Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

INTERVIEW WITH A GENE RESEARCHER

 

INTERVIEW WITH A GENE RESEARCHER

MARCH 29, 2011. During my appearance on Coast to Coast AM, last Thursday, with George Noory, I described three interviews I had with gene researchers.

From my notes, here is an excerpt from the last interview. This scientist, though off the record, was the most outspoken of the three. I confirmed, through separate channels, that he is a working geneticist who has published in his field. Nothing in his background suggested to me he has some personal ax to grind. He makes a comfortable living, and his position is secure.

Q: Why are you talking to me?

A: Because I believe the research is heading in the wrong direction. Let me clarify that. Behind the scenes, there are professionals who are excessively eager to re-design the human being.

Q: Are they motivated by money?

A: Sure. They want grants for their labs. They want to keep the gravy train going. But they also want to enter a Brave New World. They’re reckless about that. They see a science-fiction future in which people will be able to buy genes and become free of the problems that beset the human race now.

Q: And that’s a bad thing because?

A: First of all, will we be told about all the failures? Or will that information be hidden?

Q: To create the cloned sheep, Dolly, there were lots and lots of failed tries.

A: Yes. So what will the human failures look like?

Q: No published studies?

A: There is a very strong possibility we will have two separate lines of research. The cautious experiments, out in the open, and then the reckless ones out of the spotlight.

Q: Complete secrecy?

A: Yes.

Q: How could that happen?

A: With money backing it. Private investors. Black-budget government money, about which very few people would be aware.

Q: And in that venue?

A: The rational restraints would be thrown out the window.

Q: You know people, researchers, who would participate in a scheme like that?

A: I’ve met a few. And I think, over time, others could be dragged into it.

Q: As a parallel, the infamous CIA MKULTRA program of mind control was carried out in secrecy.

A: Yes it was. But with gene experiments, the secrecy would have to be much tighter. There would be many, many failures to cover up.

Q: It sounds like you’re not very confident in the state of gene technology.

A: There is a lot of guesswork. Not only do you have a vast puzzle with all the pieces disconnected from one another, you don’t really know what each piece means. And you don’t know, in general, how solid a relationship there is between genes and human functions. There have been many claims and much promotion, but the science is shaky. It’s all been inflated to raise money from investors.

Q: So a secret program of, say, inserting genes into humans, into fetuses, could result in catastrophic outcomes.

A: One such grotesque outcome, just one, if made public, would cause a public uproar. That’s why I say the secrecy would have to be very, very tight. And the people who would control a program like that…I wouldn’t trust them. Who could trust them? Their lack of ethics would be frightening.

Q: As you talk about this, it’s easy to see the re-emerging picture of the Nazi experiments.

A: It starts out in a very casual way. “We want to raise IQ through genetic manipulation.” Or “We want to improve immune function.” It sounds friendly and plausible. But behind the scenes, the people in charge have far more radical goals.

Q: For example?

A: The creation of military warriors who are impervious to the ups and downs of emotion, regardless of external circumstances.

Q: You really think the people in charge would try for something like that?

A: There is a probability, yes. And because the state of the science is so far from being able to achieve that now—if it ever can—the experiments would be extremely reckless. Sheer guesswork. Trial and error, over and over. Who can say what the results would be?

Q: There are apparently a number of researchers and academicians who have a very rosy view of what’s possible in the next, say, twenty years. They see parents buying genes for their kids. Look better, feel better, perform better. That sort of thing. “Let the free-market forces rule.”

A: I’m not opposed to the free market. It does have a way of canceling out what doesn’t work. But those futurists who have this optimistic ideal don’t seem to realize how technologies are controlled in the real world. Gene technology would be handled by a corporate-government alliance. The most radical aspects of the technology could be carried out on much deeper…a secret channel of research, out of view of the public.

Q: It’s a cliché that the very rich would want unfettered access to the benefits. For themselves and their children.

A: We’re not talking about the middle class here. Or the upper middle class. Or the fairly wealthy. We’re talking about people who are extraordinarily rich and who hold sway over large sectors of society. Such people operate on the principle of Malthusian scarcity. There isn’t enough to go around—so they have to take the cream for themselves. This isn’t a rational view, but it’s the way they think. They would try to gain a monopoly on the most extreme aspects of genetic research. That’s what I see. If, somehow, it became possible to live to an age of two hundred, in excellent health, do you really believe the super-rich would fall all over themselves to share that with everyone else?

Q: But you don’t think such advances are on the immediate horizon for anyone.

A: I think the present state of the science is nowhere close to that. But it doesn’t mean some people won’t try. Some people will take any risks. They don’t care. We have the historical example of the Nazis. Germany wasn’t the only place where Nazis lived or that state of mind existed.

Q: I know many professionals in your field will claim that safeguards against abuses are in place, that watchdog groups and government agencies are very close to the action and will slap down anyone who tries to engage in reckless and dangerous experimentation.

A: On the level of what I’d call routine science, they’re right, for the most part. But from my experience, I see this other factor, the one we’ve been discussing. The black-budget secret line of experimentation.

Q: Just so it’s clear…we are talking about available test subjects, human beings, lots of them, who would participate as guinea pigs in genetic experiments. Exceedingly reckless experiments with uncertain outcomes. All sorts of horrible things could happen.

A: Yes. And if you’re asking me where such guinea pigs would come from, I would remind you that they’ve always been available.

Q: Wherever there is coercion and imprisonment.

A: Of course.

Q: The completion of the Human Genome Project was trumpeted with much praise. What’s your assessment of that work?

A: Assuming the accuracy of the findings, we could see that one range of mountains was conquered, and then we were able to understand how much was left to do. The simple notion of “genes controlling everything in the body” is naïve. There must be other factors, other influences.

Q: People like to speculate about the unknowns when it comes to genetic science.

A: That’s true about any incomplete theory or hypothesis. People come in with wild ideas to fill the holes and gaps. Some of those people try to sell their ideas. I try to avoid all that. But I will say the design features of what we know about the human genome are rather stunning. The idea that this architecture developed from a puddle of mud and amino acids is odd.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

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

MORE FALLOUT FROM THE NOORY SHOW

 

MORE FALLOUT FROM THE NOORY SHOW

MARCH 28, 2011. Emails about my appearance on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory, last Thursday, keep coming in. Many of the questions and comments are on the subject of “designing humans.”

So I thought I’d make a few additional comments:

What about researchers who claim there are genes that monitor factors like talent, like IQ, like which emotions predominate, and so on?

Speculation. It hasn’t been proved. It tends to be hype. It’s wishful thinking right now.

There’s certainly an interest in redesigning humans—undergoing medical procedures that alter genetic structure in some way, in order to produce “a more advanced human being.”

There are very serious questions about whether that’s really possible in any significant way. But if it is, the people who control it will promote their own vision of what a human should be. Suppose, for example, they could engineer a fetus so the child experiences no ups and downs of feeling?

The child is neutral. Entirely goal-driven. Performs like a machine.

This would be an elite program. Run by people who are obsessed by end results. So they would favor a designing operation that created humans in their own image.

In purely commercial terms, parents would want to choose which genes to give their children, for certain “improvements.”

In that case, parents would be the ones creating their children in their own image. But to take this further, what we’re talking about here is synthetic creation. There is no guarantee that the outcome of genetic tinkering would produce something authentic. It’s like a chair factory. You set up machines in an assembly line, so you can spit out ten thousand chairs that look exactly alike, right? That’s what you do in manufacturing. And when you see a chair like that, you immediately recognize that it’s missing something. It’s not the same thing as a chair that was made by hand.

We’re not taking about chairs. And that’s exactly the problem. A human being is involved with desire and struggle and work to find a better existence. What happens if you surgically cut that line? What happens if you remove that whole road? What’s left? How much passion, for example, is left? And if there isn’t any, what sort of person do you have? These somewhat subtle questions aren’t part of the thinking about genetic re-programming. They’re considered irrelevant.

Take an analogy from painting. A certain kind of painter will completely sidestep the richness and depth of his potential work. Instead, he’ll give you “a happy, happy face” that’s a shallow cartoon of existence. He’ll give you a sad face with big glossy eyes, and that’s supposed to make you feel sad and nostalgic. Now transfer that attitude to genetic designers. What sort of human being would they create? I’m not so much talking about the individual traits as the dimensionality of those traits. They could very well come up with a short-cut type of human. A simulation of a human. Instead of the genetically enhanced human thinking A,B,C,D,E,F,G, he thinks A,G. It’s simpler. It’s faster. But it has no BODY to it. It’s just a kind of short circuit. And it’s not really smarter. It’s mechanical. The enhanced person doesn’t sense or feel meaning.

There’s no triumph.

There’s no impulse of passion to seek and find further frontiers. It’s a cartoon. The society is heading in that general direction already: Display what are supposed to be the outward signs of success and you have success. Of course, that’s insane. That means nothing. That’s the fallacy of so-called positive thinking. You develop a shorthand way of expressing what you want, and you hope that the affirmation will get you there. But where does it get you? You’re trying to compress life down to childish formulas. Your own thinking suffers in the process.

I’ve spoken with genetics researchers. I’ve found a few who are genuinely troubled about where this “re-designing” trend is going. The others are people I wouldn’t hire to make curtains for my windows. They’re super-enthusiastic, but they lack something in themselves. They want to do reductions. They want to design a future that is much simpler. Sell a gene, buy a gene. They really believe in that. You want to have greater sexual drive? Buy Gene ABC. They’re stunted people.

Then there’s the Mozart myth.

Yes, they like to bring that up. Here was a kid who suddenly could play the violin and read a musical score with no training, and then he went on to compose so many works, with seemingly no effort. Wouldn’t you want to have a child like that? Well, I happen to prefer Vivaldi. But now, these days, if you could insert a gene into a fetus and he could, at age ten, play ten different consecutive chords on a guitar without falling over, some parents would call that genius. So the culture itself and the genetic designers have common ground. That’s not a good sign. That’s a Disney cartoon standing in for real life.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

The Austism Trick

The Austism Trick

by Jon Rappoport

March 28, 2011

www.nomorefakenews.com

Imagine this. Your child is in an automobile accident, and he is injured. At the hospital, the attending doctor says, “Your boy’s symptoms indicate he has disease X.”

“What?!” you say. “The car he was in was just hit by a truck!”

“Doesn’t matter,” the doctor says. “We have to treat disease X with drugs.”

“He needs emergency surgery!”

“No. That won’t cure X.”

Impossible, right? Well, read on, because…

Let’s say you think your child may be autistic. You’re not sure. He’s withdrawn. He rarely speaks. He sometimes has outbursts. He doesn’t have full physical coordination. He twists his fingers a lot.

You take him to a doctor, who observes him and administers various cognitive tests. Then the doctor asks you questions.

The questions are about behaviors of your child, of course. You answer patiently, and at the end of the interview the doctor says, “Your son has autism.”

You say, “Aren’t there any definitive blood tests or brain scans?”

The doctor says, “Well, we know it’s a brain disease. Neurological. But there are no ironclad physical tests for it. If I put your child through a brain scan, I could find abnormalities and show them to you.”

“But?” you say.

“These abnormalities aren’t exactly the same for every autistic child. Therefore, they wouldn’t amount to a certain diagnosis of autism.”

You’re puzzled and confused.

You take your child home and you discover there is something called the DSM. It’s the official bible of mental disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association. Each disorder is described, and the criteria for diagnosis are laid out clearly. So you look up autism. (The complete diagnostic guide for calling a child autistic can be found, for example, at www.autreat.com/dsm4-autism.html) You’re rather amazed, because the defining symptoms are ALL behavioral. There are NO precise biological, chemical, or physiological elements or tests.

Instead, you find: “…failure to develop peer relationships…a lack of seeking to share enjoyment…preferring solitary activities…delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language…”

You go back to the doctor and report your confusion.

“It sounds like autism is a social behavior,” you say.

“Well,” the doctor says, “of course it’s not just that. It’s organic. Physical. The brain is malfunctioning. We know that.”

“If you know,” you say, “why aren’t those factors listed in the criteria for diagnosing autism?”

“Because, as I told you last time, the physical symptoms in the brain aren’t the same for each autistic child.”

“Then.” you say, “maybe each child that has different brain problems has a different condition.”

“No, no,” he says. “If that were true, we would be looking at hundreds of different diseases.”

“And?”

“We aren’t.”

“How do you know that?”

“Because the behavioral characteristics that allow us to diagnose autism are spelled out.”

“In the DSM,” you say.

“That’s right.”

This sounds like circular reasoning to you.

“But those are just…behaviors,” you say. “They don’t add up to a disease.”

He shrugs.

“It’s the best we can do at the present time,” he says. “We’re getting closer to a solution. We strongly suspect autism is genetic. I mean, ultimately we know it is, but we haven’t found the particular gene or genes that control it.”

“You suspect, but you don’t know.”

He frowns.

“Look,” you say, “suppose we start from the premise that my son is unique. That whatever caused his problems has to be found by examining him, not by referring to a menu of behaviors in the DSM.”

The doctor looks puzzled.

“Let me tell you what I mean,” you say. “When he was two, he received several vaccines, and within a week his whole life changed. He stopped talking. He had a high fever for a few days. His coordination began to deteriorate…”

The doctor smiles condescendingly.

“Look,” he says, “we know vaccines don’t cause autism. We’ve found children who have autism who’ve never received vaccines.”

“Well,” you say, beginning to see the light, “that’s what I’m talking about. Since the definition of autism is based on these behavioral criteria and nothing else, that doesn’t really add up to a disease. In the case of my son, let’s just throw out the word “autism.” Let’s put that word in a drawer and shut the drawer and forget about it. Instead, let’s say there is a good chance my son is suffering from vaccine damage. Let’s call it Vaccine Damage. And let’s see what we can do to reverse that.”

“Ridiculous,” the doctor says. “Your son has autism. I’ve diagnosed over five hundred cases, and I know it when I see it.”

“You know the definition,” you say. “And you live by the definition. That doesn’t make it right.”

Anger begins to creep in at the edges of the doctor’s face.

“I’m sorry,” he says. “I can’t continue this conversation.”

“Then just listen,” you say. “My son received heavy metals in those vaccines…a form of mercury, which is a known neurotoxin. Why wouldn’t we consider that a possible cause of everything he is suffering from, the situation that has no name. Maybe he still has that poison in his body, and maybe there is a way to get rid of it.”

The doctor shakes his head.

“One more thing,” you say. “A good friend of the family has a daughter who was diagnosed with autism a few years ago. Turns out she was poisoned by several chemicals in the water that went to their house. I’m not speculating. This was discovered. Then they found ways to get that poison out of her system, out of her body—and her recovery, over time, was remarkable. Because first they had pinpointed the cause. IN HER UNIQUE CASE.”

“No,” the doctor says. “You want to know what that was? That was a misdiagnosis of autism. She never had it.”

“No, Doctor,” you say. “You can’t have it both ways. She was diagnosed by a specialist, and he consulted the DSM definition of autism, and he found she fit it to a T. There was no doubt.”

The doctor shakes his head.

“Well,” you say, “if I accept your diagnosis, what treatments can you offer my son?”

“We can’t treat the cause, because we don’t know what it is. But we can treat the symptoms and alleviate them.”

He hands you a chart of drugs used to treat autism symptoms. They include, first, stimulants (speed-type drugs): Adderall, Dexedrine, Dextrostat, Ritalin. Other such drugs.

Then antidepressants, such as: Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft.

Then anti-psychotic drugs, such as: Clozaril, Haldol, Mellaril.

Then so-called mood stabilizers, such as: Depakote, lithium citrate, and lithium carbonate.

“Doctor,” you say, “I’ve read literature on all these drugs. They have VERY serious side effects.”

“They work,” he says.

You suddenly realize that the application of the label “autism” to your child is the gateway to the drugs. The label opens that door to all the drugs’ adverse effects. Now you feel the power of a label and definition isn’t just a toy. It has real consequences.

power outside the matrix

You review the situation in your mind. Your son, your particular son, who has just been diagnosed with a generalized word called “autism,” based on a list of behaviors in the DSM, and who is now a candidate for some very serious and heavy drugs, was injured by a vaccine badly when he was two years old. That fact has no bearing on this doctor’s analysis or proposed treatment. This doctor asserts that your son has autism because his behavior fits the behaviors listed in the DSM, and that rules out the possibility that he is suffering from vaccine damage, because there are other children who have been diagnosed with autism who never received vaccines.

You want the doctor to forget the label “autism” and get to the heart of the matter, but he says he IS at the heart of the matter.

You are faced with a no-win situation. The doctor has engaged you in his brand of circular reasoning, and it is lethal.

You gather your wits, and you form a question.

“Doctor,” you say, “let me pose this. This is all theoretical, all right? Let’s say I bring my son to a practitioner who has a method for taking the mercury out of his body. Let’s just imagine that for a second. And let’s then say that, afterwards, my son recovers many of his lost abilities. Over time. The recovery is visible to all. Then I come back to you and report this. WILL YOU THEN SAY YOUR DIAGNOSIS OF AUTISM WAS INCORRECT? WILL YOU AUTOMATICALLY SAY MY SON NEVER HAD AUTISM?”

There is a space of silence.

Then the doctor says, “If that happened, I would indeed tell you my diagnosis of autism was incorrect.”

“Why?”

“Because if your son had autism—and he most surely does have autism—the notion of removing a little mercury from his body—if someone could really do that—would be irrelevant. It would never cure him to any degree.”

“So,” you say, “I should forget about trying any method of removing mercury from his body.”

“That’s right,” he says. “That’s right. Forget about it.”

In your mind, you hear a very heavy door slam shut. Somehow, the very real possibility of attacking what may be the cause of your son’s problems has been ruled out.

“Doctor,” you say, “I don’t understand the modern definitions of insanity that are listed in the DSM, but I can tell you that you are quite, quite insane.”

Again, he smiles condescendingly.

“If I didn’t think it might bring on a law suit,” he says, “I would consider that you are insane and suggest an exam.”

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

RAPPOPORT FOLLOW-UP ON NOORY SHOW

 

RAPPOPORT NOTES ON NOORY SHOW

MARCH 27, 2011. My appearance last Thursday on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory has resulted in many email responses.

It was a long-term objective of mine to get that information (on the genetic engineering of humans) in front of a very large audience.

Accomplished.

In this piece, I’m adding a few odds and ends I didn’t have time to fully cover on the show.

In general, because of my experience as a medical investigative reporter, I know how medical programs—even if they seem well-intentioned—go off track and are taken over by criminal types. So if I concede that gene-reshaping of humans is a sound and good idea—which I don’t—I know the plan will fall under control of the wrong people. I’ve seen this happen time and time again. And in some cases, such medical projects are actally started by people who are very unfriendly to basic human interests.

First, here are several examples of patented genes—

A company called Biogen owns a patent for the KIM gene used by the kidney for self-repair.

U of California owns the rights to TCP 1,2,3 that relate to the tongue and sense of taste.

Sumino Metal Industries owns a gene related to bone growth and is looking for a treatment for osteoporosis.

In 1988, Harvard obtained a patent on the ONCOMOUSE, a mouse engineered for increased susceptibility to cancer.

The US Dept. of Health and Human Services has applied for 3000 genetic patents—so in that case, we would have the government owning genes or DNA sequences…

A man named John Moore, suffering from leukemia, had his spleen removed and a cell line was produced from it to make very expensive proteins for medical use…he didn’t know about the cell line…he subsequently sued the U of California and lost…

A gene bank associated with the Human Genome Project has taken hair, blood, and cell samples from disappearing indigenous peoples…critics have called this the Vampire Project…

As of 2002, 6 agro-chemical companies held over 900 patents on varieties of basic staple foods….with the intention of making virtually all food crops genetically modified.

The Neem tree in India, Ghandi’s favorite tree, is held under patent by the WR Grace company for a biopesticide devlopment….

Gene prospectors go into 3rd world countries and patent plants for drugs.

Here is a list of quotes from a site called the Center for Genetics and Society. The Center has used the quotes to demonstrate exactly the kind of mindset they are opposed to, and to illustrate that the gene shapers are alive and well, and in positions of influence. As you can see from the credentials of some of these authors, preference for a Brave New World has gone mainstream. It’s out in the open.

 

Key Quotes from Advocates of Species-Altering Technologies

March 31st, 2002

“Many people love their retrievers and their sunny dispositions around children and adults. Could people be chosen in the same way? Would it be so terrible to allow parents to at least aim for a certain type, in the same way that great breeders…try to match a breed of dog to the needs of a family?”

Gregory Pence, Professor of Philosophy, School of Medicine & Humanities, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Who’s Afraid of Human Cloning? (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998), page 168

“Some will hate it, some will love it, but biotechnology is inevitably leading to a world in which plants, animals and human beings are going to be partly man-made….Suppose parents could add 30 points to their children’s IQ. Wouldn’t you want to do it? And if you don’t, your child will be the stupidest child in the neighborhood.”

Lester Thurow, Professor of Economics and Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Creating Wealth: The New Rules for Individuals, Companies and Nations in a Knowledge-Based Economy (New York: Harper Collins, 1999), page 33

“And the other thing, because no one has the guts to say it: If we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn’t we? What’s wrong with it?…Evolution can be just damn cruel, and to say that we’ve got a perfect genome and there’s some sanctity? I’d like to know where that idea comes from, because it’s utter silliness.”

James Watson, President, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, quoted in Engineering the Human Germline: An Exploration of the Science and Ethics of Altering the Genes We Pass to Our Children, Gregory Stock and John Campbell, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), pages 79, 85. Watson shared the Nobel prize for Chemistry in 1962 for the discovery of the structure of DNA, and served as first Director of the Human Genome Project.

“The first century or two of the new millennium will almost certainly be a golden age for eugenics. Through application of new genetic knowledge and reproductive technologies…the major change will be to mankind itself…[T]echniques…such as…genetic manipulations are not yet efficient enough to be unquestionably suitable in therapeutic and eugenic application for humans. But with the pace of research it is surely only a matter of time, and a short time at that.”

Glayde Whitney, Professor, Department of Psychology, Florida State University, “Reproduction Technology for a New Eugenics,” paper for The Galton Institute conference Man and Society in the New Millennium, September 1999, published in The Mankind Quarterly (Vol. 40, No. 2, 1999), pages 179-192 and online at http://www.eugenics.net/papers/gw002.html

Whitney has come under fire for his racist writings, including his forward to My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding, by former Ku Klux Klan National Director David Duke.

“What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the ‘phasing out’ of such peoples . . . Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent.”

Richard Lynn, University of Ulster, Interview in Newsday (January 9, 1994)

“[I]f the cost of reprogenetic technology follows the downward path taken by other advanced technologies like computers and electronics, it could become affordable to the majority members of the middle class in Western societies….And the already wide gap between wealthy and poor nations could widen further and further with each generation until all common heritage is gone. A severed humanity could very well be the ultimate legacy of unfettered global capitalism.”

Lee Silver, Professor, Department of Molecular Biology and Woodrow Wilson School for Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, “Reprogenetics: How do a Scientist’s Own Ethical Deliberations Enter into the Process?” Humans and Genetic Engineering in the New Millennium: How are We Going to Get “Gen-Ethics” Just in Time? (Copenhagen: Danish Council of Ethics, 2000), and online at http://etisk.inforce.dk/graphics/03_udgivelser/
publikationer/genethic/kap02_8.htm . Silver lectures widely on the social impacts of biotechnology.

“The right to a custom made child is merely the natural extension of our current discourse of reproductive rights. I see no virtue in the role of chance in conception, and great virtue is expanding choice….If women are allowed the ‘reproductive right’ or ‘choice’ to choose the father of their child, with his attendant characteristics, then they should be allowed the right to choose the characteristics from a catalog.”

James Hughes, bioethics consultant, sociologist, bioethicist, health care policy analyst, producer of the public affairs program Changesurfer Radio, and Secretary of the World Transhumanist Association, in “Embracing Change with All Four Arms,” Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics (Vol. 6, No. 4, June 1996), pages 94-101, and online at http://www.changesurfer.com/Hlth/Genetech.html

“[In a few hundred years] the GenRich—who account for 10 percent of the American population—[will] all carry synthetic genes….All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry [will be] controlled by members of the GenRich class….Naturals [will] 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 cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee….[I]n a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of reprogenetics….[T]he use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable….There is no doubt about it…whether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”

Lee Silver, Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World (New York: Avon Books, 1997), pages 4-7, 11

“‘Germline’ therapy…will force us to re-examine even the very notion of what it means to be human [as] we become subject to the same process of conscious design that has so dramatically altered the world around us….Through this technology, we will seize control of our own evolution….By the time recipients of even the best engineered chromosome are ready to have children, it will be twenty or thirty years after they themselves were conceived. Their once state-of-the-art artificial chromosome will be hopelessly out-of-date, and they’ll want to give their child the latest gene cassettes and artificial chromosomes. It’s not so different from upgraded software; they’d want the new release.”

Gregory Stock, Director of the Program on Medicine, Technology and Society, UCLA, in “The Prospects for Human Germline Engineering,” Telepolis, (January 29, 1999), and online at http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/2621/1.html.

“The advertising pitch for inheritable genetic modification is called “Organic Enhancement” because “the DNA molecules added to embryos are totally organic [and] all-natural….[K]eep in mind, you must act before you get pregnant. Don’t be sorry after she’s born. This really is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for your child-to-be.”

Lee Silver, “Beyond 2000, ” Time (November 8, 1999), pages 68-69. Silver adopts a whimsical tone to fantasize a marketing campaign for inheritable genetic modification by the “St. Genevieve” fertility clinic in the year 2025.

“Like atomic energy, cloning can be used for beneficial purposes—to increase population and to open the window of genetic reprogramming.”

Dr. Severino Antinori, “Human cloning project claims progress, ” Gulf News (March 4, 2002). Antinori is an Italian fertility specialist leading a project to create a human clone. He previously gained notoriety when he helped a 62-year-old woman become pregnant through IVF.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

RAPPOPORT ON GEORGE NOORY

 

RAPPOPORT ON NOORY

MARCH 23, 2011. A reminder that tomorrow night, Thursday, I’ll be on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory. Pick up show times in your area.

The topic is my e-book, THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE. The book can be ordered at my site, www.nomorefakenews.com

One never knows what form an interview will take. I hope it will be a story, because how the book was written, how it came to be, was a story of meetings with several scientists, who spoke to me off the record, over a period of 20 years.

Three meetings, three conversations, across that span of time.

These men took precautions to remain off the record, because they felt their jobs would be endangered otherwise.

They had grave concerns about the direction genetic engineering was taking. They want someone to know about it.

Well, over the years, I have written articles about this subject, and I have presented the view that gene research has an ominous side.

But I’ve never told the story of the interviews with these three men.

Until now. So tune into the show.

The e-book comes at things from other angles. It is meant as the foundation for understanding how medicine and science can be taken down the wrong track, for devious purposes. Genetic engineering is one of those tracks.

People are being hoodwinked into thinking we have another magic bullet. So many magic bullets have been presented to us, and they all fail. Genes are hyped as the ultimate cause of disease…and with just a little more patience and a lot more money, we will have the solution in hand.

Yet, we are a very long way from being able to confirm this hypothesis. And perhaps there is a very different reason for all the research being done on genes.

Tune in tomorrow night. I hope you’ll order the book, too.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

RAPPOPORT ON COAST TO COAST AM

 

RAPPOPORT ON COAST TO COAST

 

MARCH 18, 2011. Next Thursday, Mar. 24, I’ll be a guest with George Noory on Coast to Coast AM, the largest late-night radio show in the world.

 

Go to www.coasttocoastam.com for times in your area, or check your local listings and stations.

 

This will be a long interview about my book, THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE, which is now available as an e-book. To order it, go to my site, www.nomorefakenews.com

 

I hope you’ll tell your friends about the radio show. And I hope some of you will call in and ask questions.

 

It’s rare that any reporter gets a chance to explain, with this much audience exposure, the real meaning of the medical agenda, especially as it relates to the future of this planet. I’m talking about implications that go far beyond what 99.9% of doctors and researchers even suspect in their wildest dreams.

 

So tune in. Spread the word.

 

Thanks.

 

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

The Ownership of All Life

The Ownership of All Life

by Jon Rappoport

March 9, 2011

www.nomorefakenews.com

As I mentioned a couple of days ago, my book, The Ownership of All Life, is now available as an e book at Amazon. You can pick up the link to it at my site, www.nomorefakenews.com

I thought I’d give you a taste:

Page 4-5: “After World War 2, the highest ranking scientist on the executive board of IG Farben [the infamous Nazi cartel], Dr. Fritz Ter Meer, was put on trial at Nuremberg. The charges? Mass slavery and murder.

“Farben had built a rubber factory at Auschwitz. In fact, it built Auschwitz in order to ensure cheap labor in its adjoining rubber factory. Farben paid the SS to send over inmates every day of the week to work in that factory. Those who were too weak to make it through the day were killed.

“Well, for all this, Fritz Ter Meer was given seven years in jail. A pathetic seven years.

“…Sixteen years later, on August 1, 1963, the Bayer Corporation was celebrating its hundredth anniversary at Cologne. Big festivities.

“The three largest original components of IG Farben—Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF—were back in business and roaring on profit highs. They were now sanitized separate corporations, no longer parts of an official Nazi-aiding IG Farben.

“The keynote speaker at the Bayer celebration was the one and only Fritz Ter Meer.

“Out of jail.

“Murderer.

“Mass murderer.

“Now chairman of the supervisory board of Bayer.

“Chairman. Of the Supervisory Board. Of Bayer.”

You’ll find this book interesting.

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

NEW RAPPOPORT E BOOK

 

NEW RAPPOPORT E-BOOK

 

MARCH 8, 2011. We’re working to bring some of my books into e formats. The first one is out and available at Amazon.

 

THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE: Notes on Scandals, Conspiracies and Coverups.

 

Go to my site, www.nomorefakenews.com and pick up the link to Amazon in the upper right corner.

 

The back-cover blurb for the book reads:

 

“Jon Rappoport removes the mask from gigantic corporate strategies and reveals their underlying ambitions: not only control of vast material power but the owning of life processes themselves, literally making the planet a commodity. From media scandals to government collusion and coverup, from sterilization vaccines to genetically engineered patented food crops, from an epidemic of medical malpracrice resulting in widespread death to fraudulent AIDS research, these notes provide a picture of global takeover by modern pirates whose front is complete respectabilility and ‘concern for human life.’ Read this expose of the big lie.”

 

I pulled together several years of my research in allied areas of fraud and coverup, and wrote the book.

 

It contains pieces that could fade into the dustbin of history, if they aren’t remembered and understood.

 

It may not cost a huge sum to operate my site, but the cost in hours over the last ten years is enormous. I hope my readers will pay a few bucks and get this book. It’s worth it for you, and it helps me.

 

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

MORE ON DREAMS

 

MORE ON DREAMS:

FRAGMENTS FROM JACK TRUE

 

MARCH 3, 2011. These are remarks hypnotherapist Jack True made during a 1987 conversation we had. I present them as fragments from my notes.

 

“The overall situation a patient might find himself in, over a period of time…His emotions and thoughts are stymied. They’re frozen, in a way. He may be doing well or poorly in his life. It doesn’t matter. The situation is negative, in the sense that he doesn’t believe he can make progress in his own terms. He may not even know what his own terms are.”

 

“Despite his successes and victories, it all feels temporary, in retrospect. He keeps coming back to the situation. The unyielding rock. I’ve had patients, for example, who have been through many spiritual efforts to achieve greater consciousness—and they have had remarkable experiences…but then it all seems to fade away, and they’re back at the rock. As they get older, the situation hardens. A part of them is resigned. So the situation, the negative trend is very dense, you could say. It’s firm.”

 

“…A dream in which he becomes a master over space and time. Would inventing such a dream release energies which are bottled up? Would it make him feel better? …Then I have him invent other dreams—traveling to other dimensions, for instance. Dreams that get him past physical reality and its rules in other ways. An important part of what I do is decide what will work with different people. It’s not all the same for everyone. You have to understand that. “

 

“In myths, the gods can bring worlds into being, and they can take them out of being. They can rearrange reality. They can operate well beyond all the slaves who are trapped in a narrow context of reality. And these myths represent a human longing. It’s not just attributing certain qualities to gods. It’s wanting to be like gods. These are the terms of the myths. So you can simply dismiss all this as inconsequential fantasizing, or you can look further into it and see that these so-called godlike capacities are what humans think about subconsciously.”

 

“The subconscious is usually thought to contain repressed anti-social material. Well, if you adjust that notion a little bit, what’s more anti-social than being able to exceed the rules of time and space? You see? This carries us out far beyond traditional psychological concepts. This takes us into the underpinning of whole cultures. A culture is the reverse of what human beings really yearn for. It’s the dark side of the moon. A culture is an average. It’s the dream repressed. A culture is a thing people want to escape from. A culture, by its very nature, is defeatist. What’s in the subconscious is the desire to go past the rules of the continuum in which we live. To travel through time, for example. To go forward and back. Impossible, right? Well, that’s the sort of thing I find in the subconscious. So I have a choice. I can say it’s buried deep because it’s a fantasy of no importance that doesn’t belong in the world, or I can say it’s the key. I can say it represents the desire to climb to a higher level. And when I do that, and when I bolster it by having patients, in a light trance, invent dreams that support it, the patients get better. They experience well-being. They heal. They become more powerful in their lives. They become freer. And I DON’T mean they become healthier because they give up those dreams and fit in—I mean they step on to the path of magic.”

 

“A child grows up with a certain standard of beauty. It isn’t drilled into his head. He sees what’s around him and his feelings tell him what’s beautiful and what’s ugly. But then, at a certain age, there is a chance that he realizes something new. What he sees as beautiful isn’t really doing him any good. It’s becoming a little boring. But instead of exploring that idea, he shoves it under the rug because it feels too odd. He goes back to claiming what he felt was beautiful as a child is beautiful now. But he doesn’t quite feel the same way about it anymore. “Beautiful” is becoming a kind of category, to which he pays lip service. He is now beginning to perceive through a category. He’s sort of doing it by the numbers. He’s doing it by rote. Old categories of perception tend you hold you back. If you’re seeing based on what you’re supposed to see and feel, you’re cutting yourself off from energy, from creative power.”

 

JON RAPPOPORT

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

www.nomorefakenews.com

CREATING REALITY

 

CREATING REALITY

FEBRUARY 28, 2011. Creating reality presupposes that the status quo isn’t permanent. This sounds obvious, but when you expand the meaning and territory of status quo and let it cover all aspects of life and even the universe itself, you have something worth considering and chewing on.

You have magic.

You have whatever qualities a human being possesses that would allow him to alter the status quo.

When a person steps out into this journey, one of the first mistakes he can make is to assume that whatever reality he creates must resemble, in all respects, physical reality. It must mirror physical reality.

In painting, this would be saying the artist has to paint a bowl that looks like a bowl and behaves like a bowl, and he has to put apples in it that look like apples—his success DEPENDS on his ability to paint apples that look like they could be picked right off a tree.

It would be like saying a slave, newly released, has to imitate his former master down to the last detail of form, habit, style, thought, and action.

It would be saying the son has to emulate the father.

There used to be a word that was quite popular. You don’t hear it very much anymore. The word is REBEL. Not protester, rioter. Rebel. At one time, the word carried a sense, in some quarters, that the person had intelligence. He had some inkling of what he was doing and why. He had a spirit of struggle and determination. He wasn’t just saying no to something, he had something better in mind to replace what he was rebelling against.

I bring this up, because, in order to create reality and cast aside some aspect of the status quo, a person needs to have the spirit of a rebel. He can’t be a slave in his mind. He can’t be a know-nothing. He can’t be a fool.

The spirit of the rebel permits a new perspective about reality—how reality seeps in and puts people into a state of sleep. The rebel doesn’t want to go to sleep.

But these days, there is a culture of spiritual change in which the person is essentially passive. He looks to the rainbow to come down out of the sky and embrace him, without effort—and he believes that the Great Change will just descend on him like a pleasant and forever dream.

That person doesn’t create new realities.

That person certainly doesn’t see that this space-time continuum is merely one work of art among many. That person doesn’t entertain such an idea.

As the years pass, I see fewer and fewer genuine rebels. As disconcerting as this may be, it really doesn’t matter—because it only takes a few.

To get a little background on the depth of creating reality, let’s revisit the old idea of the labyrinth, a prominent piece of myth in the ancient world. I want to expand the meaning of it. The labyrinth, the maze is really all about THE FASCINATION WITH DISCOVERING THE MYSTERIES OF REALITY. That’s why it’s a labyrinth. It draws you in. You become increasingly attracted to solving mysteries and ironing out details.

Does this idea remind you of anything?

This is physics. Modern physics, and allied sciences. You go deeper and deeper into the universe and you try to figure out answers to all the questions.

You end up in the center of the universe and you realize you have no idea what’s going on at the most profound level.

To illustrate, here is a statement that has been attributed to Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, 1937 Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine:

“In my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am now retracing my steps…”

Perfect. Reality, as it presents itself, becomes such an intriguing labyrinth that you journey further and further into the heart of it, seeking its answers, its ultimate answers, and finally you discover that the mysteries you were solving were not the mysteries you wanted to solve.

From this perspective, does it really matter whether, for example, the people who built the Egyptian and Mayan pyramids lined them up with astronomical events in the distant skies? Does it matter whether the Ark of Noah is buried somewhere in a mountain in Asia? Does it matter whether light is composed of particles or waves or both? The question is: what reality are you going to CREATE?

At one time, I seriously considered trying to raise funds for a creative center that would function, day to day, as a residence for students. Someday, I may pick up that project again. But meanwhile, this, this site and these emails have been my center.

The work continues. To my former students, clients, and to those who have attended any of my seminars—let me hear from you. I’d like to know what you’re doing, and what future seminars and courses you’d like to see come into being.

As always, the universe is waiting for imagination to revolutionize it down to its core.

JON RAPPOPORT

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

www.nomorefakenews.com