American community in the rural South during the decades before World War II, the novel is told in letters written by Celie, a woman who survives oppression and abuse with her spirit not only intact, but transcendent.

Walker’s writing is characterized by an ever-present awareness of injustice and inequality. But whether describing political struggle—as in Meridian, which deals with the civil rights movement—or meditating on the human relationship to nature and animals, as in her latest book, The Chicken Chronicles, her work conveys the possibility of change. In Walker’s vision, grace is available through love and a deep connection to the beauty of the world.

“I think the foundation of everything in my life is wonder.”

Walker was born in the segregated South, the eighth child in a family who made their living as sharecroppers in Georgia. She came of age during the civil rights movement, and emerged early in her career as a defining voice in feminism and an advocate for African-American women writers. She is a prominent activist who has worked, marched, traveled, and spoken out to support the causes of justice, peace, and the welfare of the earth.

Alice Walker spoke to YES! about the challenges of working for change, and the possibility of living with awareness—and joy.

Valerie Schloredt: Over the past few days I’ve been immersed in your work, and I’ve been wondering how you do it. Being able to move someone to tears with a few words on a page is extraordinary to me.

Alice Walker: I want very much for you to feel for whoever I’m talking about, or whatever I’m talking about. Because it is only by empathy being aroused that we change. That is the power of writing. I’ve experienced exactly what you’re saying, reading other writers. I remember the book I first had that experience with was Jane Eyre, being right there with Jane, and understanding, yes, we have to change these horrible institutions where they abuse children. Today, I’m the supporter of an orphanage in Kenya. And one of the reasons comes from having been so moved by reading about Jane at Lowood.

Schloredt: It’s interesting to hear about what you read as a child, because some of your best-known work, like The Color Purple, draws on the stories of your ancestors and your family and aspects of the world you knew as a child.

Alice Walker: Beauty in Truth
Alice Walker: Beauty in Truth
A new documentary on how the poet, activist, and Pulitzer Prize-winning author has changed the world with her words.

Walker: I think the foundation of everything in my life is wonder. We were way out in the country, and why wouldn’t you just absolutely wonder at the splendor of nature? It’s true I had various sufferings, but nothing really compares to understanding that you live in a place that, moment by moment, is incredible. That your mother could say, “I think we’ll have tea tonight,” pull up a sassafras root, take it home, boil it, and you have sassafras tea. I mean, it’s such a miraculous universe. For a child, this magic is something that supports us, even through the hard times.

Schloredt: Do you go back to your childhood home?

Walker: It doesn’t exist.

Schloredt: No?

Walker: No. And there were many of them. We lived in shacks. Each year the people who owned the land (that they had stolen from the Indians), after they had taken the labor for the year, forced us to another shack. How could people do that, to people that they recognized as people? They did this to babies, they did this to small children, they could look at the people they were exploiting and actually see that they were working them into ill health and early death. It didn’t stop them.

“You have to go to the places that scare you so that you can see: What do you really believe? Who are you really?”

The most beautiful parts of the area that I lived in are now an enclave of upper-class white housing tracts with a huge golf course. They built a road that went right through the front yard of our church. Most of the people moved to cities, they moved to projects. So, it doesn’t exist.

Schloredt: Something I wanted to ask after listening to you talk last night [at the YES! celebration in Seattle], is the idea that some people don’t experience empathy, and don’t have a conscience that bothers them when they’re treating people extremely badly. Where can progressives go with that idea? How do we relate to knowing that?

Walker: You relate to it by being honest. We’re sitting back thinking that every single person has a conscience, if you could just reach it. Why should we believe that? I mean, what would make you actually believe that? Certainly not the history of the world as we know it. So it’s about trying to understand the history of the world, how it’s been shaped, and by whom, and for what purposes.

Understanding trumps compassion at this point. When people are forcing you out of your home, starving your children, destroying your planet—you should bring understanding of them to bear. Not everybody is loving of children, not everybody cares about the ocean. I think if we collectively decide that we are going to confront this, we have a chance. Because humanity is very smart, and we’d like to survive. And we’re not going to survive the way we’re going. I think we know that.

Schloredt: Your novels are among those books that cause people to say, “This book changed my life,” or “This book changed my way of thinking.” For me the book of yours that really did something to my way of thinking was Meridian.

That is a very powerful book. One thing that really affected me was the description of the cost of racism to the psyche, what a struggle it is to fight such embedded injustice. I think I saw you as the character Meridian. Are you—have you got some Meridian in you?

Walker: I think all people who struggle at the risk of their lives have some Meridian in them. It’s an acceptance of a kind of suffering. You hope that something will come of it, but there’s no way of knowing. What I didn’t realize was so close to me was how Meridian gets really sick as she encounters various struggles. She’s using every ounce of her will, her intelligence, her heart, her soul. It often leaves her debilitated. And that has certainly been true in my life. And it’s something that I have to accept.

“If you want to have a life that is worth living, a life that expresses your deepest feelings and emotions, and cares and dreams, you have to fight for it.”

In Jackson, Mississippi, during the civil rights movement, the mayor had a tank that the town bought just to use against us. So there’s the possibility of the tank running over you, and you have to stand there. So I understood that, well, this is probably going to mean a few weeks of just being immobilized. And then you figure out ways to recuperate.

It’s learning to accept that the cost is great. It would have to be, because we’re talking about emotional intelligence and growth and stretching yourself, reaching for the sun, kind of as if you were a plant. It’s a difficult thing to change the world, your neighborhood, your family, your self.

Schloredt: Not only is Meridian risking her life, like the other civil rights activists in the South, but there’s also internal oppression, an inner struggle the characters deal with.

Walker: The inner struggle is extremely difficult for all of us, because we all have faults, severe ones, that we will struggle with forever. One of the things that I like about Meridian is that it is about how we like to have almost a stereotype about leaders and revolutionaries and world-changers, that they are always whole. It’s wise to accept that [human faults] are inevitable. Factor that in and keep going.

Schloredt: I love the passage where Meridian visits a black church after the assassination of Martin Luther King and finds that they’ve incorporated his rhetoric into the sermon.

Walker: This is the segment where B.B. King is in the stained-glass window with a sword—where the people needed to incorporate, as far as I was concerned at the time, a bit more militancy. More awareness of what you’re up against, and confronting that with real clarity. In some ways it’s the same issue that we’re talking about. You have to go to the places that scare you so that you can see: What do you really believe? Who are you really? Are you prepared to take this all the way to wherever the truth leads you and accept that you have to figure out different ways of confronting reality?

Schloredt: I wanted to ask you about Occupy and uprisings in the Middle East. You’ve been politically active over your lifetime. Is there advice that you would give to people who are organizing now in the United States?

Walker: If you want to have a life that is worth living, a life that expresses your deepest feelings and emotions, and cares and dreams, you have to fight for it. You have to go wherever you need to go, and you have to be wherever you need to be, and place yourself there against the forces that would distort you and destroy you.

I love the uprisings, I love the Occupy movement, and I think the young people especially are doing something that is very natural. It is natural to want to have a future. It is very natural to want to live in peace and joy. What is lovely about this time is the awareness that is sweeping the planet. People are just waking up, every moment.

Schloredt: One thing that I worry about for progressives is that we are often distracted from effective direct action by the project of improving ourselves, of being good.

Walker: And also, “good” in that sense can sometimes be very facile. And a good cover, you know, “I’m doing good, so I don’t have to change very much.” But I think for most Americans, the change that’s required is huge.

Schloredt: How do we make that change happen?

Walker: Well, you know, you’re doing it. I think YES! Magazine is part of what’s changing people’s consciousness. And I think the spread of Buddhism—the retreat centers, the meditation practice—has had a huge impact on people’s consciousness. Americans learning Buddhist tradition has helped a lot of people understand that they actually have a power that is theirs. They have their own mind. It’s not somebody else’s mind, and it’s not controllable, unless you permit it. That’s a foundation for huge change.

Schloredt: Your writing has, I’m sure, also changed consciousnesses. How does it feel to know that your work has in some way changed the world?

Walker: Well, it’s a gift the universe has permitted you to achieve—but it’s not just dropped in your lap, you have to really work for it. For instance, years ago when I wrote Possessing the Secret of Joy, the campaign against female genital mutilation [FGM] was a dangerous subject. There was a great deal of flak about my wanting to address it.

Eve Ensler photo by Lane HartwellEve Ensler: Why Freedom Starts with a “V”
The “Vagina Monologues” author on why knowing your body can shake up the world.

I wrote the book, and then Pratibha Parmar and I made the film [Warrior Marks, a documentary about FGM], and lugged it around Africa, and London, New York, all over. It allowed women who had no voice about FGM to speak. Progress is slow, and sometimes it’s discouraging. It’s like knocking on doors in the South asking people to vote, and they’re terrified of voting. And then seeing over the course of years that people started understanding that they had a right to reject the practice of FGM, that they had a voice. I feel grateful that I could be an instrument to stop any kind of suffering. I mean, what a joy.

Schloredt: In your novels you describe profound suffering and pain, but there is also often the potential for reconciliation and healing. If you could create healing and reconciliation for something that’s happening in our country today, what would it be?

Walker: I think the War on Terror is really absurd, especially coming from a country that is founded on terrorism. The hypocrisy of that is corrosive, and we should not accept it. There is no way to stop terrorism if you insist on making enemies of most of the people on the planet. Why should they care about you? All they feel is fear.
So I would stop the War on Terror, and I would start making peace with the peoples of the planet by trying to understand them. I would like us to be able to say, “If that happened to me, I would feel exactly the way you do. And what can we do from here, from this understanding? What can we do together?”

Valerie Schloredt interviewed Alice Walker for It’s Your Body, the Fall 2012 issue of YES! Magazine. Valerie is associate editor of YES! Magazine.



YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons License

Politics, Legislation and Economy News




Government  Overreach / Police Brutality :  Protesters / Human Rights / Working  Conditions



Published on Sep 3, 2012 by

Greg Marinovich is a veteran photo-journalist and editor-at-large for the South African publication, The Daily Maverick.

He was at Lonmin’s Marikana mine after the violence that killed 34 people on August 16.

He speaks to Al Jazeera from Johannesburg.




South African miners charged with murder of colleagues shot by police

The 270 miners arrested over this month’s violent strikes in South Africa have been charged with the murder of their 34 colleagues who were shot dead by police.

South African miners charged with murder of colleagues shot by police

Supporters of arrested mine workers pray outside the court in Ga Rankuwa, near Pretoria Photo: REUTERS/Mike Hutchings
Aislinn Laing

By , Johannesburg

The bizarre twist came as the men appeared in court close to the Lonmin platinum mine charged with public violence over the clashes on August 16.

The murder charge – and associated charges for attempted murder of 78 miners who were injured in the shooting – was brought by the state under little-known “common purpose” legislation previously used by the apartheid government.

Frank Lesenyego, spokesman for South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority, said the “technical” charge placed responsibility for any fatal confrontation with armed police on whoever challenged them.

It was brought despite the fact that Police Commissioner Riah Phiyega has confirmed that the 34 slain miners died after police shot at them with live ammunition at the mine owned by Lonmin, which is listed on the London Stock Exchange.

“This is under common law, where people are charged with common purpose in a situation where there are suspects with guns or any weapons and they confront or attack the police and a shooting takes place and there are fatalities,” Mr Lesenyego said.

The state also persuaded the magistrate hearing the high-profile case to delay a bail hearing for the miners until September 6. Until then, they will remain in cramped custody in three police stations in the area.

No police officers have yet been charged by the shooting – Mr Lesenyego said their actions would be investigated by the judicial commission set up by President Jacob Zuma to probe the tragedy which has been instructed to report back in four months.

The decision to bring murder charges was met with outcry across South Africa yesterday. It coincided with a sensational report which claimed that many of the miners killed on August 16 were shot at close range or run over by police vehicles rather than dying when officers initially opened fire as they were charged by the strikers.

Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Greg Marinovich, who became a national hero in South Africa for his work during apartheid, claimed to have evidence and eyewitness testimony that miners who had hidden from police in a rocky outcrop after the shooting were tracked and murdered by officers.

Concerns have also been raised about the treatment of the detained miners in police custody – at least 150 have laid claims with the Independent Police Investigative Directorate that they have been tortured and assaulted by officers since their arrest.

Pierre de Vos, a South African legal expert, said the decision to bring murder charges was “frankly bizarre”.

“I have never heard of this kind of thing before, even during the apartheid years when police frequently tried to blame protesters for violence meted out to them,” he said.

“It obviously has the potential to further inflame the emotions of the miners but also to create more sympathy for their plight among ordinary South Africans who have previously been quite sympathetic to the police.”

Mthunzi Mhaga, a spokesman for South Africa’s justice minister, said he had not been consulted about the decision. “It’s a procedural decision that we cannot get involved in,” he said.

According to the legalbrief.co.za website, State Prosecutor Nigel Carpenter also argued in court that the suspects were liable for the effects that the bloody violence at Marikana mine had had on the economy. “There were reports in the morning that the rand fell by 12 per cent,” he told the court.



The Batman op expands: you shot those people

by: Jon Rappoport


(NaturalNews) The Batman-murder psy-op is expanding.

It aims to blow up one horrible crime into a vicious general lie.

Now we’re told that a U of Colorado “threat assessment team” was aware of “problems with James Holmes” in June, a month before he committed murder and mayhem in the Aurora theater.


The covert op is unfolding. “Threat assessment team” is a way of claiming that problems Holmes was having are not unique to him; in fact, this is a society-wide problem. Otherwise, why would a threat assessment team exist in the first place?

And what is the supposed problem? Mental illness. It’s a chronic epidemic.

The subliminal psyop asserts that derangement is in the nature of the human condition; more specifically, it’s in the nature of the brain.

“Threat assessment team” becomes a symbol that lets the public know the Batman murders are a symptom of a wider situation. According to the promoted story line, we the people need threat assessment teams, and not just at the U of Colorado.

The op called the Aurora massacre isn’t just about taking people’s guns away. It’s about inventing a pressing need for controlling mental illness before it manifests as violence.

And once that fallacious concept is planted, the psyop pros can not only suggest we have to snitch on “suspicious behavior,” they can demand the government expand threat assessment throughout society in order to make predictions and grab people and “treat” them before they spin out of control and do something horrible.

Who assesses and predicts threat? Who develops algorithms that can identify potential murderers among us? Psychiatrists.

In 1988, in my book, AIDS INC., I warned that fascism would stand the best chance of spreading across the world through medical operations, because “medical science” flies no partisan political banners, seems to take no side, appears to be all about objective research and healing.

So YOU are reinvented as a potential Batman murderer. You could go off. You could snap. You could fall victim to a brain malfunction. You could give way to your darker impulses. No one is immune.

Therefore, I have to be protected from you, and you have to be protected from me.

That’s the lie and that’s the op.

What is the op hiding? The fact that the psychiatric drugs cause violence. It’s not mental illness. It’s the drugs used to treat invented and concocted and fabricated “mental disorders.”





In other words, we’re looking at a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In the widest terms, the op involves randomly seeding society with the violence-causing psychiatric drugs, and then, when inexplicable murders and suicides occur, step in behind that and call it “mental illness” and implement far-reaching threat-assessment strategies to put the whole society in a straitjacket.

When I say “concoct and invent mental illnesses,” I mean that literally.


These so-called disorders are put in place by committees of psychiatrists, who slice and dice and chop human suffering, pain, and confusion into fancy categories, for which there are no diagnostic tests.

So it may look like Dr. Lynne Fenton, James Holmes’ psychiatrist, and her threat assessment team missed the boat on Holmes and should come in for heavy criticism, but the truth is: the Aurora massacre will only serve to strengthen psychiatry’s position as the preeminent authority on violence prevention.

Here are two examples of how this bogus “prevention” will be achieved. Soon, we will see drugs planted with tiny transmitters that remotely let “health providers” know whether people are complying with their prescribed medication schedules.


What better way to pretend that patients with mental disorders are being kept in line, before they can commit egregious crimes?

The other example is far-reaching to the extreme. It is Obamacare itself. Under the new law, the US Dept. of Health and Human Services is tasked with compiling, yes, a comprehensive list of all diseases and disorders. Step two is listing the approved treatments for these conditions.

At some point, we will see both the diagnoses and the drugs for: prevention of those (fictional) mental disorders that “could lead to violence.” The assumption that you or I or anyone could be the next Batman killer will be built into the system. So will the drug “cure.”

On that day, the Brave New World will reveal more of its ugly countenance.

The basic and strongest argument against what is coming is the freedom to choose or refuse medication. Universally, people still recognize this principle. They understand it. They support it, intellectually and viscerally. This is a freedom anyone can grasp. It must be pursued without compromise.

Otherwise, it could be you who are said to be potentially dangerous.

It could be you who are sedated into being harmless and therefore a Safe Citizen.

They might even give you an ID package which designates your preferred status. And in your addled condition, you might wear the ID as a badge of honor.

What we are witnessing here is Clockwork Orange reconfigured. The jumping off point is James Holmes. But unlike the key figure in Stanley Kubrick’s film, Holmes doesn’t have to be the actual killer. He could merely be a designated patsy left holding the bag. He is, either way, the occasion for implementing medical strategies to condition people into androidal “inner peace.”

Which means passivity, and the acceptance of the Psychiatric Society.

Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.

About the author:
The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon
was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of
California. 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.


Martial law shakes hands with the US vaccine program

by: Jon Rappoport



(NaturalNews) Who knew the Pentagon had muscled into the US vaccine program?

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has been doing research on vaccine production. They’ve found a way to produce flu vaccines a lot faster than Big Pharma.



Utilizing vaccines grown on tobacco cells, instead of the traditional chicken eggs, DARPA has turned out a staggering 10 million doses of flu vaccine in just one month.

This “Blue Angel” project, as it’s called, suddenly puts the Pentagon in the forefront of the vaccine business. The big question is: why is the Army involved in vaccines at all? And the answer is no surprise. According to DARPA, it’s all about readiness in containing bio-threats. Translated, that means terrorist attacks that could use flu viruses.

This is a sinister development. It creates a potential scenario in which the military can invent the “bio-threat” and then step in and provide the solution. It doesn’t really matter whether the bio-threat is real or imaginary.

The threat would offer the chance to initiate a martial-law scenario, after which the military vaccine would be made mandatory, destroying the right of each state in the union to permit, as is now the case, people to opt out of vaccination on religious, medical, or ethical grounds.

The Pentagon is famous for developing weapons and then lobbying for battlefield opportunities to use them. This is part and parcel of their “war is forever” mentality. Well, in this case, the vaccine becomes the defensive weapon, and you can be sure the Pentagon will strive to deploy it in a situation that “demands it”—a chilling prospect.

Several medical issues arise as well. First, what safety tests have been done to ensure that tobacco viruses don’t enter these DARPA vaccines through lab contamination, thereby finding their way into the human bloodstream, via injection, and causing uncharted health problems? No word about that, just as there was no word, historically, about various Pentagon weapons systems that later proved to be dangerous to the soldiers using them (e.g, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle).

Hidden in the story about the new means of vaccine production: the employment of a synthetic construction that is supposed to mimic the human immune system. To test the ability of the tobacco-vaccines to induce a “robust immune response,” this new chemical lab-version of an immune system becomes the guinea pig. But there is no proof that such an artifact works or is translatable to actual processes of the human body.

Finally, DARPA states that the vaccine it just produced contains aluminum. Toxicity for humans is thus guaranteed.

In the hands of the Pentagon, what could possibly go wrong with this Blue Angel program? Everything.

In case we need to review the most recent “epidemic” advertised by the CDC and the World Health Organization (WHO), it killed, by the most generous estimates, 20,000 people worldwide. Despite being labeled a catastrophic level-6 pandemic, the H1N1 Swine Flu turned out to be a comparative dud. WHO states that, every year, seasonal non-pandemic flu kills between 250,000 and 500,000 people.

The CDC and WHO relentlessly promoted Swine Flu as a monster menace that could invade and decimate the planet. Therefore, everyone needed to step up and take the vaccine. These civilian agencies are mere pikers compared to the Pentagon. Can you imagine what the Dept. of Defense would promote and launch to guarantee their vaccine finds a place in your bloodstream? The DOD regularly makes conflict of interest into an art form.

Martial law? No problem.

Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.

About the author:
The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon
was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of
California. 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.