Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

WHY YOU MUST HAVE A MENTAL DISORDER

Why you must have a mental disorder in the New World Order

by Jon Rappoport

April 25, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]

THAT’S CALLED THE SMOKING GUN.

Over the last ten years, I’ve established time and time again that psychiatry is a fraud. From every angle.

It’s a drug-dealing machine, and all the drugs are toxic and dangerous.

Not one single so-called mental disorder has ever, in any patient, been verified by a physical test, chemical or biological. That’s because there are no tests.

The 300 so-called disorders listed in the bible of psychiatry, the DSM, are invented by committees from menus of behaviors. It’s a con. It’s an embrace between the profession of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry.

From the psy-op perspective, diagnosing people with these disorder labels means they can be debilitated by the drugs. That makes the nation weaker. That scrambles people’s brains. That sedates people. That makes people easier to control.

And from another angle, if a person is diagnosed, his thoughts and ideas are no longer considered legitimate.

Read that last sentence again.

Diagnosis is method of de-legitimizing ideas.

“Everything he thinks is really coming out of his CONDITION.”

Yes, and everything about his life is now defined as “recovery.”

On the other side of that coin, if a person is considered mentally healthy, then his thoughts and ideas could have power.

That’s one reason you never hear media talk about mental wellness. Never is talked about.

“He’s very healthy, mentally speaking. Let’s hear what he has to say.”

No. That doesn’t happen.

Here’s a story you’ll never, ever hear or see or read from major media:

“Well, John Parker has been diagnosed in the pink of mental health! Superb! This man is really mentally and emotionally in great shape! So he would be a model that we could all follow and learn from. Mr. Parker, what do you have to say?”

“Well, thanks for having me on, Oprah. I go by the rule of self-sufficiency. That’s why, in fact, I’m in such good shape. I rely on myself. I have goals and I pursue them. I think the basic ideas of freedom and responsibility as written in the Constitution are the basis of all mental health. Don’t assume dependance is good for your sanity. In fact, it’s just the opposite because—

BLACKOUT.

End of story.

No, it’s not good for the controllers to put up a standard of mental wellness. It doesn’t work for them. They need more diagnoses of mental disorders. They need more people focusing on their own mental and emotional problems. They need more “disorder” talk on television. They need people to accept the notion that we’re all, in some way, “disordered.”

That’s the psy-op. That’s the way it works.

That’s the way you get people to participate in their own reduction. You know, as in a recipe. You REDUCE a sauce down to an essence. In this case, the reduction is down to a mental condition.

“He’s BIPOLAR.”

End of story. End of a chapter of life.

“I’m functioning BIPOLAR. The drugs help. Of course, I’ve gained sixty pounds…”

The whole nation goes into a slow-motion crumble…behind the millions of diagnoses and the drugging of disorders.

B-o-o-m.

I’ve watched it expand since I grew up in the 1940s, when nobody was diagnosed with anything and the nation was much better off…to now, when everybody is diagnosed with everything, and things are much worse.

Part of the psy-op is The Up and Down. It goes this way: A person is diagnosed with a mental disorder. Now the stage is set for the “struggle back to normalcy.” He struggles, “makes progress,” and then there is a “setback.” But he keeps trying. Up and down, up and down. WITH A LIMITED CEILING. Get it?

It’s a redefinition of Possibility for that person. The space is made smaller. The potential is lessened. The ceiling is lowered.

In my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, I interview retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy (EM) a number of times. Here’s what he has to say about psychiatry:

EM: “I worked on that for a while. It was easy. It was a lot easier than some of the other areas I was involved in. Basically, what you do is expand and extend SYMPATHY.”

JR: “How do you mean that?”

EM: “You take the common and universal feeling of sympathy and blow it out so that it covers anybody who is diagnosed with anything, any disorder. That’s the key.”

JR: “Why?”

EM: “Because that’s how you enlist public support and turn the tide. You make people feel guilty if they don’t have sympathy for those who’ve been tagged with a mental disorder. Of course, all the diagnoses are a sham. They don’t exist. People have difficulties, but that’s different. These are supposed to be scientific diagnoses [of disorders], and they aren’t. But if you can enlist enough public sympathy and get leaders in the society to come out in favor of TREATMENT for the people who are diagnosed, it’s a breeze. You’ve won.”

JR: “This op goes after leaders?”

EM: “Hillary Clinton was fantastic. You see, you find a leader and you bring your sources to bear on that leader. You’ve already profiled the leader, and you know he or she will be receptive to your legend, to the story you’re inventing. And then that leader picks up the ball and runs with it. You’ve scored a touchdown.”

JR: “Why were you contracted to work on psychiatry?”

EM: “Because it’s a plan for control. Simple. You put more and people under that system and they fall into line. They develop a different concept of their lives. It shrinks. But here’s the thing. This is all about lower expectations. For the human race. That’s what you’re really doing to populations. You can’t just tell people to lower their sights, you have to give them a reason. And psychiatry is that reason. It’s one more fake science. When you get outside the whole system of psychiatry, that’s what you’re looking at: the ultimate rationalization to do less, to accomplish less, and most important, to envision less. It’s mind control. It’s a semantic system using one set of words to define other words. You substitute a technical vocabulary. Those are the names and the symptoms of disorders. There’s a great deal of propaganda that works this way. You introduce a new vocabulary. It’s very much like rewriting history. Instead of saying Van Gogh was wrestling with the fact that he saw a better future and nobody was interested—and that he quite possibly suffered from lead poisoning in the paints he was using—you say he was a paranoid schizophrenic.

“Here is a prediction for you. There will be whole host of labeled disorders that involve wording like ‘non-empathic.’ People who don’t have sufficient sympathy for OTHER people who are diagnosed with mental illnesses will be called mentally ill. It’ll be a closed system. You see?”

This is an OPERATION. In the Globalist world, everyone (except the leaders) will need adjusting. The list of disorders will expand to enormous proportions, as will the drugs.

And personal responsibility will be a legal item that can be manipulated to suit the authorities.

Just today, we have a story coming out of Canada that illustrates this perfectly. A Toronto-area man was convicted of killing his wife. But because he was diagnosed with a “psycho-affective disorder,” he was judged to be “NCR”—Not Criminally Responsible. Therefore, he did no jail time. He was placed in a treatment facility and then released after a short stint. Now, an appeals court has ruled that he can receive all the money from his wife’s estate, because, you see, he didn’t really commit a crime. The restriction against profiting from the proceeds of a crime was lifted, because the word “crime” doesn’t apply to him. He’s NCR. He’s “psycho-affective.” (thestar.com, April 24, 2012. “Insane man who killed wife entitled to her insurance benefits.”)

In psy-op terms, this is called “reordering values.” It’s all based on “the needs of the community,” an intentionally vague term that can be used like a sword to control, punish, or exonerate behavior.

Psychiatry is a leading edge of this operant-reconditioning program. People are taught that older systems of values are outmoded, in light of “scientific advances.”

This is the basic lie. “We understand so much more now than we ever did.” “We must diagnose everyone who has an undisclosed disorder.”

No. There are no disorders. Disorders are a complete fiction. People suffer, they experience pain, they may become confused, they may have severe nutritional deficits, they may be toxified, they may be under the gun of political repression, but there are no disorders.

There never were.

Here’s a real undisclosed problem:

People don’t find a way to discover their own first principles, their own philosophy, if you will. I’m not talking about some complex academic system. I’m talking about the vital ideas that can help launch a vision that then revolutionizes a life and a future. The lack of that could legitimately be called a problem. But there is no diagnosis and there is no externally applied treatment. There is only free will and the desire to remedy the lack.

In such a vacuum, you see, the professionals step in and make weighty pronouncements and fabricate a science that never existed and then try to mandate treatments.

You can submit or just say no.

As the title of this piece indicates, when elites fashion and impose a New World ORDER, they naturally need a way to classify the recalcitrant citizens and the rebellious and the independent. So they use the word DISORDER. “If you’re not for the new order, then you’re disordered.” That’s called a clue. It illustrates the building of a closed self-referential system. Nice and neat.

But life isn’t.

Jon Rappoport

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

BEHIND THE TRAYVON MARTIN PSY-OP

BEHIND THE TRAYVON MARTIN PSY-OP

THE FICTION OF THE GROUP IN THE MATRIX

by Jon Rappoport

April 23, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.” — Edward Bernays, in Propaganda (1928).

“Professionals in my field work for a client. They put their finger on their client’s competitor and say, ‘This is the enemy. How can we paint him as a horrible cartoon?'” — Ellis Medavoy, retired propaganda operative — who is interviewed extensively in THE MATRIX REVEALED.

President Obama said if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin. Yes, but what would that son BE like?

Does that matter? Is it trivial? Is the distinction irrelevant?

This is the essence of the decades-long psy-op to convince Americans that their identity is completely wrapped up in their ethnicity, or their skin-color, or their religion, or their gender, or some other group of which they’re a member.

AS OPPOSED TO IDENTITY AS A FUNCTION OF WHO THEY ARE AS INDIVIDUALS.

Remember INDIVIDUALS?

That outmoded concept?

It’s outmoded for a reason.

It’s been scrubbed from the record.

Mass media can’t really deal with individuals. It’s not possible. Mass media can’t really get down to the essentials of what an individual IS. It doesn’t work. Putting too much attention on distinct and unique individuals, apart from stereotypes, would actually DESTROY THE WHOLE ILLUSION PRESENTED BY MASS MEDIA.

Mass media absolutely depend on cartoons and stereotypes and groups. Without them, the the whole industry would collapse like a stack of wheat in a tornado.

And as these cartoons are presented, day after day, the attention span of readers and viewers shortens. It’s all shorthand. It’s all shortcut. It’s all sketchy imagery.

And finally, we have a sitting president who goes there. Yes, Mr. President, that son would look like you, but who would he BE? Do you see the difference?

Heritage this, tradition that, legacy here, ancestry there, pre-racial, post-racial, it all comes down to the fact, whether anyone likes it or not, that the individual EXISTS, and no amount of false leads are going to change that.

The powerful group that emerged from the US psychological-warfare department, after World War 2 (see Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960, by Christopher Simpson, Oxford University Press, 1994), had to find a new role for itself, and it literally invented the (pseudo) science of mass communication research—bankrolled primarily by the Department of Defense and the CIA.

One of its jobs was the promotion of group stereotypes.

Mass communication research was touted as a new discipline. But it was quite old. Pre-WW 2, one of its leaders was Walter Lippman. Simpson, in The Science of Coercion, explains how Lippmann viewed the landscape as early as 1922:

“[Lippmann] contended that new communication and transportation technologies had erected a ‘world that we have to deal with [that is] politically out of reach, out of sight, out of mind.’ The ‘pictures in our heads’ of this world—the stereotypes—‘are acted upon by groups of people, or by individuals acting in the name of groups…representing government [and these pictures] cannot be worked unless there is an independent, expert [elite] organization for making the unseen facts [of the new world] intelligible to those who make the decisions.”

In other words, since none of us will ever have a chance to meet the overwhelming number of people who live in the world, we’ll have to rely on stereotypes of them, and in this distorted maze, our esteemed leaders will have to take all their cues and knowledge from some collection of “experts” who interpret “real” perception and meaning for them.

A totalitarianism worthy of 1984.

In his chapter, “The CIA and the Founding Fathers of Communications Studies,” Simpson highlights the work of Hadley Cantril, who established the Princeton Learning Center, which morphed into a CIA-funded broadcast service. Cantril also assisted in reorganizing the US Information Agency (CIA front) under JFK. He invented a survey technique that “would revolutionize US election campaigns during the 1980s.” What began as a focus on US mass-communication ops abroad later came home to roost.

And so this universal psy-op has come to pass. It has thoroughly infected society, aided of course by media.

Groups define and oppose each other through images and cartoons and stereotypes. But it’s gone much further than that. The disease of group consciousness has pushed individuals into seeing themselves and presenting themselves as nothing more than group members. Proudly so. Absurdly so. They’ve tried to make the stereotypes into facts.

Some groups, in politicizing themselves, have ladled on the self-esteem routine to substitute for anything they might actually accomplish in the world, preferring to rely on slogans and assertions that amount to dust in the wind—actually torpedoing their chances of success.

It’s exactly parallel to the child who is told, in this case by his teachers and parents, that he’s very, very special, over and over, until the child is living in a never-never land.

Working for a definable cause as part of a group is one thing, but taking on one’s own identity as nothing more than “group member” is a disaster.

At the core of this op is desertion of self by the individual himself. Yes, every individual is unique. That’s true. But it has to play out. The individual has to take his own actions and his own path. If not, he picks out a disseminated cartoon, glues it to his face, and marches forward in lock step toward Nowhere.

So Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman become symbols of groups, and the hostilities broaden. And repulsive operatives who make their living pushing these symbols show up and do their work.

What’s the end game? A society fractured into opposing camps, your basic nut house, where every group ultimately looks to government for answers, money, help, favors, deals.

The psy-op moves all the way into dependance. And that was always the point of it. That was the plan for “reorganizing” a nation.

In the long run, those honorable groups who have labored for just change are forgotten. They fade into oblivion. What takes their place are the delusional ones, and the ones who are consciously run, from above, by planners who want to see this kind of mangled society.

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. It starts by saying the world, as it really is, is incomprehensible, and therefore we have to build cartoons of various groups; doing this is “a good idea” and it will facilitate our thoughts and actions. The prophecy ends with so many people buying into those cartoons that they play those roles to the hilt and assert they ARE the cartoons and nothing more.

But I’ll tell you this. Somewhere, lurking in the background, there are still many, many individuals who know they are individuals. And their day will come, because the universe of cartoon characters is such bad theater the show will close. Ticket sales will evaporate.

It’s important to understand the root: promoting a nation as a collection of groups. This IS Collectivism at work. Collectivism isn’t done by considering a country one homogenous mass of people. Not right away. First you need competing and hostile groups. You encourage them to present themselves as cliches, as animations, as actors in a play.

You move into phase two when you show these groups that their best chance of success is to get help from government. That’s the key. It doesn’t matter whether a group hates government. So what? You bring them around to thinking government is their best shot.

And, of course, government complies. Government holds out a helping hand. Money, hope, favors. You’ve now funneled the energy of groups right into the official bureaucracy. The problem solver.

You’re not, for example, telling a group it should start an urban farm and grow its own food. You’re not telling them how to start their own businesses and actually make them work. You’re not telling them how they can buy land and live in a community. You’re certainly not telling them the whole group concept is flawed and they should—each person—discover what it means to be an individual.

Individual power, action, vision is completely off the table.

These stereotyped groups are actually training grounds for membership in the bigger group: a whole society absorbed in government.

It’s all preparation for the ultimate lesson: the needs and demands and entitlements of the many obliterate the needs of the individual.

The word “individual” comes from Latin roots. In=not. Dividere=to divide. Individual=not divided. “Can’t be divided.” The individual is the fundamental, the basic. It’s what you come to, finally, when you analyze a group. The individual. It’s what you come to when you scrape away the stereotypes and cartoons and generalities and other “group characteristics.”

Of course, if you mount and push forward a psy-op that ADDS ON characteristics to the individual, especially if those characteristics are going to be self-sabotaging, and if the individual isn’t ready to invent his own future, he’ll bite. He’ll buy. He’ll join up.

This is what the “social science” of “mass communications” is all about. As the name implies, it’s an academic field that starts out with the assumption and lie of a MASS. From that point on, it’s all manipulation.

But why should people realize this? They’re floating on propaganda that lets them know the world is a horrible mess and we simply don’t have time to stop and consider the strange, outmoded, and discredited idea of the individual. In fact, wasn’t it the unbridled individual who led us into the mess? Didn’t “he” destroy the fabric of life? Didn’t he make millions of people starve? Didn’t he start all the wars? Didn’t he oppose group consciousness all along? Aren’t we, in fact, repairing the damage done by the individual? Isn’t he the ultimate virus that corrupts? Shouldn’t we wipe him out forever and install the Group as the indivisible unit of life? Then we’ll be happy. Then we’ll be free. Then we’ll all live in harmony. Then we’ll evolve to the next stage:

ABSORPTION INTO THE WHOLE.

You might be surprised at how many people want this. Economic absorption, political absorption, social absorption, mystical absorption.

Selling out Self is big, big, business.

I’ll leave you with this — as an illustration of how thick and dense group identity, as opposed to individual consciousness, can be built:

As reported by Heather Mac Donald in City Journal (July 14, 2011), the University of California at San Diego has decided to MANDATE a new graduation requirement. The key concept, the University states, is cultivating a “student’s understanding of her or his identity [focusing on] African Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, Chicanos, Latinos, Native Americans or other groups [through the lenses of] race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, language, ability/disability, class or age.”

Translation: Through every means and category possible, we’re going to plug and wire you into a group, and from that platform you can continue the psy-op that pours all of society into the funnel of government and away from who you are: YOU.

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

IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO RUIN EVERYTHING

It Takes a Village to Ruin Everything: Enemies with Benefits in the NWO

by Jon Rappoport — author of THE MATRIX REVEALED

April 21, 2012

“You want to know how elites solve problems? Here’s their formula: smaller problem, bigger solution. And when that doesn’t work? Concoct a huge problem that doesn’t exist and solve it with a huge program.” — Ellis Medavoy, retired propaganda operative, in THE MATRIX REVEALED

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” — David Rockefeller in Memoirs (2003)

In a future sea of darkness, the islands of light, toward which people desperately grope, are clusters of buildings occupied by mega-corporations and government agencies.

To achieve a measure of survival, people seek those islands and the jobs that come with them.

When you sign on and are accepted, you pledge a loyalty that knows no bounds, because there is no viable alternative. You cease worrying about the crimes your employer is committing, because you are safe, you are out of the darkness, and you want to stay there.

What would cause this future to come to pass? Many answers have been offered. I’ll add a factor to the list.

It concerns a method of problem-solving. Here is the premise: if a difficulty crops up, solve it by enlarging the scope of the relevant factors.

More precisely, ARTIFICIALLY enlarge the scope of the relevant factors.

This is Elite Problem Solving.

In 1996, Hillary Clinton’s book, It Takes a Village, appeared. In it, she argued that a whole community must solve the problem of raising a child. Of course, this was pretentious nonsense. It runs parallel to the idea that no entrepreneur can prosper without infra-structure that is built with public money, and therefore the entrepreneur and his output should be the property of the state.

Starting with the individual child, Clinton offers a solution that encompasses a town or a community or even a city…or who knows…maybe a planet.

But one, the original problem isn’t solved (if it was a problem to begin with), and two, the solution is an artifact designed to regulate a larger environment. To put it another way, Clinton’s model makes it necessary to put everyone under the gun because a child may be a problem.

Problem: 50 small fish might be wiped out by allowing water from rivers to irrigate farmland. Solution: we must consign the whole valley of farms to eternal drought.

If the free market gives birth to 12 million companies and corporations, this creates the “problem” of uninspected potential crimes. Therefore, we have to put the world under the regulatory eye and nose of agencies, whose ultimate objective is to wipe out those enterprises, or weaken them to the point at which they will be absorbed in much larger corporations—until, finally, there are 400 mega-corporations that are responsible for 80% of all international trade and production.

Then and only then can we feel safe. Then and only then can we know that government will exercise proper control over business on planet Earth.

Of course, when 400 corporations do constitute the productive engine of Earth, they will have bought off governments so they can do exactly as they like. They will partner with governments to share the spoils. Which was part of the idea in the first place.

Again, the method is: whatever the size of the original purported problem, make the solution bigger and more encompassing.

If one gun (fired by one person) killed one person, confiscate all guns everywhere.

Here is another example: if you foment and prepare and fund and supply a war between two major powers, in the aftermath you will solve the problem of reconstruction by welding those powers together as one Complex…in which case, you end up with larger unified organizations than when you started, and you control that unified whole.

You can call this approach SMALLLER PROBLEM, LARGER SOLUTION.

Look at the opposite strategy, which is no longer held to be viable: you create self-sufficiency wherever possible. Responsible self-sufficiency. Most people don’t have a clue what that means.

Suppose you started a small nation. You would be faced with the problem of survival. How would you solve that? You could forge all sorts of relationships with other countries in the areas of trade, loans, and purchases of material…except you know that these other nations are corrupt beyond the telling of it. Their governments are corrupt, their economies are corrupt, their leaders are criminals. Do you opt for this larger entangling solution, or do you decide to make do with what you have and innovate and work your way toward the objective of your own national self-sufficiency?

If you opt for the second choice, what happens? It has rarely if ever been tried. These days, you would be accused of isolationism and, at the very least, “exiled from the world community.”

And yet, theoretically speaking, if you could survive and prosper as a new nation, dedicated to inculcating the self-sufficiency of every citizen as a long-range goal, you would stand as a shining example to the rest of the world. You would have made the great experiment with freedom work. This was, in a way, what the original American Republic was built to achieve, before it was subverted, at the latest, three or four minutes after the Constitution was drawn up.

During World War 2, members of the Council on Foreign Relations were tasked with setting out a plan for the creation of the United Nations, the grand global solution to war everywhere at all times.

As we have seen, its emerging agenda has been a covert op to control many facets of of human life in all nations, under the rubric of “sustainability.”

In 1988, two UN agencies that seemed to have little power, the World Meteorological Association and the Environmental Programme, created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC went on to spearhead the drive to convince the world that man is causing so much atmospheric warming, civilization will soon end if the UN doesn’t radically reorder the behavior of all societies and individuals.

The science behind this warming claim has been shown to be without merit, but the campaign to “solve” warming continues.

A child in a classroom fidgets in his chair and looks out the window. He doesn’t respond immediately when the teacher asks him a question. Well, this child needs to be “solved.” For that, a school counselor is brought in, who in turn recommends a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist makes a diagnosis of ADHD, which doesn’t exist. There is no test for it. The child takes Ritalin, and within eight weeks falls into a funk. The psychiatrist diagnoses this as a new emerging condition, clinical depression, rather than an understandable reaction to Ritalin. He prescribes one of the SSRI antidepressants. Two months later, the child cuts himself. The psychiatrist, ignoring the fact that these SSRI drugs are known to cause suicide, decides to prescribe an even stronger chemical, one of the so-called antipsychotics. The parents refuse to allow this. Child Services is called in. They interview the parents and suggest that a charge of medical neglect could be brought against them, in which case the child might be taken from the home and put into state-sponsored foster care.

It takes a village.

An innovative but struggling company, Silk, which markets organic soy products, sells itself to Dean, a giant agribusiness corporation. Dean turns around and begins buying cheaper soy from China, rather than from the US organic farmers who were supplying Silk. Some of those US farmers go out of business. This is called “free trade,” and is justified by the claim that we’re all living in a Global Village, and the sovereignty of nations is merely an outmoded fiction. Loyalty to one’s own country is scoffed at as “primitive.”

All over the planet, huge agribusiness corporations are bringing local farmers to their knees. These corporations are international. They owe no allegiance to any nation. They float.

Here is Richard Bell, a former financial insider I interviewed in THE MATRIX REVEALED:

“Some day, up the road, a few of these agribusiness corporations will merge into a super-entity. Then what will we have? Is this still the free market? Of course not. The level playing field no longer exists.

“In certain areas of the world, you can grow rice much more cheaply. If you turn those areas into gigantic rice plantations, you can then export that rice anywhere and overwhelm local farmers.

“Why don’t governments stop this? Because they signed on to membership in the World Trade Organization with its rules. And here’s the kicker: overall food production declines. Government pension funds and banks are INVESTED in the stock of that super-agri-entity. They want to see that stock price rise. They’ll do NOTHING to interfere with that.

“It’s really a closed system. The whole idea is to make it look like free-market capitalism, when it isn’t. It turns out that you need separate nations to have capitalism. You need tariff protections. You need nations that figure out how to move toward self-sufficiency. You won’t learn these principles in college courses. You’ll learn just the opposite.

“I spoke to an economics professor at an Eastern university. He told me my analysis of capitalism was correct, but if he taught that and pushed it too far, he would never gain tenure. He would eventually be forced out of his job.

“Essentially, he was admitting that his university was operating under a forced system of mind control. There were no options. Forces were at work, on many fronts, to make sure that Globalism was the preferred curriculum.

“I undertook an analysis of the sources of funding for that university. Where was the money coming from? Who was issuing grants and contracts to the university? What was the university fund invested in? The answers clarified things. The university was floating on money that was dedicated to the precepts of Globalism.

“The university was, when you boiled it down, a PR agency working for Globalism. And here was an interesting irony: there were students at that university who were protesting Globalism, and they were supported by a few professors. Do you get it? The protests were really a charade, and the students were unwitting dupes, whose real function was to make it appear that the university was a bastion of free ideas. The protests were a cover story. A cover story to hide the true intent of the university.

“I dug further, and I found a few professors and administrators who KNEW THAT.”

We have been sold a fiction. Time and time again we have been told that no nation can exist and survive on its own. Self-sufficiency is a foul and selfish myth. Every nation needs vital resources it doesn’t have. It can only obtain them from another country.

This presupposes that the ingenuity and imagination of the human mind is limited in what it can devise. Which is the biggest lie of all.

Discrediting the notion of self-sufficiency is the cornerstone in the building of Globalism.

Why do you think we are bombarded with stories and pictures of poverty around the world? Why do you think stories of celebrities adopting babies from “The Third World” are given such wide play? Because our so-called leaders really care? This op has as its goal fostering the amorphous conviction that everyone must pitch in to help everyone at all times everywhere.

And THAT sets the stage for what? Not share and care. Not a better world. No. It sets the stage for mega-corporations and their partner governments and banks, backed up by intelligence agencies and armies and “missionaries,” to enact their Great Solution: global control, management, governance.

The celebrity, bouncing her new adopted baby on her knee, says, “I know, in the end, when all this is done, our leaders will make it a better world. I know they will. Share and care will win.”

That’s not the plan.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

UNDERMINING THE WEST THROUGH PSYCHOLOGY

 

UNDERMINING THE EDUCATED CLASSES WITH PSYCHOLOGY

 

by Jon Rappoport

author of THE MATRIX REVEALED

April 19, 2012

 

“…the methods that are used by law enforcement to gain confessions are based upon extremely powerful psychological techniques that have been known to social scientists for decades. These same methods have been used by marketers and conmen alike for centuries to convince regular people to do their will. That fact that these same techniques can be applied by law enforcement to get people, who often times should clearly have known better, to give statements that result in lengthy imprisonment, or even execution, is a testament to the power of such techniques!” — Eric Mings, PhD of interrogationpsychology.com.

 

For many new readers who are coming to my work for the first time, part of my approach is to analyze systems that operate as mind control.

 

These systems aren’t called mind control. They work by shrinking down the vision of what a human being can be. They reduce, limit, restrict—sometimes in the name of “good science.”

 

Such systems are often thought of as “realistic.” They appeal to the educated classes because they are taught in colleges, and because they can be studied extensively.

 

During one of my interviews with retired propaganda master Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), he stopped and said, “Look, you really want to understand what psychology is all about? It has two main uses now. Profiling a potential enemy, and concocting successful advertising. In both cases, it looks for the lowest common denominator. Is that what you want therapy in an office to deliver to a patient? A lowest common denominator?”

 

With the onset of Freudian psychoanalysis, intellectuals in the West began to perceive a new way of looking at the human being: as a bundle of INTERIOR problems, which needed to be resolved through a deep understanding of primary traumas sustained in childhood.

 

These problems were touted as UNAVOIDABLE. There was no way to work around them, except through therapy.

 

This sort of propaganda was undertaken by newly minted “mental-health professionals,” who were busy creating journals and conferences and faculty positions, in order to cement their status in society.

 

Essentially, their sales pitch was: we’re indispensable; we are the only people who can restore true sanity.

 

As psychology spread its wings, the restoration of sanity, which from the beginning was a fatally flawed jumble of nonsense, took on a different hue. It morphed into: making people normal.

 

This was an easier goal to comprehend, and it fed into the fears of those who wanted to be accepted in a world that was becoming increasingly conventional and conformist.

 

Of course, normalcy could never be adequately defined, but people had a sense of what it meant. That was good enough. Getting along with others was part of it. Feeling comfortable in a group was part of it. Sharing similar ideas and feelings was part of it. Being a member of a team was part of it. Learning to live with limitations was part of it.

 

All these factors helped extend the growing political concept of Collectivism, a system in which the so-called needs of the many are placed light-years ahead of the needs of the individual.

 

Psychological therapy was now viewed as a process through which a patient could learn to adapt and adjust—and moreover, such adjustment was deemed “recovery from neurosis.”

 

In other words, it wasn’t just superficial socialization. It was the attainment of inner equilibrium, a victory in which “what a human really is” was achieved.

 

This was the new propaganda.

 

Well, what else would you expect? Psychologists couldn’t simply say, “We’re training you to fit in.” They had to dress it up.

 

The bottom line here—and it is a very significant one—is that great individual achievement was taken off the stage.

 

It was replaced by an average life. Furthermore, psychologists made it their business to point out that great heroes often suffer from mental disorders.

 

The overall effect on civilization, as psychology was integrated into the language and the every-day consciousness of citizens, was enormous.

 

GREAT INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT was downplayed. It was no longer a widely accepted goal. Its day had passed.

 

“Do you want to ‘distort your psychology’ in order to attain some sort of illusory greatness, or do you want to be happy?”

 

Many, many people, in all times and places, are on the lookout for ways to accept stripped-down lowered expectations; psychology provided that in spades. Normalcy was now a “theory of the mind.”

 

And here is where the placebo effect enters in. Humans, when pressed, when they feel their present situation is intolerable, will look to any hope for relief. If it is offered by a psychologist, a patient will INVENT A ROLE FOR HIMSELF in which he truly does want to be “normal” above all else. In this role, he will find, in therapy, exactly what he needs to confirm that, yes, he has these interior problems that can be worked out and resolved through the language and the concepts of psychological therapy.

 

The good patient.

 

The good patient reconstructs his past to fit the basic notions of therapy.

 

And it works, like any placebo does—for a little while. Then the construct fractures; and the outcome splits open like a badly designed coat.

 

Psychology, as it turns out, is merely a sub-category of theater, played out on the basis of not knowing it is theater.

 

The sacrifice is: great individual achievement.

 

And the rest is history, which we are living through now.

 

The answer is to restore what has been sacrificed.

 

And when you start down that road, you inevitably meet up with your own imagination, and you can’t deny it. If you’re honest, you realize you’re a great deal more than you thought you were. Therefore, you can’t fall back on foolish little prescriptions. You can’t play the same old games. You can’t use a system to make yourself blind.

 

My description of the basis of modern psychology should make it obvious I am talking about a system of mind control. It (psychology) is somewhat subtle, because it quietly rejects the larger context in which an individual could operate on his own.

 

Instead, it substitutes notions like “compensation,” “acting out,” “personal drama.” In and of themselves, these labels might, in some situations, be vaguely interesting. But when wedded to the prospect of CURING a person of their negative impact, the stage is set for a reduction of energy, creative power, and space. Why? Because the terms of the problem have been placed on a smaller platform and the dimension of the solution has also been prefabricated to fit that platform.

 

Psychotherapy is to the creative life as a kitchen melodrama is to high adventure.

 

Think about it. If you were consciously setting out to corral and capture a significant segment of the educated population, without arousing their suspicion, you could succeed grandly if you educated them about the purported composition of their struggles—by naming the elements holding them back from progress, by claiming that these elements are, indeed, real, by choosing elements that actually shrink the field of operation, by essentially defining what a life consists of…and then stepping in and saying you can make that life better. It’s like redefining three-dimensional chess as checkers and then sorting out winning checkers strategies.

 

“You see, the large and great life is a delusion based on neurotic fantasy. The smaller life is real. And we can help you with that.”

 

Of course, this is unspoken. But it’s there. And it is sold.

 

“We’re going to take a life that could be A,B,C,D, and miniaturize it down to lower-case a,b,c,d. We’re going to carry out this miniaturization process so skillfully and so insistently that, eventually, the person forgets there even is an A,B,C,D. Then we have him. Then we can rearrange those a,b,c,d deck chairs and he’ll believe we’re helping him. That’s how we win.”

 

That’s the shell game. That’s the operant conditioning. That’s how it works.

 

Here are a few more comments from Ellis Medavoy on the subject:

 

“At some point, as I was doing medical propaganda, I came across a few operatives who were using their contacts to promote psychology as an essential part of society. It took me a little while to see what their game was.

 

“They were working for what I call the Collectivist Elite, the men who are trying to make a world of obedient androids, satisfied androids. Well, that’s mind control. These operatives, doing their propaganda, feeding stories to the press, were pushing a general idea of psychology.

 

“Their version of psychology, when you boil it down, is: we’re all living in a park. It’s a good park. We can all be happy if we stay there and work together and cooperate. But part of this cooperation means we all admit we’re deficient. We need a fix, a cure. We can get that cure if we realize that every impulse we have toward being a self-sufficient individual is really a symptom, and the symptom needs to be wiped out.

 

“The idea that an individual has tremendous power is another symptom that really needs to be cured.”

 

Once you get a person to accept the myth that his most pressing desire is to be “normal,” you can perform many manipulations. You can play on his need to be part of the group, the team. You can use veiled threats of exile from the group. You can pretend your manipulations are really only an effort to bring him into the “community.” You can pretend you’re just trying to help him be what he wants to be. You can promise him acceptance. It all hinges on this operation designed to “shrink him down” so he views Normal as his highest and most proper ambition.

 

And what can he offer in his defense? How can he fight you off? What can he use as a standard, against which he can compare Normal?

 

If you mention INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, POWER, IMAGINATION as that standard, he’s in the dark. He doesn’t know what you’re talking about. He’s entered into a state of amnesia about those qualities.

 

And in that state of amnesia, he’ll admit to having committed offenses. He’ll confess to crimes he never even contemplated.

 

As documented by Dr. Peter Breggin in his classic work, Toxic Psychiatry, about 35 years ago a bridge was built between the profession of psychologist (and psychiatrist) and the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Since psychology was already sinking into a morass of behavior-control (my analysis), why not take the next step and simply say all these “symptoms” were really brain imbalances and deficits?

 

Forget science. By the way, there are no chemical or biological tests to support a diagnosis of ANY so-called mental disorder. But the “science” of “brain imbalances and deficits” could be sold. It could be marketed.

 

The pharmaceutical industry could save a languishing and increasingly unpopular profession (psychologist/psychiatrist), by buying expensive ads in journals, funding conferences, awarding grants, bankrolling graduate studies.

 

Talk therapy would be replaced by the prescription pad. The drug companies would develop and market the chemicals. The “therapists” would handle the diagnoses and write the scripts.

 

And so that marriage was made.

 

Which takes us all the way from Freud (and his early Pavlovian counterparts) to the present Century of the Brain and Its Control.

 

To many people, that doesn’t look so bad at all. It looks good, because they have forgotten the potential power, freedom, and imagination at the core of Self.

 

They have stopped exploring how far and how high that power, freedom, and imagination can go. Such a journey means nothing to them.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Medical Murder in the Matrix

Medically caused death in America: An exclusive interview with Dr. Barbara Starfield

by Jon Rappoport

April 17, 2012

Breaking News: Click here to access all the articles on this FDA Genocide Murder news story.

Once in a while, I insert a plug for myself in an article. The purpose of this is to sell my products at www.nomorefakenews.com. Since the year 2001, I’ve probably written as many articles as anyone on the internet. They’re all free. So visit my store. End of plug.

I rerun this Dr. Barbara Starfield article — wherein I show you the email interview I did with Dr. Starfield in December 2009 — regarding her paper published in JAMA in July 2000 entitled Is US health really the best in the world?, just to push the wheel another turn.

The Starfield paper can be downloaded freely (as a .pdf) from here (via www.drug-education.info via en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Starfield). The paper is fully cited as Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world?. JAMA. 2000; 284(4):483-4. Dr. Barbara Starfield’s wiki page is here.

Each time I do this, I try to write a new introduction. Here is one…

After working as a reporter for 30 years, I’ve come to understand a few things about public reaction to the truth. People like to say they’re enlightened. They like to say they’ve seen through the major propaganda operations that are launched and are spinning all around us. But when you bulldoze a hole in a part of the Matrix where certain subjects are engraved on stone pillars, and when those subjects are firmly entrenched in the public mind as foundations of Reality, the usual response is silent shock.

Even when people are able to accept the truth, they tend toward silence. They don’t pass the truth on.

Retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy, whom I interview in THE MATRIX REVEALED, once explained it to me this way:

“You’ve taken them out of a state of hypnosis, a state of trance, but the truth you’re giving them puts them in another trance. In that part of their mind where they’ve been asleep for so long, they’re used to that narcosis. So even though they see truth now, they respond with new sleep. It’s not really an awakening at all. It’s as if they’ve walked out of one war zone into another, dazed.”

Ellis describes perfectly what happens to many people when they see the truth of medical murder in the US. It particularly happens because there is no logical way to understand it, given the expectations people have about what murder is, what murder means.

And there’s another problem. As you’ll see, the figures on medically caused death in America I’m citing come from an author with absolutely impeccable mainstream credentials. The review she wrote was published in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. It was all “on the up and up.”

That’s precisely why I use her figures, rather than those compiled by outsiders, who, by the way, probably have better numbers that are even more chilling.

I’ve had people stare blankly at me after a discussion of the interview below and say, outright, “This is impossible. It can’t be true. You see, if a really respected doctor is making these claims, and if her review is published in a prestigious journal, then mainstream doctors and medical schools and government would have to react. They would have to clean house.”

But they don’t.

And that is called a clue. We are talking about something similar to the experience of the German people during the rise of Hitler. They went along. They told themselves stories to make it all right. They used the familiar tricks of denial.

This is what makes the Matrix the Matrix. I’m speaking generally now. A grand illusion is accepted because people can’t believe Reality is fundamentally different than it appears to be.

They also can’t believe—and this is far more staggering—that on the other side of the Matrix THEY THEMSELVES have a power that is stunning. They may sense that’s true, but they’ve been taught to deny it. They’ve been taught that individual power is dangerous. They’ve been taught that having and using power beyond a certain point will cause them to be exiled by their peers, their friends, even their families. So it’s better and far more comfortable to cede that power to Someone Else and sleep on…

You see, it’s one thing to rightly accuse an elite group of exercising unlawful and destructive power, to see how huge that power is. But it’s a far different thing to know that you have tremendous power.

The Matrix is built and sustained on a reversal of power relationships.

My work is all about setting those relationships straight. That’s why I do this every day.

It’s especially why I go after the medical cartel again and again. Because they are exercising priestly hypnotic powers with their aura of science.

Okay. Let’s proceed to the issue at hand.

As you read what Dr. Starfield has to say in this interview, know that until her death last year, she was one of those people with impeccable mainstream credentials. She was respected and revered by her colleagues. She was a woman who had set off an explosion TEN years earlier, in one of the most high-profile medical journals in the world, and the media silence that followed was profound, eerie, and deafening.

If the mighty newspapers of our age had jumped in with both feet, Dr. Starfield would have become one of the most famous people in America. Her work would have shaken the medical cartel down to its foundations. She would have saved more lives and averted more suffering than anyone else in this nation. With no exaggeration, we would now be living in a different world.

The American healthcare system, like clockwork, causes a mind-boggling number of deaths every year.

The figures have been known for ten years. The story was covered briefly when Starfield’s landmark study surfaced, and then it sank like a stone.

The truth was inconvenient for many interests. That has not changed. “Medical coverage for all” is a banner that conceals ugly facts.

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock to the system, when one of its most respected public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America. Starfield was associated with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

The Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, came to the following conclusions:

Every year in the US there are:

12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.

2.25 MILLION PEOPLE KILLED PER DECADE.

This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.

The Starfield study is the most disturbing revelation about modern healthcare in America ever published.

On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was rather perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this situation preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email.

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

My papers on the benefits of primary care have been widely used, including in Congressional testimony and reports. However, the findings on the relatively poor health in the US have received almost no attention. The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency). They, of course, would like an even greater share of the pie than they now have, for training more specialists. (Of course, the problem is that we train specialists–at great public cost–who then do not practice up to their training–they spend half of their time doing work that should be done in primary care and don’t do it as well.)

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

NO.

Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.)

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Do medical schools in the US, and intern/residency programs in hospitals, offer significant “primary care” physician training and education?

NO. Some of the most prestigious medical teaching institutions do not even have family physician training programs [or] family medicine departments. The federal support for teaching institutions greatly favors specialist residencies, because it is calculated on the basis of hospital beds.. [Dr. Starfield has done extensive research showing that family doctors, who deliver primary care—as opposed to armies of specialists—produce better outcomes for patients.]

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

What was your personal reaction when you reached the conclusion that the US medical system was the third leading cause of death in the US?

I had previously done studies on international comparisons and knew that there were serious deficits in the US health care system, most notably in lack of universal coverage and a very poor primary care infrastructure. So I wasn’t surprised.

Has anyone from the FDA, since 2000, contacted you about the statistical findings in your JAMA paper?

NO. Please remember that the problem is not only that some drugs are dangerous but that many drugs are overused or inappropriately used. The US public does not seem to recognize that inappropriate care is dangerous–more does not mean better. The problem is NOT mainly with the FDA but with population expectations. …Some drugs are downright dangerous; they may be prescribed according to regulations but they are dangerous.

Concerning the national health plan before Congress–if the bill is passed, and it is business as usual after that, and medical care continues to be delivered in the same fashion, isn’t it logical to assume that the 225,000 deaths per year will rise?

Probably–but the balance is not clear. Certainly, those who are not insured now and will get help with financing will probably be marginally better off overall.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

106,000 people die as a result of CORRECTLY prescribed medicines. I believe that was your point in your 2000 study. Overuse of a drug or inappropriate use of a drug would not fall under the category of “correctly prescribed.” Therefore, people who die after “overuse” or “inappropriate use” would be IN ADDITION TO the 106,000 and would fall into another or other categories.

‘Appropriate’ means that it is not counter to regulations. That does not mean that the drugs do not have adverse effects.

INTERVIEWER COMMENTS:

This interview with Dr. Starfield reveals that, even when an author has unassailable credentials within the medical-research establishment, the findings can result in no changes made to the system.

Yes, many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs. The buck stops there. If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable. The American people must understand that.

As for the other 119,000 people killed every year as a result of hospital treatment, this horror has to be laid at the doors of those institutions. Further, to the degree that hospitals are regulated and financed by state and federal governments, the relevant health agencies assume culpability.

It is astounding, as well, that the US Department of Justice has failed to weigh in on Starfield’s findings. If 225,000 medically caused deaths per year is not a crime by the Dept. of Justice’s standards, then what is?

To my knowledge, not one person in America has been fired from a job or even censured as result of these medically caused deaths.

Dr. Starfield’s findings have been available for ten years. She has changed the perception of the medical landscape forever. In a half-sane nation, she would be accorded a degree of recognition that would, by comparison, make the considerable list of her awards pale. And significant and swift action would have been taken to punish the perpetrators of these crimes and reform the system from its foundations.

In these times, medical schools continue turning out a preponderance of specialists who then devote themselves to promoting the complexities of human illness and massive drug treatment. Whatever the shortcomings of family doctors, their tradition speaks to less treatment, more common sense, and a proper reliance on the immune systems of patients.

The pharmaceutical giants stand back and carve up the populace into “promising markets.” They seek new disease labels and new profits from more and more toxic drugs. They do whatever they can—legally or illegally—to influence doctors in their prescribing habits. Many studies which show the drugs are dangerous are buried. FDA panels are filled with doctors who have drug-company ties. Legislators are incessantly lobbied and supported with pharma campaign monies.

Nutrition, the cornerstone of good health, is ignored or devalued by most physicians. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to attack nutritional supplements, even though the overall safety record of these nutrients is excellent, whereas, once again, the medical drugs the FDA certifies as safe are killing 106,000 Americans per year.

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the whole literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.

Yes, that’s right. By Dr. Starfield’s published figures, FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs kill over A MILLION Americans per decade.

Does that sound like a legitimate ongoing subject for journalism to you?

At its height, if I recall correctly, when I published this interview in 2009, Google entries ran to about 40,000. Other websites picked it up. I sent it to a well-placed CBS reporter. The overall major media response? ZERO.

You can take that as a reason to give up. Or you can press down harder on the gas pedal.

Jon Rappoport

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

ONE-ROOM SCHOOLHOUSE IN THE COUNTRY

 

ONE-ROOM SCHOOLHOUSE IN THE COUNTRY

 

THE POST-APOCALYPTIC EDUCATION

 

by Jon Rappoport

April 15, 2012

 

“Artistic value is achieved collectively by each man subordinating himself to the standards of the majority.” — Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand, 1943

 

It’s pretty hard to push Collectivism when you have 20 students sitting in a one-room schoolhouse in the country.

 

If, though, you’re teaching in a factory where a few thousand kids struggle to appear every morning, Collectivism is self-defense.

 

“Hi. We’re all in this together! Remember that!”

 

“Anybody packing heat?”

 

One would be less prone to elucidate Socrates or the agrarian vision of Thomas Jefferson in these industrial quarters.

 

John Mill’s covert-op principle of “greatest good for the greatest number” would tend to prevail. Or as they say in basic arithmetic: lowest common denominator.

 

The Collectivist ideal of education, as pursued and funded by the great Foundations—Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, Guggenheim—find their natural home in the factory-type school. I doubt, though, that even the most optimistic utopians in the early days of those organizations could have envisioned the Great Equality of the Brain Mush that has worked out to be, in the fullness of time, the ultimate style of THE GROUP.

 

There is no longer any need to obscure the principles of the Republic’s Founders. There is no need to hide the study of logic from children. There is no need to squash individualism. We are past that. The takeover was accomplished several generations ago. We are now in the post-blight. From here on out, it’s a matter of managing the clock. Keep them indoors until 3. After that, all bets are off.

 

In even the best secondary schools, the earnest and bright students are mainly exercising their minds in the service of A Better Societal Machine.

 

We lost the war. So now we have to pick up the pieces.

 

That entails, yes, home schooling, but I’m sorry to report this is not a magical solution. Families are not automatically perfect. In the home, teachers have to emerge who can actually equip what will become strong independent minds.

 

Make sure you know what “independent” means.

 

Make sure you understand that the overwhelming number of citizens consign themselves to a remoteness from the core of what is good and right and free and individual and powerful. And they learn to live without it.

 

I’d love the idea of introducing logic into what’s left of the US school system. Not only does it cut through all the fairy tales, it makes kids into detectives, investigators, private eyes. They already think adults are crazy, so why not let them prove it? If you teach logic the right way, you have kids sifting through (actually reading) long passages of text and analyzing them for logical flaws.

 

There are lists of logical fallacies you can use. They work. They allow a student to discover the varieties of deception in political speech, media speech, scientific speech, social speech.

 

Turning out thousands of private eyes is far from the worst thing you can do.

 

And with the right instructor, intelligent kids take to logic like barracudas to water.

 

Once they’re in the sea, they love it. They know they’re getting sharper.

 

Of course, I realize US school systems aren’t anxious to include logic as a part of their curriculum. It tends to cut through the seaweed of Collectivism. How? It’s more real than Collectivism. It inevitably feeds back to the individual mind, not the group.

 

Barely out of college, I taught mornings at a high-priced prep-school (aka nuthouse) in Connecticut. Every day, I’d take the train up to Greenwich from Grand Central Station, and I’d often ride with a very bright 13-year old who was in my math class.

 

I taught him logic by using the NY Times as a target, and by the end of the semester, having seen through that level of propaganda, he was ready to be unleashed on the world.

 

“Go easy on your parents,” I told him, “They’re civilians.”

 

He grinned. “My father’s a stock broker,” he said. “I’m going to take him to the cleaners.”

 

Logic makes private eyes out of kids, and it also gives them the tools to pursue justice—and not the mass social product sold by racists of various stripes. I’ve seen kids who were taught logic take apart the transcript of a murder trial and shred the attorneys and their witnesses. These kids were real lawyers. They were relentless. They chased down details that had escaped the jury. It was a sight to behold.

 

On one of the best days I ever had as a teacher, I took a group of wayward teenagers in my math class and guided them on a trip through the definition and meaning of Collectivism. Many questions arose, and when we had sorted it all out, they broke down that social/political system like a bunch of scholars. They ripped it from stem to stern, not because I’d poisoned the well, but because they saw through the empty generalities that prop up the system. They practically rewrote the Bill of Rights, though none of them had ever read it or studied it.

 

When I left school that day, I was in foul mood, because I realized how much intellectual capital we were wasting in the educational machine.

 

It might interest you to know—and you can see this unfold for yourself at YouTube, if you watch the extraordinary six-part 1982 interview Edward Griffin did with Norman Dodd (part 1) (part 2) (part 3) (part 4) (part 5) (part 6), who investigated the big foundations for a Congressional committee in the early 1950s—it might interest you to know that the Carnegie Foundation, upon its inception, in 1908, decided that war was the best way to change a society. After World War 1, they settled on education as the next best way. So they, with their allies in the Rockefeller and Guggenheim Foundations, groomed a new generation of historians to block off the memory and knowledge of the American Republic and its principles. The ideal of the individual had to be excised from the record.

 

We now tend to think education of the young is fairly far down on the list of subjects we should be concerned about. That’s because, as I said, the war has already been lost. But lost wars present opportunities in the aftermath.

 

While bureaucrats are carving the system into finer and finer absurdities, we can create education wherever we are. As long as we know the mind is important and not simply a necessary adjunct to the living of daily life.

 

During the Cold War, there were two schools of thought about what American educators ought to do in the battle against Communism: teach The Manifesto so it could be understood, or hide it. The forces of concealment won, because the guiding social engineers realized that a thorough exegesis of Marx would expose all of Collectivism for what it was.

 

Of course, Communism, at the highest level, was only a prop in a much larger game of beefing up two opposing sides to effect a synthesis. The leading American foundations I’ve mentioned knew this. They also knew the product of that synthesis would be a global Collectivism. It was their mission to help accomplish it.

 

When we educate the young as and where we can, we have to know that logic is an indispensable instrument for analyzing and getting to be the bottom of the Collectivist philosophy. Each mind must see that philosophy for itself. It has taken over virtually all colleges and universities. It is a default position that edges its way in, after enough people give up on the primacy of the individual. It is the archetype of the Sloth.

 

To share everything everywhere with everyone at all times is Collectivism’s banner. But when you stretch out that flag and lay it flat on the table, you see there is nothing there. It’s a blank. It contains no distinctions. It was never anything more than a stimulating of the mind and spirit toward a vague All.

 

In practice, it levels minds. And as we all know, there are leaders at the top who view the whole business as a cynical and brutal con.

 

If young people are educated so their minds become bare deserts, they will gravitate toward Collectivism. It reflects their condition, and it allows them to continue to surrender up and abdicate the ideal of the free and powerful individual.

 

You want to do something worthwhile? Open a School of the Free Individual.

 

THE FREE INDIVIDUAL.

 

The free individual is moral in the sense that he chooses—as seen through his own eyes—the highest work possible.

 

This notion of “the highest work possible” doesn’t involve leaving one’s desires behind, in order to become the abject servant of a cause. One doesn’t suddenly develop an egoless and empty personality in order to “connect” with a goal that floats in an abstract realm.

 

The free individual isn’t shaped. He shapes.

 

The great psychological factor in any life is THE DESERTION OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. Afterward, the individual creates shadows and monsters and fears around that crossroad.

 

Freedom is the space from which the individual can generate the thought and the pulse of a great self-chosen objective.

 

This was the inner core of the American Revolution. It still is.

 

Yet the mandate of education is: we must omit mention of the individual in teaching children. We must say that now the nation is nothing more than an interconnected Whole. We must promote interdependency as the highest ideal.

 

This is the betrayal.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creativity to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

THE BETRAYAL OF THE EDUCATED CLASS

THE BETRAYAL OF THE EDUCATED CLASS

by Jon Rappoport

April 14, 2012

“That a third of the nation’s eighth graders can write with proficiency may not sound like much, but it is the best performance by eighth-grade students in any subject tested in the national assessment in the last three years…”

“‘I’m happy to report, paraphrasing Mark Twain, that the death of writing has been greatly exaggerated,’ said Amanda P. Avallone, an eighth-grade teacher who is vice chairwoman of the board that oversees the testing program…”

(New York Times, April 4, 2008, “US Students Achieve Mixed Results on Writing Test”)

Really? Who’s exaggerating? Who’s trying to cover over an ongoing disaster with a thick slice of baloney?

This story begins (in the 1980s) with a tale of two cousins. One was a stockbroker and the other was an engineer in the space program. They had graduated from prestigious colleges and pursued successful careers.

There was only one problem. After years in the trenches, they’d discovered something was going very wrong with America. It had to do with financial chicanery, theft at a high level, on Wall Street, and a derailment of NASA in its efforts to extend a real program of space exploration.

In both cases, the cousins observed a tremendous sense of demoralization around them at work. Demoralization and cynicism. High enthusiastic spirits had been brought down to Earth. One cousin told me, “I woke up one day and had the distinct feeling I was working for a criminal organization.”

These two men were naïve enough to be appalled. They wanted to take action, and the best answer they could come up with was a book, a book that would blow people away, because the cousins could present, chapter and verse, what it was like to see the buoyant optimism of a generation turning sour and bleeding out in the street.

They wanted to write that book. They really did. They wanted to show how the first principles of the Republic had been betrayed, how government and crony corporations had grown into a choking octopus.

Most of all, they wanted to communicate with other men and women who shared their background, who had grown up in similar circumstances, who had gone to right schools, who had blithely assumed America was still the home of the free. They absolutely knew they could pull off this book in a way that would help awaken people like them, people who were opinion leaders, people who had connections.

But lo and behold, when it came down to it, the cousins remembered a shattering truth:

THEY COULDN’T WRITE.

That stark fact stared them in the face.

They had been through the best schools in America, and they couldn’t string sentences together, they couldn’t turn their feelings into words. They spoke well, but speaking wasn’t writing. It didn’t have the power they were hoping to summon up and pour out on to the page.

They had always known, of course, that they couldn’t write, but at the crucial moment, when they needed to be able to…the defeat was crushing for them. Their “educational lives” flashed in front of their eyes. The whole parade and charade. The con games. The phony grades. The undeserved accolades.

We had several discussions about ghostwriting the book, but their hearts weren’t in it. I didn’t blame them. They wanted the book to be their voices.

Here’s another outrageous illustration:

Amherst College is a small Ivy League school in Massachusetts. For decades, it has been judged one of the top colleges in America. It enrolls only the best of the best, and a scant few of those. (There are 461 students in the class of 2015.)

From 1956 to 1999, William Kennick taught philosophy there. An amiable man with a very keen mind, Kennick handled the survey course in the history of Western philosophy and the one-semester aesthetics course. Later on, he taught metaphysics and Wittgenstein.

Somewhere during his long tenure, he became aware of a troubling fact. Many of his students couldn’t write. Their papers, which were supposed to cover philosophical issues, were, in many respects, unreadable.

Finally, Kennick put his foot down. He wrote a four-page single-spaced tutorial, “Some Rules for Writing Presentable English,” which, from then on, he would pass out to his classes. He backed this up with significant penalties for poorly written essays.

According to eyewitness accounts, Kennick’s approach didn’t sit well with some of his students.

And yet, they were the best and brightest. Otherwise, how could they have gained admittance to the College?

Which raises the question: how badly do the not-quite-brightest write? And what about the merely good?

I’m describing a symptom here. The full reality is much worse. A person needs to be able to write to express his thoughts, but suppose his thoughts are soggy oatmeal to begin with? Suppose he can’t follow an argument? Suppose he can’t read an article or a book and trace the progress of a line of reasoning?

And if he can track the reasoning to a degree, what if he can’t figure out whether the logic is valid?

When you dig deeper into the educational system, when you go back earlier into secondary and elementary classes, you discover the whole foundation has cracked. The basics, if they are taught, are being absorbed in a halfhearted fashion.

The students are, nevertheless, pushed on from grade to grade, and this is the nightmare any earnest teacher faces: every September, he inherits a group of children who possess wildly varying levels of ability in the basics.

There he is, the teacher, standing up in the classroom, and he has to find a way to deal with this chaos. He can’t teach from a single textbook, because at least half the class can’t decipher it. He can’t rove from desk to desk and tutor each student, starting from material that should have been learned three or four or six grades ago. He can’t wave a wand and make up for lost time. He can’t suddenly transform the apathy that has set in for those students who moved like zombies from grade to grade in a haze of non-comprehension.

So what does he do?

There is a solution, and in fact it has been slyly promoted by some of the best bureaucratic minds in the education system.

It’s “participatory learning.”

Instead of reading, take the class on a field trip to a library, where they’ll see books on shelves, up close and personal. They’ll learn how to check out a book. They’ll be taught how to use a computer to look up a book. They’ll wander the aisles.

Instead of reading a novel, sit in class and talk about the issues in the novel. Express opinions. Use those opinions to launch a discussion about values.

Particularly when it comes to logic and reasoning, participatory learning plugs right into the holes in the students’ minds. Have a student read a passage and then ask for discussion. What do you think of this? What’s your opinion? Terrific. What about you? How did you react? Yes, guys, this is an important issue. Have you read or watched any news that seems relevant to what we’re talking about here? Join in. We’re all in this together. There are events happening in our world we have to be aware of. Let’s focus our minds.

Is this an after-school discussion club? Is it an extracurricular project? No, it’s a classroom, and the teacher is winging it, because he doesn’t know what else to do, and he likes the feeling of sitting there and drawing out the students. No one is right or wrong, it’s “group communication.”

More importantly, it’s operant conditioning. The students are being trained to share and care ahead of learning.

As “the group thing” and “we’re all in this together” catches on more and more, the students begin to grasp a whole new approach to learning and life: the important experiences happen only inside a group. That’s where a consensus forms, and that is reality. For the moment. Soon, another moment will come, and a new reality will be built. By the group. It’s all good. It doesn’t really matter what the temporary reality consists of. It only matters that it proceeded from, and fed back into, THE GROUP.

Let me zero in on a subject the educated classes should be quite interested in: political science. If their education amounted to anything, they would take it and use it to debate and stake out positions on political science—which, of course, isn’t a science. It should be called political philosophy.

It covers, for example, a little thing like how the government should be run.

But where do we find intelligent discussions and debates about this? Certainly not in Washington. Too little time, too many payoffs.

Do liberals ever elucidate their First Principles and their philosophy? Do conservatives?

If so, do we find these positions spelled out or debated at length in newspapers and magazines? On television? Logically?

When I say debates, I’m not talking about trading sound bites. I’m talking about long and extensive conversations, which unfortunately require attention spans and the capacity to reason .

Oh? The education system didn’t prepare us for that?

I see. So education consists of everything except that which could render us capable of, and willing to, debate the foundations of the one institution that is responsible for adjudicating items like freedom, equal protection under the law, taxation, limits on the power of corporations, national security, war, and the issuing of money.

Interesting that the one presidential candidate who at least speaks clearly and succinctly on these issues, from a philosophical perspective, appears to be drawing the largest crowds at his speeches: Ron Paul.

Is it possible that Dr. Paul’s popularity rests, in part, on the fact that many citizens truly want to address these issues in a deeper way?

If you were to visit a college or university and try to find the debates I’m suggesting, I believe you’d be sorely disappointed. You’d discover the politicizing of everything except basic political philosophy, which has already been settled in favor of some version of THE GROUP IS ALL, THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOTHING.

If you’re alive, some years into the future, when your children and grandchildren are living in hive-like apartment buildings in a vastly overcrowded city, while the land around the city is preserved (protected and chained off) for a bird you’ve never heard of, by order of city officials (group), who are in turn working for a sub-department (group) of a national planning association (group) you’ve also never heard of, which in turn is part of a United Nations NGO (group), you might be ready to re-think the effects of a cracked, broken, shattered education system that laid the groundwork for that new world.

And if you’re part of the educated class, you might assess this as a betrayal. You wouldn’t be alone.

As a coda, here is a piece I don’t believe I’ve ever published. It approaches education from a slightly different angle.

THE TECTONIC SHIFT IN EDUCATION

It suddenly occurs to me younger people might not understand my use of the word “drill.”

I learned about it, first-hand, when I was eight years old. In school. In 1946. Our teacher gave us arithmetic drills every day. For instance, we had to work at our desks converting 15 or 20 fractions into percentages. Then we took home 20 more fractions to convert. Of course, we had no calculators or computers.

In drills, you take a procedure and use it over and over. Eventually, with practice, it’s like cutting warm butter with a sharp knife. It used to be called elementary education…

Back in the 1970s, I was working as a tutor at Santa Monica College. One day, I walked by a store front a few blocks from the ocean and noticed the business inside was an educational company.

I walked in and spoke with the boss. He told me they were just getting off the ground, and prospects were bright. They were on the cutting edge of programmed tutorial pamphlets.

Each pamphlet, he showed me, covered a different subject, and the learning was done in small chunks. After a short lesson, there was a quiz (multiple choice), and if the student entered a wrong answer, he would be guided to a “branch-page,” where he would receive a brief injection of the material he’d just fumbled…and then there would be a new quiz of four or five questions. If he passed, he’d jump back on the mainline train.

I said I could write a pamphlet like that in my sleep, and the boss proceeded to lay out the attractive $$ possibilities for me. A nice slice of royalties on each item sold, in perpetuity, and new work available on into the future.

He gave me a trial run. I went home with an assignment to create ten pages of a pamphlet on something; I think it was decimals and fractions. I returned the next day with the pages, and he sat back and read my work. He nodded yes, yes, yes, and then he stopped.

“What are all these drills?” he said.

“Well,” I said, “after I introduce a new concept, I make sure the student gets it by giving him twenty or thirty examples, and he has to come up with the right answers.”

He shook his head.

“No,” he said. “That’s not what we want.”

“Why not?”

“It’s not in the modern style,” he said.

I said, “It’s not an issue of style. The student has to get the material. He has to drill on it. A lot.”

“No,” he said. “That won’t work.”

So an argument started. After a few minutes, it got pretty heated. I walked out. No deal. We were poles apart.

He was right, of course. The new wave-front of education was all about finessing material…making it seem as if the student was understanding what he was learning. Making it SEEM.

In other words, it was all nonsense.

Gloss, not substance.

In the ensuing years, I watched this trend expand to grotesque proportions. The old-fashioned way was disappearing like vapor in the wind.

Back in the day, I had learned in school through drills. That was the heart and the proof of the process. The teacher would explain a new concept, demonstrate it on the blackboard, give us examples to chew on and solve, go over them, then assign 20 or 30 more examples to work on for homework. The next day, we would bring the homework in and the class would go through it, step by step. Then there would be a quiz. Then we would move on to the next new concept. Drills. More drills.

In order for this kind of education to work, though, you need a certain stability of environment. You need the notion of ACHIEVEMENT. At home and in school. It has to be a given.

No coddling, no explaining things away, no excuses, no laying on of the lard of self-esteem. With the right backdrop, the old style of education can work. Without it, you’re pushing a two-ton rock up a cliff face. You may as well give up before you start. The students won’t sit still for drill, drill, drill. They’ll do anything to worm out of it.

During the 1960s, the whole society caved in and gave up the ghost. The education system, such as it was, crashed. I was there, as a teacher, part of that time, and I saw it happen. It foundered on just this point. Repetition. It was as if minds had gone soft and couldn’t perform.

Broadly speaking, the basics of arithmetic went out the window. So did spelling, grammar, and the ability to write coherent sentences. Poof. The amount of scut work it took to build a basic education became unacceptable.

When I read tracts about the intentional undermining of the American educational system, I sense truth in them, but to me the real crash was all about what I’m discussing here.

You can bring up drugs, horrible junk food, the influence of TV and the Internet, large classes, and so on. You can say they all make education a tougher job. But the rubber meets the road in those drills. The grind. You can either do it or you can’t.

I saw early signs of the collapse in 1961, when I landed a part-time job teaching kids math in a posh private school in the Northeast. I had nine boys in each class. They were all at least two grades behind where they were supposed to be. I tried drilling them on remedial topics, and they couldn’t take it. They weren’t just floundering. They wanted to fight for their right to be ignorant.

The principal and I had a chat. I told him what was happening and he said, “Education, we’ve always known, is repetition and drill, until they get their legs under them. Your kids can’t do it. They’re bailing out at age twelve and thirteen. We don’t have the environment to back up what you want to do. Ease off. Skate through the year. Otherwise, you’ll go nuts.”

Some people think repetition and drilling are brainwashing. Well, if the lessons are about saving the world or learning how to put on a condom or being nice to everyone, then yes. In that case, someone’s opinions are being pushed into kids’ brains. But if you’re talking about arithmetic, spelling, and reading, then no. If you’re going to teach those subjects, there is no other way. You can’t wave a magic wand and make spelling come true under a floating rainbow. No amount of praise and encouragement is going to stand in for the grind.

I knew that the first day I walked into a classroom as a teacher, in 1961. I knew it because I had learned that way in the 1940s.

When people tell me kids can’t learn without computers on every desk, I make them wish they hadn’t said that. It’s a preposterous lie. It’s driven by a vague (usually politicized) notion of what education is all about, a notion that “puts the children first.” The children aren’t first in school. That’s a twisted version of kindness. More than that, it’s a surrender of authority to young people who don’t have authority. I’m not saying a teacher has to be nasty or machine-like. But a teacher has to instruct. In schools, learning comes before the personalities of children, and anyone who says different is lying. Is a fool.

Of course, if schools are about something other than learning, then yes, there are all sorts of things you can do to make the kids feel good and enthusiastic. You can take them out for ice cream. You can have them collect garbage and sort through the cans and pull out the glass and plastic. You can have them plant a garden and spend three hours every day tending the flowers.

But straight-down-the-line academic learning? I don’t think America has much fire left in its belly for that. It’s not the lack of public money. It’s not the missing programs. It’s a generalized fatigue that came after the big surrender, when teachers and administrators and parents decided that the pressure of repetition in the classroom was intrusive and invasive, a social misstep. Kids needed to be protected from strain. They were precious. They were natural wonderful works of art that needed to be adorned.

(The Logic & & Analysis course I’ve put together for homeschoolers uses the drill method. It’s straight-down-the-line academic learning of subject that is, sadly, no longer taught in public schools.)

After that moment of surrender, all sorts of stories were made up to explain what was going wrong with education of the young. The stories were all off the main point, because very few people were willing to face the truth.

The NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress), an ongoing project under the auspices of the US Dept. of Education, tested 8th graders in 1992 and 2009, for reading skills. In both years, the “advanced level” was reached by 3% of the kids.

That’s a disaster. But if you go to the NAEP site and read about the test results, you won’t discover any sense of alarm. You’ll read palliative statements suggesting there are areas of improvement.

Naturally. Because otherwise, what are they going to say? They’re the pros, the experts, and they’ve been presiding over an intellectual decimation. They’re walking around the edge of an abyss, and they’re singing little ditties.

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.

MATRIX LOGIC AND REAL LOGIC

 

MATRIX LOGIC AND REAL LOGIC

 

by Jon Rappoport

April 13, 2012

 

Some of you have queried me about my logic course, which is now included in my much larger product, THE MATRIX REVEALED.

 

The logic course is a full 18 lessons, with a teacher’s manual, detailed lesson plans, and a final exam. It’s not a seminar or a workshop or a quick “survey.”

 

Logic, these days, has been replaced in schools with a mind-control apparatus that involves the following:

 

EVERY POINT OF VIEW IS EQUAL.

 

EVERYBODY HAS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE WHOLE.

 

CRITICAL THINKING LEAVES PEOPLE OUT OF THE GROUP AND IS THEREFORE PREJUDICIAL.

 

If you favor this new formulation and think it’s useful, I have condos on Jupiter for sale.

 

The point of modern education, more and more, is the GROUP.

 

“Good people belong to the group.”

 

“The Group is everything.”

 

“If you don’t belong to the Group, you have a mental disorder.”

 

Why is all this emphasis put on the Group?

 

The answer to that question also gives you the reason logic isn’t taught in schools anymore:

 

The independent self-sufficient individual is being phased out.

 

The independent individual who knows how to think and make lucid judgments on his own is a threat to the EMERGING RELIGION OF GLOBALISM.

 

The emerging religion of Globalism is a fuzzy image of THE GROUP.

 

The hive.

 

The colony.

 

The nest.

 

The planet.

 

Mother Earth.

 

Some people think education has been hijacked for the purpose of training children to become robotic workers for the State. That’s partly true, but I beg to differ. Actually, education is the proving ground for the religion of the Group. That is its real goal. And it’s been the goal for some time.

 

This religion doesn’t need or want logic. Logic would be disruptive. It would differentiate one student from another. It would reveal there are ways to analyze information that actually come to valid conclusions. Logic isn’t fuzzy. It doesn’t promote the all-inclusive hive.

 

A year ago, I spoke to a teacher who was introducing his class to logic. He told me, “These are very bright kids. They’re all going to college. They said they couldn’t learn logic. They couldn’t do it. They had some kind of mental block.”

 

As we talked further, it became obvious that the mental block was an idea of THE GROUP. These kids had already been indoctrinated into “cooperative thought.” They instinctively realized that, if they studied logic, the Group would break apart. Each student would have to stand on his own, and that prospect was frightening.

 

In the religion of the Group, one of the key concepts is “the sustainability of the planet,” which is, after all, the largest group. This “sustainability” catchphrase is the leading edge of a vast movement to decide how you, as a UNIT, an energy-consuming UNIT, will be regulated in the overall scheme of things.

 

Your life will be ruled by decisions of the “wise ones,” who understand how to distribute all the available resources of the planet.

 

This is a perverse machine, but it needs to be presented as something soft and spiritual, in order to be sold: the “needs of the Group.”

 

I’ve actually had students tell me, in their fumbling way, that they have an obligation to think like everyone else. Or if they’re rebels, they have a duty to rebel like other rebels.

 

When I started writing this website ten years ago, I explained that the elite Plan was “ant colonies of the 21st century.” I’m glad to see other people are catching up and realizing this really is on the agenda.

 

Logic is a sword that cuts through all that. It wakes up the sleeping mind. It doesn’t paint vague and pretty pictures. It has nothing to do with what the Group thinks or has been taught to think.

 

Logic isn’t a cooperative enterprise. That’s why it was exiled from school systems a long time ago.

 

I’ve talked to many teachers (I used to teach school) who tell me they lead their students on this basis: “we’re all in this together.”

 

It sounds nice, but it has nothing to do with education. It’s a con. It’s a way of avoiding teaching. Once a teacher walks down that road, he’s finished. He’s regressing back to being a child. He’s forfeiting his position. He’s involved in socializing. It can work for a picnic but not for school.

 

The cooperative spirit in the classroom is really the prelude to the religion of the Group. “We’re all in this together” is the initial sales pitch.

 

I remember, 40 years ago, I had an argument with a teacher who was very annoyed that I was attacking the “spirit of the group” concept. He was absolutely convinced that the atmosphere he promoted in his classroom was instrumental in making education work. He was deeply offended that I was questioning it. For him, it was inconceivable that I couldn’t see the value of “sharing and caring” in the classroom. Hadn’t I ever played sports? Didn’t I know what a team was? Hadn’t I ever experienced the joy of friendship in a group?

 

I told him many of his kids were scoring quite badly in his class exams.

 

Apparently, this was beside the point. He was heroic, he was a good guy, he was a cheerleader for friendship and tolerance, he was concerned about feelings and self-esteem, he was doing his best to make good human beings out of his kids.

 

I knew all his moves. I had heard them before.

 

They didn’t make a dent, because in my college days the most compassionate professor I’d had taught me logic. He was also the most exacting professor. He put his students through the mill, and it was exciting. And when, years later, I started working as a reporter, I was already ahead of the game.

 

A person either wants to think for himself—and knows how to—or he prefers the hazy hive-like existence of belonging to something that is less than he is.

 

It’s that simple.

 

Logic gives you the option of making the first choice and avoiding the second.

 

Shortly before I graduated from college, I had a talk with my logic professor in his office. I told him that, from what I could see, the whole path of Western history, starting from ancient Athens, where logic was discovered, involved individuals separating themselves from groups. This was the keynote of progress. These individuals could and did think for themselves and rejected group consciousness.

 

He paused for a few seconds. Then he said he’d give me a little friendly advice. If I started making a big deal out of it and shooting my mouth off—as I was prone to do—I was going to encounter unpleasant resistance.

 

That was 1960. The brainwashing campaign, based on The Group, was already well underway.

 

I finished my formal education just before the really big wave hit. The educrats and the elite planners were putting the finishing touches on their blueprint for “participatory education.”

 

Under that system, the students would be encouraged to believe their ideas and feelings were just as important as their teachers’. By extension, the students were really in class to make their feelings known and help lead the way to a more just world.

 

Like any social movement, there was a little truth in the notion. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have gained traction. But the larger part of participatory education is anti-learning. Learning is supposedly done more through some magical osmosis, the result of the students and teachers rubbing off on each other. “It’s a process.”

 

Slice that baloney any way you want to, it’s still baloney. And when the meal is over, the students have no knowledge of logic, which is the foundation for rational thought. They’re cut loose on a river with no paddle. They have an inflated sense of self-worth, and no understanding to back it up.

 

Out in the world, after school is behind them, what do you think these graduates are going to be attracted to? Anything and anyone who sounds like he’s talking about the GROUP, who praises and elevates the GROUP, who promotes the Collective, who emphasizes how we’re all in this together for a better world.

 

Only it isn’t a better world. It isn’t, because these half-educated young adults never became truly independent individuals. And because “better world” is the flag behind which sits the actual scenario: self-appointed priests directing devotees in the Church of Sustainability. All life, all resources, “for the sake of Mother Earth,” being guided and run from Central Planning.

 

Some day, unless we turn this around, these ex-students will be complaining, “We didn’t think we were signing up for this!”

 

Small correction: you didn’t really think at all, because you never learned how.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creativity to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Nazis, Nixon, Rockefeller, and Watergate

Nazis, Nixon, Rockefeller, and Watergate

by Jon Rappoport

April 12, 2012

To learn why Richard Nixon was really blown out of the White House, you could begin with the infamous Nazi chemical/pharmaceutical cartel, IG Farben. The cartel that pushed Hitler over the top into power in Germany.

One of its lasting legacies is the multinational corporation expanded out into titanic proportions. Farben didn’t just buy smaller companies, it forged favorable agreements with huge corporations all over the world: Standard Oil (Rockefeller); Rhone-Poulenc; Imperial Chemical Industries; Du Pont; Dow.

During World War 2, Josiah Du Bois, representing the US federal government, was sent on a fact-finding mission to Guatemala. His comment: “As far as I can tell the country is a wholly owned subsidiary of Farben.”

What Farben stood for was an attempt to remake the planet in terms of power.

Farben held important cards. It employed brilliant chemists who, in some ways, were far ahead of its competitors. Farben was all about synthetics. Rubber, oil, dyes, pharmaceuticals.

Farben saw itself as a modern version of the old alchemists. Transforming one substance into another. It came to believe that, with enough time, it would be able to make anything from anything. It envisioned labs in which basic chemical facts would be changed so that, in practice, elements and compounds would be virtually interchangeable.

This was in line with the Nazi obsession to discover the lost secrets of the mythical Aryan race and then reconstitute it with selective breeding, genetic engineering, and of course the mass murder of “lesser peoples.”

On one level, there was the idea of chemical transformations, and on another level, the transformation of the human species.

It was really all one piece. The Nazi ideology was the glue.

It was the picture of scientism—the philosophy that asserts science should absolutely rule all facets of life. Nazi Germany showed the world what that philosophy looks like in practice. Farben had prisoners shipped from Auschwitz to its nearby facility, where horrendous medical/pharmaceutical experiments were carried out on them.

At the end of World War 2, the Farben executives were put on trial and, despite the efforts of Telford Taylor, the chief US prosecutor, the sentences handed out were light.

There was a reason for this. A new world was coming into being, and mega-corporations and cartels were at the heart of it. They would be the engines driving the global economy and pillaging the natural resources of the planet. It was colonialism with a different face, the East India company running on technology and industry and a planetary reach beyond anything ever attempted.

So the Farben moguls, and those like them, were seen by many as designers of the new “peace.”

Consider the total volume of international trade of goods today—the largest 300 corporations in the world are responsible for an unbelievable percentage of it…as high as 25%.

So now you see the reason why these treaties like GATT and NAFTA and CAFTA have been launched. Mega-corporations want to roam free. They want to be able to inject money into any entity in the world and suddenly remove it at will. They certainly want to be able to ship goods from one nation to another without paying tariffs, which otherwise would cost them an extraordinary amount of money. For these corporations, nations don’t really exist anymore—they are inconvenient fictions. These corporations don’t want any restrictions on their plundering of the Global Village.

Farben envisioned and planned for this kind of licentious freedom. It saw itself as more than a German cartel. It was already international, and it was moving toward domination.

However, more powerful forces would overtake it—and I’m not just talking about American soldiers. In the sphere of international influence, there are the Plan A and Plan B people. The Plan A controllers (think Rockefeller dynasty, among others) opted for a “softer, gentler” approach, a more covert program, whereby, over a long period of time, the world population would be brought under a global management system, in which mega-corporations would play the central role. The Plan B people, Nazis and their allied interests, wanted crushing force and violence to achieve a somewhat similar goal in a much shorter period of time—with Germany as the leading prow of the movement.

It is in the arena of pharmaceutical domination that one of Farben’s goals has endured. Two of its original components, Bayer and Hoechst, have survived and prospered. And many other drug companies have copied the basic model.

For a number of years, I’ve researched and published on this subject. Death, maiming, destruction, poisoning—these are correct assessments of the overall effects of drug-based medicine. Judging solely by these effects, one could say that war by other means has continued after 1945. And the fronts of devastation have spread.

On the mega-corporate front, the plan for world control remains the Rockefeller template. “Free trade.” This plan was advanced, ceaselessly, for 40 years until, on January 1, 1995, the World Trade Organization was fully formed and took charge of the criminal rules of global commerce: the crowning moment.

However, back in the early 1970s, the whole operation had almost been derailed. One man, a crook, a president, a liar, an insecure parody of a head of state, Richard Nixon, went off script. He REALLY went off script.

In an effort to bolster US companies and protect them from foreign competition inside the United States, Nixon (on Aug 15, 1971) took American money off the gold standard, and he began erecting tariffs on a range of goods imported into the US.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRzr1QU6K1o&w=415&h=311]

If this Nixon economic plan spread to other countries, the entire global program to install “free trade” and mega-corporate emperors on their thrones for a thousand years could crash and burn.

Nixon was a Rockefeller man. He was owned by them. He’d been rescued from financial ruin by The Family, and now he was in the White House undermining their greatest dream. You can’t overstate the degree of the betrayal, from the Rockefeller point of view. You simply can’t.

Something had to be done. The president had to go. This was the real motivation behind Watergate. This was the real op. Yes, there were sub-motives and smaller contexts, as in any major op, but the prime mover was: get Free Trade back on track: get suitable revenge on the puppet in the White House who went off the script.

Any historian who overlooks this is an outright fool or a deceiver.

Whether the Watergate break-in was planned to serve the higher goal or was pounced upon, after the fact, as the grand opportunity, is beside the point. It was there, and it was used. It became the starting point for the Washington Post, its publisher, veteran editor, and two cub reporters to break Richard Nixon into pieces.

And if the Rockefeller people needed an inside man to report on the deteriorating mental state of the president as he heated up in the pressure cooker, they had Henry Kissinger, who was another Rockefeller operative.

The Washington Post was owned by Katharine Graham, who was herself a very close friend of the Rockefeller Family. Years later, she would be awarded a medal of honor by the University of Chicago, a an institution founded by John D. Rockefeller. On her death, a paid heartfelt obituary was inserted in the NY Times by the trustees, faculty, and staff of Rockefeller University, where she had served on the University Council.

And she and Nixon already hated each other by the early 1970s.

The managing editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, was an old hand at writing promotional material, having worked in Europe crafting releases for a CIA front group. A former Naval intelligence man, he liked one of his cub reporters, Bob Woodward, who had also worked for the Navy in intelligence.

When Woodward came to Bradlee with a story about a man in a parking garage who was passing secrets from the White House/FBI about Watergate, we are supposed to believe that Bradlee naturally responded by giving the green light to a major investigation. Woodward and Carl Bernstein, another cub, would undertake it—with nothing more than Bradlee’s reputation and the future survival of the Post and Katharine Graham’s empire on the line if the cubs got it wrong.

We are supposed to believe Bradlee gave the green light, without knowing who the man in the garage was, without knowing whether Woodward could be trusted, without even getting permission from Graham to move ahead.

Bradlee, a grizzled veteran of Washington, understanding exactly what Washington could do to people who told secrets out of school, just said to Woodward and Bernstein, “You’d better be damned sure you’re right, because otherwise we’re all in trouble.”

Two untested cub reporters set loose in a cage with tigers.

The odds of that happening were nil. Bradlee had to know a great deal from the beginning, and he had to have Katharine Graham’s signal to move. The series of breaking stories would be spoon-fed to the unsuspecting young reporters. They would be consumed by their ambition to advance their careers. Bradlee was confident because he had the essentials of the scandal in hand—all the way up to Nixon, the target—well in advance of his two reporters.

To have proceeded otherwise—Bradlee was simply not that kind of fool. Whatever Deep Throat, the man in the garage, was dishing out to Woodward didn’t really matter. Bradlee already had it in his pocket. Deep Throat was merely a contrivance to allow the story to expand and grow by steps, and to permit Woodward and Bernstein to believe they were peeling layers from an onion.

The man behind the curtain was David Rockefeller.

After the whole scandal had been exposed and Nixon had flown away, in disgrace, from the White House for the last time, Rockefeller addressed a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the European Community (October, 1975). He was there to allay their fears about Nixon’s betrayal of the new economic world order. There was really very little he needed to say. David had already created (1973) the free-trade Trilateral Commission, partly in response to Nixon’s wildcat policies. And a new puppet, Gerald Ford was in the White House, and Ford had appointed David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller, as his vice president.

David told the European attendees, “Fortunately, there are no signs that these anti-[free] trade measures [of Nixon] are supported by the [Ford] Administration.”

And that was that. The global mega-corporate colossus was back on track.

The temporary rip in the Matrix had been repaired.

The Matrix Revealed

On a far lower level of power politics, everyone and his brother was consumed with the contrails of the scandal that had driven away Nixon and his colleagues. People were congratulating each other on the expunging of a corrupt conspiracy from public life.

The real players, of course, were still in place, more powerful than ever. David Rockefeller and his aides were preparing for an even greater coup. They had chosen an obscure man with zero name recognition to be the next president of the United States. Jimmy Carter. Carter would function to forward the goals of the Trilateral Commission in bold view of anyone who knew the score.

And every president since Carter, regardless of party affiliation, has supported and extended those Globalist-corporate goals. No questions asked. Obama, who fatuously remarked during his 2008 election campaign that NAFTA “needs to be revisited,” has taken his cues like any other puppet.

When, from this perspective, you examine the global takeover of land and resources by GMO agribusiness, the destruction of small family farms, the plundering of natural resources in the Third World, the use of UN “peacekeepers” and “humanitarian groups” and intelligence agencies to create a wedge, for corporations, into these areas, you see the hand of the Rockefeller plan.

When you see the destruction of currencies and the escalation of insupportable debt, the incursion of a bewildering number of UN-affiliated groups sinking their teeth into local communities all over the planet to “manage sustainable development,” you see the plan.

On the 40th anniversary of Watergate, you can see that the trashing of Nixon, who like every president since, was put in place to serve his masters, was an opportunity to notice the Plan Behind the Curtain.

Obama? Romney? Merely the latest willing front men. Third-rate hustlers.

To succeed against the plan, THE MATRIX, you need to know about it. A little history goes a long way.

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.

Fukushima in the nuclear age

By Jon Rappoport

April 7, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

Before I launch into this subject, I want to point out something about alternatives to nuclear, something that has been laughed off and passed off as absurd for many decades now. It’s all wrapped up in a defunct project called Passamaquoddy, in Maine, and it involves tidal power—the ability of changing tides to turn turbines for power—instead of using radioactive substances to produce steam that turns these turbines.

A tireless researcher named Andrea Silverthorne has pursued a deeper understanding of Passamaquoddy, and its connection to JFK, for a long time. You can find her article on it at:

www.dreamofpassamaquoddy.com

Michael Collins at EnviroReporter.com measured radiation levels in Santa Monica, CA, a few days ago and found, in mist samples, a 500% escalation above what is considered normal—as a result of the drift from Fukushima.

He also states that, at the San Onofre nuclear power plant, a few miles up the freeway from where we live in San Diego, there is a problem. The facility has been shut down for two months, after radioactive steam escaped through a leak in a tube.

According to Collins, many tubes there show signs of wear, and the officials at San Onofre have been ordered to fix them—but some of the tubes are new. They have been shaking and rubbing against each other and against other structures. No one is sure why. New equipment from Mitsubishi was recently installed at the plant—and the basic position of the officials at San Onofre was: we don’t need detailed inspection; we’re simply replacing the old with the new and there are no important changes being made. Collins states this is untrue. One change, among several, has been an alteration in the rate of water flow through the tubes.

Everything I’ve said so far in this article is nothing compared with what is going on in Japan at Fukushima. Nothing. For example, ABC News is now reporting a new leak of 12 tons of radioactive water from the nuclear plant.

What I’m hearing from Collins and others: one of the Fukushima buildings (unit #4) has a second floor where a pool of water containing many uranium rods is in danger of drying out or collapsing. And if that happens, we are looking at a global catastrophe the likes of which we’ve never seen.

This is way beyond “a sobering thought.”

Assuming this scenario is accurate, we are hearing, reading, and seeing virtually nothing about it via major media.

There are no easy fixes. To tackle the delicate job of repair on Fukushima unit 4 or the transport of its dangerous materials away from the site…I have not yet heard any straight-ahead solutions that are being touted enthusiastically. There has been some buttressing construction work on the second floor at unit 4; I don’t know how successful it will be, over the short or long term.

According to Collins, the company that runs Fukushima, TEPCO, is working their people five days a week, and they go home on the weekends, as if it’s business as usual.

He finds no evidence that a herculean effort is being made to solve the unit 4 problem.

(I’m fully aware, by the way, that environmental disasters can be used as a pretext for “clamping down tighter on the population.” I know all about this. I know about these ops.)

But if what is happening at Fukushima is as massive as I’m hearing it is, then finding the best way to fix it, if it can be fixed, is not only urgent, it’s imperative—without any gestures toward martial law or other criminal operations. There are still aftershocks from the earthquake in Japan (or some say the earthquake is really continuing), and this could be what brings down all that water and those fuel rods.

In addition to what I’ve mentioned and sketched about the situation at Fukushima, there are 4000 tons of radioactive waste stored there. This is not unusual, because where are they going to put it?

A member of the Union of Concerned Scientists has sent me the following email:

“In 1997, Brookhaven [National Laboratory] released the attached report on spent fuel pool accidents at US reactors.

“Tables 4.1 and 4.2 summarize the results for PWRs and BWRs, respectively. Fukushima Unit 4 is a BWR.

“Table 4.2 Case 1H reported 138,000 latent cancer deaths out to 500 miles, 2,170 square miles of condemned land, and a total cost of $546 billion.

“But Unit 4 [at Fukushima] did not have a full pool, as do most US BWRs.

“Instead, Unit 4 essentially had only the last core in the spent fuel pool, which is Case 2H.

“‘Only’ 86,400 latent cancer deaths with a total cost of ‘only’ $234 billion.

End email.

 

I have read estimates of death and damage that are much more severe and much less severe. Naturally, a great deal revolves around how you project numbers of future cancer cases.

Now, here is a comment emailed to me by Dr. Helen Caldicott, who has been a passionate and outspoken opponent of nuclear power for many years. Dr. Caldicott voices warnings and predictions that some have called far too extreme. For others, she is one of the central heroes in the struggle for a safer world.

“Jon, yes it [unit 4 at Fukushima] has over 1000 fresh fuel rods straight out of the no 4 reactor and the building is fragile because of the earthquake, if there was another quake and the building collapsed the Japanese government is saying that Tokyo would have to be evacuated – 30 million people, and the rest of the northern hemisphere would be seriously impaired. Already Fukushima is 2.5 to 3 times worse in releases than Chernobyl and the NY Academy of Science report indicates that over one million have died in the first 25 years post Chernobyl!”

If you want a completely opposite view, you can visit Rod Adams, a pro-nuclear-power advocate, at Atomic Insights. Rod has written extensively, defending nuclear power plants, and in his view the dangers from leaks have been grossly overstated.

Again, one key lies in how you predict and project cancer as a result of radioactive emissions. In the past, I’ve interviewed people who stand on both sides of the question. Their assessments are miles apart.

Finally, here is an article from iicph.org, the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, by Willi Nolan: “Fatal Flaws: Unsolved Problems of Nuclear Reactors.”

December 1, 2011

Since the catastrophic accident at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant, independent investigations of safety issues are revealing more and more little-known facts about the unsolved dangers inherent to virtually all nuclear power plants in the world.

In Canada, Dr. Michel Duguay, of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering studies at Laval University, joined with public interest groups to share troubling scientific facts about problems that are intrinsic to all CANDU reactors. Duguay cites reports from staff at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) about a design flaw in CANDU nuclear reactor cooling systems, which can, with loss of pressure while in operation, cause a chain of events to commence, including explosions on the scale experienced in Japan, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

Historical investigations have also revealed that the vast majority of nuclear reactors everywhere are operating with another fatal design flaw … the radioactive fuel is encased in a zirconium metal alloy.

Zirconium becomes explosive when in contact with air or steam. One of the potential causes of the generation of the highly explosive hydrogen gas during a nuclear power plant accident comes from the reaction of steam with the zirconium-alloy metal in reactor fuel delivery systems.

This concern was raised at least as early as 1975 by Dr. Earl A. Gulbransen ( 1909-1992), a professor in the Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh. Despite this evidence, all CANDU reactors still use fuel delivery systems that contain zirconium alloy. Fuel rods containing pellets of uranium fuel for CANDUs are assembled into “bundles” or cylinders or tubes which are inserted into the reactor’s calandria vessel. Both the fuel rods and bundles are made of “zircaloy” an alloy composed mainly of zirconium.

A “calandria tube” containing insulating CO2 gas (carbon dioxide) surrounds each fuel bundle for delivery into the reactor’s calandria vessel while a cooling system dissipates the heat to prevent hot particles from becoming overheated and causing the reactor to go critical, which could result in reactor meltdown. The CANDU is designed so that failed or leaking zirconium fuel bundles can be located and removed from the reactor core while in operation and reduce radiation fields in the primary operating systems.

However, because zirconium explodes when in contact with hydrogen (air), fuel bundles are always kept covered with water. As has already happened at Fukushima and Three Mile Island, loss of water from pools of “spent” radioactive fuel leads to spontaneous ignition of the zirconium alloy cladding. In response, explosions of hydrogen gas from the surrounding air, damage to fuel assemblies, release of radioactive materials, reactor criticality leading to a potential meltdown can follow. All CANDU installations in Canada store used fuel bundles on site.

In 1979, a list of nuclear plants around the world published the fact that almost all Light Water Reactors (LWR) are also affected by this flaw. The same source indicates that 85% of the nuclear power plants in the world are affected by this design flaw.

“Earl A. Gulbransen: One of the potential causes of the generation of highly explosive hydrogen gas during a nuclear power plant accident comes from the reaction of steam with the zirconium-alloy metal cladding (or tubing) of the fuel rods that hold the uranium fuel pellets.”

Managing waste fuel bundles presents yet another set of problems. According to a November 2008 study by Gordon R. Thompson of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies, there are no published studies on the potential for an accidental release of radioactive material from spent fuel stored at a nuclear power plant employing a CANDU reactor.

In October 2011, plant operators at Point Lepreau, New Brunswick, announced the installation of a passive hydrogen capture system to prevent possible hydrogen explosions in the reactor. No such measures were announced for its waste management facility. It is noteworthy that, because operators are relying on simulations to test potential for explosions, there is no way to obtain certainty about either the safety of this measure in real life situations, or the validity of software simulations under changing conditions, such as life extension projects for aging reactors.

Until Fukushima, science has not focused adequately on worst-case nuclear accident scenarios. There is no agreement on what exactly can or has or will happen in nuclear accidents or on the plans of action needed to protect populations from harm. Many hydrogen explosions have been reported at Fukushima; there is at least some growing consensus that loss of containment of used and unused reactor fuel assemblies are the cause of at least some of these explosions.

Governments regulators on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border, although mandated to protect public health and the environment, are under fire for rubber stamping operator licenses and not paying enough attention to ensure that regulations to avoid severe accidents are enforced. Although the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has determined that there is no safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation, regulators have in fact increased allowable levels of radiation for workers and the public while minimizing actual risks to health and safety. IICPH continues to note that independent medical opinion is missing from regulatory oversight of nuclear plant licence applications.

The states of New York and Vermont have both won successful rulings in lawsuits against the Nuclear Safety Commission (NRC) and reactor operator Entergy. These historic legal precedents demonstrate that the NRC violated regulations by allowing the nuclear plants to continue to operate without requiring complete assessments for environmental protection and safety in the case of severe accidents.

It is time for nuclear operators, proponents and the industry itself to admit that, whether through “acceptable” or accidental releases and exposure to the public or measures to mitigate severe harm and widespread damage, nuclear power plants will never guarantee public safety or complete control of radioactive materials.

Perhaps it is some comfort that, at the inception of the age of nuclear power, they were only designed to last forty years. That time has passed. Humanity must now learn wise use of energy. Conservation and efficiency must replace the practice of wasting precious energy resources. Economies and industries based on dirty energy generation must be replaced.

Fortunately, this trend has already begun, with strategies that combine wise energy use with renewable resources. We hope that it is not too late to alter our individual and collective ecological footprints to ensure the survival and well being of humanity.

End article.

Jon Rappoport

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