GOVERNMENT “CONFESSES” VACCINE-AUTISM LINK

MAY 11, 2011. Listen to my radio show today. 7PM ET. www.ProgressiveRadioNetwork.com

If you can’t make that, catch it in the Progressive archive. This is a big one. I’ll be interviewing Becky Estepp, project manager for the Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy (EBCALA).

EBCALA just held a press conference in Washington yesterday. They presented families who have received GOVERNMENT PAYOUTS based on vaccine damage to their kids. Damage that involved AUTISM.

Get it?

This is the government “confessing” the vaccine-autism link is real. Of course, they deny that. They say they paid out the claims for “encephalopathy,” which is a catch-all term for a host of “brain diseases.”

But this is just a word game. It’s an escape hatch. It’s “we won’t ever admit directly that mercury in vaccines can cause autism.”

It’s “we just got through proving mercury has nothing to do with autism, so we’re not going to take that back now.”

It’s “well, you see, encephalopathy is sometimes ACCOMPANIED BY autistic behavior or autism.”

But the government PAID OUT CLAIMS. They parted with cash. They proved they’re liars.

And these are the people who are supposed to be running the new and improved national health insurance plan? Are you kidding me? It’s a sick joke.

In my 30 years as a reporter, I’ve seen lots of these word games. They all add up to lies. They transfer blame and meaning from one category to another, and only the most dull and gullible among us would buy in. For example, kid is diagnosed with ADHD and is given Ritalin, a cheap form of speed. At first, he feels better, clearer, more centered. Then, sooner or later, he crashes—as people do who are on speed. This crash prompts mommy and daddy to take the kid back to the doctor, who will never admit that Ritalin was responsible. He says, “Ahem, well, your son now, I’m afraid, has a NEW condition. Clinical depression. It happens. So I’ll write a prescription for Paxil.” Then, quite possibly, on both of these drugs, the kid goes bouncing off the walls. The speed effect is multiplied. He lashes out, does all sorts of irrational things. Back to the doc, who says, “Your son’s condition has worsened, I’m afraid. He’s now borderline schizoid, psychotic. I’ll have to put him on a stronger medication.”

Which causes brain damage, euphemistically called Tardive Dyskinesia. (See the “major tranquilizers” section of “Toxic Psychiatry,” by Dr. Peter Breggin.)

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Visit the site, sign up for the email list and receive free articles, and order a copy of my e-book, THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE, in pdf or Kindle format.

THE NAKED FEAR OF HEALTH FREEDOM

MAY 10, 2011. I have sent out this article before. In the light of recent events (bin Laden, the nuclear disaster in Japan, US hurricanes, etc.), the issue of health freedom has taken a back seat. In truth, it only surfaces during crisis moments, when big government makes overt moves to limit our health choices.

But that doesn’t mean people have lost track of it. In 1994, I ran for a Congressional seat in the 29^th District (Los Angeles), on this issue, and I know some of the people who were with me are still working to keep the flame alive.

First, I do have two updates in health-freedom news—

Right now, because I can’t find reports on the status of a bill in Washington State, which would limit parents’ choices re refusing to vaccinate their children, I have a query into the governor’s office. The bill would require parents to obtain a pediatrician’s signature, before claiming a philosophical, religious, or medical exemption. It is pernicious. It limits freedom by making a doctor the arbiter of another person’s religious or philosophical views. In a perverse way, it’s fitting—because in the last hundred years, doctors have become the modern priests of this era. Their white coats are the prelates’ robes; their instruments and medicines are the sacraments of the faith. They cite certainty as priests do—and they cover up the crimes. (See Starfield, July 26, 2000, JAMA, for evidence the medical system in the US kills 225,000 people a year.)

Second update: a group called EBCALA (Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy) is holding a press conference at noon, ET, today, on the steps of the US Court of Federal Appeals, in Washington DC. The link for live viewing is www.ustream.tv/channel/ebcala

The subject? Kids brain damaged by vaccines. EBCALA states they have proof the US government has been paying out settlement claims to parents of kids who developed autism after vaccination.

This would mean the government’s statement that there is no link between vaccines and autism is a lie and a cover-up.

EBCALA has obtained a bombshell email sent by David Bowman (US Health and Human Services spokesman) to a reporter, in which Bowman denies the government has ever paid such a claim. But the interesting language comes near the end of the email, after Bowman indicates the government has paid out claims for vaccine-caused encephalopathy. Encephalopathy is a catch-all term for a number of “brain diseases.”

Bowman writes: “Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms, including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.”

It’s the old disease-label shell game. “We pay for vaccine-injured kids who develop encephalopathy, not autism. Even though in cases, encephalopathy IS autism…”

Feel free to break down Bowman’s sleazy logic into its finer points.

Here is my 2010 article:

Usually, when politicians discover a large voting bloc that has no champion, they move in like gold prospectors with a fever in their heads. Tap that bloc; mine it; use it.

However, in the case of millions of Americans who passionately want to manage their own health without government interference, who want access to the full range of nutritional supplements and unlimited access to alternative practitioners, there is dead silence in Washington.

Why?

First, few politicians are willing to challenge the agenda of the pharmaceutical companies (drug everybody from cradle to grave). Second, these health-freedom advocates are radical decentralists—which means they know how it feels to be denied the right to take care of their own bodies. They have met the enemy and they know how it operates on a very personal level.

There is no chance politicians will be able to finesse these voters or make empty promises to them or wow them with “task forces” created to “study problems.” Health-freedom folks are too smart for any of that nonsense.

They want unbridled freedom. They want, for example, to be able to say no to vaccines for their children without having to walk the gauntlet of officials who try to dissuade and intimidate and threaten them.

They want to find alternative treatments for cancer in many cases, and cancer happens to be one of those tightly guarded provinces, where big money and big government insist on radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery, come hell or high water.

If politicians aggressively and publicly courted health-freedom people, they’d be exposing themselves to vicious attacks from the medical/government axis and its media dupes.

They’d be opening the door to the notion that people can really choose their own solutions, despite “the best science” and the authoritarian pronouncements of doctors, who are modern priests in white coats wielding hypnotic power.

In other words, FREEDOM would become the top issue and the trumping issue all the way across the board—and very few politicians of either party want to step out into that world.

It’s too raw, too real, too much about naked choice.

That’s why, even as states try to nullify ObamaCare, you don’t hear conversation about how the Dept. of Health and Human Services is poised to compose a list of permitted medical treatments and will eventually outlaw alternative options.

See if you can find, even among the most conservative legislators recently elected to office in the Republican landslide, any who speak up about health freedom.

Good luck.

It remains a taboo in the halls of Congress.

This means individuals will have to carry the burden themselves. They will have to speak out and keep speaking out. They will have to challenge government repression on the most fundamental level. They will have to make this issue electric.

In doing so, they will be accused of everything under the sun. They will be called anti-science Luddites, and religious crazies, and even killers of their own children.

Notice that I’m not advocating the wholesale rejection of modern medicine; I’m saying every individual has the right and the freedom to choose to how to manage his own health. Period. That right takes precedence over anyone’s idea of science or “best evidence.”

On that basis, the fight can be won, in the long run. On any other basis, defeat is certain.

I have lobbied for the formation of a PR agency, funded by nutritional companies, that would widely disseminate information about the health benefits of supplements and the false science behind many conventional medical treatments—and the response has been zero. These companies have no stomach for such a campaign. They, too, fear health freedom, in their own way. They continue to exist in a twilight zone of hope and fantasy. “Maybe the government will ignore us and let us go on doing business.”

In 1994, when I ran for a Congressional seat in the 29^th District (Los Angeles), on a platform of health freedom, I gained profound knowledge about who would come out of the woodwork to offer help and who would stay in the shadows. The results, in that regard, were quite sobering. One or two nutritional companies supported me. The rest stayed away.

When the inessentials are stripped away and you are talking about sheer freedom, and when people realize this is your sole concern, they tend to retreat and find other things to do. On the one hand, they will admit their own health is a top concern, but they won’t come out and fight for the right to pursue it according to their own dictates. It’s a strange landscape.

Call me crazy, but I believe a presidential candidate, fully funded, who argued vigorously and widely for health freedom (and other freedoms), could win an election, even in this day and age.

But we are not about to test that hypothesis, because the fear of health freedom is too deep.

And this tells us something.

It tells us we are in the right pew. We are mining a red-hot idea. We’re discovering a lever and a fulcrum that could move the nation.

Back in 1994, I saw passion about politics that far exceeded anything I’d ever run into before. The health-freedom supporters who emerged from their homes were battle-tested veterans in a war that, out of media range, had been going on for decades. They carried a revolutionary spirit of outrage. They weren’t opting for New Age rainbows and pastel prophecies. They had a spirit toward which the Founders would have tipped their hats.

I’ve learned it’s never too late for freedom, because freedom is not part of ordinary time. It’s stands above the passage of events. It is. It’s waiting.

The current trigger is this shuck-and-jive ObamaCare program. This sanctimonious share-and-care sop. Behind it is the plan to force all Americans into a straitjacket of pharmaceutical insanity.

That’s what’s up the road.

But we can take other roads.

If we will.

Neither mainstream political party will ever admit that the government/pharmaceutical axis is a perfect example of a fascist operation. Neither party will ever state, in clear terms, that every citizen has the right to define and follow his own dictates in managing his health. They are afraid to touch that electric core.

But we aren’t.

And that is where hope resides.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

THE PATH OF MAGIC

“When you want to know how things really work, study them when they’re coming apart.”

William Gibson, “Zero History”

“Imagination makes memory. It makes language, then gradually buries it under new-spun fields of words. By degrees, this repeating process moves the world into space-times as far from the one we now inhabit as a young Tesla is from a worker ant dutifully carrying his package into a hill.”

Jon Rappoport, “The Ghost Machine in the Silver Heel of Hermes”

MAY 9, 2011. Where is modern magic?

Invoking Tesla or Frank Lloyd Wright or Bucky Fuller doesn’t have punch. It seems to be a misnomer.

Those men exemplified the individual creative principle. But is that enough to rank as magic?

Tesla was a brilliant inventor, but wasn’t his trick being able to hold in his mind all the parts of a new working machine before he ever put it together? In which case, he was “just a scientist,” albeit a “terrific visualizer.”

Even the notion that he was CREATING something escapes most people.

And if they grant that he was creative, so what? Where is the magic?

Humans on Earth keep drawing a line of demarcation between creating and magic. Artists create. Perhaps scientists do, too, on occasion. But magic is supposed to be something different. It’s arcane, strange, it’s done with spells and code, it’s a foray into another dimension that is waiting to be discovered.

In the 20^th century, though, a few people saw an equivalence between magic and imagination/creation.

It had been a gradual shift. It started much earlier, as a new consciousness bled into the culture—in the late 18^th century, we suddenly had the example of a Republic based on the notion of individual freedom. Freedom, the naked platform from which creation could be launched—without the old cosmologies and religions and priesthoods. Without the odd symbols and spells and initiations.

The figure of the magician was stripped of the need to wear a flowing cloak and a beard and engage in portentous proclamations.

And so he slipped under the radar.

But the principle, the creative principle, was there. In truth, it had always been there, had always been the essence of the thing.

Several modern problems have arisen, to add to the confusion. The modern stereotype of the creator, the artist, involved starving and suffering and becoming the victim of society. That certainly didn’t help people equate magician with creator. And many artists were commercial hacks, planning their work purely on the basis of finding a boss that would reward them with a paycheck. Magician? Hardly.

Enter the 1960s. Magic was intertwined with striving after fictional versions of pagan religions and using (in the long run, debilitating) drugs to enhance consciousness and pretending that it was all one great “return to ancient traditions.” The robes and beards made a comeback. They were part of the Disneyesque revival for the brain-addled.

Here is another distinction. From the hyperactive, instant-must-have-it-now perspective of the present day, magic is viewed as something that will, with a few correct flips of thought and ceremony, plunge the student into the heart of a realm where miracles automatically takes place. As if that was how it had been done in ancient times. Whereas, creation, involves, perish the thought, work. Magic just springs into being. For the adept, it’s like making a cup of instant coffee. Bingo, bango, bongo.

“Magicians were much more powerful in ancient times. They knew secrets that have been lost. They were initiated into the mysteries. We don’t have that now. If we did, we could make magic, too.”

If you read that quote with a vague whining overtone, while nursing a joint, and glazing over with the concept that the “universe” is a benevolent mother that grants wishes like a sub-atomic genie, you pretty much have it.

Through a combination of ingenious marketing ploys and technological advancements, we now think of a few years as a significant period of time, in which great changes race across the landscape. If a month goes by with no riveting happening reflected by the media, we lapse into boredom. But if we look back and consider, say, the years 200-300 AD or 400-300 BCE…it feels as if we’re watching paint dry. I bring this up because only a hundred years have passed since the upheaval in art that declared, once and for all, that the artist doesn’t need to imitate Nature. A hundred years are a mere blip on the calendar.

More great things are in store for us.

The modern artist is getting his sea legs. He will produce new kinds of languages that, for people who grasp them, will usher in an era of magic. In previous articles, I’ve tried to describe features of these languages.

Just as, in the 17^th century, it was unthinkable that you could sit at your desk and, in real time, see and talk to another person thousands of miles away, it is now a jolt to imagine that languages can be invented which will make present-day communication seem like an archaic, frazzled, dessicated series of mumbles.

It’s always this way: the present moment appears to be THE paradigm of reality. Whatever challenges it is absurd.

But listen. The human race has already achieved the stage of developing language that mirrors physical reality. The job is done. The syntax is up to the job.

Poets have stretched and twisted words into greater shapes…

But now we are ready for something else. Language that transports us into realms of feeling, sensation, and perception we’ve barely glimpsed. We may think such an idea is absurd and baseless, but the door has been opened part way already.

This new language won’t be imitative in any sense. It will be created. And what it conveys will also be new. Again and again, we’ve circulated around the cluster of meanings and emotions and yearnings we identify as “profoundly human.” This is going to change. In the journey, we won’t be lugging old suitcases full of psychology and cosmology and metaphysics and science. We’ll be exceeding every previous attempt to paint “ultimate reality.”

And when we make that leap, we will find that everything is magic.

The myriad present strategies of human self-sabotage will look to us like the ravings of church prelates, who demanded obedience to a fairy tale of doctrinal redemption under threat of death.

As I say, these predictions may seem absurd. But from the vantage point of the coming future, after we pass through the open door, what we are experiencing now will appear as a minor obsession wrapped inside a comic nightmare.

Then we will know art is magic—and always was.

When all our experience and thought is poured through a vessel of language that is only equipped to deliver a tiny fraction of what we can invent and perceive, we go around and around on the wheel. We condition ourselves to pretend—unconsciously—that language is an admirable mirror of our potential.

This is a delusion.

Think of the cave man struggling in his world to express a few ideas to his clan. Then, unload on him the full weight of a sophisticated lexicon. Pick one. Tang Dynasty Chinese. It would look to him—if it looked like anything at all—like a dazzling galactic storm. Ideas, emotions, distinctions, metaphors signaling levels of being and experience beyond possibility.

We are at a similar crossroad.

We are quite sure our present experience of life, of our own lives, is firm and full and expansive and even adventurous. How could we ascend further to the point where we perceive millions of new dimensions of Self, where we realize our old (2011) sky and universe is a mere low-hanging reverie on the fabric of our imagination?

Fortunately, we aren’t invulnerable to change. We will eventually look back on this present as lackluster, as if people in the year 2011 were exercising premeditated restrictions on themselves and their language. Now, we only see a hint or two of our future. We insist on a tranquil view of our accomplishments; we think of ourselves as so generous with language. If only we knew.

By the way, Shakespeare (1564-1616) invented some 1700 new words in his plays. He expanded the vocabulary of English significantly, as well as the way verse was written and metaphor could be extended. Those words include several I embedded in the previous paragraph: premeditated; lackluster; invulnerable; hint; generous; tranquil.

The invention of language extends consciousness—and that is a magical event. Language creates realities that were never present before, like rabbits appearing out of hats, cards moving from one pocket to another.

Before Shakespeare, it was Chaucer who multiplied English. People mistakenly think such feats are no more unusual or revolutionary than finding new strains of tobacco. But when mind advances from the size of a pea to a palace, because of words, the whole vista of life changes.

This expansion, via language, is continuing as we speak. It’s invisible, in part, because we are using old language and its forms to think about that fact. This is called a knot, or a paradox, but the knot is coming loose.

Ecstatic moments that suddenly appear and then vaporize in dreams; exotic irrelevant shapes that well up through the push-pull of analytic calculation; chains that snap during odd alpha-state reflections; huge propelled desires that seem to find no home or target; dynamic glints in the skies…these unlabeled events that put cracks in our armor will become letters and words and sentences in a new tongue and script. And then there will be magic.

Then we will know that art is greater than we imagined—because we will be imagining greater art.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Visit the site, sign up for the email list and receive free articles, and order a copy of my e-book, THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE, in pdf or Kindle format.

MAGIC IS THE PRICE OF IMAGINATION

“…my vision is narrowing to a single wavelength of probability. I’ve worked hard for that. Television helped a lot.”

William Gibson, “The Gernsback Continuum”

MAY 9, 2011. For a longer version of this piece, which brings in the recent bin Laden events, go to my radio archive:

www.ProgressiveRadioNetwork.com/archives

Scroll to The Jon Rappoport Show. The show aired on May 4.

As long-time readers know, I’ve written much on the subject of imagination.

This time, I’m taking a slightly different slant:

When you live by and through imagination, you WILL produce magic. There is no question about it.

The question is: can you accept that? And can you deal with it?

I’ll offer a boiled-down definition of magic. It is the bringing about of events that stand outside the normal chains of cause and effect.

Some people would use the word synchronicity, but that tends to imply the generating spark comes from a mysterious force outside the person. No. The initial spark comes from projection of imagination.

People generally believe they are supposed to fit into the world…cogs in the machine. Or they believe rebellion against fitting in is their highest possible aspiration.

But what happens when you punch through the cover stories and deceptions that constitute phony realities? Where do you go then?

Do you just sit in the increasingly sour and rancid stew of your own discoveries?

Or do you take the clue and realize that the imposition of fakerealities is itself an act of imagination?

Seeing THAT, you can begin to invent your own realities out of your imagination—and project them into the world.

And if you do exactly that long enough and intensely enough and adventurously enough, magic will occur.

Fortuitous events will take place that have no business taking place. Ordinary patterns of cause and effect will experience “lapses.”

The only limitation: people don’t take imagination far enough. They stall at the gate. They give up. They dip their toe in the water and then back away.

The remedy for this is a deeper understanding of imagination.

Creative power is at the root of life. It could be the power that assembles circumstances and lies FOR you, externally, or it could be your own imagination.

Here I’ll pull out my museum paradigm. You walk into the galleries of a large museum filled with paintings. There are three possibilities. One: you wander from room to room, looking at the canvases on the walls. Two: under the influence of advice from others, you stand in front of one painting, stare at it for a long time—and then walk into it and take up residence there, forever, in the deceptively described One and Only Reality. Three: you leave the museum and go home and begin to paint.

Number two is, of course, the outcome of all the lies and cover stories that are floated to depict what the world and the universe are and must be.

Number three is what works.

As technology advances, the paintings in the museum will become more complex and enchanting. So the temptation to walk into one and take up a permanent home—abandoning imagination—will increase.

It’s called entertainment.

The entire media apparatus of the planet is the embodied imagination of its directors. They calculate what will sell, what will make an impact, what will attract audiences. They work from those premises.

Some of them also, of course, work from the premise of building cover stories to conceal what elites are actually doing to control more and more of the minds and property of populations.

So this gigantic media apparatus is engaged in mind control.

But more importantly, it is engaged in IMAGINATION CONTROL—or to put it more accurately, IMAGINATION SUBSTITUTION. Theirs in place of yours.

It’s hard for most people to see this, because they are already in the “reality pocket” media has created for them. They believe. They accept. They accept the spin that has been put on events, many of which were manufactured to begin with.

EVERYONE WHO BLINDLY ACCEPTS ORDINARY REALITY IS A FUNDAMENTALIST.

We think of fundamentalism in terms of religions. And it’s true that religious fanatics are launched on a particularly harmful course. They always were and always will be. But in a deeper sense, consensus reality—that creation—is the basic culprit.

Accepting it without question appears to be mandatory. Why? Because the very engine one would use to invent his own reality—imagination—has been put on the shelf. It’s gathering dust.

Talk about imagination to most people and they won’t even know what you’re referring to.

Part of the reason? Awareness that imagination exists is a relatively new phenomenon. Many ancient societies had no real concept of it. Instead, a dream one had at night was “a vision sent by a god or demon.” Art was “induced by a spirit.” And the meaning of such dreams and art was circumscribed and severely limited by the operating cosmology and world view and priesthood of the group.

The path of imagination cuts across the grain of such established norms, and in the process, ironclad cause-and-effect relationships in physical reality are loosened. Gaps appear. Fortuitous events occur, in accordance with Desire.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Visit the site, sign up for the email list and receive free articles, and order a copy of THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE, in pdf or Kindle format.

BIN LADEN STORY SHAPE SHIFTS

MAY 7, 2011. On May 2, the White House held a press briefing. Counter-terrorism chief, John Brennan, took the following question:

“Was it—was there a visual, or was it just radio reports or phone reports you were getting [during the raid]?”

Brennan: “We [in the situation room] were able to monitor the situation in real time and were able to have regular updates to ensure that we had real-time visibility into the progress of the operation. I’m not going to go into detail about what type of visuals we had or what type of feeds that were there, but it was—it gave us the ability to actually track it [the raid] on an ongoing basis.”

Then the world was presented with the photo of Obama, H. Clinton, and others intently watching the raid in the situation room.

This cemented in the notion that top US officials were, in fact, watching the raid take place in real time.

But on May 5, CIA Director, Leon Panetta, told PBS: “Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information. We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound.”

So the implication was: we saw everything.

Then the claim was: we saw nothing of importance.

Brennan managed to suggest, without actually spelling it out, that the team in the situation room saw everything that was vital…and then his story collapsed.

Can’t these people keep their scenario straight?

There are several possible reasons for the abrupt change. Perhaps the most interesting is: the team in the White House situation room wants deniability, in case something untoward eventually surfaces about what actually went on inside the compound. Shooting unarmed women and children, for example. Or the man who was killed wasn’t public-enemy number one.

“We didn’t see that. We didn’t see anything.”

At this point, you can make up your own version of events, and you’ll probably be as close to the truth as what we’re getting from official sources.

Briefly, a report surfaced about a doctor in the compound being arrested. Where is he? What does he have to say about bin Laden’s physical condition for the last five years? Where is the kidney dialysis equipment that was needed to keep him alive? If it were there, you’d think US officials would have released that information, as part of their “verification” procedure indicating that the man who was shot and killed was, in fact, bin Laden. If, indeed, he had been suffering from very serious kidney disease since 2001 and needed dialysis—where are those machines?

“Oh, of course we found them. We dumped them in the sea with the corpse.”

Then there are the gruesome death photos that were going to be released, but weren’t. What happened there? Where are the photos now? Who has them?

DNA experts have already weighed in and said the original DNA sample from a bin Laden family member may be insufficient to provide a convincing match, given the complex structure of the family tree.

Imagine you had hired an architect to build a skyscraper. He comes to your office with a few sketches and partial blueprints. You examine them.

“Here, where these pillars are located? I don’t quite see how they support this slab. Then the girders. Where are the connections to the upper floors? And the roof. I don’t see how it’s fastened in place.”

“Look, the building will stand. I assure you. I’m the architect. Accept that. Why would I present you with a dud?”

Make up your own mind. Examine the evidence, the lack of evidence.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Visit the site, sign up for the email list and receive free articles, and order a copy of my e-book, THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE, in pdf or Kindle format.