PART TWO, SERIOUS CONSULTING

WHAT IS “CHANNELING?”

DECEMBER 3, 2010. Based on the response to my last article about my consulting practice, I’m offering several follow-ups. Here is the first.

When you create, in art, in invention, in life, you move past conventional borders and systems.

In creation, you become different. You slip into new territories. Nothing is walled off from you. You can go anywhere, including places that don’t yet exist.

If there were laws against this sort of excursion, you would be called a master thief, a master spy.

You can devise theorems and axioms, principles and premises—but they are all provisional, and eventually you simply break into new territory. There are no permanent categories. Your work becomes a scintillating absorption, and you move through layers and veils and themes of emotion—but you aren’t the victim as you may be in daily life.

What is given to us as the shape of reality becomes the occasion and the platform for new flight into the upper-conscious layer of experience.

Beyond a certain point, success opens out like a gigantic network of interconnecting streams of energy.

You give up that sense of false certainty from which only a few drops of dry wisdom can be squeezed. You gain access to fertile energies.

There is no clarity you can’t grasp and no mystery you can’t embrace.

And why is this so?

Because at some point, like a tree trunk that spawns forked branches, you accept the notion that life is growth into the New. It is discovery on a scale you always wanted.

This is the prospect for adventurous minds.

In my consulting practice, I set my sights on high achievements. In other words, I discard old themes and instead operate according to what anyone, freed from blocks, would desire.

At the same time, I recognize that people hold themselves back, and they raise doubts to themselves about their own best dreams and ambitions. By identifying these blocks, it is possible to move past them, in the same way that a navigator can surpass obstacles in flight.

Now we come to a very important point. I will try to describe it clearly. We have all heard about “channeling.” The idea that some people can transmit what they receive from “other sources.” It is clear that in many or most cases, this is a phenomenon where a person is actually “listening to” a part of his own consciousness.

He is listening to a part of himself which, much of the time, is separated from his daily life and thoughts.

Here is what is happening: At some point, the person has decided that his upper-conscious layer of comprehension and creativity does not work in the world. It doesn’t fit in. It doesn’t have a function to which he can dedicate himself.

For many reasons, this decision is made. So be it.

So it appears there is a split. On the one hand, there is ordinary experience and all it contains. And then there are those rare moments when the person has glimpses of this upper-conscious layer.

He doesn’t quite know what to do. He isn’t equipped to explore this split.

But in fact, the upper-conscious layer is as much a part of him as his arm or leg is.

And if he could access and inhabit the upper-conscious layer more often, he would understand this.

That is the goal of my consulting.

Healing the rift or split between ordinary consciousness and the upper layer requires several steps.

One, identify a central direction in which the person would like to advance—for which he has a passion.

Two, identify the key blocks or obstacles that have prevented this progress, so that, as a navigator, he can surpass them.

Three, launch an ongoing process in which, by use of certain techniques, he can access the upper-conscious layer far more often and recognize it as Self.

I have compressed my work so that these three elements can be laid out in one session.

The techniques I offer to each person—depending on his/her situation—are specific and can be done by him on a daily basis, on into the future.

Gaining access to the upper-conscious layer opens the door to greater imagination, greater creativity, greater joy, greater success. These are not merely words. They are experiences that form the basis for a wider, newer life.

JON RAPPOPORT

for inquiries: qjrconsulting@gmail.com

www.nomorefakenews.com

SERIOUS CONSULTING

DECEMBER 2, 2010. Most people don’t want to access their own imagination. They want to use the products of other people’s imagination. That’s the limit of their courage.

As many of you know, I have been working with private clients for years. This type of consulting is unique.

It focuses on imagination and power.

Recently, this work has escalated.

Some people, surveying the economic scene, have realized that, more than ever, they need to tap into imagination as the primary force for shaping a future that frees them from constant minute-to-minute worrying.

These people have made a leap.

They not only want new solutions. They want a new way to approach their own desire and their own vision.

My consulting work doesn’t present patterns of success to people. It doesn’t present a picture and say “copy this.”

Imagination equals power.

Again, here is the problem. Most people won’t commit to their own imaginations. They just won’t. They want to access the products of other people’s imaginations. That’s their farthest reach. That’s their limit.

And do you know the consequence of that?

Well, think of it this way. If a person denies his own freedom, he has a tendency to want to limit the freedom of others. In some cases, he wants to destroy it.

The same condition applies to imagination. If a person denies his own, he tends to deny imagination even exists. And if he sees it anywhere, he derides it, tries to step on it.

He is stepping on the most powerful force there is. He’ll gain nothing by it—except to further diminish himself.

My work involves liberating the power of imagination.

I find great success when a person commits to expanding his own conception of how far and wide he can create a future.

If he can’t make that commitment, if he piles up one excuse after another, he will sink like a stone.

If he looks for a cloud of magic to descend on him and transform his life, and if, in the meantime, he waits and waits and does nothing, he loses.

If he obtains some kind of inspiration from lofty words, but never moves off the dime, and instead merely observes “the passing show,” he experiences a sense of decay.

This commitment I refer to—does it involve struggle? Of course it does. Nothing truly important comes without effort. This puts some people off. They associate struggle with drudgery, because that has been their experience. But work in the direction of making imagination manifest in the world is uplifting, fiercely satisfying, and ultimately joyous.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

for inquiries: qjrconsulting@gmail.com

MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS: CONFUSION

NOVEMBER 23, 2010.  These days, doctors often run antibody tests on patients to see if they have a particular disease.

What is an antibody test?

In the simplest terms, it is aimed at detecting a person’s immune system responding to the presence of a specific germ.

A doctor suspects you have disease X, which is caused by virus Y.  He takes a blood sample, and that sample is examined for the presence of antibodies which are specific to virus Y.

If you test positive for the presence of those antibodies, he says you have disease X.

However, there is a vaccine that is supposed to protect a person from disease X, and this vaccine does what?

IT PRODUCES ANTIBODIES SPECIFIC TO VIRUS Y.

In that case, you are said to be immune from virus Y.

That’s right.

This is what is called a contradiction. 

In the first instance, when your body naturally produces antibodies to virus Y, the doctor tells you you have disease X.

But if the vaccine produces those same antibodies, you’re said to be immune to disease X.

In purely practical terms, this contradiction is good for business.  Medical business.  On the one hand, they diagnose more cases of a disease.  On the other hand, using the same logic to obtain an opposite conclusion, they sell more vaccines.

Have fun with the contradiction.  Chew it over.  Maybe you’ll decide we’ve humans have evolved to the point where we don’t have to pay any attention to logic.  Maybe not.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon is the author of LOGIC AND ANLYSIS, a unique course for home schools and adults.  To inquire: qjrconsulting@gmail.com

A VACCINE CHALLENGE TO MAINSTREAM RESEARCHERS

HAS A TRUE CONTROLLED STUDY ON A VACCINE EVER BEEN DONE?

By Jon Rappoport   

NOVEMBER 22, 2010.  Before I describe and issue the challenge, I have to state that most controlled tests of drugs never meet adequate standards of science.

There are flaws and gaps and holes.

How should a controlled trial be done? 

Let us suppose we are going to test the safety and efficacy of a new vaccine to prevent X, a disease researchers claim is caused by Virus Y.

There will be two groups.  The first group of 700 children will receive the vaccine.  The second group of 700 will receive a neutral harmless solution.

No one operating the trial will know which group actually gets the vaccine and which group gets the “placebo.”

Here are the conditions that should be met in the study.

First, we must establish that disease X is really caused by Virus Y.  A third group of 700 children who have been diagnosed with X are tested.  In at least 90% of the 700, Virus Y must be found by direct isolation.  This means no indirect tests are run.  (No antibody assays or PCR-type assays are acceptable.)  Technicians must find Virus Y in at least 630 children. 

Second, in these 630 children, technicians must find Virus Y in sufficient quantities to make it obvious that the virus can cause harm.  Mere traces of Y are not enough.  You need an army to make war on the body. 

I will tell you that this first step alone, this first condition, will disqualify the rest of the study in many instances.  It will turn out there is insufficient evidence to maintain that researchers have found a specific disease entity caused by a specific germ.

If, however, this first condition is met, we go on to phase two.

This second condition assures us that the two groups of 700 children are initially comparable.

The general immune-system status of all 1400 children must be matched.  We can’t have an overbalance of immuno-compromised children in one group, for example. 

Likewise, the general nutritional status of the two groups must be evenly matched.  This is common sense, as well.  If 500 children in the first group are eating a junk-food diet, as opposed to 100 in the second group, that would be a major flaw.  Tests for nutritional status would be conducted.

The medical and medical-drug histories of all the children in both groups would be brought to the table.  We need to make sure these histories are clean, because we don’t want children weakened by such past treatment to take part in the trial at all.

As closely as possible, we want to make sure that children who have suffered adverse effects of environmental chemicals are ruled out of the study.

Now, we give the vaccine or the placebo to all 1400 children.

The children are closely monitored for 18 months, during which time all possible adverse events are recorded.  These would include any episodes of illness, fever, mental imbalance, and, of course, any cases of disease X that arise in either group.

At the end of the 18-month period, the frequency of all possible adverse events are investigated, and we have a picture of the placebo group versus the vaccine group.

We continue to monitor both groups for the next five years, to record how many cases of disease X occur in the placebo group versus the vaccine group.

Then we will know something.  Did the vaccine work to prevent disease X?  Was the placebo group just as successful, or more successful, in warding off X? 

(I will grant that markers and tests for initial immune status and nutritional status and definitions of vaccine-related adverse events—all these factors are up for grabs and controversies.  But unless these matters are settled, no accurate studies can be done.)

Here is my assertion: this kind of controlled study on vaccines has never been done.  It has never been done for any vaccine anywhere, at any time.

And I have no reason to believe it will ever be done.

If you can show me the existence of this kind of controlled study on a vaccine, send me the citation.

If none exists, we can say that the kind of test which would assure us vaccines are safe and effective has never been carried out.

Of course, researchers are fond of arguing back that the reduction of infectious diseases in populations by vaccines is an established fact.  Sorry.  There is a literature that claims most, if not all, infectious diseases were dying out before vaccines were introduced.  And if a disease that was vaccinated against did not appear later on, but other strange and troubling and severe disease conditions surfaced, we are not assured the vaccine was safe.  Nor should we be.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon is the author of LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, a unique course for home schools and adults.  For inquiries: qjrconsulting@gmail.com

WHEN DOES GOVERNMENT STOP GROWING?

NOVEMBER 22, 2010.  If history is any judge, government keeps growing.  It’s a tree whose nutritional needs are fed by money—and it can create money, so it feeds itself.

I’m not aware of any organism in the natural world that manufactures its own food.

Of course, eventually everybody looks around and realizes that the invention of money out of thin air has reached an impasse. 

Suppose, as national governments face bankruptcy because no one takes their money seriously, they will be forced to cut services and pensions.  Will that stop their growth?

Or will they find other ways to expand their functions?

Such as criminal arrests, prosecutions, new laws defining a wider range of what is criminal, and then more arrests and prosecutions…

Governments never seem to catch on to the idea that they aren’t like businesses.  A company, of course, wants to expand.  But a government—at least the republican form of constitutional government—is supposed to be acutely aware of its mandated limits.  It’s supposed to operate within a narrow context.

However, it doesn’t work out that way.  Government links its own survival to the notion of getting bigger.

In America, the judiciary was tasked with assuring that constitutional limits would prevail.  That idea went the way of an extinct species a long time ago.

Now we have government as a protection racket:  “If you the citizen will depend on us, we’ll protect you.  If you can’t see your need to rely on is, we’ll invent new ways you have to, until you see the light.”

As this process develops, the idea of freedom and what it means begins to disappear.  Well, it would, because freedom isn’t about government protection. 

Dependence replaces freedom.  Dependence needs a public relations team.  The idea has to be dressed up and explained in a way that motivates and even inspires people—because it doesn’t work so well when you come right out and say to people, “We want your dependence.”  It doesn’t have a proper ring to it.  It doesn’t sell.

So the PR “humanitarian” element comes in.  “It’s good for everyone if we all rely on each other.  We all need each other.  We’re a great big village of eight billion people.  No object or person exists apart from every other object or person.” 

People like this.  They believe it’s true.  It feels like a religion.

“You see, it isn’t about government getting bigger and enforcing dependence and redistributing wealth.  No, no.  It’s about government acting in line with a universal law.  Interdependence.  We’re all in this together.  Government is just a part of the equation.  Government, therefore, is humane.” 

Government is, well, a church.  It’s an aid operation.

We must all save everybody, and government is our best vehicle for doing that.  Sure.

There will be the usual parent-child disputes and misunderstandings.  Of course.  That’s natural.  You may not like what government does on Tuesday, and then next week, on Thursday, you may not like what it does.  But all in all, we recognize we’re in this together, and if we try to cut government out of the equation, through some misguided sense of independence, the parent will have to slap our wrists, to remind us of the universal principle…

The government tells us that even with a money crunch, even with a reduction of services, it will somehow find new ways to help us.  It won’t desert us. 

And after all, who cares about freedom anymore?  That’s a worn-out concept.  It doesn’t have zing left. It’s flat, like an old bottle of carbonated water.  Once upon a time, it was bracing.  But these ideas don’t last.  They come and go.  Isn’t that what it’s all about?  Trends.  Fads.  Here today, gone tomorrow.  Freedom was a gimmick.  It sold, and then it didn’t sell.  So we have to find something new and shiny.  Marketing operates that way.  You hype a product for a while, and then people tire of it.  So you have to change the packaging.  Or you put nuts in it, and sprinkle it with sugar.  You make it low-fat.  Then low-carb.  Then gluten-free.  Instead of sugar, you say cane sugar.  Then you discontinue the line altogether.  You shift to another product. 

Take the war in Afghanistan.  At first, it was about going after Bin Laden.  Then it was the Taliban.  Then, when we went back in, it was about building a sustainable government.  Then it was about helping the villagers.  The soldiers were really social workers with food stamps.  Freedom?  American freedom?  A minor PR point.

Government is marketing.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon is the author of LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, a unique 18-lesson course for home schools and adults.  To inquire: qjrconsulting@gmail.com

TSA AIRPORT PAT-DOWNS

NOVEMBER 18, 2010.  In case you’re living inside a tree, I’ll mention that US airports are now doing full body scans of passengers, and apparently there is a radiation risk, or there might be a radiation risk, or there is no risk, or the risk is “minimal.”

I found a TSA employee a few blocks away from LAX selling tinfoil hats.  Business was brisk.  But that’s another story.

If you decline the scan, because you don’t like the health odds, or because you object to having your nude photo taken and distributed on the internet, you can opt for the pat-down.

This is a same-sex grope.  Unless the TSA employee is a transsexual.  In that case, you construct your own definition of what is happening.

Now, having read stories about disgruntled passengers who didn’t appreciate their “junk” being shaken by strangers in an airport, I have come to the following conclusion:

Soon, there will be an incident of sexual intercourse.

And the TSA employee who carried out this form of inspection will say, “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”

Someone with a cell phone will capture the act on video, and it will garner 500 million hits in the first six hours.

ABC will win the sweepstakes, and having paid the victim four million dollars, Diane Sawyer will do the sensitive interview.

Drudge will discover the victim is a divorced mom with three kids from Cleveland—and moonlights on the side as a hooker.

She will say (but not to Diane Sawyer), “That was the most expensive trick I ever turned—by a long shot.”

Diane, however, will offer, in a low breathy voice: “We know at least one terrorist who had a bomb in his anus, so we must ask, was it only vaginal sex in the airport?”

And the mom/hooker will reply: “If I had gone for the anal, you guys would be paying me ten million for the interview.”

Homeland Security will, upon consideration, issue a release: “Sex is probably the best way to determine whether a terrorist intends to board a plane.”

During this entire episode, President Obama will be visiting US troops in Guam.  He will spend a week with a little-known tribe rehearsing a rain dance.

Hillary Clinton will be aboard a space shuttle orbiting Earth.

In Washington DC, several groups will issue statements demanding a gay and lesbian pat-down option. 

Unobserved, Osama Bin Laden will fly commercial from JFK to LAX, making stops in Columbus, Houston, Phoenix, and San Diego.

An Al Jazeera story will escape notice: “Today, leaders of the Wahabi sect announced the launch of a new air service in the United States.  Traversing a variety of local routes, the commercial planes will accept only Islamic passengers, and will be flown and serviced by Islamic crews.  Explosion Airlines is set to debut in March of 2011.”

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

BOWING TO THE LEAST

NOVEMBER 17, 2010.  Don your robes, pick up your candles, and shuffle down the aisle of the new faith.    

A central aspect of education has become one of serving the needs of children who only know they want to be entertained and catered to.

These are children who have taken on the appearance of miniature adults who sense that society has swung their way.  Their nameless and faceless battle has been won.

They have achieved a status which has no relationship to achievement. 

From the point of view of the adults, who need to justify and rationalize their capitulation, this is a “special generation.”  These children have come into this world with astonishing wisdom.  They are the prophets and deliverers of the future.  They have been touched by a miracle the universe has granted.

Schools must be built that acknowledge that fact and make learning beautiful.  After all, small gods will be sitting in the seats of rooms.

And if, by some error of judgment, the facilities are not up to the highest standards of comfort and accommodation, education will be stifled and set back.

Rather than delivering the substance and details of subjects, the schools should be technological temples devoted to the transmission, by osmosis, of the blooming fruits of the culture.

Perhaps I am exaggerating.  But only because the ideal has not yet been reached. 

How can a course be taught, if the textbook is old and a bit ragged—when, all around us, we have glossy cars and razor-thin laptops and little buds for the ears?  Why would children so insulted want to learn?

If a point to be taught in a classroom requires that 30 or 40 examples be strained over by the students, four or five will do, because to push on further would be inelegant and tiring.  The teacher would “lose” the students.

Somehow, a course needs to be instructed so that teacher and student can skip around from one interesting tidbit to another, never tempting the onset of dreaded boredom.

Education is there to serve the needs of the children.  This simple formula must be understood and interpreted to mean that the impulses of the children come first, and through that mesh the teacher will navigate, assuming that the child is already brilliant and correctly instinctive. 

If the teacher stumbles and fails, it is his fault.  He transgressed.  He violated the native intelligence of his pupils.  He must retrace his steps and start again.

Not only in education, but throughout society, serving the needs of others is the prime directive.  The only argument is about how this can best be accomplished. 

The genius is the person who can anticipate all possible needs of others and take steps to fulfill them.

History is rewritten to prove that all innovators were working from a deep concern for the mass of humanity.  They knew what the people required, and they enacted solutions.  This was the only basis for invention and creation. 

In that sense, the Collective was always the first and final goal—according to the revisionists.  The individual creator was merely a carrier and an empty vessel.  When he had been filled to the brim with understanding of the Collective’s needs, he leaped forward and gave humanity the next great breakthrough.  His distinction was his emptiness.  He had no personal desires.  He had risen above that morbid level of living and thinking. 

And now we have The Children.  Civilization must bend to that collective will.  It must gear its efforts to the inchoate needs of the purest among us.  It must worship at that altar.

And if the worship is not learned well enough, then we can turn to the animals and trees and the rocks, and we can elevate that religion.  We can find what we looking for in the substance of stones.

We can always dig deeper and discover a more fundamental illustration of the Collective and deny the individual in more massive and persuasive ways.

We stand at these gates.  This is the promise we are buying and selling. 

Intense and personal desire was always the flaw.  Peace will only come when we have negated it to zero.  Then we will finally be able to pass, back and forth, the coin of the new realm.  A nothing that transcends all struggle.  An amnesia that passes all understanding. 

Children will stand at the front of society’s classrooms and explain this nothing in their ingenious ways.

Equality will have been reached.  We will exist in a pleasant fog of an unending summer morning.

Like butterflies, we will flit three seconds here, three seconds there.  We will occasionally feel the diffused sunlight reflecting from our wings. 

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon is the author of LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, a unique course for home schools and adults.  To inquire: qjrconsulting@gmail.com