NANOCHIPS, AND, MIND CONTROL — THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY
by Jon Rappoport
May 7, 2012
PART ONE: NANOCHIPS
Linked at infowars.com, the Business Insider has the story:
The US Military Wants To ‘Microchip’ Troops — by Robert Johnson
“DARPA is at it again. This time, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has announced plans to create nanochips for monitoring troops’ health on the battlefield.”
Those who criticize the plan point out that gradually accustoming people to the insertion of chips will eventually lead to mass chipping throughout society.
Yes, true. But there is another op, too, and you need to know about it.
Further down in the Business Insider article, we have this official explanation for the chipping of soldiers: “…the sensors are targeted at preventing illness and disease [as opposed to reporting wounds], the two causes of most troops medical evacuation.”
Did you catch that? Apparently, the implanted nanochips are going to relay soldiers’ physical symptoms back to base in real time.
Now we are talking about something quite ominous: the capacity to use chips to relay hard data to authorities, who can then make off-the-shelf diagnoses of particular illnesses.
The troops are a test run. The actual op, up the line a few years, is to outfit private citizens with those nanochips, so medical analysts can present patients with rapid-fire and peremptory diagnoses, leading to drug treatments.
You can call this a high-tech version of what Obamacare is ultimately designed to do. Under the new federally controlled health insurance plan, a complete list of diseases and disorders will be assembled by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, as well as the only permitted treatments for each diagnosis.
This is the wet dream of the pharmaceutical industry, and the Army is running a live test with nanochips to test the logistics of a high-tech application. It’s a closed system. No outside (alternative) diagnoses or treatments allowed.
Should I draw a picture?
A person is walking down the street on his way to work, with his nanochip in his arm. The tiny computer is silently running, recording metabolic parameters and changes. Suddenly, it pings. The man on the street doesn’t hear that sound from his arm, but a computer located in a facility ten miles (or 6000 miles) away does.
The data from the chip are flagged and shunted to another automatic processor which, depending on the severity of the diagnosis, electronically issues an appointment slip to the walking patient. For the clinic. He’d better show up, too, or else he can be judged a public health threat.
He receives a nudge from his cell phone, reads the appointment info, and confirms.
He will see a doctor, he will be handed a diagnosis, and he will take a drug. He’s in the system.
Eventually, the doctor in most cases won’t be necessary. The electronic message will spell out the diagnosis, direct the patient to the nearest pharmacy, where the prescription will be filled.
Of course, the fact that the diagnosis may be shortsighted or completely off-base is irrelevant. It’s ironclad: symptoms A,B,C, and D add up to diagnosis X, which means take drug Y.
End of story.
Toxic effects from the drug? Never discussed. Irrelevant.
The published studies reporting the clinical trials of the drug were altered, on behalf of the drug company? The drug was actually ineffective and grossly dangerous? Who cares? It’s in the book. It’s official.
Welcome to tomorrow.
For those of you who want to probe a little deeper (and you should want to), here is a brief example of something that can go terribly wrong in this chipped version of healthcare. I spell it out at great length in my book, AIDS INC., which is included my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED.
Antibody tests. These are widely used assays to determine what disease a person may have contracted. When the test reads positive, the patient is said to have the disease for which the antibody test is custom-designed. And from that flows the diagnosis and drug treatment.
Why? Because, starting in the early 1980s, something astonishing happened to antibody tests. The analysis of their results was turned upside down. Before then, the presence of antibodies to a particular germ was taken as a good sign. It meant the immune system had reacted well and forcefully to the germ-intrusion. But with the new interpretation, a positive test was taken to be a bad sign. The patient was at risk. In fact, he might already be ill.
So there you are with a nanochip in your arm, and you’re sitting in your backyard with your family, and the chip, every so often, is running routine antibody tests through indirect access to your blood indicators.
Ping. At four in the afternoon, it suddenly develops that you have Hepatitis. You receive an appointment slip on your cell phone.
BUT you have no such disease. Not even close. You’re actually suffering from a piece of medical-research insanity that has turned antibody tests on their heads.
However, there is no court of first or last resort. You’re going to the doctor, and he’s going to give you a powerful and toxic drug, and you’re going to take it. If you don’t, your chip will report the non-compliance to authorities.
And for those of you who were quite sure that Obama was signaling you that alternative natural health practitioners were going to be protected under Obamacare, you were hallucinating. Sorry.
You may also doubt that computers housed in nanochips can carry out far-reaching analyses of various body indicators. Direct analysis isn’t necessary. In the same way that computer models built on a foundation of sand can assert manmade warming is real, medical models based on all sorts of indirect and abstract computations can deliver instant assessments of “physical aberrations from the norm.”
Again, welcome to tomorrow.
PART TWO: MIND CONTROL THE OLD FASHIONED WAY
Tiresome for some, confusing for others. I’m talking about the subject of individual power. Your power.
It stands as the essence of what the founding documents of the American Republic are all about, once you scratch below the surface a millimeter or so.
If not, what difference does freedom make? If the individual is fundamentally weak and mentally circumscribed in a small area of operation, who really cares whether he makes his own choices and decisions or lets the Big Daddy State handle his life for him?
With that brief prelude, consider this: since individual power, based on freedom, was what the founding of this nation was FOR, then it stands to reason that colleges and universities would be teaching courses in INDIVIDUAL POWER.
As soon as I write that, though, we all fall off the chair laughing, because we understand the absurdity of such a proposition. Can you imagine Harvard endowing a chair in Individual Power?
Students would tear down the building in which such a course was taught. They’ve been carefully instructed that the individual is the greatest living threat to the Planet.
If you can’t see that as mind control, visit your local optometrist and get a prescription for glasses.
However, the mind control goes deeper. As a former philosophy student, I can assure you that a survey of the traditionally touted Western philosophers, from Socrates and Plato, all the through to Kant and Hegel, yields up virtually nothing direct and explicit on the subject of individual power.
At my college, nobody minded; nobody cared; nobody realized this bizarre fact; no one complained.
So we have this astonishing situation: the very basis of this nation has no reflection in the educational system.
It’s hard to find an analogy adequate to such a mind-boggling state of affairs. But I’ll try.
Suppose that for a hundred years, every car mechanic was trained to repair every part of a car except the engine. The engine was never mentioned. The word “engine” was considered profane. A taboo.
Therefore, whenever a car owner pulled into a service garage, the mechanic would work on everything except the engine. If, as a result, the car wouldn’t make it back out on to the street, the owner would be told he needed to buy a new one.
And after a hundred years, people got used to this. Everyone accepted the situation. Everybody lived with it.
And then somebody came along and said: ENGINE.
People looked at each other with question marks hanging over their heads. What? Did he just say the forbidden word? Nobody is supposed to mention the you-know-what. Besides, what does en***e have to do with cars, or anything else?
That’s where we are.
You can say “individual” within certain limited contexts. You can say “power,” if you’re talking about nuclear plants, or if you’re accusing someone of a crime, but if you put “individual” and “power” together and attribute a positive quality to the combination, you’re way, way outside the consensus. Your brain needs medical drugs. You’re quite possibly a thought-criminal.
Because I’ve done research on, and reported on, all sorts of mind control, I know that people favor material about trauma-based CIA MKULTRA-type experiments. This is supposedly what “real” mind control is.
So let me put that one to bed. By far, the most insidious and invidious forms of mind control emanate from the educational system and the media. That’s where you go, if you want to find the most effective operant conditioning.
However, in order to spot the deepest versions of brainwashing, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME STANDARD AGAINST WHICH YOU CAN COMPARE WHAT IS COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE INTO THE BRAINS OF THE PUBLIC.
If you lack that standard, you miss most of the action.
If you lack that standard, you have already been worked over by the system.
And in this case, the standard is INDIVIDUAL POWER.
Clean it off, hose off the dirt, polish it, look at it, think about it, remember it.
Then you’ll see some Grade-A prime mind control. Everywhere.
Back in the days when I was writing on assignment for newspapers and magazines, I pitched a story about individual power to an editor. I wanted to trace its history as an idea over the past ten years.
He looked at me for a few seconds. He looked at me as if I’d just dropped some cow flop on his desk. He knew I was a pro and I wasn’t kidding and I had something I could write and turn in to him, but that made it worse. He began to squirm in his chair.
He laughed nervously.
Then he stopped laughing
He said, “This isn’t what we do.”
He really meant: “If you want to get back in my good graces, you’ll go away and come back with a story we can print. You’ll do that four or five times, and then MAYBE I’ll trust you again.”
For him, I was suddenly radioactive. I was dangerous.
It was one of those, “Jon, I thought I knew you. Obviously, I was mistaken.”
I had a similar experience with a high-school history teacher in California. We were having lunch in a cafe in Santa Monica, and I said, “You should teach a course in individual power. The positive aspects. No group stuff. Just the individual.”
He frowned a deep intellectual frown, as if I’d just opened my jacket and exposed a few sticks of dynamite strapped to my chest. As if he was thinking about which agency of the government to report me to.
He launched a lecture, the essence of which was I should consider seeing a mental-health professional.
Now, for the schizoid part. The movies. Television. Video games. Comics. Graphic novels. They are filled to the brim, they are overflowing with individual heroes who have considerable power. These entertainment businesses bank billions of dollars, because people want to immerse themselves in that universe of imagination, that universe where individual power is supreme.
But when it comes to “real” life, imagination stops at the front door and no one answers the bell.
Suddenly, the hero, the person with power is anathema. He’s left holding the bag. So he adjusts. He waits. He wonders. He settles for less, far less. He learns how the game is played. He stifles his hopes. He shrinks. He forgets. He develops “problems” and tries to solve them within an impossibly narrow context. He redefines success and victory down to meet limited expectations. He strives for the normal and the average. For his efforts, he receives tidbits, like a dog looking up at his master.
And this whole operation isn’t mind control?
Jon Rappoport
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.