Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

THIS IS THE GREAT ADVENTURE

 

THE GREAT ADVENTURE OF IMAGINATION AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR FREEDOM

 

THE OTHER PART OF MY WORK

 

by Jon Rappoport

April 6, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

I’ve received notes from readers asking about the range of my work. They see I’m doing investigations of medical fraud and political conspiracy. I’m exposing various kinds of mind control and movements toward world government.

 

Then they catch glimpses of something quite different. I also write about the creative power of the individual. Not just his freedom, but his ability to invent realities—beyond the supposed end-all and be-all of the reality we share.

 

The two aspects of my work are connected. In my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, the connection is made obvious.

 

But what is this thing called imagination, and why should we think it’s valuable, when we are assailed on all sides by people who want subtract our freedoms and reduce us to ciphers in their Machine?

 

How could imagination deliver power to us, when it’s looked at, for the most part, as nothing more than a pleasant toy for children who haven’t yet learned how to cope with the world?

 

Like many people, my childhood adventure of imagination started when I found books. Stories, novels. I read them as if they were food laid out for a starving nomad.

 

After ten years or so, during which I left them behind, I found them again, at the end of my formal education, when I started writing and painting.

 

Eventually, I saw that imagination itself was a transforming energy that had no limits. This was my real jumping-off point.

 

Far from being a tool or a mere plaything, imagination was alive. It was electric. It was the Niagara, from which all new discoveries could be made.

 

Years later, I met Jack True, the brilliant innovative hypnotherapist I interview in THE MATRIX REVEALED. He was coming to the conclusion that huge areas of consciousness were cut off from people because they had put their own imaginations into a trance state—and he was waking up those areas.

 

He saw that imagination is where we store our deepest desires, the desires we believe can’t be fulfilled and made manifest in life.

 

Imagination is a kind of Potential, in the same way that energy not in current use can be assessed as Potential, waiting to be delivered from inertia.

 

This power can change a life, can change anything.

 

As a journalist, I came to the obvious conclusion that one goal of the global Elite’s agenda was to dampen the Spirit of populations. Homing in on that more closely, I realized that the target was imagination. And people were burying their own imaginations as well, and then they felt deadened. They felt small. They felt as if they were defined, and were simply playing out the string in life, following a way that had already been determined.

 

Jack True was treating patients from the assumption they were already, in the core of consciousness, in a trance, and they needed to wake up by accessing their imagination. He was having great success. In some cases, his patients were experiencing paranormal phenomena, and were intentionally exercising paranormal abilities.

 

Through our many conversations and interviews, it became apparent that the paranormal was one sub-section of imagination.

 

A different view of the world swam into view. Populations, in various and not-so-various ways, were cut off from imagination, and they were suffering the consequences. People were separated from their own extraordinary power.

 

What we call shared reality is a kind of default structure—what is left over after imagination is forgotten and misplaced.

 

During those conversations with Jack, (1987-1991), I was seeing things more clearly than I ever had. For example, I recognized that my investigation of pharmaceutical drugs was also an investigation into how many of these chemicals dampen and tranquilize the power of imagination.

 

I began, not just thinking about, but seeing the world as a stage on which a single play was being performed over and over. The characters might change, but their range of creative power had a built-in ceiling.

 

And the emotional and spiritual consequences of that, for the individual, were enormous.

 

I would compare what I was becoming aware of to looking at a painting in a museum and suddenly realizing the painting had several extra dimensions that had escaped notice.

 

We have this innate impulse called freedom, but what is freedom for? What are we supposed to do with it? The answer boils down to: imagine, and create. Without interference. And far from being a silly little preoccupation, imagining and creating reality, when unleashed, transform a life in the most profound way. And can transform the commonly shared reality, too.

 

I went back and started researching ancient myths from a different angle. The legend of Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods and gave it to man, could be read as a story about “authorship.” The Olympian gods were trying to maintain a monopoly on inventing reality. Humans were supposed to be actors in the gods’ ultimate drama. Prometheus was breaking out of that shell, out of that cocoon, out of that defined monolithic space. He had found the truth and had given it to his fellow humans: the individual has unlimited imagination and unlimited capacity to invent.

 

The astrological signs of the Zodiac can be connected in a treatise about Time, sequential cause-and-effect time, and how a person, through imagination, can break through that confining dimension into the paranormal.

 

There are a number of these old philosophical systems, at the center of which stands the free individual, who can imagine and create with great power and heroically overcome the confinement of consensus reality.

 

We are so much more than pawns in an elite game, so much more than eternal victims in the grip of repressive forces. We are so much more than minds without imagination.

 

The deepest mind control on this planet has to do with the roles we ourselves choose to play. The truth is, we are meant to IMAGINE and CREATE and ENACT much greater roles than the ones we’re currently engaged in.

 

But if we’ve put our imaginations to sleep, how can we do it? If we think imagination is nothing more than a momentary escape from our daily lives, how can we achieve it?

 

If we accept the range of possible roles defined by our society and by the men who run it, we’re forever wandering around in the foothills of mountains we’re meant to climb.

 

So now you have a brief introduction to the other part of my work.

 

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, and creativity to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

UN admits it has no clue on climate!

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2012

The much-awaited SREX report is out from the IPCC.

What?

The UN’s very official key group (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that touts manmade global warming is the IPCC. It’s the scientific spear that lances the boil called “sociologically diseased global-warming skeptics.”

The IPCC’s SREX report is a tome on the subject of extreme climate changes.

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

(SREX is shorthand for “Special Report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation”)

Media outlets, falling into line with the Globalist agenda of go-green decimate-industry drive-us-all-into-underground-enclaves-to-escape-the-warming-disaster, have spun this SREX report as a further warning to the people of Earth.

But at omnologos.com, they actually read the SREX, and they found a fascinating FAQ. Question 3.1 asks: Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme?

And after perhaps a 1000 words of hemming and hawing about various interpretations of that question and what would be needed to answer it, in terms of actual measuring instruments, the authors—220 authors from 62 countries—concluded:

“…NONE OF THE ABOVE INSTRUMENTS HAS YET BEEN DEVELOPED SUFFICIENTLY AS TO ALLOW US TO CONFIDENTLY ANSWER THE QUESTION POSED HERE.”

Pause.

See, this is called cognitive dissonance.

You KNOW all the experts have been telling us we’re doomed unless we go back to the forests and start eating roots and tubers.

You know this.

And yet…here are those very same experts now saying they have no clue about whether the weather is doing bad things to us.

And on top of that, the major media outlets haven’t pointed out the contradiction.

It’s a three-part piece of lunacy.

Fortunately, as a reporter who studied logic, I’ve learned to live with these contradictions for years and I’ve brought them to your attention. Of course, I throw bricks at walls and crush cars and buildings with my hands to let off a little steam. But I recover.

Here is the takeaway on this climate story:

“We, who are in charge of your destiny because we have the money and the power and the force to back it up, don’t know what hell we’re doing when it comes to global warming. But we don’t need to know. All we have to do is tell the manmade warming story and keep telling it. We have the requisite number of media androids and sold-out scum journalists to make that happen. And on that basis and that basis alone, we will tax carbon and reduce industry and destroy populations in order to save the world. And you will go along with it, mainly because you’re too stupid to see through the story. Are we clear?”

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.

Manmade global frying with 2 eggs

Manmade global frying with 2 eggs

Who is professor Kari Norgaard?

“This is 21st century book burning.” — Alex Jones, April 5, 2012

And, who is professor Karen Seto?

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2012.

www.nomorefakenews.com

YouTube has taken down an Alex Jones video in which he parodies the professor who recently said warming critics have a mental disorder and should be treated.

Well, Professor Kari Norgaard was right about one thing. Anything can be called a psychiatric disorder. Dream up a disorder, name it, and the drug companies will give you a wink and a nod, because they cook up the expensive chemical solutions.

But I digress.

YouTube apparently believes official science can’t be messed with, and also that parody is a crime. In case you hadn’t noticed, criticizing science and government policy is beginning to merge with “politically incorrect speech.” The two streams are coming together, and it isn’t an accident.

Global warming is a key issue, because it’s the premise on which destruction of economies and green everything and cap and trade are based.

As Al Gore’s TV network, run out of the back of a pickup, heads into oblivion, and as the internet flushes one traditional media business after another down the toilet, as the manmade warming hypothesis takes one hit after another, as the science is exposed, the powers-that-be are getting nervous.

They want consensus, and they don’t care how they get it.

When PR dressed up as science doesn’t work, when gaping holes in the manmade warming hypothesis are exposed again and again, when scandals inside the corrupt warming club explode, the Plan B people try to shut down is the truth.

They cite “community standards” on speech, they suddenly interpret the 1st Amendment to mean “inoffensive comments,” they show “concern for potential victims,” they take sides.

It’s quite all right for scientists and government employees to call those who question the manmade warming hypothesis insane, or racist, or dangerous or mentally incompetent, but when the attacks run the other way, it’s impolite and offensive and insensitive. Boo-hoo.

O poor little professor who wrote a paper calling global warming critics sociologically diseased, and in need of treatment. Poor little professor needs defending, poor little professor of sociology who probably knows less climate science than a TV weather android. Poor little professor who wants to debate science by calling the other side demented.

You see, she’s a professor, and she was operating under the delusion that, from her protected perch, she could make sensational pronouncements and cut herself a nice little piece of academic pie and graduate into the land of the famous.

Well, she’s famous now, and I don’t think she likes it. A dose of her own medicine wasn’t what she had in mind. She thought she was inventing a new category of mental disorder.

Students actually put themselves into hock for decades, to come to your college and sit in your classes? Astonishing.

See, Professor Norgaard, let me take you to school for a second:

Science is supposed to work this way. Someone makes a claim based on evidence, and then other scientists use that evidence and decide whether the claim has merit. I know, that’s Pure science, and we rarely see it anymore in many areas of research. But that’s the template. That’s the way it’s supposed to operate.

If you play that game under the cover of academic pretension, based on NOTHING, it’s a giveaway. You’re just quack-quacking. And even some of your colleagues can see it. Your bosses at the college have already said your use of the word “treatment,” as in “needs treatment,” was a mistake. So they’re backing down. They’re running away and hiding. From you.

That must have been a bit of a shocker. There you were, quack-quacking, thinking your superiors would back you up, and they fled into the night. Cowards. They couldn’t take heat. See, they’re fakers, too. When the PR turns against them, they cut you loose in a second and leave you with your wings flapping in the breeze.

Welcome to the real world of academia.

By the way, I just read a letter you wrote to President Obama posted on the Whitman College website—the letter that will probably be scrubbed out in the next 30 seconds. Let me quote you:

“At this juncture, we need science more than ever. Fortunately, you have made an excellent choice in commissioning Harvard physicist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient John Holdren as your science adviser.”

Kari? Holdren didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize. At least not in this galaxy. You didn’t know that? I know some people who’d like to smoke what you’re smoking.

power outside the matrix

I really shouldn’t leave this piece without saying a word or two about another professor, not from the wilds of Oregon, but from Yale, who might be smoking with Skull and Bones types. That would be Karen Seto. The Daily UK Mail mentioned she recently told MSNBC: “We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely (together).”

My, my. Nothing elitist or arrogant to see here, move along.

This is about “urban land use” and “natural preservation” and “the warming threat” and “environmental stewardship.” All of which mean CENTRAL PLANNING for the planet.

Pack people into the cities (one item on the UN Agenda 21 list), leave the wilds to nature, with a few golf courses for the upper caste, and delegate farming to giant GMO corporations because, well, somebody has to grow food, unless the urban billions are going to be chomping Soylent Green. Or unless, to make this criminal enterprise work, some heavy depopulation must take place.

Quite a vision of the future, and it’s only right that Yale is in the vanguard.

Who’s insane?

But ha-ha, these professors are just fringe jokers and we all know there is no threat to our freedom.

Yeah? Go to Karen Seto’s CV at the Yale site and read the brain-cracking list of organizations she’s connected to. They’re all involved in this Central Planning for the Planet to Save Our Skins op. And you’ve never heard of any of them. They’re networked. And there are many more. They’re working globally, they’re working locally, and I wish I could say they’re all suffering from a sociological disease. But they aren’t. They’re little mad egos and big mad egos who are gathering together to create a future for the rest of us. A future decimation.

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

Manipulating evolution from now on

By Jon Rappoport

April 4, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

(August 2013 update: For TruthStreamMedia.com’s article entitled “DARPA to Genetically Engineer Humans by Adding a 47th Chromosome“, click here. For a pdf copy of the DARPA solicitation entitled “Advanced Tools for Mammalian Genome Engineering“, click here. See also Creating a genetic monster.)

“A study on rats published in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology showed that sound waves could be used to [reversibly] reduce sperm counts to levels that cause infertility in humans…The concept…is now being pursued by researchers at the University of North Carolina who won a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.” — (BBC News/Health, Jan.29, 2012, reported at naturalnews.com).

After Darwin cast his view of evolution upon the waters, a notion that humans were naturally selected bio-machines gained increasing consensus.

If Science could understand how a human was built, it could not only cure illness, it could change the inherent pattern of the body and brain. Evolution was merely a history of changes in the bio-machine.

Eventually, this position was taken to the full extreme. The Eugenics movement sprang up in America, and it was exported to Nazi Germany, where it was used for a program of pure destruction the American advocates could only dream of.

Now, the population is being softened up for another version of The Human as Bio-Machine. Through movies, through the press, through heavily promoted speculation— “we are on the verge of enormous breakthroughs in genetics”—the population is being primed for a pseudo-philosophy of selection: some people should live, and some people should die, or at the very least, not reproduce.

On the one hand we are fed “highly positive” assurances that designer genetics will enable the creation of smarter, more talented, stronger, healthier people of the future. On the other hand, we are told that the exigencies of “public health care” make it necessary to differentiate between “viable and non-viable” patients.

These two threads are woven together, and in the confusion people are giving in, more and more, to the idea of a New Eugenics.

At bottom is the un-debated question: IS A HUMAN A BIO-MACHINE AND NOTHING MORE?

Most academic philosophers will tell you the question itself is meaningless. That’s their way of skirting the issue of free will.

And it’s one reason many academics believe the Constitution is a badly outmoded document: it asserts that every individual can be free. Claiming that the existence of free will is preposterous, academia determines that any political document based on liberty and freedom can be trampled on with impunity.

“There are only brains and those brains operate purely by electrical/chemical inputs and outputs.”

And THAT opens the door to various versions of Eugenics. Because who can object to experiments on machines?

Lee Silver, an enthusiastic molecular biologist at Princeton, has written a book, Remaking Eden, about the future of gene science in society. This is how he sees things playing out:

“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class… .

“Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.

“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.

“Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of repro-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”

It’s interesting that Silver mentions the value of individual freedom. Would he be willing to discuss his view of the human being honestly? Does he claim the human is a bio-machine and nothing more? And if so, where does this freedom come from? Sub-atomic particles changing their minds every so often? Or does he have a different view of the human?

If we could bring these bio-ethicists and geneticists and academic philosophers out into the light of day, where the issue of free will would be discussed in depth, some very interesting things might happen.

For example: “Well, why shouldn’t we experiment on human beings to see what we can produce genetically? The human is merely sub-atomic particles in motion that have somehow acquired the delusion they have Identity and Free Choice.”

Yes, let’s get it all out into the open, where we can see the underlying assumptions and look at them straight on.

Ideas do move the world, even if the bulk of humanity is disinterested or unwilling to grasp them. To infer that such underlying ideas are a waste of time and should be discarded altogether is exactly the kind of default that leaves the playing field open; open to those who DO have ideas and are willing to act on them—to the detriment of all of us.

Thirty years ago, biotech companies looking for seed money began to hire scientists to shill for them. These pros began promising the moon, in terms of what the research in genetics could deliver in short order. Of course, the promises were completely overblown, but the stage was set for a major PR campaign that would add grants and research funding to the coffers of geneticists—and convince the public that the Brave New World had arrived.

That PR has grown to this day. The man on the street is now blithely ready to attribute all sorts of human behavior to genes and DNA. He’s an expert. He knows. He can repeat the latest promises about genetic cures for disease.

This, despite the fact there is NOT a single gene-treatment for a disease that works across the board. Can someone prove otherwise?

Go into a university department of genetics/molecular biology, or a department of philosophy, and try to find a real discussion and debate about whether humans have free will, whether the human being is only a bio-machine. Good luck.

The very basis of the American Republic, individual freedom, has been cut out of the equation.

But no one at the university level deems this a significant or disturbing fact. Teachers are far more interested in “group values” and “consensus” and the deconstruction of all ideas into an analysis of who benefits from having the ideas.

The rearranging of genes in humans has, for some time, been discussed openly in academic journals. The cat is out of the bag. Geneticists, biologists, social scientists, bio-ethicists are all weighing in. One typical argument: once upon a time, people were horrified at the prospect of doing in vitro fertilization; people said it wouldn’t work, it would produce monsters; now it’s accepted as normal and natural.

And THEREFORE, “we should look at genetic manipulation as the next stage of our self-directed evolution. We should try it. We should be ready to deal with failures, because the pursuit of the goal is good and valuable.”

All this presupposes honorable motives and humane objectives. Who cares about a realistic assessment of what scientists will countenance and promote?

We are told there are laws against dangerous gene experiments, and there are medical ethics panels ready to rule out potentially harmful practices. But among the experts, a tide is rising in favor of the overall goal of engineering our genetic future.

And this is quite understandable, because not only do scientists tend to have a sense of their own superior entitlement and intelligence, they believe they’re tinkering with machines. They might not phrase it that way, but that’s what it comes down to.

The Matrix Revealed

David King, writing at Human Genetics Alert, states:

“The main debate around human genetics currently centres on the ethics of genetic testing, and possibilities for genetic discrimination and selective eugenics. But while ethicists and the media constantly re-hash these issues, a small group of scientists and publicists are working towards an even more frightening prospect: the intentional genetic engineering of human beings. Just as Ian Wilmut presented us with the first clone of an adult mammal, Dolly, as a fait accompli, so these scientists aim to set in place the tools of a new techno-eugenics, before the public has ever had a chance to decide whether this is the direction we want to go in. The publicists, meanwhile are trying to convince us that these developments are inevitable.”

Inevitable. That’s the key idea. “There’s nothing we can do now. The march of progress is underway.”

King continues:

“One major step towards reproductive genetic engineering is the proposal by US gene therapy pioneer, French Anderson, to begin doing gene therapy on foetuses, to treat certain genetic diseases. Although not directly targeted at reproductive cells, Anderson’s proposed technique poses a relatively high risk that genes will be ‘inadvertently’ altered in the reproductive cells of the foetus, as well as in the blood cells which he wants to fix. Thus, if he is allowed to go ahead, the descendants of the foetus will be genetically engineered in every cell of their body.”

But the gene enthusiasts don’t care about what happens up the line to the descendants. It’s all part of the grand experiment. Spin the wheel, take a chance. If “we” don’t like the outcome, spin the wheel again and see what happens. Eventually, we’ll get it right.

One of the most enthusiastic proponents of human genetic engineering, Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine, has written:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost, enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The Nazi elite, obsessed with the idea of creating a Master Race, serving that goal, were willing to try any horrendous experiment on any prisoner; they were willing to breed their “ideal” men and women to produce offspring that would fit their definition of “superior.”

Now we are being sold a soft version of Eugenics as the next step in evolution. It’s a kinder, gentler roulette. And why should individual free will be an obstacle; that’s just a superstitious fantasy; freedom was never real; there was always and only The Experiment; natural selection, intentional selection—what’s the difference?

Some who look at the future see Orwell’s 1984. Others see Huxley’s Brave New World. I’m here to tell you the scientific/medical/technological elitists are sitting at the table with many chips to play. They’re betting that, in the long run, they will win, because they are touting hypnotically entrancing “imperatives” of the Religion called Science.

And if by chance, they discover a reliable way to utilize gene insertion to produce sterility and infertility, they will see a path to quiet depopulation. And then who will control the technology? Wide-eyed futurists who teach at universities, or calculating operatives who work for the hardest-line Globalists?

Despite Gregory Stock’s advice to think only in the short term and disregard the broader future, I suggest you consider the implications of government-controlled and funded healthcare. Up the road, the prescribed list of treatments for all diseases will become mandatory. The doctor offers, you accept. You obey. He advocates gene therapy, you fall into line. You’re in the system.

Meanwhile, the current generation of scientists and academics who want to move full speed ahead on engineering evolution aren’t the old crusty scowling researchers from days gone by. They’re enthused, they’re daring, they look and dress like ex-hippies who’ve moved to the suburbs. They’re happy sociopaths spreading cheer. And they talk like software designers operating on the bright cutting edge.

What could go wrong?

And to cement in the argument for engineering humans, there is the ever-powerful fairness argument. Professor Julian Savalescu, of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics:

“Nature allots all sorts of abilities and talents in a random way. It’s not fair, and I don’t see why we should let people’s lives be determined by the throw of a dice.”

Unless throwing a pair of scientific dice results in multiplying catastrophes, or the use of workable genetic technology (if it really is workable) raises an unending roar and riot from millions, even billions of people who claim they’re being denied their right to be Equal.

A man on his way out of a restaurant trips on a stair and sues the owner; and he’s going to stay quiet when his rich cousin can suddenly play a Beethoven piano concerto?

I asked a retired professor of biology about the social effects of human engineering. His comment was: “These younger geneticists who see paradise over the hill? If they’re living over the hill in big houses, they’re going to need the Army to protect them.”

And will the Army protect them? I asked.

“Look,” he said, “this whole business of inserting genes to create talents is a fantasy (emphasis added). But assuming at some distant time it could come true, the soldiers would have their own synthetic genes, which would presumably make them follow orders to the extreme. The soldiers would do whatever the people who run things want them to do. It would be a tight world.”

When individual freedom is no longer discussed in great depth by people who should know better, when it is left to wither on the vine, many programs and structures are built to take its place. When freedom is not understood beyond a superficial level, the question, “WHAT IS FREEDOM FOR?”, goes begging. For the past 15 years, I’ve been exploring the question, and I believe, in the answer, we find the imagination and creative power that can allow us to enhance ourselves, without the need to desperately hope for genetic reprogramming.

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.

MONEY AND THE DESTRUCTION OF NATIONS

 

MONEY AND THE DESTRUCTION OF NATIONS

 

By Jon Rappoport

April 3, 2012

 

“The American people have been bamboozled on two counts. First, the Republic that was established in the Constitution was stolen from them, and what eventually replaced it was a conquering American Empire. Then the Empire was integrated into Globalism, which meant that America was gone altogether, because the ultimate plan is for a single world-nation.” — Ellis Medavoy, retired propaganda master, interviewed by Jon Rappoport in THE MATRIX REVEALED.

 

In the last ten years, the American people have been treated to an intensification of The Democracy Op.

 

It’s really nothing new. It’s been going on for a long time, in various incarnations. But the pace has stepped up. A diplomat once described it to me bluntly as “crap on toast.”

 

We are supposed to believe that in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Uganda, Iran, and other places, the so-called uprisings of the people—aided modestly and strategically and compassionately by our own government—have tried and somehow failed, so far, to bring about a genuine Constitutional revolution of freedom.

 

But, we are told, this establishment of freedom abroad IS the US government’s fervent foreign-policy wish and aim.

 

Well, no. The truth is somewhat more sordid. The foreign policy of the American government, in opposition to the will of the American people (were they to understand what is going on), is to open markets for American corporations and military bases and platforms for our Armed Forces.

 

And somewhere in the upper mists of this expansive operation, there are deals to be worked out, so that the final winners will be multinational players (corporate and finance), and what would otherwise have been American Empire will merge and blend with the ambitions of elites from other countries, and we will have de facto global management of the planet.

 

The good news is that the upper-echelon Globalists aren’t quite as smart as they think they are. They create their own problems and they keep trying to solve them, and the worse the problems are, the more desperate they become for answers.

 

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the money game. Why do I say that? Because an internal contradiction rises like a mad flame, in the middle of their plans to bankrupt governments and make populations poorer.

 

Among the elite global players are multinational corporations, who not only want to play a central role in running the planet, but also want to…SELL THEIR PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS.

 

And if the bulk of those consumers can barely shop at a 7-Eleven, those corporations are going to go down the toilet.

 

It’s that stark.

 

About 20 years ago, author William Greider (“One World, Ready or Not”) pointed out that many mega-corporations were operating their assembly lines at about half-capacity, because there were only a billion people on the face of the Earth who could afford their products.

 

Since then, the situation hasn’t noticeably improved.

 

Therefore, it doesn’t really matter how the Globalists restructure the money system or bail out governments they demolished. The question remains: who is going to buy the goods of the mega-corporations?

 

As early as 1940 (!), Bucky Fuller was writing about the feasibility of supplying the essentials of survival to every human on Earth. The secret was out. It could be done, and over time, with technological innovations, it would be easier to do.

 

At that moment, corporations faced a choice. They could find a way to carry out a plan for universal abundance, or they could continue on the track of cutthroat competition based on a notion of scarcity.

 

Scarcity was really a myth, of course. But it enabled those who wanted more wars and more control.

 

Obviously, the corporations turned a blind eye to Bucky Fuller’s revelations.

 

And now they are paying the price. They are literally spinning their wheels.

 

China and India, with their enormous populations, are the current Holy Grail of the global market, but that is only a temporary fix.

 

There are two ways to solve the problem these corporations face. The first is exemplified by ObamaCare. Under this plan, government itself will manage, more and more, the sickness-care industry that currently sucks up (2009 figure) 2.5 trillion dollars per year.

 

Given the multiple scandals in Medicare, the prospect of government handling the books for a far larger system is unappetizing, to say the least. And this factor doesn’t even touch on the nightmare of forced toxic medical/pharmaceutical care decimating the population at new levels.

 

Can you imagine what would happen if the federal government moved in and really took over the food supply, lock, stock, and barrel—and then began to distribute everything from beef to peanut butter, according to a “fair plan” designed to produce “abundance for all?”

 

Destroying the free market in this way, crushing it, pulverizing it has been tried. It fails. And to push such a program forward on a planetary basis would cause mega-corporations to feel a kind of pain they don’t even dream of now. The idea might seem, on the surface, to be workable, as long as corporations are married to the elites who run Central Distribution for Planet Earth. But that’s an illusion. In the long run, fewer and fewer companies would stay on board. Why? Because everything that motivates individuals within corporations to work, to innovate, to market their products, to compete, to win would be hammered into submission.

 

You can say these business motivations are selfish or greedy or vicious, and should be eradicated, but try to stamp them out by law and by force, and you won’t get far. You’ll have the USSR writ large and writ worse.

 

The other option is to preserve the free market with one great change. If corporations realized that providing the essentials of survival to every man, woman, and child in the world is a goal THAT COULD INCREASE THEIR BOTTOM LINE, you could see a change.

 

In other words, compare selling a million coats at $40 a coat to selling fifty million coats at $8 a coat.

 

In the “new free market,” the corporate goal would be to expand sales and charge less, while actually improving the quality of the goods.

 

I fully recognize the pitfalls, complexities, and challenges of such a system, when applied to the planet—not the least of which is the VOLUNTARY conversion of corporate types to a different perception of the world and their place in it.

 

Nevertheless, it is a solution, and right now solutions are not on the horizon.

 

Make no mistake about it, there is a hot dagger in the heart of the Globalist plan to run the planet. Crushing and enslaving people, in order to control them over the long term, runs into the corporations who are trying to make these very people into consumers.

 

If you think the mega-corporations are going to lie down for this, you need to think again.

 

And when the players draw up their chairs to the conference table at the Bilderberg meetings, the CFR meetings, the Trilateral meetings, the Skull and Bones alumni meetings, they are, in some part of their minds, thinking about this. They are thinking about this more and more.

 

If they continue to see reality through their old eyes, they’ll end up killing each other off.

 

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, and creativity to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

THE TRAYVON MARTIN OPERATION

THE TRAYVON MARTIN OP

NBC LIES, EDITS 911 ZIMMERMAN CALL

WILL DO “INTERNAL INVESTIGATION”

THE STORY GOES MUCH DEEPER

APRIL 2, 2012. Let’s start here. The racially divisive Trayvon Martin case was shoved up a false ladder by NBC News. As reported by Eric Wemple in his Washington Post blog post of 3/31/12:

Begin Washington Post blog post:

“NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the ‘Today’ show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin. A statement from NBC:

‘We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.’

“Great news right there. As exposed by Fox News and media watchdog site NewsBusters, the ‘Today’ segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

“Here’s how the actual conversation went down:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

“The difference between what ‘Today’ put on its air and the actual tape? Complete: In the ‘Today’ version, Zimmerman volunteered that this person ‘looks black,’ a sequence of events that would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality’s version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry.

“In an appearance on Fox News’s ‘Hannity,’ Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, called this elision on the part of ‘Today’ an ‘all-out falsehood’ — not just a distortion or misrepresentation.

“And it’s a falsehood with repercussions. Much of the public discussion over the past week has settled on how conflicting facts and interpretations call into question whether Zimmerman acted justifiably or criminally. That’s a process that’ll continue. But one set of facts in the [sic] is ironclad, and that’s the back-and-forth between Zimmerman and the dispatcher. To portray that exchange in a way that wrongs Zimmerman is high editorial malpractice well worthy of the investigation that NBC is now mounting.”

End of Washington Post blog.

My comments:

Assuming the Washington Post has its story straight, what NBC did wasn’t a mistake. It was intentional, and it was done to inflame the narrative about George Zimmerman. It wasn’t just some sort of “rush to judgment,” it was a false-flag operation designed to provoke mass reaction and create more racial tension.

Who at NBC was responsible? How is the network going to spin its “internal investigation?” Who, if anyone, is going to be hung out to dry? How many people at NBC were in on this operation?

Now here is where the story goes deeper. First, Obama inserted himself into the narrative in a very personal way, when he told the world if he had a son, he would look like Travyon Martin. This wasn’t playing DOWN the tension, it was playing it UP.

It was the president’s signal to his supporters to move ahead with the narrative—in an election year. It then became a cost-versus-risk proposition ABOUT the election. As in: can we make this situation do us more good than harm?

And clearly, the decision was: more good.

As Trayvon protests gather strength all over the country, the outlines of a campaign become clearer. The intentional escalation of this black-versus-white tension will play directly into the notion of an implied threat: don’t dare elect Romney. Don’t do that. Don’t put this stereotypical white man in the White House.

And NBC just handed Obama a favor with its corrupt editing of the 911 call, with its RACIALLY INFLAMING editing of that call.

And why shouldn’t NBC do a favor for the president? After all, NBC is a joint venture between Comcast and GE. GE was one of Obama’s big supporters in the 2008 election campaign. As we speak, Obama and his minions are still trying to push a high-speed-rail bill through Congress that will benefit GE to the tune of billions of dollars, because a division of GE is the leading manufacturer of diesel-electric locomotives. GE and Obama are in an embrace. Obama appointed the former GE CEO, Jeff Immelt, to head up the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Obama bailed out GE to the tune of $16 billion, during the financial meltdown.

These are not small matters. Get a favor, do a favor, especially when billions are on the table.

And now that the racially divisive Trayvon Martin promotion is on the move, there are other ripples. Commentators have been mentioning that the Supreme Court Justices, in their deliberations on Obamacare, might be thinking about the social consequences of a No vote. Would there be riots in the streets? These pundits weren’t even referring to the Trayvon Martin escalations. Add THAT into the volatile mix, and who knows what Justice might change his mind from No to Yes, “to preserve order?”

It was clearly within the White House’s power, a week ago, to try to minimize the rhetoric about the Martin case. They could have leaned on Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and told them back off. They could have taken legal action against the New Black Panther Party, after its Wanted poster for Zimmerman was issued. But Eric Holder, the Attorney General, had already given the Panthers a green light after he apparently looked the other way when members of the Party staged a voter-intimidation moment during the 2008 election-vote. And Obama himself, of course, could have spoken vastly different words about Martin’s death. But none of that happened. Instead, it was full speed ahead.

Finally, when you add up the differences and similarities between Obama and Romney, it’s clear that on the vital issues—like Globalism and a continuing mega-corporate-government world juggernaut, both men are in the same camp. Both men are, as Clinton was, as both Bushes were, on the same basic Team.

Therefore, what difference does it make who wins the next presidential election?

And if that is true, the present promotion of racial strife is a box within a larger box. In one sense, it is being worked to help Obama win. But in the bigger context, it is divide and conquer along racial lines because, to make Globalism succeed, every possible means has to be employed to weaken, divert, demoralize, polarize, and destabilize the one holdout against Globalism: the American people.

Major ops have more than level. They are played to produce advantages for more than one reason.

And so it is with the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case.

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

WE LIVE IN A FRAUD WORLD

 

WE LIVE IN A FRAUD WORLD

by Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

“I’m going to show you the nuts and bolts of how the fiction called Reality is built.” — Ellis Medavoy, retired propaganda master, interviewed by Jon Rappoport in THE MATRIX REVEALED

 

March 31, 2012

 

Two months ago, I introduced my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED. I wrote about it. Now I want to write about it from a different angle.

 

People believe that, at some time in the past, things were different. There was once an era of no fraud. But that’s a lie. There has always been a Matrix, and its quality is walking talking pretension.

 

It pretends to be reality.

 

And because people don’t assume they can, individually, create their own reality, they accept this one and all its fraud.

 

The Matrix is a false idol.

 

And like all idols, it has tremendous esthetic appeal.

 

People look at it and find harmony and symmetry. But, as it turns out, people SEE HARMONY AND SYMMETRY because that’s how they’re programmed to see.

 

And because they believe the only other alternative would be imbalance and chaos.

 

When you study Geometry, you learn how to prove certain statements about perfect shapes. Logic merges with perfection. It’s a system. It’s rather beautiful. The mind and the eye come to the same conclusions.

 

Geometry is a metaphor for the Matrix. The mind and the eye, the thought process and the perceiving process fit like lock and key. A closed system.

 

Why create anything different? Why try, in the face of perfection?

 

Here’s another way to consider the Matrix. It’s resonance. It’s the blending of one consciousness with another, like the ringing of a bell that sends a vibration to another bell that then starts ringing with the same sound. You have many bells, and they’re all tuned to the same pitch. When the first bell is struck, the vibration spreads through the whole array of bells, and this unison of sound is pleasant. The sensation is very pleasant.

 

And suppose that somewhere there is a machine that makes sure every bell stays tuned to the same pitch. If a bell falls out of line, it’s adjusted.

 

If you have a million bells, and several hundred decide to change their pitch and rebel, they can. But eventually they will come back to the central sound, because they want to. They want to feel the resonance. And when they do come back, they will be the most devoted advocates for the central sound. Every bell making the same sound will, in fact, be their “political platform.” Resonance, the perfection of resonance will be their crusade.

 

They will say, “We never opposed the One Sound. We were only angry that every bell wasn’t dedicated to it. And so we will do everything in our power to make sure all the bells believe in that Sound.”

 

To carry this a bit further, suppose there are many people, working in different fields, on different levels, to make sure that the resonance prevails. And some of those people are actually adding sections to the machine that keeps all bells tuned to the same pitch. They’re making the machine bigger and more inclusive. They’re special people. They’re “insiders.”

 

In the 1960s, some of the most harsh and violent rebels seemed to be defecting from the central sound. Their friends and supporters thought of them as heroes. The amazing thing is that these rebels are now back. The very corporate-government embrace they wanted to blow apart is now their theme. It’s stunning. They now see that partnership as the end-all and be-all, a force that will bring the world into an equitable harmony of Collectivism. They are now soldiers for the Sound.

 

My road has been to expose the “special people,” the insiders who are adding sections to the machine that tunes all the bells to the same pitch.

 

I have brought to light how they build, how they add, how they extend the range of the machine.

 

In that way, you can see what is actually being done to shore up the Matrix.

 

And once you do see that, you begin to examine the lock-and-key programming that regulates human perception of the Matrix and seems to make the Matrix into a beautiful and desirable thing.

 

The central sound, the resonance is part and parcel of the programming, which makes people believe there is no alternative, there is no better way.

 

The central sound, AS A FORM OF PERCEPTION, makes the fraud that is the Matrix seem like the most beautiful thing imaginable.

 

That’s the cosmic joke, and on the other side of it is an infinitely greater and richer territory for all of us, for each of us.

 

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, and creativity to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

MEDS KILLING SOLDIERS BY HEART ATTACK

 

PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS KILLING SOLDIERS BY HEART ATTACK

MILITARY COVERUP?

WHO IS PROFITING?

DAUGHTER OF SENATOR WINS DRUG-SUPPLYING CONTRACT WITH THE ARMY

By Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

MARCH 30, 2012. Is the US military employing a policy that is killing its own soldiers?

Dr. Fred Baughman published an explosive letter in the European Heart Journal (December 29, 2011) that detailed yet another aspect of death by medicine: “Psychotropic drugs and sudden death.” (See also Hundreds of Soldiers & Vets Dying From Antipsychotic–Seroquel published on Nov 7, 2011)

This time it’s American soldiers and fatal heart attacks, brought on by so-called antipsychotic drugs; for example, Seroquel, given for PTSD.

Baughman began his own investigation into four American soldiers who died in their sleep, in 2008. Baughman writes: “…all in their twenties…no signs of suicide or of a multi-drug ‘overdose’…as claimed by the Inspector General of the VA…All were on the same prescribed drug cocktail, Seroquel (antipsychotic), Paxil (antidepressant) and Klonopin (benzodiazepine).”

Baughman calls on the Surgeon General to embargo the use of all antipsychotics and antidepressants in the military.

Baughman’s initial inquiry suggests as many as 247 soldiers have died from cardiac arrest after ingesting these drugs.

He finds the US military has spent, in the last decade, $1.5 billion on antipsychotic drugs, despite the fact that these meds have never been approved for PTSD or sleep disorders.

Baughman writes, “From 2001, US Central Command has given deploying troops 180-day supplies of prescribed psychotropic drugs.”

This is like making each soldier a self-dosing pharmacy.

Finally, Baughman charges that the Army has no reliable record-keeping system to track the uses of these drugs or their harm.

Recently guest-hosting The Alex Jones Show, I interviewed psychiatrist Peter Breggin (www.breggin.com). Several startling points emerged in our conversation. Among them: a decade ago, the Army wouldn’t accept recruits who had taken psychiatric meds, including Ritalin. Now, according to Breggin, the whole policy has been reversed. Soldiers who are heading for the battlefield must agree to take these drugs.

If you were mounting a conscious plan to destroy a military force from within, the widespread prescription of psychotropic drugs would be an obvious choice.

The Army states that diagnosis of psychiatric conditions like depression among troops has escalated. But once you open the door to psychiatry in the services, it’s a fait accompli, because many human behaviors can be arbitrarily classified as mental disorders. As I have documented, over and over again, no labeled mental disorder is based on chemical or biological tests—because there are no such tests. There never have been. It’s pseudo-science. But with increased numbers of diagnoses, the drugs automatically flow. The harmful drugs.

And the pharmaceutical and military view of human beings merges: people are units, they’re bio-machines with identical chemistry, and drugs can be shoved down their throats with no real concern for the consequences.

The drug companies consider the military just another market; and the Pentagon is merely hoping that, somehow, the drugs can help exhausted soldiers maintain performance levels through increasing numbers of deployment assignments.

Here are excerpts from Dr. Baughman’s published letter: “ [I] opened and financed my own investigation into these unexplained deaths. Andrew White, Eric Layne, Nicholas Endicott and Derek Johnson, all in their twenties, were four West Virginia veterans who died in their sleep in early 2008…. All were on the same prescribed drug cocktail, Seroquel (antipsychotic), Paxil (antidepressant) and Klonopin (benzodiazepine) and all appeared “normal” when they went to sleep.

“On February 7, 2008, Surgeon General Eric B. Schoomaker, had announced there had been ‘a series, a sequence of deaths’ in the military suggesting this was ‘often a consequence of the use of multiple prescription and nonprescription medicines and alcohol.’ However, the deaths of the ‘Charleston Four’ were probable sudden cardiac deaths (SCD), a sudden, pulseless condition leading to brain death in 4-5 minutes, a survival rate or 3-4%, and not allowing time for transfer to a hospital…

“Antipsychotics and antidepressants alone or in combination, are known to cause SCD. Sicouri and Antzelevitch (2008) concluded: ‘…A number of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs can increase the risk of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death…’

“I call upon the military for an immediate embargo of all antipsychotics and antidepressants until there has been a complete, wholly public, clarification of the extent and causes of this epidemic of probable sudden cardiac deaths.

“Pfc. Ryan Alderman was on a cocktail of psych drugs when found unresponsive, dying in his barracks at Ft. Carson, Colo. Sudden cardiac death was confirmed by an ECG done at the scene. Inexplicably, military officials de-classified his death and reversed the cause, calling it instead, a “suicide.” Again I challenge the military to produce the evidence.

“In June 2011, a DoD Health Advisory Group backed a highly questionable policy of ‘polypharmacy’ asserting: ‘…multiple psychotropic meds may be appropriate in select iniduals.’ The fact of the matter is that psychotropic drug polypharmacy is never safe, scientific, or medically justifiable. What it [is] is a means of (1) maximizing profit, and (2) making it difficult to impossible to blame adverse effects on any one drug.

“From 2001 to the present, US Central Command has given deploying troops 180 day supplies of prescription psychotropic drugs–Seroquel included. In a May 2010 report of its Pain Management Task Force, the Army endorsed Seroquel in 25- or 50-milligram doses as a ‘sleep aid.’ Over the past decade, $717 million was spent for Risperdal and $846 million for Seroquel, for a mind-blowing total of $1.5 billion when neither Risperdal nor Seroquel have been proven safe or effective for PTSD or sleep disorders.

“Heather Bresch, daughter of U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, (D-WV) was recently named CEO of WV drug-maker Mylan Inc., that recently contracted with the DoD for over 20 million doses of Seroquel.

“Defense Department Health Advisory Group chair, Charles Fogelman, warned: ‘DoD currently lacks a unified pharmacy database that reflects medication use across pre-deployment, deployment and post-deployment settings.’ In essence, through a premeditated lack of record keeping, mandated by law at any other pharmacy or medical office to track potential fatal reactions to mixing prescription drugs, the military is willfully preempting all investigations into the injuries and deaths due to psychiatric drugs.

“I call on the DoD, VA, House and Senate Armed Services and House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees to tell concerned Americans and the families of fallen heroes what psychiatric drugs each of the deceased, both combat and non-combat, soldiers and veterans were on? It is time for the military and government to come clean.”

Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

THE HUNGER GAMES ARE STILL HUNGRY

 

THE HUNGER GAMES ARE STILL HUNGRY

 

MARCH 29, 2012. Threatening box-office records, this movie about children fighting to the death, beneath the iron fist of a national dictatorship, is a page out of the propaganda op called Arrested Development.

 

Yes, I have a slightly different take on The Hunger Games. Beyond the setting—high-tech foppish gods imposing an impoverished agrarian economy on a kept population—the movie sells the idea that children can save the world.

 

Its target audience is children and the inflated egos of their parents, in this everything-is-for-the-magical-kids Boomer fantasy.

 

Perhaps some of you never knew a time when that fantasy wasn’t blanketing Middle Class America. But I remember things before the great change. So I can tell you “Magical Kids” is a piece of propaganda that caught hold in the late 1960s, and has evolved into a suburban religion.

 

Kids are now supposed to be looked at as super-precious objects who must be over-protected in every possible way—while they work astonishing miracles and rescue the planet.

 

The ultimate point of this op is NOT GROWING UP.

 

Be a kid. Stay a kid.

 

If you’re already unlucky enough to have become an adult, then discover how to tap into your inner child and regress.

 

Infantilism.

 

That’s the motto.

 

It plugs into the whole over-entitled brain-dead self-esteem movement, in which kids are told again and again how special they are, until they sink into a swamp of confusion—because they know, deep-down, that self-esteem is based on what they can actually accomplish. It’s not based on fawning adults hovering over them and trying to insert maniacally positive cliches into their little heads.

 

My long-time readers know I’ve presented tons of printed and spoken words on the subjects of imagination and creative power. So I’m not downplaying those forces. Not at all. I’m talking about something entirely different here.

 

“Only the kids can save us. The children are our future.” Special, special, special, with whipped cream and a cherry on top.

 

It may shock some of you to know that, in the early days of television, there were hardly any children on the screen. I recall only one such show—Howdy Doody. A puppet was run by Uncle Bob, who had a sidekick clown named Clarabelle who never spoke, just squeezed the bulb of a horn. We watched it now and then, but we were mostly outside playing games. And we didn’t identify with the kids on the screen, because, God forgive us, we wanted to grow up! What a concept.

 

There was no Adoration of the Kid. That came much later, when ad agencies realized children were an unexplored consumer market.

 

What are the oppressed adults doing in The Hunger Games? I guess they’re waiting for the kiddies to bail them out. Why haven’t they risen up en masse and fought to the death against the gods who are sacrificing their offspring in these Games? Wouldn’t you?

 

Here’s a shocker. Are you ready?

 

Kids wanting to see other kids on small screens and big screens doing amazing things is NOT a natural impulse.

 

That may be hard to swallow, but it’s an artificial construct that’s been sold and packaged.

 

The whole notion of unbelievably magical super-kids sneaked into the culture because their parents were toast at an early age. And THAT happened because those delicate parents were raised with certain cartoonish expectations that never materialized…so it had to be all about the children.

 

The parents were raised on the totem of consumerism: material things in endless proliferation make you happy. Material things all by themselves are transformative. Oops. That didn’t work out. Advertising, exploding in the 1960s and 70s, made the case, sold the case, and it was a dud. So what was left? A goofy ad-driven idea that kids, without lifting a finger, are automatically little gods and goddesses.

 

IT’S A CARTOON.

 

Whatever truth exists about kids with powers was defaced and wiped away by the CARTOON.

 

If you want to look at this like one big lab experiment, here’s the essence:

Raise a generation of kids who are taught that their Middle Class lifestyle IS the key, the salvation, the prime reality that surrounds them. Those kids grow up, and at about age 30, they’ll start to split apart like a thin porcelain vase made by an amateur. Because they don’t have anything to hold on to. What they were raised in was a bad animated movie. So now they’re depressed and confused. They get married and have kids. Now they try to infuse those little walking talking “hopes for the future” with something desperately extraordinary. With magic. The trump card of all trump cards.

 

Of course, childhood already has authentic magic in it. But the parents will supersede all that. They’ll shove in their cliched version of it. They’ll paint over the Van Gogh with a doofus on black velvet.

 

And that’s not workable. Sorry.

 

But the parents don’t understand that. They don’t have the background to understand it. They just keep going and wind up with the idea that children will not only do well, they’ll actually save the planet. In for a penny, in for a pound.

 

The secret message of The Hunger Games is: adults can’t have power, only kids can. Guess what? That’s political propaganda of a very serious kind.

 

And if you were trying to take over civilization and run it from a high perch (just like the elite do in the movie), selling THAT message would be a pretty good strategy, don’t you think?

 

And here’s another piece of the puzzle. Starting in the 1960s, psychologist-propagandists began selling the notion that parents and kids had to really get together and talk about everything. Lack of communication was horrible, and it had to be remedied. But of course, the premise was vastly over-pumped. So eventually you had parents who were letting their kids into every corner of their adult lives, and finally a perverse kind of exchange was made. The kids became adults and the adults became kids. It was and is grotesque…

…It ends with The Hunger Games… with a few kids — in a loony bin of a society, stringing bows and sharpening knives to go to war with the evil ones who are enslaving their parents — while the parents cluck helplessly from the sidelines.

 

I’d like to make a movie in which a special little kid is granted, magically, by the wizard president of Harvard, a PhD in psychology—and then she treats her father in an office as his therapist. The father confesses every stupid thing he’s ever done, and the kid regresses dear old dad back to age three, where, suddenly, the father refuses to budge! He wants to stay there forever. Wa-wa-wa! And the longer he stays there and acts like a three-year-old, the older his daughter becomes. She soon ends up a wise crone sorceress of 90, and he’s a squalling spoiled brat who’s hooked on marshmallows and Diet Coke. Or something.

 

But excuse me, I have to get back to work on my new project: re-writing Moby Dick as an animated feature, with Alvin the Chipmunk playing the White Whale and a six-year-old girl as Captain Ahab. It all takes place in rocket cars on Hollywood Boulevard. The climactic smash-up comes in a giant field where an exposition, Century of the Child, is opening. The gray-faced adults are sticking their ATM cards into machines and handing buckets of cash to their children to buy weapons of mass destruction from friendly space aliens who are here to guide the kiddies in the war to end all wars against the Snouted Oligarchs of Olympus.

 

Yeah, I’m making jokes about all this, but the promotion of infantilism in society is real. It’s an op, on many levels, and its objective is to weaken the foundations of a nation, until there’s nothing really left, there’s no one at home.

 

And again, the one big piece of the deal was selling kids on the idea that they really wanted to watch, and read about, other kids doing fantastic things. Believe me, don’t believe me, that’s nonsense. Kids want to run and play and learn and excel and become strong and grow up.

 

The idea that they want to remain kids forever comes later, when they look back with nostalgia on the good days—AND when “eternal children” is sold to them as a package.

 

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. 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, and creativity to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

THE BIO-CHEMICAL MATRIX

 

THE BIO-CHEMICAL MATRIX

 

THE MYTHS OF MATRIX SCIENCE

 

by Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

The medical system kills 225,000 people a year. (Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”)

 

“In principle, gene therapy is a medical miracle waiting to happen…after 17 years of trying, scientists are still struggling to make gene therapy work. Complications include rejection of DNA carriers…[and] new genes end up where they shouldn’t, or behave unpredictably.” (“Gene Therapy: Is Death an Acceptable Risk?”, Wired, Brandon Keim, August 30, 2007)

 

MARCH 28, 2012. In discussing Matrix Science, I’m reminded of Philip Dick’s sensational novel, Lies, Inc. It proposes an invention that can teleport humans light-years to a planet where a better way of life exists. The author then spends the rest of the book deconstructing this utopian legend and revealing the truth and the titanic power-grab that sit behind it.

 

Then there is HG Well’s 1933 classic novel, The Shape of Things to Come, in which a world exhausted by war and economic collapse turns to a Global State as the only possible solution, after all other solutions have historically failed. This new ruling authority is based on Science. All religions are crushed. Education is designed to teach every child how to become a genius/global citizen. Eventually, the State withers away and is of course replaced by a spontaneous Utopia.

 

Science/technology: the final all-encompassing answer.

 

A significant aspect of Matrix propaganda revolves around myths about how human behavior can be transformed. Transformed through advances in biology and chemistry.

 

Populations are being trained to expect these momentous changes. A major selling point: no effort is required. Just ingest this tablet. Accept this new gene. All will be done for you by experts. Technocrats will design the future so you will fit into it happily.

 

The technocratic wing of Globalism has clout. It promises management of the planet through science, and who can argue with science? Central Planning will ensure proper benefits for all.

 

My late friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True, once told me in an interview: “It’s all about managing expectation on a subconscious dream level—the idea is to insert a vision in the population about scientific improvements. Instead of each individual creating his own vision, we’re essentially being told it can be done for us, with care and concern and even love. All we have to do is go along with it. We’re being taught to accept what amounts to a new religion. It’s a fetish. Do you see? We’re buying an elaborate fetish about the future.”

 

My readers know I’ve spent a great deal of time exposing the destructive dangers of medical drugs, but now I’d like to home in on them from another angle.

 

We’re so used to their presence, we now take them for granted. Everyone ingests them. Many take them in combinations.

 

And yes, there are times when you may decide you need one.

 

But all in all, they are a fetish. A bizarre affectation.

 

We know about the enormous profits to be made by the pharmaceutical companies. We know these companies exploit and create markets. We know they also invent diseases in order to sell the drugs. We know many people use the drugs as a crutch.

 

But if we can back up far enough from all this, we can begin to see the fetishistic aspect.

 

What would you, for example, think if you saw the same person every day getting off a train, and every day he was wearing a different color paint on his face? And what if he was wearing a hundred large trinkets around his waist? And he was fingering these trinkets in deep contemplation? And what if he carried a large book with him and stopped strangers randomly and read passages to them? Passages about symbols from the sixth dimension. What if he bowed deeply every time he saw a bus and fell to his knees when a woman in a hat passed him on the street? What if he stopped after every fourteen steps and cupped his hands and then opened them, as if he was releasing a bird? And what if he also spun around 4.5 times at every street corner?

 

You would begin to realize he was in the middle of a strange ritual.

 

And this is what medical drugs have become. A ritual.

 

Their vast proliferation, apart from any effects they have, add to the fetish.

 

A space alien who knew nothing about medical practice would eventually notice the drugs and wonder what they were for. He would perhaps wonder whether swallowing them was part of an ongoing religious ceremony. He would see how dedicated people are to their medicines.

 

“I take this drug at six every morning. Then after breakfast, I take these two pills. Before lunch, I take three other pills. The green and the red and the white.”

 

Yes, people believe their bodies can do bad things to them, like demons, and they ward off these creatures with the pills.

 

The swallowing of the pills is a fetish.

 

“I love the small white capsules. They look so pristine, so pure, so elegant. Because they’re small, they must be very powerful.”

 

The doctor, the priest, prescribes them. He dispenses them. When he writes the prescription at his desk, the patient feels, for a moment, an elevated sense of importance. The patient has attained a special privilege. He is no longer common. A thread has been created that connects him to a higher reality. The “science” that lies behind every pill is sophisticated. Who can grasp it? Just bask in the sensation and accept the secret knowledge.

 

The scrawl on the prescription pad is incomprehensible. But the pharmacist, the acolyte and minion, will understand it. If the filling of the prescription took place in a cave with candles, the patient would understand.

 

When it comes to psychiatric drugs, the public is being instructed to believe that the pills, which flow from arbitrary diagnoses of unproven mental disorders, can make them whole again. The age-old dream achieved.

 

And now we are on the cusp of another medical fetish:

 

GENES.

 

They’ve solidly entered the lexicon. Everybody talks about them. Amateurs and professionals alike speculate and intone on their importance—despite the fact that no across-the-board successful gene treatment for any condition has ever been developed.

 

Academics and so-called bio-ethicists are arguing about how the future should utilize genetics. Should we have a society in which a privileged class can buy designer genes for their children and make them smarter, more talented, more powerful, while the lower class, which lives apart in separate dingy enclaves, stews in its own primitive juices?

 

Or should our leaders open the door to better genes for all?

 

The unproven concocted dream: everything is regulated by DNA; all aspects of human behavior are determined by this coding; free will is a cruel superstition supported by greedy capitalist thieves; society could evolve into a utopia with the correct distribution of genetic traits; disease would be a thing of the past.

 

Consider that the selling of these medical-drug and gene stories is really, underneath it all, a way of convincing the world that science is our best option for the future. Understand that.

 

And of course, science must be controlled, like blessings from Rome, by those few who understand it and have the intelligence and compassion to plan the How and the Where of that dispensation.

 

Otherwise, we would have chaos. We would have money making all the decisions. We would have back-door deals, and cheaters and liars operating the levers of a free market for their own advantage.

 

And this must not be. No. With something as precious as science the prize, we need the best and the brightest to determine the method by which we can all benefit.

 

After all, the car and the plane and the light bulb and the refrigerator were magnificent technological advances. Therefore, all medical drugs and genes are, too.

 

The drugs? A hundred thousand Americans killed every year by government-certified medicines. (JAMA, July 26, 2000, Starfield)

 

A naked revelation about the overall devastation created by the drugs, and about the baldfaced lies being promoted on behalf of utopian gene engineering—a naked revelation would put a torpedo into the flank of the program to hypnotize the population about Science As Our Future. The technocrats can’t admit any spectacular failure. It would be like the Vatican confessing that all Eucharist wafers doled out to believers over the past 50 years were made by a company owned by Beelzebub.

 

When viewed factually, from an overall perspective, the key pronouncements about medical drugs and genes are false. But this must not see the light of day. It would derail the juggernaut. It would punch a wide hole in the Matrix. It would alert the population that they’d been had by con artists.

 

The spinning of the legends about transmuting the human, through official chemistry and biology, must continue. It must not be stopped. It must engender expectation. It must gather adherents. It must continue to entrance us. And naturally, unofficial science must be curtailed, because it suggests decentralization of power—and the WHOLE POINT of spinning the scientific legends is that they imply control of the future and the planet from a single high perch.

 

False science is Globalism’s most important product. It contains the “proof” that we must all submit to those wiser than we are.

 

You see, selling the so-called kindness of elite planetary control is not enough. The idea that a small group of men can avoid all wars by securing the reins of the Earth is not enough. The notion that our natural resources must be distributed from a central point, for the sake of sustainability, is not enough. These propaganda points don’t convince enough people.

 

But the legend that Official Science is the wonder key to a better life has legs. It has power. It has subconscious influence of a high order. It can eventually convince the global populace that a Technocratic Council should rule over them.

 

Therefore, that legend about Science must be shored up and extended and protected. It must tell whatever lies are necessary to push the agenda forward. Whether or not genes are the Holy Grail of biology is entirely beside the point. Sell it. Claim it. Pretend the evidence is there. And brain drugs? Spread the message: we will all be happier and more alive if we take them. They will cure our ills. They will untie the stubborn knots of discontent.

 

Welcome to the Science of the Matrix.

 

All those science fiction novels about civilizations run by technological elites? They were right on the money. That is where we are being led. And the defense-mechanism of the elite is: if you oppose our rational approach, you’re a cave man, a throwback, a Luddite, a superstitious fool grinding on with your phobias.

 

Meanwhile, it is this very elite that is peddling myth and fairy tale and illusion, and capitalizing on fetish.

 

We’ve all learned that divide and conquer is the controllers’ strategy; that funding wars on both sides is their method; that bankrupting nations is their technique; that owning the means of inventing money is their sinister operation; that dominating channels of information is their major form of mind control; that brainwashed education is their institution; that building the corporate-government embrace is their song. But these all bow before the altar of Scientific Myth, wherein we are persuaded to give up our own visions and our creative power to a Future that can only be run by Those Who Understand Technology.

 

How better to convince the people to surrender, than to equate science with truth and then claim that truth is beyond the common reach?

 

This was Plato’s basic argument in The Republic, and it has been echoed down through time. It has worked, through various phases, and now we have the most compelling version yet. Science is the truth about the truth, it is all based on observation, it is an open book, it is verifiable and demonstrable, no one need take anything on faith.

 

And yes, that is so, unless they are lying.

 

Unless they are lying about what they know.

 

And they are.

 

It doesn’t matter to them, but it matters to us.

 

Retired propaganda master Ellis Medavoy once told me in an interview: “Realize that big operations have layers. Each layer corresponds to a special interest that’s trying to squeeze out an advantage for itself. But when you peel away the outer skins, you get down to the prime material, the real reason the operation was mounted in the first place. And, in the case of propaganda about science, that reason is ridiculously simple. To promote science. That’s it. That’s all. Doesn’t matter whether it’s good science or bad science, or correct science or false science. The whole idea is to condition populations to accept science as the final judge on matters of importance. Why? Because the powers-that-be want to own and rule this world as Masters of Technology, Masters of Undeniable Truth. They see that as feasible. They can sell that. So they invent and dream up scientific visions that will impress people, make them excited. They peddle these visions as facts or soon-to-be facts. They tell stories, and they dress up those stories in expensive clothes. They’ll call ANYTHING science. They’ll paint it however they want it.”

 

Jon Rappoport

An investigative reporter for the last 30 years, Jon is the author of a new explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com