Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

Insanity in the poisoned society

Insanity in the poisoned society

by Jon Rappoport

November 19, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

This article refers to GMO labeling, but also to toxic pharmaceuticals, harmful vaccines, and other chemical assaults on human health and life.

There is a myth that the free market wins out against all odds. The consumer decides. He buys what he wants, and doesn’t buy what he thinks is unhealthy. Pretty to think so, but false.

There is another factor at work.

It’s called: crime.

It’s a crime to poison people.

If you’re the CEO of a corporation which sells poison under any name, in any package, a state or federal attorney should have your ass in court, and then in jail. For a long time.

Label the poison products as “different?” That’s a stop-gap measure which comes after the failure to prosecute. It’s a solution put together with scotch tape and paper clips, and anyone who fails to realize that is sound asleep.

Ballot initiatives to demand GMO labeling of food? Okay. But without also accusing corporations of selling poison (GMOs, Roundup)? Clueless. Ridiculous.

Unless…you really had a free market. If you destroyed any and all government enforcement-support and funding and phony praise of Pharma, big biotech, and other chemical companies, if you instituted a Wild West out there, a free-for-all, where anybody could sell anything and label it anything, then you might see some interesting results.

People dropping like flies, illness spreading like pools and lakes of cyanide, citizens gunning down sellers and purveyors and CEOs.

Then consumer choice would take on a whole new meaning.

But in this world, the one we live in, have you seen a single Big Pharma CEO put in prison for 50 years after killing thousands of people with a drug he sells relentlessly? A drug which he knows causes death?

Of course not. He pays a billion-dollar fine, after already making $30 billion on the drug, and he promises to straighten up and fly right.

If he’s a vaccine maker, he’s protected, by federal law, from civil suits filed by parents of children who died or were severely damaged by a shot.

If his factory releases toxic chemicals into the ground and water, causing cancers, he fights in court for years and ends up paying a settlement to families.

This is the sickening truth. And make no mistake, it is the government that protects and supports and bows down to these vicious criminals.

The government already runs its own labeling operation on pharmaceuticals. As skewed as it is, it’s supposed to give the consumer information he can use to make a choice.

But every year in the US, by the most conservative mainstream measure, those drugs kill 106,000 people. That’s over a million deaths per decade. (See Dr. Barbara Starfield, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”, July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association.)

Would you work in a campaign to force drug companies and government to provide more accurate labeling information, unless that campaign aggressively attacked the corporations and government for supporting and protecting poisoners?

And why would you even need to launch that attack in the first place?

Because the Justice Department is a criminal racket that protects sellers of poison.

They’re an active partner in a kill-and-maim operation.

Take off the sugar coating and look at the truth.

The Matrix Revealed

So when a worker for one of the GMO labeling ballot campaigns comes to me, whining and complaining and screaming, because I criticize the leaders of the movement, I know I’m talking to a person for whom the label, “political amateur,” would be a massive compliment. That person is entirely clueless.

Good intentions don’t add up to victories.

Here is what these willing and idealistic people are told by their leaders, if you scrape away the PR and get to the bottom line: “We want you to work for us so we can get a ballot measure passed. Now, we’re not going to attack the bad guys who poison people every day. We’re never going to do that. We just want to give the consumer a choice when he buys food. That’s all. We want to get along. We’re coexisting with corporate agriculture. Get used to it.”

Insanity.

Imagine you live in a community where killers are on the loose. You know a big company on the hill is sending these men down your way to commit their heinous crimes.

But the local government denies the existence of this operation. They say the evidence is inconclusive.

Now you get an idea. You’re going to certify all the non-killers in the neighborhood. They will wear badges labeled “safe.” Any person not wearing a badge in public should assiduously avoided.

Your community (non-government) leaders tell you, “We’re not going to criticize the company on the hill. We’re not going to build a crescendo of outrage that will push the company against the wall. We’re not going to march on the mayor’s office and demand he arrest the CEO. We’re just going to associate with the ‘safes.’ We’ll only have ‘safes’ as friends.”

What does that mean? It means you’re going to erect a bubble and live inside it and hope that the killers will stay away from what you call safe.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

How public relations led the GMO-labeling movement astray

How public relations led the GMO-labeling movement astray

by Jon Rappoport

November 18, 2013

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

It apparently started with polls.

The men who wanted to bankroll ballot initiatives mandating GMO labeling hired pollsters.

The question was, what message would resonate with voters?

The original pollsters (perhaps as early as 2011) tested all sorts of messages: “you have a right to know what’s in your food” was one of them.

Other messages were tougher. For example, they mentioned the effects of GMOs on health.

In every poll, the one message that came out far ahead was “you have a right to know what’s in your food.”

In 2012, the Mellman Group ran a poll for the group, Just Label It. 91% of the 1000 voters surveyed said they wanted GMO labeling, which was interpreted as “consumers have a right to know what’s in their food.”

So that became the single mantra in California and the state of Washington, and the ballot measures in both places lost.

I have questions about the Mellman survey. Obtaining 91% agreement on anything under the sun should raise doubts. Who were the voters that were polled? What questions did the pollsters ask? How did they ask them? How many of the voters actually understood what GMOs are? Most importantly, how solid was that 91% when it came time for a barrage of TV ads during a political campaign?

Polls can test people’s reactions to bland questions, but these reactions give you no clue about how they would respond if the issue were presented forcefully.

For example, you could ask people, “Are you concerned that GMO crops will affect small farmers?” Assuming these people even understand the connection between GMOs and farmers’ livelihoods is a major stretch.

So the people say, “No, I’m not motivated by that issue.”

But suppose you ran a TV ad in which a salt-of-the-earth farmer was standing on a barren piece of land, the camera zoomed in on him, and he showed his callused and worn hands to the audience and said:

“I am an American farmer. I’ve been on this land forty years. My family has been on this land every day for a hundred and fifty years. I’m a human being just like you. My relationship with Monsanto and their genetically engineered food ruined my farm, my future, and my life…”

You could make that ad (conveying the truth) knock people off their couches.

Then, if you asked those television viewers whether they thought GMO food and farmers’ livelihoods was an important issue, you’d get a completely different answer.

On an issue like GMO food, polls don’t really tell the story.

Suppose you had this TV ad: a mother and her little child stand on their lawn in front of the camera. The mother says, “See the rashes and lesions on my son’s body? Do you know where he got them? From the weed killer we sprayed out of a bottle. It’s called Roundup. It’s made by Monsanto. Do you want this for your child?”

You’ve got the beginning of a powerful and true piece of information, delivered in a way that goes beyond the impact of any poll question about chemicals and food.

Unfortunately, the men who bankrolled Prop 37 and 522 in CA and WA took the poll data at face value. They settled for “the right to know what’s in your food” and stopped there.

They thought they had a winner, the only winner.

They need to go back to the drawing board. They have to knock off those bland TV ads they ran in CA and WA and realize they have the opportunity to achieve something much greater.

They can show people the truth about Monsanto and cause the kind of outcome they’ve been hoping for.

If they have the courage for that kind of fight.

GMO labeling alone is not going to add up to a victory in the struggle against Monsanto. Some proponents of labeling admit this. They say, “But you see, we’re educating people about GMOs in the process.”

Well, do you want to really make an impact on people or do you just want to mess around? If you’re serious, forget the polls and the pollsters. Start producing TV ads that bite. Bite hard.

Use your money to detonate a real explosion in consciousness.

the matrix revealed

Here is the bottom line. The issue of food has two sides. On the one hand, you build an alternative universe in which people grow and sell and buy food that is sustaining and healthy. On the other hand, you attack the criminals who are degrading and poisoning the food supply.

One without the other doesn’t work.

TV ads must, and I mean must, attack Monsanto and the other big food-tech giants.

Gary Hirshberg, the CEO of Stonyfield Organic, is a founding partner of the Just Label It group which commissioned the Mellman poll. Of all the leaders in the labeling movement, Hirshberg is the most overtly political.

During the 2008 presidential campaign season, his home in New Hampshire was a mandatory stop for candidates. Hirshberg’s first choice for the Democratic nomination was Tom Vilsack until he dropped out of the race. Hirshberg hosted gatherings for John Edwards and Barack Obama, and eventually decided to support Obama.

Vilsack, of course, became the Secretary of Agriculture under President Obama. Vilsack is a staunch supporter of GMO food. During his term as governor of Iowa, Vilsack was given a Governor of the Year award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Vilsack was an odd choice for Hirshberg to support for president, to say the least.

Hirshberg is the author of Stirring It Up: How to Make Money and Save the World. It’s safe to say he views revolution-by-the-consumer as an exceedingly powerful force.

I’m sure the Mellman poll confirmed his position that “right to know what’s in your food,” and GMO labeling, could tilt the marketplace against Monsanto.

It may be pretty to think so, but giving American consumers a clear choice about whether to buy GMO or non-GMO food, through labeling, isn’t, all by itself, going to push Monsanto up against the wall.

For that, an all-out attack is necessary. And it doesn’t doesn’t take a genius to pick the medium: TV ads.

The objective? To make Monsanto’s threat to health and life and liberty very real and very personal. To make that threat as imminent as it was when millions of students, in the 1960s, saw the military draft as their ticket to going to Vietnam to die.

After you’ve aired a few thousand plays of such attack ads against Monsanto, then you can do polls. Then you’ll see what people believe and think and feel in a new light.

Hirshberg serves as a co-chairman of an organization called AGree. Its objective is to “build consensus around solutions” to “critical issues facing the food and agriculture system.” As researcher Nick Brannigan has pointed out, AGree includes, among its foundation partners: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

It would be hard to find foundations more friendly to big corporate agriculture and GMOs. No doubt Hirshberg would say somebody has to walk into the lions’ den and try to change the system from the inside.

If that is his mission, it’s not surprising that he would support watered-down political ads that encourage GMO leveling, while failing to make a deeper impact on the public mind.

The labeling movement should be enlisting artists of all kinds to make ads that move people, that attack the poisoners of the food supply, that hold up to ridicule the corporate agenda of monopolizing and degrading the food of this planet.

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Introduction to The Matrix Revealed

INTRODUCTION TO THE MATRIX REVEALED

by Jon Rappoport

Copyright © 2012 by Jon Rappoport

This is the introduction to one of my two products, The Matrix Revealed. It spans 25 years of research dedicated to learning how this Matrix is put together.

It’s not a list of groups who “run things.” It’s about Matrix construction, how false realities are built, and it’s also about the human mind and its two competing tendencies: the desire to be in the Matrix and the desire to escape it.

Matrix IS as much about the mind as it is about external reality.

Okay. Here is the Introduction:

Let me start with the nuts and bolts of this product. It is enormous in scope and size.

250 megabytes of information.

Over 1100 pages of text.

Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then there are several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix. 53 pages.

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

Here is some background on the product and my own history:

In 2001, I essentially left a career as an investigative reporter and rolled the dice on the emerging internet. I started a site called www.nomorefakenews.com

I didn’t stop investigating and publishing, but my field of operation widened. My first big question was: Who really runs the world?

And my second was: Whoever they are, how do they manufacture reality for the population of Earth?

I was prepared to deal with these enormous questions, because I had contacts. These were people I had come to know well during my days as a reporter, writing for LA Weekly and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe—and also during a stint on radio at KPFK in Los Angeles.

These people, these contacts, were insiders.

They had deep knowledge in their fields:

Propaganda, finance, hypnotism, mind control, medicine, intelligence operations…

There was a catch. They were unwilling to be cited as on-the-record sources in my articles. They knew they would suffer consequences if they went public.

Once I started my website, I did extensive research to confirm the credentials of my insiders. I wanted to make sure they were who they said they were. I wanted to verify they had worked where they said they had worked. This was a laborious process.

When I was sure, I began to interview them.

I wasn’t certain where all this would go.

But gradually, I realized I was getting very high-level information on The Matrix. But this was the real Matrix.

As one of my sources described it:

“Imagine a factory that turns out illusions. And these illusions are woven together to make up what we think the world is.”

The Matrix Revealed

The actual Matrix involves a number of areas: government; money; energy; the military; intelligence agencies; medicine; mega-corporations; psychology and mind control; science…

I started a members-only newsletter, and word quickly spread. Every Friday, I would email a newsletter to subscribers. Many of these newsletters were interviews with my insiders.

It was quite a job, keeping up with writing (public) daily articles for my site and also putting out the (private) newsletter. I was also collating the high-level information from my sources and making maps of the expanding territory.

I saw that I was looking at global cartels. As you will discover in reading this material, these cartels are not frozen organizations. They are evolving.

So now I’ve had some very competent assistance, and I’ve assembled the most important newsletter-interviews for you.

But in addition to that, I’m publishing, for the first time, interviews that never made it into those newsletters.

It’s very instructive to talk to people who have been there on the inside. They are bright, they are informative, they convey the depth of situations they were involved with. They go beyond relaying dry facts, and in doing so, you learn how elite players play the game. You receive a rounded and three-dimensional picture of: the process of constructing The Matrix. How it’s built.

In every case, each insider was relieved to be able to talk with utter frankness, with no fear that his words would be twisted or taken out of context or deleted. So you’re getting the full story.

I met my first two insiders while I was writing my first book, Aids Inc., Scandal of the Century, in 1987-88. The book was my initial experience in putting together a vast amount of data—which contradicted every official position on a supposedly rock-hard subject: medical science.

At the time, I didn’t really understand how deep I was drilling down into a cardinal aspect of The Matrix. I only knew I was I digging up and exposing long-held delusions broadcast as facts by the Medical Cartel. These false realities went far beyond the subject of Aids.

That first book of mine started as a pure lark. I had just published a piece in LA Weekly about certain televangelists and their support of an intentionally staged Armageddon in Israel. When the piece was published, I sat back and thought, “Where do I go from here? What could be weirder than this?”

Like other investigative reporters, I was excited by strange and bizarre stories that could blow readers’ minds. I was motivated by that.

So, in 1987, I wondered what could be stranger than the Armageddon story I had just done.

Sitting in my Los Angeles studio, a thought popped into my head. “Aids. I bet there’s something about that whole thing that’s pretty weird.”

Little did I know…

That was my first big leap.

I had studied logic extensively in college. I had been taught by a philosophy professor who was a very generous soul and a relentless thinker. If you were an inch from accuracy, he would point it out, and he would give you the full reason and understanding that pulled you back to the straight and narrow.

Once I dove into research for Aids, Inc., I was amazed at the sloppy thinking and contradiction that was posing as science.

And then I met my first two insiders.

Their basic message to me was: keep going; you’re on the right track; we have a great deal more to share with you.

They weren’t just talking about medical issues.

They were talking about the whole construction of reality from a number of angles.

Each of the insiders I have gotten to know over the subsequent years has a different personal story. They have all left their particular corner of The Matrix-Construction Group. Jack True, my late friend and colleague, was a different man altogether. He was never part of that Group. He was the most informed and brilliant researcher I’ve ever come across on the subject of the mind—the essential link that makes The Matrix work.

Jack started the ball rolling. He was instrumental in making the deal that got Aids Inc. published. He introduced me to a few key figures along the way—insiders who proved invaluable.

Why did these insiders want to talk and spill secrets? Well, the process of interviewing them wasn’t always easy. They could be thorny at times. But they all had seen, finally, the abyss toward which they were heading, toward which they were leading the population. And they pulled back.

So…

This Volume is for individuals.

Because:

Beyond The Matrix is true individual power.

Despite all the illusions, it has always been there.

It waits for you.

And it is your power.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

Dr. Bronner replies to Rappoport article on GMO labeling strategy

Dr. Bronner replies to Rappoport article on GMO labeling strategy

by Jon Rappoport

November 15, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The sub-title of this article is borrowed from a sentence a friend wrote to me:

Let’s vote to label something that is destroying the biology of the Earth.

Under a tweet with the title of my recent article, “Criticize the moneyman who support GMO labeling: you get Silence,” there is a tweet from Dr. Bronner, who I presume is David Bronner.

He has been a major funder of the Prop 37 and Prop 522 labeling campaigns in CA and WA. He is pro-labeling.

The Bronner reply tweet reads: “We’ve been very careful to listen to local campaigners on campaign tactics.”

Based on limited information, I would question that. But my article was really about something else. It was about the overall message these campaigns have pushed at voters: “You have a right to know what’s in your food.”

It’s been the single message in ads, from start to (losing) finish for both Prop 522 and 37.

It has drowned out all other messages from the pro-labeling camp.

And it’s a disaster. Big-time.

You have a right to know because…? The campaigns don’t answer that question for voters. They don’t put that answer out in flaming letters and spoken words and images.

One might think the reason for the gross omission has something to do with treating voters gently “on the level at which they can perceive the issue.”

But behind that unworkable strategy, there is fear. Fear of going up against Monsanto and Dow and Syngenta and other food-tech giants who are responsible for inserting genes in food crops and drenching growing fields with toxic chemicals.

These giants don’t need big shields to ward off blows in the labeling campaigns, because no blows are coming at them. They only have to deflect the droning “you have a right to know.”

Ultimately, the question isn’t about winning or losing the labeling initiatives on ballots. It’s about waking people up to the corporations who are monopolizing and poisoning the food supply.

In other words, Monsanto wins in the long run, unless the public outcry is so great it becomes an unstoppable wave.

And in that crucial regard, “you have a right to know” doesn’t cut it. It doesn’t come close.

As I’ve written before, American consumers will not buy so much non-GMO food it pushes Monsanto to the wall. Unless…the truth about Monsanto’s crimes becomes a sword.

Why is it so hard to understand this?

Because so many people want things to be easy and clean and nice and neat.

Wanting it, however, does not make it so.

On the level at which these labeling initiatives are carried out, the mythic theme is: we can build a better model (while leaving the criminal in place to decay away to dust). Then we sweep up the ashes and go on our merry way.

Would that it were so.

This is, however, a piece of mind control. It saturates the minds of people who “just want things to be fair” and “fairly decided.”

Even those who admit the voters “need to be educated about the harm GMOs and herbicides do” aren’t on the right track. They’re too soft. This isn’t a classroom in which the teacher draws diagrams on the blackboard.

This isn’t merely an adult education class.

The Matrix Revealed

This is showing people, up close, in their faces, what chemical warfare is like, when the agent is Monsanto’s Roundup. Evil. This is farmers, actual humans, coerced by Monsanto and driven to the wall. Evil. This is the death of small farming. Evil. This is big fat superweeds taking over farm land, so farmers have to spray even more dangerous chemicals like Paraquat on their fields. Evil. This is Monsanto buying up seed companies and taking over the food supply. Evil. This is Monsanto liars lying to the public about food safety. Evil. This is the US government, the FDA, the USDA, the White House, the President(s) running the game exactly as Monsanto wants them to. Evil. This is shooting untested and unpredictable genes into food. This is making people sick. This is punishing scientists who expose Monsanto. Evil.

All this is the substance of a real political campaign, which has the actual goal of putting Monsanto on the run as the towering wave overtakes them.

And that is the goal, because that is the only way to stop GMO food and horrific chemicals.

Consumer choice as the answer is like Rule by the Proletariat as an answer. In the Marxian fairy tale, the State eventually withers away, magically, and utopia is what’s left. In the consumer choice model, enough food buyers choose non-GMO and Monsanto withers away.

Believing this is a preposterous article of faith.

Monsanto is quite happy to go into the ring and contest that faith with its own propaganda machine, for the next 50 years.

Again, why is this so hard to understand?

Because in a core waking trance, the leaders and money men, with their allies and field workers, in the campaign to label GMOs, are soothing themselves with a fantasy about what works in the arena of politics.

They like their fantasy. They want to hold on to it. They are comforted by it. It sings a song to them. So it must be true.

But it isn’t.

Winning labeling campaigns, losing them, it’s all the same…the battle is lost, unless we name the evil and attack it and reveal it for all to see and keep on attacking it.

If you lived in a neighborhood where one family dumped corrosive clouds of poison on their lawn every few days, would you tell your other neighbors to choose organic lemon juice to kill weeds and leave it at that?

Would you smile and wipe your hands of the whole problem and go on your way, believing the issue would resolve itself?

Would you say, “Soon, no stores will sell that corrosive poison because so many people are buying lemons”?

That’s my reply to David Bronner and the other major money men who fund GMO labeling. I would be interested in reading their full responses.

As always, I hope they actually read what I write and reply to it, rather than to some straw man.

For example, if they write, “Well, we almost won in WA and CA with our strategy”, then they haven’t read me; nor have they read the tea leaves correctly.

http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/State-Measures-Initiative-to-the-Legislature-522-Concerns-labeling-of-genetically-engineered-foods.html

They’re sipping a cup of organic tea, whistling past a graveyard in the dead of night.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

The individual vs. the planned society

The individual vs. the planned society

by Jon Rappoport

November 14, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

At the outbreak of World War 2, the Council on Foreign Relations began making plans for the post-war world.

The question it posed was this: could America exist as a self-sufficient nation, or would it have to go outside its borders for vital resources?

Predictably, the answer was: imperial empire.

The US would not only need to obtain natural resources abroad, it would have to embark on endless conquest to assure continued access.

The CFR, of course, wasn’t just some think tank. It was connected to the highest levels of US government, through the State Department. A front for Rockefeller interests, it actually stood above the government.

Behind all its machinations was the presumption that planned societies were the future of the planet. Not open societies.

Through wars, clandestine operations, legislation, treaties, manipulation of nations’ debt, control of banks and money supplies, countries could be turned into “managed units.”

Increasingly, the populations of countries would be regulated and directed and held in thrall to the State.

And the individual? He would go the way of other extinct species.

For several decades, the pseudo-discipline called “social science” had been turning out reams of studies and reports on tribes, societal groupings, and so-called classes of people.

Deeply embedded in the social sciences were psychological warfare specialists who, after World War 2, emerged with a new academic status and new field of study: mass communications.

Their objective? The broadcasting of messages that would, in accordance with political goals, provoke hostility or pacified acceptance in the masses.

Hostility in support of new wars; acceptance of greater domestic government control.

Nowhere in these formulas was the individual protected. He was considered a wild card, a loose cannon, and he needed to be demeaned, made an outsider, and characterized as a criminal who opposed the needs of the collective.

As the years and decades passed, this notion of the collective and its requirements, in a “humane civilization,” expanded. Never mind that out of view, the rich were getting richer and poor were getting poorer. That fact was downplayed, and the cover story–”share and care”—took center stage.

On every level of society, people were urged to think of themselves as part of a greater group. The individual and his hopes, his unique dreams, his desires and energies, his determination and will power…all these were portrayed as relics of an unworkable and deluded past.

In many case, lone pioneers who were innovating in directions that could, in fact, benefit all of humanity, were absorbed into the one body of the collective, heralded as humane…and then dumped on the side of the road with their inventions.

Their breakthroughs could upset favored monopolies and actually elevate the lives of people. Therefore, men like Tesla and Buckminster Fuller had to be buried.

In other cases, there was very little praise before burial. Wilhelm Reich, Dr. William Frederick Koch, Royal Rife.

In the planned society, no one rises above the mass, except those men who run and operate and propagandize the mass.

In order to affect the illusion of individual success, as a kind of safety valve for the yearnings of millions of people, the cult of celebrity emerged. But even there, extraordinary tales of rise and then precipitous fall, glory and then humiliation, were and are presented as cautionary melodramas.

The onrush of technocracy gears its wild promises to genetic manipulation, brain-machine interfaces, and other automatic downloads assuring “greater life.” No effort required. Plug in, and ascend to new heights.

The Matrix Revealed

If the individual has any place in this future, it is: working at a job, keeping his or her head down, supporting the family, gradually wearing down, and dying. In more and more cases, the job is within, or attached to, government.

Freedom? Independence? Old flickering dreams vicariously viewed on a screen.

Individual greatness, imagination, creative power? A sunken galleon loaded with treasure that, upon closer investigation, was never there to begin with.

The plan is all that is important. The plan involves universal surveillance, in order to map the lives of billions of people, move by move. In order to design systems of control within which those billions live, day to day.

But the worst outcome of all is: the individual cannot even conceive of his own life and future in large terms. The individual responds to tighter and control with a shrug, as if to say, “What difference does it make?”

He has bought the collectivist package. His own uniqueness and inner resources are submerged under layers of passive acceptance of the consensus.

And make no mistake about it, this consensus reality, for all its exaltation of the group, is not heraldic in any sense. The propagandized veneer covers a cynical exploitation of every man, woman, and child.

Strapped by an amnesia about his own freedom and what it can truly mean, the individual opts for a place in the collective gloom. He may grumble and complain, but he fits in.

He can’t remember another possibility.

Every enterprise in which he finds himself turns out to be a pale copy of the real thing.

Exit From the Matrix

This is why I have been so critical of the recent ballot initiatives urging labeling of genetically modified food. The group, in this case, is the mass of consumers, people who buy. This is the apotheosis of a movement against a titan, a monster, Monsanto. “Know what you buy, know what you eat, and we will triumph over evil.”

The prospect of victory on these terms is, in the long run, non-existent. Why? Because the deep energies and power and desire for freedom remain untapped.

Based on supposed knowledge of what works in the political arena, the men who have been dictating the terms of the “good message” are shortchanging this opportunity.

As businessmen, they are tuned to the marketplace. But that is not where this struggle really lives. It lives in the hidden places of every repressed individual who wants out, who wants to come back to himself, who wants to stride out on a stage and take the battle to the enemy.

And these failed political campaigns are an example of what millions of people in this country want on a much broader level.

They want freedom and power again. They want to feel alive. They want to feel they’re fighting and winning in the true space where the heart and soul of the struggle can be experienced in the deepest way, where their own amnesia shatters and they remember who they are and they see what evil is trying to accomplish, in order to keep them in a trance.

When a political campaign taps into that, it will have legs. It will have legs and wings, it will mean something about victory in this stolen nation.

And it will mean that the extinct individual returns.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

Criticize the moneymen who want GMO labeling: you get Silence

Criticize the moneymen who want GMO labeling: you get silence

by Jon Rappoport

November 13, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

That’s what I’ve been doing for quite some time (archive here). And that’s what I get. Silence. Apparently they don’t want to argue for their position.

What is their position? Run ballot initiatives saying: “You have a right to know what’s in your food.” Period. End of story.

But don’t attack Monsanto in ads. Don’t say Roundup is poison and causes serious illness. Don’t say Monsanto genes inserted in food crops are unhealthy. Don’t say US growing fields are being overrun and destroyed by superweeds as a result of their immunity to Roundup.

Don’t say Monsanto is treating farmers like slaves. Don’t say Monsanto has been buying up food-seed companies to form a stranglehold on the food supply.

Don’t attack Monsanto in ads.

Don’t show a farmer in an ad who is outraged at Monsanto.

Don’t inflame the voting public.

Do these money men want to win? Do they? Do they have the stomach for a fight?

Because of their money, they set the agenda. They tell their field workers what to tell the public and what not to tell the public, during the ballot campaigns.

Who are these money men? Gary Hirshberg (Stonyfield Organic), Grant Lundberg (Lundberg Family Farms), David Bronner (Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps). Joe Mercola (mercola.com). There may be others.

Why won’t they debate their campaign strategy in public? Why won’t they name the advisers they’ve been consulting? Why won’t they engage with their own workers and seriously discuss, on a level field, their approach to campaigning for GMO labeling?

Are they so sure “you have a right to know what’s in your food” is the single winning message? Why is it a winner? It’s now lost twice, in CA and WA.

Privately, do they realize they’ve been on the wrong track? Do they think they’d suffer embarrassment if they came out and admitted it?

Are they afraid to go after Monsanto directly because they believe their own businesses would suffer the consequences? If so, tell us. Open up. We can help. A large group of vocal and outraged supporters could help forestall those consequences. That would be a hell of a fight…and the public would see, up close and personal, corporate and government criminals trying to silence good men.

Are the leaders of these Yes on 522 and 37 campaigns simply men with grossly limited imaginations? Men who can’t see how waging a different kind of ballot campaign is better?

Do they think they’ve really figured out the only winning strategy?

Are they that blind?

It appears that, among the pro-labeling community, there is a kind of cooperative ruling junta. They bankroll the show. They have support from certain activist leaders. There is no internal conflict. They control the terms of the game. They don’t engage in serious conversations with people who have views different from their own.

They keep saying, “We’re making progress, we’re making headway, we’re waking people up, victories lie ahead of us, hang in there.”

What if they’re wrong? What if their strategy is fatally flawed? It would hardly be the first time a movement with high ideals went off the rails.

Why should we think their one-trick “right to know” campaigns are the best we can do?

Are they, when push comes to shove, just saying, “We have the gold so we make the rules”?

Are they elitists who’ve decided they know what’s best and everybody else has to go along?

Are they saying, “You wouldn’t understand. We’ve consulted with the best minds. We know things you wouldn’t know. So leave us alone. We’ll tell you what to do.”

Are these men so flush with their own financial success they think the market is going to put Monsanto out of business? Do they think the rising tide of people who buy non-GMO and organic will overcome the millions and millions of consumers who eat whatever is put in front of them? Is that their best shot?

Or is that just a self-serving delusion?

Maybe they should spend a few days in McDonald’s and Burger King and Safeway and Vons and Ralphs.

I’ve been around the block a few times. I was there in meetings, during the Health Freedom movement of the early 1990s, when the FDA was making one of its moves against nutritional supplements.

Millions of enraged citizens wrote letters to the government. The supplement companies who were bankrolling the movement wanted to get a better law protecting their businesses passed by Congress.

I said in those meetings, “There are those of us who have the goods on the FDA. We can rip them from stem to stern. They’re a criminal agency. We can put them back on their heels playing defense for the next decade. Let’s go after them now.”

No, no, I was told, that’s not the strategy. The strategy is to get a good law passed. So a law was passed in 1994. The FDA hasn’t stopped attacking supplements. It’s found back-door ways to harass the industry.

I see that pattern repeating now. Get pro-labeling initiatives passed. Then all will be well. Then people will wake up and shun GMO food and Monsanto will lose.

We’ve had two initiatives, and Monsanto, by hook or by crook, has won. (And consider that “crook,” otherwise known as vote fraud, is possible.)

Are the pro-labeling money men reconsidering their strategy? If so, it’s out of view. High-level meetings and all that. Not open to the public. Not open to the voters. Not open to those of us who see a different way.

Monsanto is evil. That’s a given. That’s a fact that can be argued with tremendous impact. That can carry a whole lot of freight.

But these money men don’t want to carry it.

There are some in the pro-labeling movement who are so relentlessly New Age and childishly “positive,” they’re terrified of “going negative.” They think The Universe will punish them for it. They’ll tell you that “negative” ads would turn off voters.

But the history of politics doesn’t say that. Negative ads work if they’re done right.

The truth is, there’s a sound barrier out there, and it has to be broken if Monsanto is going to be stopped from taking over 95% of US farm land with its heinous GMOs forever.

To break the barrier, attack the criminal. There is nothing negative about that, unless you believe “everybody being nice” will stop a psychopath from continuing his path of destruction.

As I’ve written in past articles, Monsanto can deal with GMO labeling if they have to. They don’t want food in the US to be labeled “GMO,” but if it happens, they can handle it. They can spend millions convincing consumers that GMO and non-GMO are equivalent.

Here’s what Monsanto really doesn’t want: a) individual counties enacting an outright ban against growing GMO crops and b) ads that directly and effectively attack them, Monsanto, as criminals and liars and destroyers.

The Matrix Revealed

The vote count on Prop 522 is tightening in the last stretch (see also @secstatewa). It would take an overwhelming Yes on the remaining votes to win. So assuming 522 goes down by one or two percentage points, the leaders of the Yes movement are going to say, “We lost by a whisker, going up against the food companies with their millions of dollars. Take heart, our message is getting through, we’re not quitting, we’re going to mount new campaigns.”

And in those new campaigns, the message will be the same: “You have a right to know what’s in your food,” and that’s all. That’s it.

No direct and sustained attacks against Monsanto.

Imagine TV ads like this:

“Do you have any idea how many tons of toxic pesticide Monsanto ships out of the US every day to farmers in developing nations?…”

“Remember Agent Orange, the terrible chemical used in Vietnam, that caused huger numbers of birth defects? Guess who manufactured it…”

“Do you know who told Monsanto to stop being a toxic chemical company because it was destroying its reputation and public image? Mitt Romney, that’s who…”

“Look at these hands. I’m a farmer. I grow food on my land. My family has been on that land for 150 years. Monsanto has ruined all that…”

“There’s a company called Monsanto. Do you know how many food-seed companies they’ve bought up in the last 20 years? Do you know why?…”

“Here’s a new child who’s come into this world with new life. Look at her. Do you want her eating Monsanto’s poisonous chemicals? Do you want her eating dangerous genes Monsanto puts in her corn?…”

And on and on. And then say: “Monsanto puts genes in your food. They say it isn’t a problem. Don’t believe them…Here’s why…”

“Monsanto makes a chemical called Roundup. It’s on your food. You eat it. Here’s what Roundup does…”

Is this so hard to figure out? Is this so hard to see? What’s the problem?

Monsanto and other big-time food/biotech companies pour millions of dollars into defeating these ballot initiatives—and the leaders of the Yes movements are just going to whine about it and do nothing to go after them directly? Wow.

Exit From the Matrix

Here’s the bottom line. Even if some GMO-labeling initiatives win in several states, the real battle is about which foods consumers are going to buy over the long term. GMO or non-GMO. The result is going to be a mixed bag. It’s going be a mixed economy.

And in that environment, Monsanto is going to win.

Do you understand?

We’re going to end up coexisting with Monsanto, and the genes they put in food crops are going to keep drifting into non-GMO and organic food crops. Their chemicals are going to keep poisoning people.

Monsanto is exposed on the level of all their crimes, all the harm they do, all the lies they tell. Their flank is wide open. That’s where the opportunity exists. That’s where justice is. That’s where the public can be aroused to see the truth.

In a sane society with a sane government and a sane court system, Monsanto would have been put out of business a long time ago. But that’s not the world we’re living in.

So the public attack has to be against Monsanto as a criminal corporation.

Then let the chips fall where they may. Monsanto wants to sue? Beautiful. Perfect. Bring on the depositions. Bring on the evidence.

The government wants to protect Monsanto? Beautiful. Expose the government as a shill and a police force for a huge corporation.

End the pussyfooting.

Break the trance.

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 NoMoreFakeNews.com.

Why GMO labeling really failed in Washington State: stop whining

Why GMO labeling really failed in Washington State: stop whining

by Jon Rappoport

November 12, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Here’s a question for you. During the campaign for Prop 37 in California, and the campaign for Prop 522 in the state of Washington, the ballot measures to label GMO food, did you see political ads like this:

“Hello. My name is… I’m a researcher with a long track record. I study what’s in your food. I know that Monsanto, the company that puts genes in your food and sells a toxic herbicide called Roundup, which is also in your food, wants Prop 522 to fail. They don’t want you to know what’s in your food. I’m willing to debate Monsanto anytime, anywhere. Their GMOs and their Roundup are toxic, unhealthy. Vote Yes on 522, so you don’t have to eat Monsanto.”

No, you didn’t see an ad like that.

So why did Prop 522 go down to defeat?

What’s that? Oh, it was those big bad food corporations that donated $22 million to shoot it down. That’s why. I mean, who could have seen that coming? What a shock. Who could have predicted it? Whine, whine, complain, complain.

What did Yes on 522 leaders think was going to happen? Did they think the bad guys were going to reach into their wallets and pull out a few thousand bucks and leave it at that?

And on Democracy Now, David Bronner, who donated the most $$ to Yes on 522, intimated the big-money effort to defeat 522 “was the Republicans.” Wow. That’s the answer?

Obama is the number-one political supporter of GMO food in America. I’ve run it down in previous articles. Appointments of Monsanto people to key posts in government. Opening the door to a parade of GMO crops during his term as President.

I’ve quoted the communication director of Yes on 522, Elizabeth Larter (twitter), saying the WA labeling campaign was only about people having the right to know what’s in their food, not about good GMOs or bad GMOs. How weak. How very, very weak. How false.

Following on the heels of Prop 37’s defeat in California, which was “a right to know” wimpoid effort, I was told it would be different in Washington State. Yes on 522 would really go after Monsanto full-bore. The gloves would come off.

Didn’t happen. Wasn’t ever in the cards.

“Oh, but you see, the right to know what’s in your food is just part of a much bigger strategy. For voters (who are stupid and don’t have a clue they’re eating poison), you go soft: you tell them ‘you have a right to know.’ It’s all about waking up the sleeping masses (a little bit). Educating them (a tiny bit).

“Meanwhile, on the activist front, it’s attack attack Monsanto 24/7.”

And this double-barreled brilliance will bring us into port. In the end, we’ll win and Monsanto will go down to crushing defeat.

Really?

Spend all the money you have on the labeling initiatives (with two losses now in the books), and then, on a shoestring, get those millions of angry Americans out in the streets against Monsanto and DuPont and Syngenta. I see. Right.

What’s happening is this: huge numbers of Americans are being lulled to sleep by the labeling initiatives. “Yeah, it’s great, people can vote for labeling and that’ll solve the problem. It’s wonderful. The system works. I’ll vote when it comes my time. Meanwhile, zzzzz, I think I’ll take a nap.”

The Matrix Revealed

Let me run down the underlying factors here. Start with this: when things have been going against you for too long, when the bad guys (Monsanto) have overrun the field and taken it for their own, when they hold political and economic power, when they’re the insiders, do you say, “Well, we can’t fight them directly and win, we can’t go for the throat and publicize their crimes, we have to soft-pedal it, we have to tread lightly, we have to coexist with them, it’s too late to try to rip away all their victories and territory, we have to go through a different door”?

Is that what you say? Is that what you do?

Analogy: “Look, the government has taken away so many of our freedoms, we can’t just demand all that freedom back, no, we have to start small and easy, we have to ask for the right to label ourselves free and win back the right to cross the street—because it’s too late.”

No. When it’s too late, you go all the way. Now. You show everyone the crimes of the oppressor, for starters. Up front. Immediately.

“You’re eating poison and we can prove it.” Lead with that. Don’t be shy. Don’t tap dance.

Reveal the threat.

Why do you think millions of young people took to the streets to protest the Vietnam War? Because they saw the threat to themselves. They knew they could get drafted. They knew they could get sent to the jungle to get their asses shot off.

Reveal the threat. Right up front. Right away. Lead with that. “You’re eating poison.” Don’t hide behind “right to know what’s in your food.”

“Oh but you see, our polls show voters want a softer message. Polls show and our experts tell us we have to go easy.”

Have you been hiding under a rock? Have you missed seeing thousands of political campaign ads? The negative ads that actually work?

“Oh but you see, we did tell people during the 522 campaign that GMOs aren’t healthy. We did do that.”

Yeah, a few of you did that, way down the line after you broadcast the main theme, which was “right to know what’s in your food.”

“Oh but you see, Americans are in such a deep hypnotic state these days, we have to go soft.”

Really? When people are down in the subterranean caverns of Nod, you’re going to tap them lightly on the shoulder and tell them they have a right to know something? Where did you get that PR gem from?

“Oh but you see, those of us in the trenches working so hard to get these ballot initiatives passed, so we can have labeling…don’t be hard on us. We’re trying. Don’t be nasty…”

I know you’re working yourselves to the bone. I’m talking about your leaders, the ones who are setting the agenda and bankrolling the whole thing. They’re the ones. They’re making all the mistakes. They’re leading with the wrong message. They’re willing to coexist with Monsanto. They’re directing you to say over and over again, “You have a right to know what’s in your food.” Instead of: “Monsanto is poisoning people.”

Exit From the Matrix

David Bronner, in that Democracy Now interview, also said the big bioetch-ag companies are afraid of the “right to know what’s in your food” message. Really? It’s been a loser for anti-GMO forces twice now, in CA and WA.

“Oh but you see, we came close in CA, we only lost by a little, and in WA the vote count is showing we’re creeping up closer there, too. And one of these days, we’re going to win one, we’ll win a ballot initiative, and then other states will follow suit and the dominoes will fall in our favor.”

A loss is a loss. And what makes you think you’ll provoke a domino effect before Monsanto achieves a fait accompli and just about all farmland in the US is blanketed with GMO crops and drifting Monsanto genes?

A real campaign against Monsanto is about relentlessly showing people the threat to their health. Putting that front and center. Every day. Overwhelming the mainstream media. Attacking Monsanto head-on.

Polls in New Hampshire show that 90% of voters want GMO labeling. So last week, a legislative committee voted against a GMO labeling bill, and it recommended the full legislature kill it. Does that tell you something?

The fix is in. It’s in on so many levels.

The self-appointed leaders in the Yes on Prop 37 and 522 labeling initiatives have been playing the wrong tune. They’ve been using a feather to knock over a giant.

To all those who have been working for them, who have been laboring for months, for years, to get GMO labeling, and to those who may work for them up the road, I say—demand to meet with them; refuse to work for them unless you get that meeting where everybody has to lay his cards on the table. Demand to know why “you have a right to know what’s in your food” is the leading message and the only out-front message. Make them explain themselves and don’t settle for easy answers. Make them explain why they won’t go after Monsanto with real power in these campaigns, why they won’t nail Monsanto to the wall.

“Oh but you see, we couldn’t do that. You want us to actually meet with the health-food CEOs who are bankrolling the ballot initiatives and question them, question their strategy, raise serious doubts, air it all out, before we work for them? I’ve never heard of anything like that. That wouldn’t be…nice.”

Exactly, and as we all know, Nice is what this whole thing is about, isn’t it? Nice is God. Nice is, well, so nice.

Is it working?

Or do you need political ads like this: “Monsanto. Remember Agent Orange, the poison sprayed all over Vietnam that caused widespread cancer? Monsanto made it. They’re the same people who say you don’t need to know they injected genes in your food. You don’t need to know that Roundup, their toxic herbicide, is in the food you eat every day. You don’t need to know. Do you buy that?…”

“Oh, but your see, we can’t run ads like that. We could get sued by Monsanto.”

Really? Your 1st Amendment right is trumped by Monsanto, a corporation? If so, let them bring a suit. Run an ad that says, “Monsanto is now suing us for false statements. Bring it on! We’re happy to go into court and prove that GMO food and Roundup have dangerous health effects on you, the people who eat their food. When’s the court date? We’ll be there with our experts. Vote Yes on 522!”

What’s that? Television stations wouldn’t let you run attack ads against Monsanto? Then sue the stations for abridgment of your 1st Amendment rights. And run hundreds of ads on the Web, on sites that residents of WA look at: “Guess what? We’re Yes on 522 and television stations in WA won’t run our ads. They’re scared of Monsanto. They’re shutting down our right to free speech. What are they hiding? These stations don’t want you to know there’s something bad and unhealthy in your food. They don’t want you to have the right to know what’s in your food…”

That’s where “right to know” comes in. That’s how you use it. That’s how you attack. That’s how you go balls to the wall.

Unless your leaders don’t have what it takes for that fight. Talking about David Bronner (Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps), Gary Hirshberg (Stonyfield Organic), Grant Lundberg (Lundberg Family Farms), Joe Mercola (mercola.com), Joe Sandler (attorney, adviser to moveon.org and former counsel for the Democratic National Committee).

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

The rise of the Psychiatric State under Obamacare

by Jon Rappoport

November 11, 2011

(To join our email list, click here.)

Come down the road of history and watch the vast parade. There were the cave people, with their fear of the thunder and lightning and the forces behind them; there were the priesthoods rattling gourds and pointing scepters; there were the supposed witches, and the alchemists, and the prophets who, we’re to believe, deeded their highest ideas to bureaucrats and killers who would build churches in their name…

And after a time, science emerged, and all was well. Finally. A science of the brain, and of the abnormal patterns. In their great beneficence, governments determined that these scientists should rule that brain…

And here we are.

The regulations differ according to which insurance policy people have, but the overall Obamacare thrust is in the direction of enforcing coverage “parity” between physical and mental illness.

This means more and more people are going to be sitting in psychiatrists’ offices, describing their problems and issues; the psychiatrists will be making more and more unscientific diagnoses of mental disorders; and they will be prescribing more toxic and dangerous drugs to patients.

There is a cultural sea change underway as well. The whole op is to legitimize mental health treatment for everybody. Having a disorder will eventually be as common as having the flu or a cold. “We’re all disordered.”

Children will be saying they have ADHD, clinical depression, and bipolar even before a shrink slaps on a diagnosis. It’s the “in” thing to do.

People, naturally, will find more ways to explain, rationalize, and excuse their own dissatisfying lives—whatever works to get off the hook.

Political and economic oppression will be reframed as mental-health issues for the victims.

Worse yet, as I’ve exhaustively demonstrated in many articles and lectures, psychiatry is a pseudoscience. The 300 officially certified distinct mental disorders are all fraudulent.

There is no physical diagnostic test for any of the them. They are menus and collections of behaviors drawn up by committees of psychiatrists—and then stamped with labels.

The drugs to treat them are all toxic and destructive. Some of the drugs (and withdrawing from all of them) cause violent behavior, including suicide and homicide.

But given the opportunity by insurance coverage, millions of Americans will spring into action and offer themselves up for diagnosis and treatment. They’ll wear their diagnoses like badges of honor in the “new society.”

People who speak out against the political establishment, who advocate for less government, who champion freedom, will find themselves ridiculed to a greater degree than ever before…and under certain circumstances will be coerced into the psychiatric hive.

This is a gravy train for some, and a death machine for many.

The rank absurdity and illegality of government allying itself with psychiatry escapes most people’s attention. It’s all good, because government “wants to help.”

The Matrix Revealed

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

I, for one, don’t want to help in that way. I want to see people have more power. I don’t want to see lives going down the psychiatric-drug drain. I don’t think connecting thought and action to disorders solves anything. It only makes things worse. I don’t want to deal with people who view life through the lens of disorders.

I don’t give a damn what psychiatrists and their followers say about the brain and the mind. I don’t think we should be trailing along behind these so-called professionals and picking up their tidbits of manufactured hoke, or cleaning up the the ruined psyches they leave in their wake.

I don’t care what government officials say about mental health. Let them eat Thorazine. Let them submit to the drugs and experience the outcome first-hand. Let them taste the fruits of the monopoly they’re enabling.

I don’t believe the results of published psychiatric studies. I’ve seen how often they lie and twist facts.

Psychiatry is just one more priest class. It spins its own cosmology and appoints itself to a higher echelon of knowledge. It tries to grind down independent spirits. It tries to sterilize life-force.

What GMOs and herbicides are doing to food, psychiatry is doing to minds: making them synthetic.

I wouldn’t give a so-called mental-health expert the time of day.

In a sane court of law, with the whole edifice exposed down to its rotten core, any such expert would be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

Stripping away the psychiatric verbiage, you can see the old conditioned-reflex philosophy of human existence laid bare. These charlatans view people as nothing more than walking-talking biological equipment.

Which speaks to the paucity of a cogent and forceful counter-argument: we aren’t mechanisms. We’re conscious beyond any processes of the brain.

What street drugs do to people is but a shadow of the damage wrought by psychiatric medicines. They sedate and torque brains into passive submission and despair. Doctors call it treatment. This chicanery and massive destruction can only continue if people surrender standards of comparison, surrender concepts of freedom, commitment, achievement, creative power.

In other words, a decline and disintegration of personal values underlie the acceptance of psychiatry. We can tap-dance our way around this one until the cows come home and nothing will alter the fact.

Exit From the Matrix

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

The country is being eaten out from the inside. It has been going on for a long time. People have sacrificed their own power on the basis that “it doesn’t really matter, only minor pleasures are important, and nobody actually built what they built.”

Anaerobic psychiatry flourishes and expands in this oxygen-deprived atmosphere.

People who are educated and inquisitive ask where the subject of philosophy has gone in modern civilization. It has retreated into 300 spacious categories of mental disorders. It has died and been reborn as a fetid catalog of universal disability, posing as a humane celebration of scientific achievement and caring.

Its culture is a series of slogans fishing for more victims, always more victims, until night falls and there are no more stars.

Unless people wake up, 30 years from now they or their children will be jockeying to assert, with pride, how many mental disorders they have and how serious they are. And doctors will be tapping directly into the neural circuits of every fourth or fifth person, to make them better: i.e., more passive, more accepting.

From the dawn of time, crazy men, presenting themselves as guardians of human life, have tried to persuade us to reduce our ideas and creations down to manageable size; to slip them into well-organized structures that demean the many and elevate the few. They preach their simplistic cause and effect, their symmetry, their prison-grid of perception.

The whole effort is the promotion of a delusion.

It uses people’s pain, suffering, confusion, and doubt to lead them into a system that promises relief but brings more suffering. It very much resembles the strategies of political leaders.

Elites fear life-force wherever it may spring up. They use whatever they can to squash it. They define reality and insist that we march into it and live there like automatons.

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Forgotten languages: how I put together Exit From the Matrix

How I put together Exit From the Matrix: forgotten languages

by Jon Rappoport

November 8, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

There’s a reason I included more than 50 imagination exercises and techniques in my collection, Exit From the Matrix.

Imagination opens up vistas that are outside the Matrix, outside consensus reality, outside this space-time continuum.

Imagination is the forgotten engine of change, transformation, breakthrough, power, revolutionary consciousness.

Imagination is the doorway to a whole host of brilliant emotions for which there are no names.

In our lowest common denominator society, people are used to thinking about and experiencing a vastly reduced range of feelings. Imagination changes all that.

In 1995, I was painting in a studio in Santa Monica, California. One day, the phrase “forgotten languages” popped into my head.

I found several large pieces of cardboard. Each one was about four feet by two. I filled them up with black shapes. I was working spontaneously, with no plan.

When I finished, I propped them up and leaned them against the sliding glass door, went over to my bed, lay down, and looked at them for a few minutes.

They began “talking” to me. It was quite startling and exhilarating. The shapes were broadcasting images and very vivid sensations of flying in mid-air, in space. And then, behind that, feelings came: Unnameable feelings, in a rush.

This was a shifting language in which meanings sparked other meanings, rose and fell, disappeared, gave way to new sensations, all of which were infiltrated with ecstatic freedom.

I lay there, bathed in it all, for a few minutes. Then the transmission faded away.

The residual impact was this: there are potential languages, very different in kind from those we use, which transfer far more information far more quickly. But the information isn’t symbolic or referential—it’s alive in the moment.

One could almost say these languages have consciousness, and they deliver their ever-changing “messages” without the need for translation or interpretation or thought by the “reader.”

The languages are open doors into vistas and panoramas of thousand-faced joys, each joy a different collection of tones and personalities.

A “word” in one of these languages transmits figures, personae, beings in various states of dynamic action overflowing with acrobatic exuberance.

And we could speak to one another in such languages.

We most definitely could.

The only thing that shuts us out is the decision to forgo imagination, to put it on the shelf and let it sit there.

If we did speak to one another in these languages, we would automatically rise to another level of being, of instantaneous understanding. No filters, no intermediaries.

I visited a linguistics professor in his office and spoke with him about all this. He pulled out some samples of Chinese calligraphy. He told me that many modern scholars refuse to admit that the Chinese language had it roots in pure pictographs, which communicated in a more direct way than the later abstracted forms.

I thought we were about done with the conversation. I got up to leave, but he stopped me.

“You want to see an exercise in linguistic dreamtime?” he said.

That was an interesting phrase.

He told me he knew exactly what I was talking about, because he’d had similar experiences in dreams.

He showed me two notebooks full of shapes he’d painted with a small brush and black ink.

“Each notebook is a conversation with myself,” he said. “It began as sheer amusement, during a summer vacation. But then it turned into something else.”

He went on to describe how he knew what the shapes meant, although he couldn’t put it into words. They were reciting a kind of history of the human race, but on a different hidden level.

“This is psychic history,” he said. “The registering of what’s happening in the world, as the imagination reframes it.”

We looked at each other, and ordinary reality just went away. We were two people acknowledging a parallel and potentially endless reservoir of Other space-time.

Exit From the Matrix

Then he started talking about his son.

“When he was three, for a few months he looked at these notebooks every day. He turned the pages and studied the shapes. He was quite intent on it. He was still coming into this world, getting used to it, but I was quite sure he was remembering that other realm, that dimension. He knew about it.”

In the early 1980s, I spent every Monday night, for a few months, at the Factory Theater in downtown Los Angeles. Scott Kellman, the director, was conducting an improvisation workshop.

One night, a friend and I did an exercise in which we spontaneously invented our own sign language. Our hand signals weren’t supposed to represent anything, but we imagined we were engaged in serious conversation.

A few minutes into the exercise, we were imagining so well that something else took over. We were now in a space where the flashing signs did, in fact, have meaning.

We both knew it. We knew we’d gotten past the entire literal fixation on ordinary language. We were sending images back and forth. The images revealed themselves as some sort of drama, in which two people discover they exist, right now, in more dimensions than they previously realized. That was suddenly the unspoken theme.

We played it out.

When we were done, my friend said, without thinking, “I’ll always know you’re alive, wherever you are.”

The room was silent, and slowly we felt the other actors and Scott, the director, being drawn into this space with us.

It was telepathic, but not in the sense of sending and receiving thought. It was telepathy of “occupation.” We were all in a new dimension right there in the theater.

As I left to go home that night, I told Scott, “That was like flying a little plane and stepping out of it and staying right there in the sky.”

He nodded and said, “And all you needed were a few pieces of wood called a stage.” He grabbed my arm. “Think about what would happen if people started creating a piece of random sidewalk or a grocery store as a stage, the way we did tonight. Whole different world.”

The early Tibetan adepts were well aware of all this and more. At the core of their practice were imagination exercises, before the priest class stepped in and bungled the whole thing, and asserted their theocracy.

Early on, many of the figurative Tibetan paintings and mandalas, rather than simply being adored saints, were actually images meant to be recreated in those imagination exercises, for an entirely different purpose: the liberation of the inventive core of the individual.

To begin to understand the later distortion the priest class launched, imagine people walking into a museum and falling down in abject worship of a row of Van Gogh canvases, while remaining entirely ignorant that anyone had painted them.

In Exit From the Matrix, I set all this straight.

I’ve given you enough imagination exercises and techniques to last several lifetimes.

Civilizations come and go, rise and fall, stultify and change. Each one of us remains. Wherever we are, in whatever circumstances we find ourselves, we can be artists of reality.

We can remember that and live it.

Imagination is like having an indispensable tool of archeology, but in this case we’re uncovering our own forgotten languages that speak of greater levels of being.

This is the great adventure.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

Paranormal You

Paranormal You

by Jon Rappoport

November 7, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

1960. First day of rehearsal for a college play, The Lower Depths. I walk out on the stage and look around. It’s quiet, but inside I feel thunder. Everything is different. New shining space. I start smiling. I’ve been waiting for this moment for God knows how long. A place apart. A world where imagination takes on flesh and comes to life.

The theater director, Walt Boughton, is leaning against a wall. He looks at me. He sees and he knows. He nods. His message is clear: That’s right, my boy, you’re here, this is it, nothing will ever be the same…

We live in a society where consumers can pick and choose among thousands of narratives about themselves, their lives, their future, their duties, their needs, their status.

Just the other day, I wrote about a new Pentagon/DARPA project aimed at studying brain signals, in real time, to understand how and why people buy some narratives and reject others.

A common feature of most narratives is: limited life, limited power.

Or to put it another way, limited access to larger aspects of Self.

The trick of narratives, as retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy, once told me, is: built-in limitation; it looks like “desire fulfilled”; it looks like happiness.

But it isn’t.

And when people find that out, they experience buyer’s remorse.

“Why did I think that narrative described what I wanted? Why did I think it would make me satisfied?”

The space-continuum in which we live has its own narratives. They hang from it like barnacles. The gist? You can’t get out. There is nothing to get to.

Again, I refer to the brilliant hypnotherapist, Jack True, whom I interview 43 times in my collection, The Matrix Revealed. Jack did sessions with patients that went directly at the space-time matrix.

“Under hypnosis,” he said, “I had people look at the continuum and tell me what they saw. I had them describe it in their own way. Then I asked them to look outside it.”

The material from those sessions is extraordinary, in several respects. It helped me, when I was researching my companion collection, Exit From the Matrix.

Some of Jacks’ patients came “back around the barn,” as Jack characterized it, and ended up relating what sounded like dreams, dreams they would have while asleep. The narrative wasn’t smooth, it wasn’t moving from beginning to end. It was asymmetrical, just as in dreams, where the scenery shifts, where one event ends in midstream and another pops up, where the “plot line” dissolves…and a new plot takes over.

Several of Jack’s patients said their encounters outside the space-time continuum felt very familiar—as if they’d been there before.

Jack: “One patient said he found himself in a dim hall. It was very large. People were talking, but he couldn’t see them. A single voice took over, and a character stepped out of the shadows. He told the patient to remember this meeting when he woke up. He said this was one of a great number of places outside ordinary space-time. He said there was no reason to consider this ‘visit’ strange or unusual. On the contrary, life inside space-time was unusual…”

There are millions and millions of narratives that are used to convince people life inside space-time is It, it’s all there is, it’s normal…

And normalcy is the key. That’s the icon, the symbol, the header, the trance-inducer. What is normal seals the deal. It labels what is allowed to be experienced. It tells people what is not allowed to be experienced.

These narratives about normalcy hold people inside the gates, and provide boundaries for Self. “Self can’t get any bigger than this.”

In the early 1960s, I was teaching at a private school in West Los Angeles. On a Monday morning, I got off the bus and walked along Pico Boulevard toward Overland Avenue. My first class was in 15 minutes or so.

Out of nowhere, a small black bird dive-bombed me, landed on my head with both feet and took off again.

The day before, I’d seen Hitchcock’s The Birds. I thought this was an unusual follow-up, to say the least.

I saw the bird land in a tree near the corner of Overland. I walked to the tree and looked at the bird.

He flew down and landed a couple of feet away from me on the sidewalk. He hopped closer.

He cocked his head and looked up at me.

“It’s Hitchcock,” I said.

He took off, flew across the street, and disappeared over the roof of the Security National Bank building.

After school that day, I told one of the teachers about the incident. He said, “You know, they’re hiring us to show these crazy kids how to fit in [be normal], and this is what you’re telling me? A movie and reality intersect?”

We laughed.

But I realized something. Something about Normal.

These kids in our small private school were all rejects from the public system, or from other private schools. They couldn’t make it there. Many of them were what the psychologists called “acting out.”

I’d have to write a few hundred pages just to begin giving you the flavor of what it was like to deal with 15 or 20 of them, at once, in a classroom. It wasn’t about teaching content, believe me. It was about me surviving.

But at bottom, every one of those kids was, in his/her own highly idiosyncratic way, Not-Normal. That’s all. And what was driving them completely bat-crazy was, no one would deal with them on their own terms.

Everyone was trying to fix them. Everyone was feeding them narratives about “normal, fitting in.”

The next day I changed all that. In my classes, we worked up improvised sketches. Theater. No plot, no direction, no narrative, just off-the-cuff dreamtime in the moment and lots of roles, some of which they were already playing every day to a dead audience of teachers. But it wasn’t dead now. They had me and they had each other.

They jumped at the chance. They didn’t need any direction or instruction. It was as if they’d been waiting all their lives for someone to say, “Just perform what you’re already performing.”

They were actors. That’s what they’d been trying to tell adults.

And everything fell into place. They loved it, I loved it, we all offloaded a few tons of stress and a whole lot of insane normalcy…and then they calmed down. Not because there was a strict rule about behavior, but because they had escaped the tyranny of Is. And Has To Be. And Must. And Normal.

That day, the space-time of the continuum, in that classroom, went away. It disintegrated. What took its place was an island of joy. Which is to say, what sits outside this matrix is more real than real. When you find it.

It doesn’t have to be spooky.

It’s Magic Theater.

Exit From the Matrix

Sit down some time with a bunch of real stage actors and ask them when they feel most alive. A certain percentage of them will confess it’s when they’re on the boards, performing a role. That’s when they feel most like themselves, even though they’re pretending to be somebody else. That’s when the day-to-day space-time continuum goes away and new one comes into being.

That’s when normal steps aside and paranormal makes its entrance.

A fake space, a repressed space, a continuum of frustration vanishes.

Conventional standards don’t explain what is happening. They can’t.

Life. Theater. Theatricality. Roles played to the hilt. The Paranormal.

There is no single narrative for a human being. There are as many as he wants to invent. Sometimes the stage is dead, the lights are off, the seats are empty. But then we get a glimpse of something else. We walk up on the stage and feel that space and realize the old walls are gone and this is it, and we’re ready, and the energy comes out of nowhere and we do things we thought were impossible.

Normal disintegrates.

This is art. This is a level of life that is waiting for all of us.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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