The hideous BAM in Obama: map your brain for your own good

by Jon Rappoport

February 18, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

First they map your brain. And by you, I mean everybody.

President Obama has just greenlighted a 10-year Manhattan Project for the human brain. I warned it was coming years ago.

The new billion-dollar enterprise is called BAM, the Brain Activity Map project. The fact that DARPA is one of the agencies involved tells you a great deal. DARPA is the cutting-edge military outfit in charge of new technologies for the Armed Forces. They want to create The Enhanced Soldier and all that that implies. Think “android.”

Behind the front of claims that BAM will create new therapies for mental disorders (for which no defining diagnostic tests even exist), the plan is to forward artificial intelligence (AI), which means creating a computer that works at least as well as the one inside your skull.

This is the technocrats’ wet dream: “We can now power up an artificial brain of such power and intelligence that it can make all crucial decisions for the human race from Central Planning.”

In the wake of Sandy Hook, other implications are also clear. BAM will be used to devise a Minority Report society, in which purported markers of future violence will be utilized to forcibly treat (with toxic drugs), contain, and prevent “predicted criminals” from carrying out fantasies percolating in their subconscious. Would those fantasies, if left alone, ever rise to the level of action? Irrelevant. Cast a wide net, in the name of Prevention.

Welcome to “expanded mental-health services.” You’re on a list? Oops. You must be treated. Here is your mandatory appointment slip. Yes, the drugs are highly toxic. Yes, they can and do cause you to commit horrendous acts of violence. But we don’t talk about that.

Of course, what I’m sketching out here is not happening by next week. But BAM is a giant step on the road toward this future. It’s far from trivial. The stated goal is the mapping of all neuronal activity in humans. This is science fiction coming alive now.

The American Psychiatric Association and Big Pharma are drooling with anticipation. This is precisely what they’ve been aiming for. Vastly expanded treatment options. More diagnoses. More drugs. More control.

BAM has been on the drawing boards for years. But after Aurora and Sandy Hook, the timing is right. The sub-text of BAM is: “People, we will protect you. We will gain access to the brain and re-channel it away from violence. You will be safe.”

BAM is the step before reconfiguring the brain, which is the long-term and underlying goal. These neuroscientists have no interest in the concept of freedom. They left that in the dust decades ago.

For them, the brain is merely a machine that needs a great deal of tweaking, because people are naturally mis-programmed, and corrections must be built into a new and better system.

Of course, “new and better” will pivot on non-scientific value judgments, masked behind masses of techno-speak. And you will have no input into the choice of values. You’re the experimental device; the neuroscientists are the operators.

Everyone who is anyone is on board for this one. The National Institutes of Health, private foundations, universities, drug companies. They’ll all wrangle a piece of the pie.

The White House is touting BAM as job-creation as well. Of course they are. Huxley left that out of Brave New World. “This is a wonderful way to bring up employment numbers. If we take the engineering of humans far enough, everybody can work.”

If you’re wondering what the hell the federal government is doing mapping the human brain, you’re back in the Stone Age. You’re probably interested in, what did they used to call it, oh yes, the Constitution.

Excessive interest in that moldy document probably has a correlation with certain brain activity, which can be mapped and charted. And then you’re on a list: “The subject shows typical neuronal dysfunction in sub-sector 254-A. This is the James Madison Disorder. Recommend immediate detention and treatment.”

“A new study from the BAM-plus group at Harvard has found a significant relationship between home schooling and an excess velocity in synaptic transmission. Such velocity surpasses recommended limits.”

Yes, it’s a joke. Right now. But we’re not just on the slippery slope. We’ve gone down the hill a few new miles, as of today.

Back when professionally praised scientific lunatics like Dr. Ewen Cameron and Yale’s Jose Delgado declared that the human being had no right to his own intrinsic personality, people thought such a notion was absurd. But now, the language is far more clever and densely obscure.

It’s quite possible, move by move, to propagandize inhuman research, with government press releases, right into the era of the “brain-adapted” population.

Just as the public has bought into the idea that all mental disorders spring from “chemical imbalances,” despite the fact that no normal level of balance has ever been established, so it will be easy to convince the population that the abnormal brain activity of 100 billion neurons can be measured, categorized, specified, and treated.

It’s science. It must be true. Science marches on. Science is the hand-servant of humanity. Greatest good for the greatest number.

The worshipers at the altar of big government who believe its function is that of a giving god will go along, gladly.

For those of that faith, BAM sounds right, and therefore it must be right. No thinking required.

What about the rest of us? A succinct “don’t touch my brain, mother****er” is a good start. It has a nice ring to it. I’m sure it correlates with quite healthy levels of neuronal activity.

Here’s a prediction. You can take it to the bank. On that day when BAM completes its vaunted mission, our esteemed leaders will manage to exempt themselves from brain scans that might reveal their own dark visions and objectives.

It might even be called The Obama Exception.

If you’re sitting in a pew on the Left and you don’t like that one, try The Bush Exception. Under his brilliant reign, we had the Teen Screen program, a maniacal project to test all children for mental disorders at a young age. It failed, and went out of business.

But BAM has a lot more juice. It aims to go the distance. It has the imprimatur of “hard science.” That’s the venue in which they cook up the biggest lies. The ones with real money behind them. And real Auschwitz experimenters.

Jon Rappoport

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

Facebook blocks Jon Rappoport’s articles

Feb17

Facebook blocks Jon Rappoport’s articles

by Jon Rappoport

February 17, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

I became aware of the block and censorship a few days ago, soon after I wrote and published the article: “Ruthless State of the Union: current crime boss speaks.”

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2013/02/13/the-ruthless-state-of-the-union-the-current-crime-boss-speaks/

That article was about Obama, and it was also about every president as far back as Nixon. It mainly described the absurdities implied by Obama’s vague notion that “we all have to work together.”

Readers began letting me know they couldn’t Facebook-share my articles. This became: no one could share any article that included: “blog.nomorefakenews.com.”

As a reporter for 30 years, I know a little about the 1^st Amendment. Criticizing the president, or the medical cartel, or any number of other institutions I’ve taken on is par for the course. If some Facebook readers are marking these articles spam or abusive, they should think again.

Lots of people these days believe it’s part of the game to try to censor their perceived opponents. “Why debate or even allow a different voice? Let’s just block it out.”

Blocking the FB posting of my article links could also be part of the Facebook management purge of political activists, particularly those who defend the 2^nd Amendment and private gun ownership. This happened to a number of people at infowars.com last December, and it also happened at Natural News.

At the moment, I have a workaround in place, and my site and blog are working just fine, but the basic wider issue of blocking dissident opinion isn’t going away.

Some people have pointed out that Facebook is a private company, and therefore it has the right to define acceptable speech any way it wants to. This may be true, but blocking and censoring political viewpoints is a very bad policy. Claiming, for example, that Facebook is only for making and communicating with friends is a cop-out. If friends can’t share information about political realities, it’s a hollow situation.

Many reporters, including myself, came to the Internet because we were sick and tired of trying to convince editors at newspapers and magazines that our work should see the light of day. Editors routinely shot down (and still do) article ideas that wandered too far off the mainstream reservation.

That was the censorship we were leaving in the dust. Now, here it is again.

Every day, I read articles I don’t like. The idea of somehow censoring them would be absurd.

In this country (and other countries), we have people who believe in and support free speech. Then we have True Believers, whose cause in their minds outdistances any considerations about liberty. They would trample liberty at the drop of a hat to make the world over in their image. Finally, we have organizations who enter into covert political alliances to advance their own interests. These organizations also care nothing about the 1^st Amendment.

Where is Facebook in all of this? Are they just a front for gathering personal information on a billion people? Are they just another wing of the vast surveillance apparatus that is operating from a playbook that wants androids instead of thinking citizens?

It’s time for the bosses at Facebook to step out into the light and explain, in detail, exactly how they block information and on what grounds. How are reports of spam and “abusive content” processed by their algorithms? What is their position on the 1^st Amendment?

Failure to make this clear is evidence of purposeful concealment.

Perhaps an article I wrote and published last August, “Facebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the tanking IPO,” will help put this situation into perspective:

The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.

Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.

Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”

That’s not the only connection between Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.

With these CIA/Darpa connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who could fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?

But now the Facebook stock has tanked. On Friday, August 17, it weighed in at half its initial IPO price. For the first time since the IPO, venture-capital backers were legally permitted to sell off their shares, and some did, at a loss.

Articles have begun appearing that question Zuckerberg’s ability to manage his company. “Experts” are saying he should import a professional team to run the business side of things and step away.

All this, despite the fact that Facebook’s first posted revenue as a public company has exceeded analysts’ predictions, according to the LA Times.

This has the earmarks of classic shakeout and squeeze play. It’s how heavy hitters gain control of a company. First, they drive down the price of the stock, then they trade it at low levels that discourage and demoralize the public and even semi-insiders. As the stock continues to tank, they quietly buy up as much of it as they can. Finally, when the price hits a designated rock bottom, they shoot it up all the way to new highs and win big.

And they hold enough shares to exert more control over the company itself.

That is how Facebook will survive. Zuckerberg’s grip on Facebook will loosen.

The company is too important as a data-mining asset of the intelligence community to let it fall into disrepair and chaos. The CIA and its cutouts will save it and gain more power over it. It’s what they’ve wanted all along.

From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.

CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a standard operation for agencies like the CIA.

When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.

Now it’s time for Zuckerberg to pass the baton to his handlers, so they can maximize the economics of Facebook and utilize it to spy even more extensively.

The media will play along, pretending the eventual upswing-recovery of Facebook stock happens for fundamental reasons connected to the company’s “better level of performance.” The media take this approach to every stock and every company, to avoid letting the public know how massive manipulation actually runs these trading markets.

End of the August 2012 article.

People might ask, “Then why, Rappoport, do you use Facebook at all?”

That’s a legitimate question. My answer is simple. Since I began working as a reporter in 1982, I’ve used every possible opportunity and venue to put my information out there.

There’s a big difference between that and overtly supporting all those venues.

When I admire a writer, broadcaster, or organization, I say so, and I have. Even then, that doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything they say or stand for.

That’s a distinction with a meaning. It’s exactly the distinction I’m asking Facebook to clarify: what will they allow, whether they agree with it or not?

Do I expect them to spell it out in sufficient detail? No. But then that means something, too.

None of this will change one iota of what I write or say.

Jon Rappoport

Can you trust a new brain with an IQ of 7000?

Feb16

Can you trust the new brain with an IQ of 7000?

by Jon Rappoport

February 16, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

I’ve been forcing myself to read gushing statements about the march of artificial intelligence (AI) and how, in the near future, we will have “the source code of the brain,” and computers will be able to do whatever the brain can do, except much, much faster.

I’ve been reading about the day when we humans will somehow merge with the machines.

I think the technocrats who promote these notions were raised on comic books, and they haven’t really moved on from that phase.

What ever happened to the old phrase, “garbage in equals garbage out?” Was it too telling and real?

Take the idea that some day, tiny nanobots will patrol the body making adjustments and normalizing errant functions. Forget for the moment all the damage these little scouts could cause. Just focus on the quality of the information by which they would make moment-to-moment decisions.

Currently, by the most conservative mainstream estimate, the medical system in America kills 225,000 people a year. (See B. Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”).

Of these deaths, 106,000 per year are directly caused by FDA-approved medical drugs. Each one of these drugs was studied, and the results of the studies were published in mainstream journals. This fact alone indicates massive fraud in the clinical trials of the drugs.

Then consider that for all 297 officially certified mental disorders, there exist absolutely no physical diagnostic tests. No blood tests, no saliva tests, no urine tests, no genetic tests, no brain scans. The very definitions of these so-called disorders are adjudicated by sitting committees of psychiatrists, who consult menus of behaviors.

Then consider that the major infectious diseases in the West were already on the decline before vaccines or antibiotics had been introduced, and yet vaccines were hailed as the overriding reason for that decline.

These are just several general categories of fraud, misinformation, disinformation. So the question becomes: who exactly is going to program those wonderful little nanobots before they enter the human bloodstream in the near-future, and what medical information are they going to have access to?

And what kind of moron would assume that, just because artificial intelligence will have the ability to process enormous amounts of data about the body, it will process the right and correct and truthful data?

By extension, when it comes to AI solving political or economic or social problems on a massive scale, why should we assume the information AI is deploying will be correct and right and true, and why should we assume that these problems are stated and formulated, in the first place, according to underlying ethical values that we agree to or share?

Just because a computer can be built that works faster than the brain, and on more platforms, why on earth should we then infer that it is operating from a storehouse of information that is relevant or useful?

And as far as human brains “merging with machines,” why don’t we leave that mishmash idea to the Borg and the Star Trek crew?

The famous Watson test proved that a computer could handle Jeopardy questions on television better than two humans dedicated to trivia.

Deep Blue beat the world’s best chess player.

A computer can analyze the poetry of an author and then generate its own poems in that style. Rather poorly.

Do these feats imply something so significant that we want to put our future in the cores of computers? For that matter, if there is some holy-grail source code for the brain, why should we believe possessing it and using it, or even improving it, would qualitatively improve the solutions to our biggest problems as a species?

There are simple and basic laws of logic involved here. You can compute from now until the end of time, but your deductions are always going to proceed from premises, and those premises are going to predetermine direction and ethical values that color the end results. Computers don’t do Right and Wrong in any absolute sense. Never have, never will.

Even more important is the system or mechanism for allowing AI to dominate our decisions. Who is in charge? Who rules? Which humans hold the off-on switches on the machines? Who programs the machines’ premises? Who can, if necessary, use force to make the global population comply with what AI decides? And what are these humans’ motives?

None of such matters are mitigated by “more intelligent machines.”

The technocrats are actually playing a shell game with us. They’re showing us a vast array of quantitative and qualitative improvements in what computers can do, and they’re substituting that for wisdom. They’re redefining wisdom. They’re omitting the whole argument and debate about what kind of society we want to live in. They’re hucksters and hustlers and con men.

When faced, for example, with the problem of how to feed the world, computers would already be biased in favor of certain outcomes, and they would also be biased toward the basic notion of universal distribution of resources. Who made that choice? The humans deploying the machines from behind the scenes.

Is feeding the world an issue that should be solved top-down? Computers don’t answer that question. Humans do. And humans—specifically the ones in charge—make spectacularly wrong choices, according to the wishes and judgments of many people—many people who already know that placing a decision of that magnitude in the hands of a few oligarchs is a recipe for disaster.

Who will decide how to program the basic assumptions of super-brain computers on the issue of climate change? With what “science” will these computers be initially infected? Who decides what the valid and the invalid science is?

Any beginning student in a logic course quickly learns to distinguish between ethical values and data. Neither computers nor brains determine values based on information alone, no matter how quickly they think, no matter how much data they can access.

A person or a machine with an IQ of 7000 can’t be trusted to install values for others. That’s why we have this troublesome thing called freedom. That’s why we have a fundamental principle that you are free to do anything you want to, as long as you don’t interfere with another person’s freedom. Any system that countermands this basic principle, simply because “it can think better,” is a tyrant, whether it is composed of flesh or metal or some synthetic.

NBC news recently did a glowing feature on advanced cell phones that, in the hands of doctors, can carry out a huge array of medical tests on patients. The doctor was enthusiastic. The patient was enthusiastic. The reporter was enthusiastic. It was a virtual love fest.

No one bothered to ask about the meaning, utility, or dangers of the tests themselves. That issue was swept off the table.

Who cares? It’s technology. It has to be good. If the patient’s test results indicate he should be treated with a highly toxic drug, so what? That’s a minor blip on the screen. We should all celebrate the technological breakthrough. Pour the champagne. Forget about the patient.

Some day, up the road, a human will be sleeping in his bed at night. The tiny bots circulating in his body will suddenly decide he needs a drug. They will either release the substance without his knowledge, or a robot sitting next to the bed will lean over and give him a quick shot. Done.

What? He ended up in the hospital next afternoon? Well, whatever the reason, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the little bots or their programming or their method for accessing the vast clouds of data in virtual space. No, those functions are all brilliant and boggling and wondrous. It must have been something else.

A person walking down the street will be picked up by a hundred cameras and other surveillance devices. It will be adjudicated, in a matter of a few seconds, that he’s missed his latest series of a dozen vaccine boosters. At the next corner, a mini-drone, barely visible to the naked eye, will descend on him and give him a quick jab. Or his next meal will magically contain food engineered specifically to deliver the mandated vaccines.

Greatest good for the greatest number. Already decided and programmed.

Is it better to have separate nations with their own armies, or should we have one giant planetary force? Let the AI decide. How? On what basis? There are always value judgments that underlie these questions, and computers don’t suddenly create values unless they’re told to do so. Only in comic books or pulp science fiction novels do advanced races with very high foreheads come down and demonstrate wisdom based on IQ.

There is no evidence that, if you took a general like Julius Caesar and somehow shoved his IQ up off the charts, he would suddenly change his value judgments. Henry Kissinger hasn’t.

If you built a machine that could access every single datum acquired in 100,000 years of human history and store them all on the head of a pin; and if that machine could rearrange all these data in a trillion different patterns in a few minutes; and if that machine could then generate decisions that answer any question put to it, what would you really have? You would have, at best, sheer opinion on the most important matters facing the human race.

Technocracy is selling a myth of intelligence, a fairy tale. In this fairy tale, the smartest brains (coincidentally resembling those of the technocrats) would cross a threshold, beyond which intelligence would become something else, something very different: machines that have “higher access” to “the best moral values.”

Perhaps the most avid and famous proponent of a technocratic future is Ray Kurzweil, acclaimed inventor, author, businessman. He describes the event he calls the Singularity:

“Within a quarter century, nonbiological intelligence will match the range and subtlety of human intelligence. It will then soar past it because of the continuing acceleration of information-based technologies, as well as the ability of machines to instantly share their knowledge. Intelligent nanorobots will be deeply integrated…”

Among the effects of this unprecedented development?

“…the exponential rate of technical progress will create within 40 years an Internet that is a trillion times faster than today’s, a global media, a global education system, a global language, and a globally homogenized culture, thus establishing the prerequisites for the creation of a global democratic state, “Globa,” and ridding the world of war, the arms trade, ignorance, and poverty…Billions of people will be influenced by the ‘best’ ideas that the planet has to offer. People’s minds will be influenced powerfully, so that today’s nationalist mentalities will be gradually transformed into tomorrow’s globist mentalities…”

And just what are these “best ideas” that billions of people will voluntarily accept? The ideas expressed in, say, Plato’s Republic? Or instantaneous 3-D holographic “you are there” porn? Small decentralized organic farms or some Monsanto plan to disseminate GMOs from the sky all over the planet? A three-branched government with rigorous checks and balances, or taking the points on the Jets vs. the Rams? A healthy clean diet or a hundred vaccines by the age of three?

And the “global democratic state?” I’d like to see how the elections of a president and legislators work for the whole of Earth (including the recount after a charge of fraud is leveled by one citizen in southern Argentina).

If presidential debates in the US, targeting the lowest possible common denominators among the voting public, are filled with vapid generalities, I can only imagine the global debates: a few smiles, a few grunts, a few assurances that “we’re all in this together.”

One language for all the world? Sure, why not? Let’s wipe out the memory of what a few thousand years of hundreds of languages have produced.

And don’t worry. All over the planet, “the people,” newly brilliant, will rise up and overthrow their dictators, just as they did during the vaunted Arab Spring, where the crucial presence of cell phones and Facebook was touted as the lever that forced democratic breakthroughs. You remember that Spring: a promoted hoax designed to hide yet one more elite power play.

Greater insight into ethical values based purely on speed and range of information processing is really a quasi-religion. It uses the notion of IQ as the Prophet. It promises that, as the people have access to more and more data, they will naturally and inevitably choose the right values and the right data, because that’s what IQ does, once it passes through a certain upward level.

You can forget about elite power players exerting control over the population of Earth from above because, as in the Marxist formulation, these Rockefellers and Warburgs of the past will simply wither away, no longer needed.

I’m happy to learn that. I can relax now. We can all relax. The great day is coming. It will be brought to us by a multi-platformed brain, using its neuronal substrate to reach out and connect with nonbiological libraries of truth.

What were we worried about?

I’m sitting here talking to you and you’re talking to me, and you’re in Bombay and I’m in San Diego, and we’re seeing each other in high-res 3-D holographic brilliance, as if we’re in the same room. And as we talk and access skies full of clouds of relevant data in mere instants, we’re both coming to accept the best ideas and the best values and the best language and the best government, and we’re kicking the ass of the old world and rushing into the New, and life will be different forever, and I know it and you know it, so what else do we need?

My molecularly enhanced IQ is 7000 and so is yours, so we’re on the same precise page. That’s all the human race was waiting for all this time.

Jon Rappoport

New study: are we all living in the future now?

Feb15

New study: are we all living in the future now?

By Jon Rappoport

February 14, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

A recent Bonn University study suggests we may all be living in a virtual simulation. If a pixel-lattice that forms the background of this universe is presenting us with an all-encompassing “television picture” of reality, then the whole space-time continuum could be a rigorously designed artifact.

But another study, this one using a small number of meditators, pushes our understanding even further.

Dean Radin, the author of two groundbreaking books on controlled paranormal experiments, The Conscious Universe and Entangled Minds, spoke at a January conference, Electric Universe, in New Mexico. He described his recent pilot study on time and precognition.

A small group of advanced meditators who use the “non-dual” technique, were tested. While meditating, they were subjected to random interruptions: a flash of light and a beeping sound. Measuring their brain activity, Radin found that significant brain changes occurred BEFORE the light flashes or the beeps.

A control group of non-meditators were tested in exactly the same way, but their brain measurements revealed NO such changes.

In other words, the brains of the meditators anticipated the timing of the unpredictable interruptions.

The future was registering now. This, of course, opens up another way of thinking about time.

Serial time, the idea that, in this continuum, we experience a smooth progression of moments, with the present becoming, so to speak, the future, is the conventional view. But suppose that is a grossly limiting and sketchy premise?

Suppose that, for those who can be aware of it, the future is bleeding into the present? It is making an impact “before it happens.”

The non-dual method of meditation seeks to eliminate walls between “now and then, you and I, here and there.” It has also been studied by Zoran Josipovic (New York University). In 2012, Josipovic and colleagues found that, for non-dual meditators, two areas of the cerebral cortex, loosely labeled “external” and “intrinsic,” shifted their operating basis.

These two areas of the brain, long known for their independence from each other (if one is switched on, the other is switched off), both began operating with significantly less “antagonism.”

If time is deeply rooted in perception, Dean Radin’s study indicates that this even extends to the future. If people can register the impact of the future now, then our notions of time are up for grabs.

So are conventional concepts of cause and effect, which rely on chains of events moving like trains from the past to the present. We need to consider that causes can sit in the future and produce their effects in the present.

In which case, what is the future? It certainly is an expanded territory that extends beyond our normal view of it.

In correspondence with me, Dean Radin offered further information about his study:

“All participants knew that they would receive a light flash, an audio tone [beep], both, or none. In one condition they didn’t know when these would occur or what type of stimulus. In another condition they knew when it would occur but not what. In all cases no one, including experiment[ers], knew what the next stimulus would be because we used a true random number generator to select it on the fly.

“The conclusion of the study was that the reported subjective experience of exceptional spaciousness, or timelessness, reported by some advanced meditators, appears to be objectively correct. That is, their subjective sense of ‘now’ appears to expand substantially, and our experiment indicates that this was not an illusion.”

I then asked Dr. Radin how closely correlated the light flashes and audio tones were to the brain changes in the meditators. His answer was stunning. The brain changes occurred 1.5 seconds before these interruptions. And the changes obviously occurred even though the meditators didn’t know when the interruptions were coming.

Radin’s remarks offer us a major point: these meditators were expanding their consciousness of the present moment, so that it included the future.

Therefore, we would be interacting with far more than this continuum is supposed to represent.

Such a framework of understanding travels far beyond modern ideas about the makeup and laws of the physical universe. It implies more than merely a holographic or pixel-based cosmos. It speaks to titanic capabilities on our part.

Of course, having sunk to a state in which we navigate in an amnesia about ourselves, we look at these ideas with skepticism. We pretend we are trapped in a container-continuum of space and time, as Einstein and others have fleshed it out.

What if this is not the case at all? What if we are trying to resolve our problems within a highly narrow context, when in fact the ultimate solution—the only one that will finally satisfy us—depends on us waking up to what we are?

Like recovering our political freedom, the journey to re-establish our greatest hidden capacities is a magnificent enterprise. We no longer need to consign ourselves to dreams of comic-book heroes. We would be the heroes.

When I first read Dean Radin’s breakthrough book, The Conscious Universe, I was floored. Far from merely recounting anecdotes of paranormal phenomena, Radin was proving that decades of well-formed and well-conducted published laboratory studies, in the areas of telepathy and psychokinesis, revealed that these human capabilities exist.

He had performed a staggering feat. He had shown the science was valid.

It remains for other branches of the scientific community to catch up, to admit their consensus about reality is provincial, distorted, and pathetically behind the times. They are now the Roman Church of old, denying Galileo and Bruno. They are the flat-earthers, fearing that to sail in a straight line too far will drop them off the edge of a giant dinner plate into emptiness.

Consider what could be the most astonishing extension of Dean Radin’s work: suppose that for those elements of the future that aren’t yet planned or on the drawing boards at all, people can still register their presence in advance. Then we would be talking about the human capacity to reach out into a vacuum, a nothing, and still “bring back” what is going to happen.

If we all added up those moments in our lives when we suddenly and inexplicably knew what was about to occur, and then it did, we would have a significant number. What if we were foreseeing events not scripted on any possible chart? What if we were going beyond time altogether and correctly discovering “something in nothing?”

Jon Rappoport

The ruthless State of the Union: the current crime boss speaks

Feb13

The ruthless State of the Union: the current crime boss speaks

by Jon Rappoport

February 13, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Perhaps it’s presidents running down the whole laundry list of issues, but it seems to me the last dozen or so State of the Union speeches by presidents could put a galaxy of insomniacs to sleep.

Originally, the State of the Union was the president talking to Congress. Now we all know no one from the Senate or the House is going to move a new inch by anything the president says in his speech.

It’s just a dog and pony show. It’s also a chance for the president to talk to the television audience. That’s the real event. The president’s on TV.

It’s a stage play and it closes the night it opens. The script is always too long. It should have been cut by nine-tenths in rehearsals.

The droning of the laundry list is, of course, a reflection of the fact that big government has its paws and nose in every facet of our lives. I was waiting for Obama to talk about an adequate supply of toilet paper and paper towels in public-park restrooms, and the danger of pictures of guns brought to school.

And how about those unsightly vegetable gardens growing on front lawns? Would he bring in the FBI and the ATF and DHS to solve that problem?

Would he push for free sex-change operations for all college students? Radioactive body scanners in coffee shops? I think the system for assigning names to hurricanes and blizzards should be subjected to a task-force study.

When tonight Obama said the only way to make progress was for us all to work together, he didn’t just mean the Congress. He meant the American people, aka the television audience. But I’ve never understood that idea. What are we all working together to accomplish? What’s the program? Giving away more of our income to the federal government? Agreeing to more surveillance of our movements? Supporting the invasion of more countries? Refraining from photographing the police making arrests? Restricting our Facebook posts to happy faces and rainbows?

Are we all working together to surrender our guns in exchange for movie tickets and candy? Are we pretending to be overjoyed that the federal government wants to force everyone to get vaccinated and eat GMO food, and take SSRI antidepressants that demonstrably cause people to go crazy and kill others? Is that it?

Are we somehow working together to print endless amounts of money? Are we working together to push the percentage of Americans collecting free government money from 40 percent to 60 percent? Is that the glorious goal?

Are we working together to give money to alternative-energy companies so they can go broke and declare bankruptcy? Are we working together to protect and defend the World Trade Organization, so ravenous mega-corporations can export jobs to China and roam the global landscape, raping and pillaging resources and labor?

Are we working together to accept Obamacare, which will steadily eliminate natural-health alternatives and enroll more people in a medical system that kills 225,000 people (actually a lot more) every year like clockwork? Is that the goal?

Are we working together to pretend we have two very different major political parties in the country, instead of one party with two heads?

Are we working to assure that no bankster is ever sent to prison for scamming the American people out of trillions of dollars?

Are we working together to take guns away from people who would only use them to defend themselves and their families against criminals, while at the same we work to ignore gang violence stemming in part from the fact that Mexican drug cartels use these gangs as subcontractors, under the protection of the federal government?

Are we working together to imagine that our troops are really fighting wars to protect and defend the nation?

Are we working together to hide the fact that, although interest rates are artificially low, we’re spending more and more money every month to buy what we need to survive?

Are we working together to hamstring every small business in America with red tape and taxes?

Are we working together to ignore the absurd insanity called climate-change science, so the government can install carbon taxes and penalties and lop the top off of American industry?

Are we all working together to frame attractive free incentive packages for unlimited numbers of immigrants who come to America, while untold numbers of Americans are going hungry every night, and people can’t find jobs anywhere? Is that the objective? Destabilization of society, under the cynical guise of humane gift-giving?

Are we working to dream that when the president says he’s going to focus on jobs in his second term, this means he’s actually going to do more than squint at the sun?

Are we working to find more foreign enemies we can invade, as our military advance teams pave the way for imperial corporations and continue to launch some sort of ridiculous “surround Russia” operation?

Are we all working together to drown the Third World in “free” medical drugs and vaccines that destroy immune systems, rather than cleaning up contaminated water supplies and installing simple sanitation systems (at a millionth of the cost of the drugs)?

Are we all working together just “to work together” and continue the fine tradition of destroying the nation from the inside?

That’s what I thought. Yes, that’s what I thought.

Hell of a speech, Mr. President. You and GW and Bill and Bush the Elder and Ronnie and Jimmy and Gerry and Nixon really know your laundry lists. You talk, and the government gets bigger. It’s magic.

There’s always more to do and the government has to make it happen. Otherwise, what are you there for?

I ask myself that question all the time. I’m still looking for an answer, other than, “We’re all in this together.”

Who is this WE you keep taking about? And what is this TOGETHER? You mean we who are watching on television and you who are talking on television? You mean you who are slicing the Constitution into little pieces while ridiculing it as a Neanderthal document? You mean you who are covert agents of Globalism? You mean you who have been vetted to make sure you’re on board with the op to take American down into a planetary management system that will bring a thousand years of peace to people made over into androids?

That’s what I thought.

You talk and the government gets bigger. You bankroll education and students are brainwashed into “uplifting social themes,” and become more dumb. You talk and the state-corporate media strain themselves into hernias to praise your erudition or passion. You talk and thousands of lobbyists who have the inside track on your souls parse your words and plan their new strategies. You talk and the American people desperately try to imagine you’re making a grain of sense. You talk and the winds blow and the snow falls and Somebody Actually Important, at a much higher level of the Mob, pats you on your shoulder and folds you up like a puppet and drops you in his pocket and walks upstairs to the Residence and puts you to sleep.

Asleep, you dream of a strange and alien thing: the freedom and power and independence of the individual. For you, it’s a nightmare.

Jon Rappoport

Is Christopher Dorner another psychiatric killer?

Feb11

Is Christopher Dorner another psychiatric killer?

By Jon Rappoport

February 11, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Accepting on faith any part of the official scenario in this case is risky and ill-advised, but assuming Dorner is guilty of committing murders, his highly publicized manifesto may hold a clue.

Buried in the text, here is one of his statements. As usual, the major media are ignoring it completely:

“If possible, I want my brain preserved for science/research to study the effects of severe depression on an individual’s brain. Since 6/26/08 when I was relieved of duty and 1/2/09 when I was terminated I have been afflicted with severe depression. I’ve had two CT scans during my lifetime that are in my medical record at Kaiser Pemanente. Both are from concussions resulting from playing football. The first was in high school, 10/96. The second was in college and occurred in 10/99. Both were conducted at Kaiser Permanente hospitals in LA/Orange County. These two CT scans should give a good baseline for my brain activity before severe depression began in late 2008.”

So the question is, did Dorner ever see a doctor for his depression? Was he diagnosed? Was he given one of the SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.)?

Either taking one of these drugs or withdrawing from it can and does cause violent behavior, including suicide and homicide. This is well established from both reports and studies. (See the extensive reports at ssristories.com, and consult the work of Dr. Peter Breggin at www.breggin.com and Dr. David Healy at www.davidhealy.org.)

No doubt, the LAPD and other investigating agencies know a great deal about Christopher Dorner’s medical history, but they aren’t saying anything. This suggests the situation in both the Aurora and Sandy Hook massacres, where no public statements have been made about psychiatric drugs the accused shooters were prescribed.

In Dorner’s case, his possible psychiatric history doesn’t affect the veracity of his accusations against the LAPD—which is a separate matter for independent investigation—but it certainly is relevant to his actions.

If Dorner indeed has killed people as part of a plan to enact revenge on his former employers, those actions and that plan could be fueled by antidepressant use or withdrawal.

In 1999, shortly after the Columbine school massacre, I interviewed Dr. Peter Breggin, and he confirmed that an antidepressant like Luvox, which one of the shooters, Eric Harris, had been taking can stimulate the desire to “make grandiose plans for mass destruction.”

Contrary to pronouncements by psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies, the whole theory about depression stemming from an imbalance of serotonin in the brain is an unproven hypothesis. And the antidepressant drugs, claimed to selectively target serotonin levels, actually have wildly unpredictable effects on brain neurotransmitters.

CT scans and other brain-imagining technology do not reveal definitive changes that can be attributed to the onset of depression or any other so-called mental disorder. The whole “science” of psychiatric diagnosis, as I’ve demonstrated in several articles, is nothing more than supposition and pseudo-analysis.

But if Dorner sought medical or psychiatric help for what he called “severe depression,” it’s almost certain he would have been diagnosed and prescribed one of the highly dangerous drugs that can cause a brainstorm and ensuing violence.

It is exactly this volatile situation that President Obama and other gun-control advocates are encouraging and implementing through their new program of expanding mental-health services across America: more treatment, more drugs, more murders.

Dorner’s stated history of concussions could also play a role in his actions, even years after the fact—-just as dosing with antidepressants can result in violence long after a person has stopped taking them.

As I’ve written before, every time a mass shooting occurs, pharmaceutical companies make their presence known behind the scenes, with the goals of covering up the shooter’s psychiatric-drug history, blacking out the name of the doctor who prescribed the drugs, and keeping media exposure to a bare minimum.

On their part, the police and other investigating agencies cooperate in full, because they don’t want to tangle with the psychiatric profession. They use psychiatric experts in court to make their cases. They don’t have the professional clout to counter medical claims that the drugs are safe and effective. And the role of psychiatric drugs in committed murders would only serve to let suspects off the hook.

If there is a psychiatrist who prescribed SSRI antidepressants to Christopher Dorner (just as with James Holmes and Adam Lanza), he’s keeping very quiet. The last thing he wants is exposure as the doctor who treated a killer.

Meanwhile, in court cases all over America, the plea of non-guilty by reason of insanity is being used as a cover for: committed murder because he was prescribed psychiatric drugs. Christopher Dorner may well be one of these cases.

Jon Rappoport

Are we all living inside a virtual simulation?

Feb9

Are we all living inside a virtual simulation?

By Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

A study out of Bonn University has led to a new round of speculation about the nature of the universe.

The study proposes that cosmic rays undergo a strange energy shift. The energies are “re-fitted” to align with an underlying pattern or lattice. There is only one proper fit; no exceptions are permitted.

If the lattice is, indeed, the basic pixel-like Reality we are interacting with every day of our lives, then we could be living inside a created artifice.

A simulation.

Put this description alongside the hypothesis that the universe is a hologram: lines of code inscribed on a two-dimensional surface deliver instructions on how the lattice is built, and what its properties are.

In other words, the software which holographically projects the universe includes the exact structure of the lattice.

Then, by the rules of the game, energies which don’t automatically plug into the lattice framework precisely as they’re supposed to are “snapped to” a correct fit, as Mike Adams (Natural News) has suggested.

Mike has made the analogy to a television picture, which consists of pixels that have their own dimensions and structure. So if we imagine an all-encompassing “television picture,” this would be the lattice-controlled reality we live in.

Paul Watson (infowars) asks the question: is this universe-simulation our own creation? Since time could be quite flexible where simulations are concerned, might we have made this reality from a platform in the future and then inserted ourselves into it?

What interests me is the notion that humans have used technology to construct a scientifically designed cosmos.

Is this possible, or are we applying a contemporary paradigm to a universe whose nature actually exceeds that paradigm?

In a 10-year project of putting together a collection called The Matrix Revealed, I did a great deal of research on other notions of creation or “reality-building.”

It is clear that at deep levels, propaganda turns into self-propaganda. In order to live inside a Matrix or universe of our own making, we would have to produce, in ourselves, an extraordinary level of amnesia about what we did. Otherwise we would know. We would walk around knowing full well we had designed our own illusion, and the whole thing would fall apart.

Immortal and free from the structure, we would hardly want to spend all our time trapped in it.

The ancient Tibetans knew a great deal about this conundrum. Before they became a theocratic society of rites and rituals and a rigorous elitism, they were daring adventurers on the edge of experiments in consciousness.

Relying on the teachings of itinerant outcast adepts from India, they developed a practice called, by a few later scholars, “deity visualization.” (See John Blofeld, The Tantric Mysticism of Tibet)

Perhaps based on an already existing mandala-painting, a teacher would give his student a very detailed and specific “personage” to create in his imagination. This effort, if it was successful at all, might take months or even years.

The objective was to mentally hold the complex image intact, in every detail, not just for a few seconds or minutes, but indefinitely. If the student was successful at this arduous task, he would soon find that the personage he created seemed to take on a life of its own.

The personage or deity would become the student’s friend and guide and give him valuable advice and counsel. When the teacher sensed this relationship had progressed to a very close point, he would order the student to get rid of the personage altogether.

This, it was said, was more difficult than the original act of creating it. But if the student was able to perform both aspects (creative and destructive) of the exercise, he would then realize, see, and know, with full consciousness, that THE UNIVERSE WAS A PRODUCT OF MIND.

At that crossroad, he would be able to spontaneously take apart pieces of “the hologram” or “the lattice,” and even create (out of nothing) new objects that hadn’t existed before.

It’s fascinating that now, at the beginning of the 21^st century, we have come full circle. We are contemplating the possibility that we created this universe—but through technological means.

Perhaps those Tibetan adepts, in their practice, actually saw the lattice or even the two-dimensional surface on which the holographic code of the cosmos is inscribed.

Another clue concerning the origin or underlying force that made the universe is revealed through a study of the famous alchemical diagram: two crossed staves.

The four endpoints were said to represent the basic aspects or elements of Nature: earth, air, fire, and water. According to some alchemical interpretations, these elements were in eternal conflict with one another.

The resolution of the conflict was represented by the center-place where the two staves met. This mysterious intersection was called Quintessence, and its meaning was long debated.

Paracelsus, one of the most famous of the European alchemists, seems to have thought that Quintessence was, in fact, imagination.

In other words, our creative power could change the inherent design of reality. If so, then it is just a step from there to infer that our imagination invented the design in the first place.

Some will take that step; others will not. Regardless, the history of millions of artists on this planet directly points to the fact that, when freed from restraints, human beings become enormously creative. Every painting, play, poem, novel is a world of its own; a universe. Perhaps this suggests that the physical universe is but one work of art, out of a possible infinity of universes.

William Blake, one of the most revered English poets, made several remarkable statements about the power of imagination:

“Some see nature all ridicule and deformity…and some scarce see nature at all. But to the eyes of the man of imagination, nature is imagination itself.”

“Imagination is the real and eternal world of which this vegetable universe is but a faint shadow.”

Of course, the notion of multiple universes is reflected in contemporary science. Physicist Brian Greene, author of The Hidden Reality, explains that Relativity and Quantum Theory, each highly useful in its own way, come into high mathematical conflict when set side by side.

One resolution of that conflict can be achieved through String Theory, in which tiny vibrating strings (in 10 or 11 dimensions) explain the makeup of this universe. But String Theory also suggests many surfaces or membranes or islands on which matter, energy, and time can exist: multiple universes.

No matter what force or power we say made this universe, a new day is here. We are coming to grips with the idea that the universe isn’t all the reality there is. Some find this disturbing. Others are inspired to feel it is intensely liberating.

Beyond any hypothesis about the underlying structure of the universe, there remain the basic questions about us, as succinctly expressed in the title of Paul Gauguin’s famous 1897 painting: Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where are We Going?

For those who answer these questions in terms of the Divine and God, it’s interesting to consider the original essence and principle of the Kabbalah. Contrary to many interpretations, the whole idea of this evolving text is proliferation: by advancing all knowledge, all science, all poetry, all the arts, humans move closer and closer to God. In other words, for the religiously inclined, nothing learned about our potential power—even the boggling possibility that we invented this simulation called universe—subtracts from Divine power.

I recently studied Gauguin’s intriguing painting again. Behind the three central groups of people representing the three basic questions, the light-blue background shows figures and scenes from what the artist called the Beyond.

That gives rise to yet another hypothesis. We are living in an interpenetration of several simultaneous universes or planes of existence. And they’re all here now, if we could see them.

The rigorous lattice or holographic code defining this universe is merely the way one plane of existence is structured.

Rather than reduce all possible universes to the principles on which this one may be built, why not consider many, many other such “works of art?” Each universe is constructed or improvised out of the infinite well of creative freedom…

Could there be a greater illustration of the principle of Abundance?

Throughout history, humans have been reaching for, and elevating the idea of greater abundance. In one of the early Bible stories, Old Testament Joseph, as a boy, dreams of dancing sheaves of wheat. Wheat, grain was, for the ancients, a living symbol of abundance.

Johanna Stuckey, well-known researcher on early goddesses, points out that the Sumerian grain goddess, Ezina/Ashnan, was also called Lady of Abundance.

We have always sought, in faith, in hope, in myth, in story, in investigation the means for unending abundance. Now, we also see it reflected in our most far-reaching contemplations: not just one universe, but many universes, without end. Because if we are living in this virtual space and time, why shouldn’t other continua exist?

Are they all simulations? Is a painting a simulation? Not really. It’s an independent invention, undertaken in freedom, launched from the unfettered imagination of an artist. It is its own universe.

We are all artists.

With all veils and curtains lifted, this is the truth we have been waiting for, the truth we have always known.

The three questions Paul Gauguin asked could be titanically re-framed: Dissolving the societal myths of false limitations, what can you truly create? How powerful is your imagination? What universes will you create?

Jon Rappoport

10 things the media don’t want to discover about Sandy Hook

Feb9

10 things the media don’t want to discover about Sandy Hook

by Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Slashing through the bland authoritative front the media have presented, people want to know more about the Sandy Hook massacre. But the elite networks have no intention of answering the most obvious questions.

Why? Because the follow-up agenda of gun control is all important, and the official Sandy Hook scenario must stand, in order to forward that agenda.

Any return to the scene of the crime will:

divert media coverage from its all-out push to make guns into taboo objects of scorn, ridicule, fear, and hatred;

focus attention on reasons for the massacre that have nothing to do with guns;

engender deep distrust of the Sandy Hook police investigation and therefore, by association, throw into doubt the notion that law-enforcement personnel should be the only people carrying guns in America.

Here are 10 things the media doesn’t want to know about and has no intention of investigating. These are only the basics, amid a wider sea of unanswered questions:

Where is the video footage from inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School, footage that surely exists and shows some part of the massacre? Who has that video record? What does the video reveal? Where is the video (or photo) evidence that Adam Lanza was the shooter?

How did the accused killer, Lanza, gain entrance to the school? Having just installed a new security system that required outside (and presumably heavy) doors to be locked, and with a procedure for entry that demanded two-way video communication with the principal’s office—what exactly happened?

From available information, it seems almost certain Lanza was seeing a doctor and was on medication. Who was the doctor and what drugs did he prescribe? Did they include SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil, or Ritalin and Adderall—drugs known to cause violent behavior, including suicide and homicide. If so, then all the focus would shift to excoriating the drugs and eliminating them from our society.

What was the exact story on the two or three other suspects captured and detained by the police? Who are they? Why were they pursued? What did their questioning reveal? Why were they released? No vague generalities. Instead, all the details. And let’s have in-depth television interviews with these suspects.

Once and for all, let’s have a definitive statement on what guns were used in the killings and what guns were found in the trunk of the car. So many lies and contradictions were floated, it’s a sea of confusion. So let’s have the facts—and evidence to back them up. For starters, let’s see photos of the killer and his weapons taken inside the school. Undoctored photos.

What is the detailed explanation for the massive shift from Lanza’s father being killed in New Jersey to Lanza’s mother being killed in Connecticut? No vague generalities. No nonsense about “typical early confusion” in reporting. Let’s see the whole chain of information and the people who forwarded it. Similarly, if the early conclusion pointed to Adam’s brother Ryan as the killer, a conclusion which was withdrawn because Adam was carrying his brother’s ID, explain that. According to reports, Adam hadn’t seen his brother in more than two years. Offer hard evidence that Adam was, in fact, carrying his brother’s ID.

Where are complete statements and interviews with witnesses who were in the school at the time of the shooting? We have seen a few short interviews. There must be more. Let’s have them or get them. Are we to believe (as independent investigator Mike Powell has rightly doubted) that one teacher stuffed all her children into classroom cabinets, which ordinarily are filled with school supplies?

In the television interviews with parents of children murdered in the Sandy Hook School, not one parent was angry, not one parent demanded a deeper investigation. Obviously, this screening of interviewees was purposeful. Where are the outraged parents? What do they have to say? Do they know anything we don’t know? Have they been told (as people were at Columbine) to keep quiet?

And now, as the gun-control agenda is being pursued, precisely how will new laws curb the majority of gun violence in America, violence which is taking place in cities—much of it gang-related. Explain why President Obama doesn’t vigorously and publicly target these high-crime areas, if his objective is to reduce the gun violence, rather than gun ownership.

The pending and often postponed Chicago trial of Jesus Niebla, high-ranking member of the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel, experiences delay after delay. What vital facts are being kept from the public? There are serious defense charges here; namely, that Niebla and other Sinaloa members have received permanent immunity from prosecution in a prior deal with the DEA and FBI, in return for supplying information on rival cartels. In fact, the US federal government has obtained a suppression of defense-attorney documents in the trial, claiming their exposure would violate National Security.

Does Sinaloa have explicit US government permission to deliver tons of cocaine and heroin into Chicago, and then to cities all over America? This enterprise would certainly, as a side effect, produce a significant amount of gun violence. Does the federal government really want to curb this violence, or is its arrangement with Sinaloa taking precedence?

Finally, in the wake of Sandy Hook, how does President Obama’s declaration that mental-health services will be expanded across America add up to reduction of gun violence? In fact, this will lead to higher levels of prescribed dangerous psychiatric drugs, which in turn will cause a serious escalation in gun violence and mass shootings.

Major media don’t want to know anything about these points. And yet they’re betting they will retain the public trust. But the fact that their ratings are sinking, month after month, year after year, is a message from the public.

The media refuse to hear it, though. They glide through their rehearsed paces and pretend they are captains of information. Their elite owners would prefer to let the media ship go down, rather than tell the truth.

That’s understandable. After all, these owners, and the owners who own them, are guilty of all sorts of crimes, the reporting of which would make ratings soar but destroy their own empires, reputations, and lives.

Jon Rappoport

What’s behind the punishment for fake guns in schools?

Feb7

What’s behind the punishment for fake guns in schools?

By Jon Rappoport

February 6, 2013

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

In the latest episode of Ban Fake Guns, we have a boy suspended from school in Florence, Arizona, for carrying, yes, a picture of a gun on his computer. Screen saver. This is surely a sign of complete mental breakdown by school officials. And yet one more reason to home school.

Steve Watson, writing at infowars, runs down the recent litany of fake gun crimes at schools across America, resulting in student suspensions, suspension hearings, and actual school lockdowns:

Transparent toy gun. South Carolina.

Gun built from lego bricks. Massachusetts.

Two kids talking about a nerf gun. New York.

An actual nerf gun. New York.

A pink bubble gun. Pennsylvania.

A paper gun. Pennsylvania.

Pointing a finger and saying “pow.” Maryland.

Playing cops and robbers with fingers. Maryland.

Making a gun “hand gesture.” Oklahoma.

Should we assume that because cops and school officials can’t stop real crimes, they’re settling for stopping fake crimes?

Can you hear the typical response to these school suspensions and lockdowns? “Well, everybody in the community is on edge these days, after Sandy Hook.”

That remark garners a “Mmm, well, sure.”

Then, the follow-up: “It’s unfortunate that school officials and police MAY HAVE overreacted. Suspension from school is PROBABLY too much. These kids need some form of LESSER DISCIPLINE, and, of course, EDUCATION about the dangers of guns.”

And there you have it. It’s a sleight-of-hand trick. Go completely overboard with an officially certified insane action (suspension, lockdown), and people will ask for something slightly less insane instead.

“Well, shooting old Bob in the leg and blowing up his car because he was sitting on his back porch cleaning his rifle was probably a bit much. A few days in jail would have taught him the right lesson.”

In schools, the slightly less insane (but still quite insane) solution to fake guns might go something like this:

“Today, class, we’re going to learn about how dangerous it is to have a picture of a gun.”

“You see, Jimmy, when you build a gun out of lego, you think it’s all right because you don’t know any better. But some other child might be terrified when she sees the gun. And that’s why we’re here. To protect everybody from bad feelings.”

Jimmy scratches his five-year-old head and wonders what world he was born into. He’s just been introduced to “greatest good for the greatest number,” “you have no freedom,” and “least bad for the lowest number,” all in five seconds.

What we’re seeing here is a mandate to change the culture. Teach these kids that any reference to, symbol of, or thought about guns is wrong.

Welcome to operant conditioning.

These fake-gun busts are really about thought crimes.

We recently saw that with the passage of a New York State gun law. It requires psychiatrists to signal the police when they have a patient who may be “a danger to himself or others.” The patient is thereafter banned from owning a gun.

Any patient, any person has had thoughts of violence. Any psychiatrist can tease such thoughts out of a patient. And that can be sufficient to make a report to the police.

Eventually, the population can be directed to believe that “a bad thought” is a definite and inevitable precursor to a real crime. Therefore, nip things in the bud. Label thoughts themselves as crimes and the thinkers criminals.

“Well, Charlie has been having some very strange thoughts. Did you know that? I mean, he’s not the person we assumed he was.”

“Strange thoughts? You mean at the party last week? He was just kidding around.”

“Don’t be an idiot. Thoughts like that lead to serious crimes. Have you been living in a cave?”

And that’s what it feels like. You were living in a cave. When you came out, you discovered the public mindset had changed. All of a sudden, people were believing something new. In this case, they’re believing that “bad thoughts” always led to bad actions.

For example, remember crimes before there were hate crimes? Somebody killed somebody else and he went on trial for murder. Then the “hate conditions” were added, to increase the penalties. At that point, the court system was given the task of reading the criminal’s mind and deciding why he really did what he did. If he had the wrong thought before committing murder, he was a murderer-plus.

Soon, you’ll be hearing this: “Little Bobby brought that nerf gun to school. Twice! It’s incredible! So the school officials have referred him to a psychiatrist. And his parents are making a stink about it! Can you believe that? Obviously, the boy needs treatment. You know what? The parents do, too.”

Here’s what you won’t hear. Over the course of the next year, little Bobby is dosed with Ritalin, Zoloft, and Valproate. Driven into a psychotic state by the drugs, he stabs another child at school.

Then people will say, “Everybody knew this would happen. That nerf gun was the sign. The boy was having bad thoughts.”

Every special group in America with a social agenda is now committed to operant conditioning of the young. This means repetitive indoctrination in school and intense peer pressure. These groups aren’t messing around. They aren’t interested in rational dialogue between consenting adults. They’re going for the throat: brain-bend the young early and often.

So in schools, we have the dissemination of the green agenda, the bullying agenda, the hate-crime agenda, the gay and lesbian agenda, the sex-education agenda, the vaccination agenda, the psychiatric-treatment agenda, the share-and-care it’s-all-for-the-group agenda, the “living-Constitution” agenda.

I don’t care where you stand on any of these issues. That’s not the point. The point is, the presence of these agendas in schools reveals that those who control the public education system in this country, and those groups who can wheedle their way in, are truly heinous people who fervently believe children are blank slates, little machines waiting to be programmed, and nothing more.

We are talking about a most profound cynicism concerning human beings and what they are made of. We are talking about the view that humans are absolutely and only mind-controlled devices that require the proper software and the Go signal to live their lives and think their thoughts under the supervision of lines of code.

Get this straight. It doesn’t matter what software codes you might prefer. What matters is that children are being put at auction to the highest and most persistent bidder.

If you can’t grasp this big picture, I suggest you look and see what software is operating you.

References to guns, representations of guns, and thoughts about guns are now targets for a big-time purification/eradication campaign in schools. It’s an innovation in the mass hypnosis operation. It’s happening in schools because that’s where the children are. That’s where they can be corralled and controlled. That’s where the federal money keeps the lights on and the toilets flushing and the checks coming. It’s called leverage. Behind their big bucks, the feds play a tune, and the teachers repeat it, over and over and over.

Jon Rappoport

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

Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic

Feb5

Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2013

NoMoreFakeNews.com

I’ve written articles attacking the theory and practice of vaccination from a variety of angles. But the whole issue also needs to be approached from the perspective of logic.

Unfortunately, generations of people have been shut out of learning logic in school. They don’t know what it is. Therefore, vaccine advocates have been able to peddle their basic theory without much challenge.

It’s time to put an end to that free ride.

First of all, I need to point out a massive contradiction. When a person receives a vaccine, it’s said that his body produces antibodies against a particular germ and this is a good thing. Vaccination thus prepares the body for the day when that germ will really make its attack, at which point the immune system (including antibodies) will mount a successful defense.

However, let’s look at another venue: for many diseases, when a person is given a blood test to see if he is infected, quite often the standard for infection is “presence of antibodies.”

This makes no sense at all. If vaccination produces those antibodies, it is heralded as protection. But if a diagnostic blood test reveals those same antibodies, it’s a signal of infection and disease.

Vaccine-produced antibodies=health. Antibodies naturally produced by the body=illness.

Logically speaking, you resolve a contradiction by dropping one of the two sides and admitting it is false. Or you go deeper and reject some prior premise that led to the contradiction in the first place.

So let’s go deeper. What does vaccination supposedly do to “prepare” the body against the future invasion of a particular germ? It stimulates the production of antibodies against that germ.

Antibodies are immune-system scouts that move through the body, identify germs, and paint them for destruction by other immune-system troops.

However, since the entire immune system is involved in wreaking that destruction, why is bulking up one department of the immune system—antibodies—sufficient to guarantee future protection?

On what basis can we infer that bulking up antibodies, through vaccination, is enough?

There is no basis. It’s a naked assumption. It’s not a fact. Logic makes a clear distinction between assumptions and facts. Confusing the two leads to all sorts of problems, and it certainly does in the case of vaccination.

Furthermore, why does the body need a vaccine in order to be prepared for the later invasion of germs? The whole structure/function of the immune system is naturally geared to launch its multifaceted counter-attack against germs whenever trouble arises. The antibodies swing into action when a potentially harmful germ makes its appearance, at age five, eight, 10, 15.

It’s said that vaccination is a rehearsal for the real thing. But no need for rehearsal has been established.

And why are we supposed to believe that such a rehearsal works? The usual answer is: the body remembers the original vaccination and how it produced antibodies, and so it’s better prepared to do it again when the need is real. But there is no basis for this extraordinary notion of “remembering.”

It’s another assumption sold as fact.

The terms “prepared for the real thing,” “rehearsal,” and “remember” aren’t defined. They’re vague. One of the first lessons of logic is: define your terms.

A baby, only a few days old, receives a Hepatitis B vaccine. This means the actual Hep-B germ, or some fraction of it, is in the vaccine.

The objective? To stimulate the production of antibodies against Hep-B. Assuming the baby can accomplish this feat, the antibodies circulate and paint those Hep-B germs for destruction now.

From that moment on, the body is ready to execute the same mission, if and when Hep-B germs float in the door.

But when they float in the door, why wouldn’t the body produce antibodies on its own, exactly as it did after the vaccination was given? Why did it need the vaccination to teach it how to do what it naturally does?

And why should we infer the baby body is undergoing an effective rehearsal when vaccinated, and will somehow remember that lesson years later?

The logic of this is tattered and without merit.

To these arguments of mine, some vaccine advocates would say, “Well, it doesn’t matter because vaccines work. They do prevent disease.”

Ah, but that is a different argument, and it should be assessed separately. There are two major ways of doing that. One, by evaluating claims that in all places and times, mass vaccination has drastically lowered or eliminated those diseases it was designed to prevent. And two, by a controlled study of two groups of volunteers, in which one group is vaccinated and the other isn’t, to gauge the outcome.

Let’s look at the first method of assessment. Those who claim that vaccines have been magnificently effective in wiping out disease have several major hurdles to overcome. They have to prove, for each disease in question, that when a vaccine for that disease was first introduced, the prevalence of the disease was on the rise or was at a high steady rate in the population.

Why? Because, as many critics have stated, some or all of these diseases were already in sharp decline when the vaccines were introduced for the first time.

For example: “The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” — Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977

In other words, for reasons having nothing to do with vaccination, the diseases were on the way out. Nutrition had improved, sanitation was better, etc.

So let’s see the proof, for every disease which vaccines are supposed to prevent, that those diseases were significantly raging in the population when the vaccines were first introduced.

Then let’s also see proof that, after the introduction of vaccines, the diseases in question weren’t merely given new labels (or redefined) to hide the fact that they weren’t really going away. There is testimony, for example, that in America, the definition of paralytic polio was changed after the introduction of the Salk vaccine, and by the new more restricted definition, far fewer cases of polio could be diagnosed—thus making it seem the vaccine was effective.

There are also questions about the success of the famous smallpox vaccine campaign in Africa and Latin America. When all was said and done, were new cases of smallpox then diagnosed as meningitis? Was destruction wreaked by the vaccine then called AIDS?

Researchers, including Robert Gallo, have warned that the smallpox vaccine, when given to people whose immune systems are already grossly weakened, can destroy what’s left of the immune system—and immune-defense destruction is the hallmark of the definition of AIDS.

The second major way of assessing the success of mass vaccination is through a proper controlled study.

For any vaccine, this is how it would be done. Assemble two large groups of people. Total, at least eight thousand. Make sure these two groups are very well matched. That means: similar in age; very similar in medical history and medical drug history; similar exposure levels to environmental chemicals; very close nutritional levels, status, and dietary habits.

The first group gets the vaccine. The second group doesn’t. They are tracked, with very few dropouts, for a period of at least eight years. The INDEPENDENT researchers note how many from each group get the disease the vaccine is supposed to prevent. They note what other diseases or health challenges the volunteers encounter.

Such a study, using these proper standards, has never been done for any vaccine.

If that fact seems rather illogical, you’re right. It is.

Finally, vaccine advocates need to prove that substances in vaccines like mercury, formaldehyde, and aluminum, although classified as toxic when studied alone, are somehow exonerated when shot directly into the body through a needle. The (absurd) logic of this needs to be explained fully.

This is not a matter of claiming that “a particular disease,” like autism, isn’t caused by a particular chemical, like mercury. That’s a logical ruse all on its own. We are talking about harm caused by toxins under any name or no name. When a person ingests cyanide, do we say he has a disease? Of course not.

Children in school, their parents, and teachers have never been exposed to logic, so it’s easy to sell them vaccines as valid. But selling is not the same thing as science.

And “being a scientist” is not the same thing as knowing what science and logic actually are. The same fact can be applied to news anchors, public health officials, and politicians. They can say “the evidence for vaccinating is overwhelming,” but so can a parrot in a cage, with enough training.

Of course, these so-called experts won’t come out and engage in a serious debate about the theory and practice of vaccination. They refuse to.

Millions of people around the world would eagerly watch a true extended debate on the subject. Such debate used to be a standard practice when logic was studied, when it was understood to be vital for deciding the truth or falsity of a position.

Now, it’s all about PR and propaganda, the modern version of logic for the dumbed-down crowd.

Jon Rappoport

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

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

The hideous BAM in Obama: map your brain for your own good

Facebook blocks Jon Rappoport’s articles

Can you trust a new brain with an IQ of 7000?

New study: are we all living in the future now?

The ruthless State of the Union: the current crime boss speaks

Is Christopher Dorner another psychiatric killer?

Are we all living inside a virtual simulation?

10 things the media don’t want to discover about Sandy Hook

What’s behind the punishment for fake guns in schools?

Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic