Two words that don’t go together: “medical” and “journalism”

by Jon Rappoport

March 6, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Yesterday, I was scanning through medicalnewstoday.com, catching up on the wacky and highly dangerous world of medicine.

What caught my attention were the story headlines themselves. In the news biz, everything depends on those headlines and what they mean, imply, suggest. They’re magnets.

So take a trip with me through one day of the magnetic field.

First, let’s get a few OOPS headlines out of the way:

“Common Cancer Vaccine Ingredient Diverts T-cells From Tumors”

“Shelf Life of Blood Nearer 3 Than 6 Weeks”

“One-Third of Doctors Miss Electronic Test Results”

These headlines should be rewritten and blasted across the front pages of newspapers and jammed into the top spots on the evening television news. But no. They aren’t. They might disturb the sleeping masses.

GIGANTIC CANCER VACCINE SCREW-UP

ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO GET A BLOOD TRANSFUSION?

DOCTORS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL…AGAIN

The common cancer vaccine ingredient referred to in the first headline is mineral oil. It’s used in experimental cancer vaccines being tested on animals. Seems the T-cells in the body, stimulated by the vaccine, fail to attack the cancer tumors. Instead, they attack the injection site. Where the vaccine was jabbed. Oops.

The T-cells are attacking the mineral oil!

You mean, all these studies of cancer vaccines, for all these years, were goofing on a monumental stupidity? The immune systems of all these mice were turning around and attacking the hole where the vaccine went in? Yes, the T-cells, in fact, were attracted to the mineral oil. Wonderful. And for a bonus, the result was infection. Good work. Splendid work.

In case mineral oil is ever found to be lethal, we can make the body attack it.

The next headline refers to the fact that, finally, researchers have figured out something important about blood used for transfusions: better not use blood stored for six weeks—it’s not any good. Oops.

Hospitals have been using six-week-old blood forever. But that blood doesn’t transfer enough oxygen to the patient. No. Doctors shouldn’t be transfusing blood older than three weeks.

In fact, a Johns Hopkins newsletter drops this little nugget. “One previous, large study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has already shown that cardiac surgery patients who received blood stored longer than three weeks were almost twice as likely to die as patients who got blood that had been stored for just 10 days.”

Oops, oops, oops.

“Remember Frank? Hell of a guy. Always on the go. He went to the hospital for surgery and they gave him old blood. He died. Tragic. But hey, the doctors tried. They thought that, like wine, blood is best when it’s aged.”

The third headline has to do with the problem we all face in sorting through the ton of emails we get every day. In the wacky wonderful world of medicine, many test results on patients are now transmitted to doctors via email. How modern. One little problem, though. The doctors miss them. They don’t read the emails. Oops.

“Mr. Jones, your test results have been delayed. Don’t know why. So I’ll just wing it. Let’s see. I’ll put a blindfold on and reach into this cabinet full of different medicines and grab a bottle. Here, take this twice a day. And don’t call me. If you convulse, try 911.”

Now we come to a type of headline I love. The maybe-could be headline. Actually, it’s a lying headline, but it’s couched cleverly—if you have no more than three brain cells to work with:

“Obesity Gene Linked to Skin Cancer”

First of all, this assumes researchers have really found a gene that causes obesity. That’s sheer baloney. Generally, baloney causes obesity. Second, the word “linked” means, “Might be relevant, we don’t know, we’ll see, or maybe we’ll just drop the whole idea…but we did get some grant money for the research.”

“Investigators Identify Genetic Risk Factors for Age-Related Macular Degeneration”

Translated, this means: “There might be two or three or possibly six or 40 genes related to macular degeneration, we don’t know, but we can build a little model that quantifies what we call risk, which is a probability, but this makes no difference, because we don’t have a genetic treatment for macular degeneration; in fact we don’t have ANY genetic treatment which works across the board for ANY medical condition. But we did get grant money for this study.”

“Two genes linked to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s Disease)”

Ditto. “Linked” means maybe, could be, we don’t know, and we have no genetic treatment for Lou Gehrig’s Disease and we don’t know whether we ever will. It also means: this disease may not be a disease at all; it could be head injury or exposure to a chemical, but we call it a disease because disease-names equal money.

Next, we have the DUH headlines.

“Sleeping Pills Raise Hip Fracture Risk in Nursing Home Residents”

Really? You mean people who live in a daze because they’re loaded with sleeping pills day after day actually fall down and break something? Astounding. And you discovered this by doing a full-bore study? Good for you. Here’s a suggestion for your next grant application: “Bright lights suddenly turned on, accompanied by sirens, cause people who are sleeping to wake up.”

“Inappropriate Use of Opoids, FDA Extremely Concerned”

Again, astounding to learn—people are using too many opoids. And the FDA concern is felt coast to coast. We appreciate that. While you’re at it, you (FDA) might express some concern about the fact that you’re certifying drugs as safe and effective that are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 Americans every year. And that’s a very conservative estimate.

There’s one more DUH headline. It took me an hour to figure out what it means:

“Optimism and Feelings of Vulnerability Skewed Following Tornado, Should Be Reflected in Emergency Preparedness”

As far as I can tell, they’re talking about people who feel optimistic after a tornado hit their town. Meaning: these residents say they don’t expect another one in the future. Wow. Researchers state this optimism is inappropriate, and therefore emergency responders should prepare for it…or something. Again, study completed, grant money deposited in bank account.

“Are you going to be home tonight for dinner, Daddy?”

“No, Jimmy, I’m going to be working. I have to drive to Small Town USA and nag the local residents, who were hit by a tornado last year, by asking them whether they feel optimistic about a lack of tornadoes in the foreseeable future. This is vital information I’m gathering. I can’t remember why at the moment, but it is putting food on our table. So clean your plate at dinner tonight.”

Then we have a feel-good headline. Maybe.

“Good Quality Hospital Care Indicated by Facebook ‘Likes’”

Well, isn’t that special. Forget hospital records. Forget the fact that hospitals kill 119,000 Americans every year (by conservative mainstream estimates). Who cares? Our hospital got 489 Facebook Likes from patients. Good work, guys. Here, let me read one Like to you:

“Although I was given a heart bypass for my broken ankle, the recovery period was highlighted by balloons which the staff brought into my room and the candy bars they placed on my night table. Was that a nurse who walked into my room at three in the morning, or was it a hooker paid for by the assistant director, who seemed very concerned about my well-being and had me sign some kind of waiver while I was drugged to the gills with morphine?”

Finally, we have this headline:

“Children with ADHD Require Long-Term Treatment Well Into Adulthood”

Let’s see. ADHD is a fake disorder for which no diagnostic test exists. The drugs used to treat it are cheap speed, which can cause very dangerous effects, like hallucinations, aggressive behavior, and deep sadness. But no problem. Keep drugging kids all the way into adulthood. Ruin their lives. It’s good for business.

Well, there you are. That’s just a partial list of one day’s medical headlines.

Kudos to the headline writers and the conscientious journalists who got their stories right and really let us know what’s what. We’re now much wiser, and we feel confident that medical science is marching forward into a future where, for example, tiny nanobots can be injected into our blood streams. These bots, armed and programmed with such useful and true medical information, will automatically make changes inside our bodies and correct any problems they discover.

We’ll feel better and be better. We’ll take a moment every day to bow down to the guardians of our health.

Give us more medicine! Give us more care! Heal us! We trust you! We love you!

Here are a few basic headline-rewrites that better reflect medical journalism in today’s world. I’m 100% sure that if the NY Times ran them across the top of the front page, day after day, the readership would explode and the Times would rescue itself from impending financial ruin.

HA-HA-HA; WHEN DOCTORS SAY ‘GENETIC LINKS FOUND’ THEY MEAN ‘WE HAVE NO IDEA BUT WE’RE BANKING $$$’

ADHD A FICTIONAL FANTASY, BUT THE DRUGS SELL LIKE CRAZY AND SCREW KIDS INTO PRETZEL SHAPES

VACCINE ATTACKS HOLE IN THE BODY WHERE THE NEEDLE WAS STUCK

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE STONED ON PAIN KILLERS ARE TURNING INTO ZOMBIES, HIP-REPLACEMENT BUSINESS SOARS

THOUSANDS OF DOCTORS DON’T READ YOUR MEDICAL TESTS, WING IT FOR FUN AND PROFIT

WANT A DEFICIT OF OXYGEN? GO TO A HOSPITAL AND GET SOME OLD BLOOD

FACEBOOK-LIKES CURE CANCER, ALTHOUGH DEATH MAY BE A SIDE EFFECT

I’m available for freelance headline work.

Jon Rappoport

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

The era of programming the mind

Feb22

by Jon Rappoport

February 22, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

If you want to track a civilization as it collapses, watch what happens to the concept of the rebel.

On a profound level, mass shootings and assassinations (whether staged or not) are used to define the ever-present “lone assassin” as the REPRESENTATION AND THE SYMBOL OF WHAT THE INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL IS.

You’re a separate and distinct individual? An outsider? Watch out. Overnight, you could turn into a raging killer.

You happen to know an outsider, a loner? He’s dangerous. He doesn’t live by the rules the rest of us accept. He’s deranged. Stay away from him. Shun him. And if you see the slightest indication of (insert your own term here), report him to the authorities.

“See a rebel, say something,” to paraphrase the DHS motto.

Any human being who has courage, intelligence, eyes to see, and a determination to express his power in uncompromising terms can now be redefined as a potential threat to the stability of society—if he criticizes the prevailing Authority.

From the 1960s onward—starting with Lee Oswald and the assassination of JFK—the whole idea of “the rebel” with power has been sequentially updated and repackaged. This is intentional.

The objective is to equate “rebel” with a whole host of qualities—e.g., runaway self-serving paranoia; random destruction; out-of-control drug use; generalized hatred; the commission of crimes—qualities that will defeat the very notion of honorable and righteous and powerful opposition to fascist authority:

On a lesser, “commercialized” level, the new rebel can define himself by merely showing up at a concert to scream and drink heavily and break something, having already dressed to make a dissident fashion statement. He can take an afternoon off from college classes and have his arms tattooed. All the while, of course, he functions as an avid consumer of mainstream corporate products.

You even have people who, considering themselves rebels of the first order, support a government that spies on its people 24/7, launches military attacks all over the world, and now funds a Manhattan Project to map every move of the 100 billion neurons of the brain, for the ultimate purpose of controlling it.

More than ever, the individual has to explore and discover, with intelligence, a position that is FOR himself and AGAINST the concocted and sustained illusion called consensus reality.

When the individual embarks on this path, the external false definitions of him as rebel or outsider or mentally ill or criminal no longer matter. Instead, what matters is his deepest nature.

Even going back as far as the 1950s, the so-called decade of conformity, psyops professionals sculpted notions of The Rebel: He was the person who didn’t want to take part in the emerging bland corporate culture.

He was presented as troubled and morose, a wobbly unfocused JD Salinger Holden Caulfield, or a beatnik, a Madison Avenue caricature of somebody who opposed Madison Avenue.

In other words, the people who were shaping the consumer culture were programming the image of the rebel as a cartoon figure who just didn’t want to buy into “the good life.”

Time Magazine ran a cover story on the beatniks, and characterized them as a disaffected trend. Marlon Brando, heading up a bunch of moronic motorcycle riders, invaded a town of pleasant clueless citizens and took it over, wreaking destruction. The 1953 movie was The Wild One. James Dean, who had the same trouble Brando did in getting out a complete sentence, was “the rebel without a cause” in the “iconic film” of the same name. He raced cars toward cliffs because his father couldn’t understand him.

These were all puff pieces designed to make rebels look ridiculous, and they worked. They also functioned to transmit the idea to young people that being a rebel should be a showbiz affectation. That worked, too.

Then the 1960s arrived. Flower children, in part invented by the major media, would surely take over the world and dethrone fascist authority with rainbows. San Francisco was the epicenter. But Haight-Ashbury, where the flowers and the weed were magically growing out of the sidewalks, turned into a speed, acid, and heroin nightmare, a playground for psychopaths to cash in and steal and destroy lives. The CIA, of course, gave the LSD culture a major push.

For all that the anti-war movement eventually accomplished in ending the Vietnam war crime, in the aftermath all those college students who had been in the streets—once the fear of being drafted was gone—scurried into counselors’ offices to see where they might fit into the job market after graduation. The military industrial complex took its profits and moved on, undeterred.

The idea of the rebel was gone. It later resurfaced as The Cocaine Dealer, the archangel of the 1980s.

And so forth and so on. All these incarnations of The Rebel were artificially created and sustained as psyops, for the purpose of deflating attempts at genuine and powerful rebellion. And, at bottom, the idea was to discredit the Individual, in favor of The Group.

Now, in our collectivist society of 2013, The Group, as a rapidly expanding victim class, is the government’s number one project. While extolling this group as heroic and in constant need of help, the government is doing everything it can to crash the economy and widen the population of victims. It’s a straight con. “We’re here to make you worse off while we lift you up.”

In the psyop to demean, distort, and squash the rebel, there is a single obvious common denominator: the establishment media are doing the defining; they are the ones who are setting the parameters and making the descriptions; they are the ones who build and program the cartoons; looking down their noses, pretending to a degree of sympathy, they paint one unflattering picture after another of what the rebel is and does and says; they have co-opted the whole game.

These days, the ultimate rebels, the media would have you believe, are the Tea Party and their affiliated “gun-toting racist bitter clingers who have religion.” Another distorted unflattering portrait, meant not only to drive people away from the Tea Party, but also to prove the guilt, by association, of any person who says the federal government is unconstitutional and out of control.

“All the fascism is on the political Right. There can be no fascism on the Left.” This is the major domestic policy of this administration—this absurd assertion.

The Rebel is real. But he has been covered up by media fabrications and caricatures.

You can take a whole host of political films and television series of the past 50 years, and look at them for signs of the Rebel: Seven Days in May, Advise and Consent, The Candidate, The Seduction of Joe Tynan, Dave, Primary Colors, The Contender, Good Night and Good Luck, The American President, West Wing, Scandal, The Newsroom…

Good acting, bad acting, drama, message—at the end you’re looking for the core. What do the rebel heroes really stand for? What are their principles? It’s all bland. It’s vague. It has the posturing of importance, but little else. It’s not meant to have real substance, only undefined affectation. The rebel takes action, but it’s based on superficial slogan. It’s another deflating caricature.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

As I was finishing this piece, a friend wrote with a quote attributed to Robert Anton Wilson: “The universe is a war between reality programmers.”

This is exactly where the real rebel enters the scene. He’s not trying to program people. Freedom means cutting loose from programming.

The rebel dismantles inhibiting and artificial structures.

He doesn’t go to the market and choose which reality program he wants. They’re all used up as soon as they come out of the package.

The political fancy or trend or program of the moment is a hardened dream somebody borrowed to make mince meat out of the population. The rebel has no allegiance to any of this.

Albert Camus one wrote: “The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.It would be easy, however, to destroy that good conscience by shouting to them: if you want the happiness of the people, let them speak out and tell what kind of happiness they want and what kind they don’t want! But, in truth, the very ones who make use of such alibis know they are lies; they leave to their intellectuals on duty the chore of believing in them and of proving that religion, patriotism, and justice need for their survival the sacrifice of freedom.”

“THIS or THAT” is the modern history of civilization: choose reality program A or B. The choice was always a con.

We’re well into a time period when the experts and scientific authorities are settling on the human being as a biological machine that can only respond to programming. That’s their view and their default position.

It’s sheer madness, of course, but what else do you expect? We’re in an intense technological age, and people are obsessed with making things run smoother. They treat their precious little algorithms for control like the Crown Jewels. They’re terribly enthusiastic about the problem they’re solving, and that problem is us.

We’re the wild cards, a fact which they take to be result of our improper and incomplete conditioning. They aim to fix that.

There is—and has been, for a long time—a blended sequence in operation: a) observe; b) predict; c) control; d)re-create. “Well, we can see many patterns in this society. So we can make some predictions about what is going to happen. Actually, if we covertly introduce certain elements from the outside, we can control what happens. Why not stop diddling around and just make the whole thing over? Why not reshape humans?”

Having decided that, the battle begins between competing programmers of the mind. Which program for humans is better?

The rebel is against all such programming, no matter how “good and right” it sounds. Good and right are the traps:

“Well, certainly we could make a list of qualities we want all people to have. You know, the best qualities, like bravery and determination. Who could be against that? So suppose we could actually program such qualities into humans? Wouldn’t that be a fine thing? Then people would just BE that way…”

The ultimate rebellion is against programming, whatever it looks like, wherever it occurs.

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 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

This is your brain on neuroscience

Feb20

This is your brain on neuroscience

by Jon Rappoport

February 20, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The Obama administration has just announced a far-reaching 10-year program to map the human brain down to the last neuron of activity.

So let’s begin with this:

“The mind is not a material object at all. The mind is not the brain.”

If you made that statement to a modern neuroscientist, the odds are overwhelming he would look at you as if you were visiting from the Stone Age.

“The brain emits the electrical consequences of what the mind originally produced.” Same response from the neuroscientist: you’re crazy.

Backing up still further, you could say that mind is a series of spaces the person himself creates, in order to think, in much the same way a canvas is a space on which the painter imagines and creates.

From at least the time of the classic Bhagavad Gita (written perhaps 2000 years ago), and in ancient Egyptian texts, writers and philosophers have been describing the soul, the spirit, the psyche in various terms.

In the Gita, as Krishna engages Arjuna in their famous debate about war and duty, Krishna moves back and forth between depicting the individual as distinctly and separately and powerfully immortal—and then as part of a greater spiritual Whole.

In either case, the individual is not physical, but inhabits a physical form, and after the body passes away, the individual survives and usually returns for another incarnation.

The soul or spirit or mind are not explainable in physical terms. This is the basic view expressed over and over by philosophies and religions from the dawn of time on this planet.

In the 20th century, that view was subjected to the bulldozer of science.

The chief implication of scientism is: freedom is an illusion.

If you assert that all of life’s processes are ultimately reducible to tiny particles in motion, you are saying this is true of the brain and the mind as well. And that means everything we believe and experience about our own freedom and choice is nothing more than an absurd dream.

And how is that delusional dream produced? It is somehow fired up by these tiny cause-and-effect particles that swim through the universe. The particles are not free. Therefore, neither is the brain, which is made up of such particles.

It gets worse. The tiny particles that compose rocks and concrete and plastic and stars and galaxies have nothing in them that could be called alive.

No research discovers anything in the electron or quark or wavicle that can be identified as Life.

These are the same particles that constitute our brains and our DNA.

The rarely expressed neuro-scientific conclusion? We are all robots made out of flesh with no freedom and no “extra quality” called life.

People profoundly fail to understand this conclusion of neuroscientists and others who tinker with the brain, who now intend to map the brain and its activity down to the last neuron. These scientists don’t care what changes they make in the brain, to render it more “normal and healthy.”

There is, as far as conventional science is concerned, nothing inviolable about the brain.

I’m not talking science fiction. This is the way most neuroscientists, if forced to admit it, see us.

And they are the ones steering the ship of research. They are the ones who will guide the newly announced government Manhattan Project of the brain for the next 10 years. It’s called Brain Activity Map (BAM).

Under the banner of “improved mental health,” BAM looks benign. But it isn’t. It looks like the way to stop the next James Holmes or Adam Lanza, but it isn’t.

It is a far-reaching State program to create The Neurological Society. This is the goal. It now has a major jolt of funding and the blessing/mandate of the federal government.

Think about this. We have a problem posed by the Constitution versus the underlying premises of modern brain science.

On the one hand, we have the founding document which guarantees freedoms. On the other hand, we have the assumptions of science, which cannot affirm the existence of those freedoms.

Well, I can tell you with certainty that the government has just taken a giant step toward Brave New World, and again, this isn’t science fiction. It’s real. BAM is unconstitutional, of course. The notion of the central government using monies to fund a program that will map the brain is so far outside the powers granted to it, it’s absurd.

But why should federal neurological scientists care? They don’t really believe the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution exist or could exist or might exist. As far as they’re concerned, freedom is a dead issue. It was just a story we told ourselves to feel stronger, better, happier.

Now they have drugs for that. They can change the brain. They will develop new drugs and new electromagnetic strategies for brain alteration. They will develop the ability to remotely observe the brain in much, much greater detail. And from this will spring the means to tweak and change what they observe, on the level of neuronal activity.

Their basis for making those changes will remain obscure, hidden in a welter of technical language. But we know what their fundamental premises will be.

They will involve control of behavior. Parameters will be drawn. Any person whose brain registers activity beyond those boundaries will be judged as a danger, a threat. The threat will be curtailed by limiting and diverting neuronal/synaptic processes.

Thus, good citizens of the State will be created and monitored.

But if soul and spirit and psyche and freedom do exist (and they do), they will be beyond control, since they are non-material.

Thus, efforts at control will have to be more radical and destructive, in order to induce deeper levels of physical stress and glue the consciousness of the individual human being to these artificially created brain states.

And that’s where the gloves come off and the mask comes off. Then we see the real controllers. Far from being sophisticated and subtle and humane guides into our future, they are just the old tyrants in new costumes.

Their major trump card is this. They have, through sheer propaganda, hypnotized a significant percentage of the population into believing that science and research are always good things.

The mere mention of the word “science” is connected with “help.” A better day is coming. More knowledge is always beneficial. People’s needs will be met.

Nowhere is this propaganda more successful than in the arena of medical science.

That is why most people will shrug off the federal brain mapping project as a promising development. “Sure, sounds good.”

Does it? Does a future, up the road, in which all brains are monitored for “problematic activity” sound like a humanitarian system?

Does it suit your personal view of life, soul, spirit, freedom?

Consider this quote from neurologist VS Ramachandran. Read it carefully:

“How can a three-pound mass of jelly that you can hold in your palm imagine angels, contemplate the meaning of infinity, and even question its own place in the cosmos? Especially awe inspiring is the fact that any single brain, including yours, is made up of atoms that were forged in the hearts of countless, far-flung stars billions of years ago. These particles drifted for eons and light-years until gravity and change brought them together here, now. These atoms now form a conglomerate- your brain- that can not only ponder the very stars that gave it birth but can also think about its own ability to think and wonder about its own ability to wonder. With the arrival of humans, it has been said, the universe has suddenly become conscious of itself. This, truly, is the greatest mystery of all.”

No, the greater mystery is how a scientist can believe the brain alone is really capable of all these things—the brain that is nothing but atoms in motion.

Here’s another statement from a well-known neuroscientist, David Eagleman:

“Imagine for a moment that we are nothing but the product of billions of years of molecules coming together and ratcheting up through natural selection, that we are composed only of highways of fluids and chemicals sliding along roadways within billions of dancing cells, that trillions of synaptic conversations hum in parallel, that this vast egglike fabric of micron-thin circuitry runs algorithms undreamt of in modern science, and that these neural programs give rise to our decision making, loves, desires, fears, and aspirations. To me, that understanding would be a numinous [spiritual] experience, better than anything ever proposed in anyone’s holy text.”

It might be a numinous experience if it were true. But it isn’t. The brain, composed of tiny particles, isn’t producing our decision- making or our greatest thoughts. It can’t. There is nothing about atoms that allows for those grand realities.

For the numinous experience, we need spirit, psyche, mind, soul.

And these two neuroscientists I’ve just quoted? They’re the good guys. They’re the people within that community who even try (wrongheadedly) to make something poetic out of the brain.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

The overwhelming majority of their colleagues are mechanics, obsessed with tinkering and tweaking and derailing and re-channeling brain activity.

Into their hands, the federal government has just dropped the task of mapping everything that goes on inside our skulls—as a prelude to changing it.

These scientists are, despite their education, Luddites of consciousness. Instead of studying the great works of human history, the art and literature and invention, and trying to grasp our greater non-material faculties, neuroscientists jump to the naked assumption that it all proceeds from the brain.

They believe it must be so. They then dedicate themselves to mapping and charting.

Who is the real threat, the real danger?

They are.

If any monitoring should be done, it should be of them.

Coda: To take this even further, were we to acknowledge our own non-material aspects, beyond the physical, it would imply that we have capabilities that exceed the so-called normal range.

We would realize that, beneath the surface of our social relationships, beneath this culture, we are concealing powers that not only make us free and independent, but open out into creative vistas where we invent formidable and awesome realities.

This is still largely unexplored territory, and it makes what the neuroscientists are doing look like child’s play in a demented sandbox.

For us to understand what we are actually capable of is the controllers’ worst nightmare.

In a subterranean psychic landscape, this is the crossroads where a prime struggle has been taking place for at least 20,000 years of human civilization.

Jon Rappoport

The hideous BAM in Obama: map your brain for your own good

Feb18

The hideous BAM in Obama: map your brain for your own good

by Jon Rappoport

February 18, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

First they map your brain. And by you, I mean everybody.

President Obama has just greenlighted a 10-year Manhattan Project for the human brain. I warned it was coming years ago.

The new billion-dollar enterprise is called BAM, the Brain Activity Map project. The fact that DARPA is one of the agencies involved tells you a great deal. DARPA is the cutting-edge military outfit in charge of new technologies for the Armed Forces. They want to create The Enhanced Soldier and all that that implies. Think “android.”

Behind the front of claims that BAM will create new therapies for mental disorders (for which no defining diagnostic tests even exist), the plan is to forward artificial intelligence (AI), which means creating a computer that works at least as well as the one inside your skull.

This is the technocrats’ wet dream: “We can now power up an artificial brain of such power and intelligence that it can make all crucial decisions for the human race from Central Planning.”

In the wake of Sandy Hook, other implications are also clear. BAM will be used to devise a Minority Report society, in which purported markers of future violence will be utilized to forcibly treat (with toxic drugs), contain, and prevent “predicted criminals” from carrying out fantasies percolating in their subconscious. Would those fantasies, if left alone, ever rise to the level of action? Irrelevant. Cast a wide net, in the name of Prevention.

Welcome to “expanded mental-health services.” You’re on a list? Oops. You must be treated. Here is your mandatory appointment slip. Yes, the drugs are highly toxic. Yes, they can and do cause you to commit horrendous acts of violence. But we don’t talk about that.

Of course, what I’m sketching out here is not happening by next week. But BAM is a giant step on the road toward this future. It’s far from trivial. The stated goal is the mapping of all neuronal activity in humans. This is science fiction coming alive now.

The American Psychiatric Association and Big Pharma are drooling with anticipation. This is precisely what they’ve been aiming for. Vastly expanded treatment options. More diagnoses. More drugs. More control.

BAM has been on the drawing boards for years. But after Aurora and Sandy Hook, the timing is right. The sub-text of BAM is: “People, we will protect you. We will gain access to the brain and re-channel it away from violence. You will be safe.”

BAM is the step before reconfiguring the brain, which is the long-term and underlying goal. These neuroscientists have no interest in the concept of freedom. They left that in the dust decades ago.

For them, the brain is merely a machine that needs a great deal of tweaking, because people are naturally mis-programmed, and corrections must be built into a new and better system.

Of course, “new and better” will pivot on non-scientific value judgments, masked behind masses of techno-speak. And you will have no input into the choice of values. You’re the experimental device; the neuroscientists are the operators.

Everyone who is anyone is on board for this one. The National Institutes of Health, private foundations, universities, drug companies. They’ll all wrangle a piece of the pie.

The White House is touting BAM as job-creation as well. Of course they are. Huxley left that out of Brave New World. “This is a wonderful way to bring up employment numbers. If we take the engineering of humans far enough, everybody can work.”

If you’re wondering what the hell the federal government is doing mapping the human brain, you’re back in the Stone Age. You’re probably interested in, what did they used to call it, oh yes, the Constitution.

Excessive interest in that moldy document probably has a correlation with certain brain activity, which can be mapped and charted. And then you’re on a list: “The subject shows typical neuronal dysfunction in sub-sector 254-A. This is the James Madison Disorder. Recommend immediate detention and treatment.”

“A new study from the BAM-plus group at Harvard has found a significant relationship between home schooling and an excess velocity in synaptic transmission. Such velocity surpasses recommended limits.”

Yes, it’s a joke. Right now. But we’re not just on the slippery slope. We’ve gone down the hill a few new miles, as of today.

Back when professionally praised scientific lunatics like Dr. Ewen Cameron and Yale’s Jose Delgado declared that the human being had no right to his own intrinsic personality, people thought such a notion was absurd. But now, the language is far more clever and densely obscure.

It’s quite possible, move by move, to propagandize inhuman research, with government press releases, right into the era of the “brain-adapted” population.

Just as the public has bought into the idea that all mental disorders spring from “chemical imbalances,” despite the fact that no normal level of balance has ever been established, so it will be easy to convince the population that the abnormal brain activity of 100 billion neurons can be measured, categorized, specified, and treated.

It’s science. It must be true. Science marches on. Science is the hand-servant of humanity. Greatest good for the greatest number.

The worshipers at the altar of big government who believe its function is that of a giving god will go along, gladly.

For those of that faith, BAM sounds right, and therefore it must be right. No thinking required.

What about the rest of us? A succinct “don’t touch my brain, mother****er” is a good start. It has a nice ring to it. I’m sure it correlates with quite healthy levels of neuronal activity.

Here’s a prediction. You can take it to the bank. On that day when BAM completes its vaunted mission, our esteemed leaders will manage to exempt themselves from brain scans that might reveal their own dark visions and objectives.

It might even be called The Obama Exception.

If you’re sitting in a pew on the Left and you don’t like that one, try The Bush Exception. Under his brilliant reign, we had the Teen Screen program, a maniacal project to test all children for mental disorders at a young age. It failed, and went out of business.

But BAM has a lot more juice. It aims to go the distance. It has the imprimatur of “hard science.” That’s the venue in which they cook up the biggest lies. The ones with real money behind them. And real Auschwitz experimenters.

Jon Rappoport

New study: are we all living in the future now?

Feb15

New study: are we all living in the future now?

By Jon Rappoport

February 14, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

A recent Bonn University study suggests we may all be living in a virtual simulation. If a pixel-lattice that forms the background of this universe is presenting us with an all-encompassing “television picture” of reality, then the whole space-time continuum could be a rigorously designed artifact.

But another study, this one using a small number of meditators, pushes our understanding even further.

Dean Radin, the author of two groundbreaking books on controlled paranormal experiments, The Conscious Universe and Entangled Minds, spoke at a January conference, Electric Universe, in New Mexico. He described his recent pilot study on time and precognition.

A small group of advanced meditators who use the “non-dual” technique, were tested. While meditating, they were subjected to random interruptions: a flash of light and a beeping sound. Measuring their brain activity, Radin found that significant brain changes occurred BEFORE the light flashes or the beeps.

A control group of non-meditators were tested in exactly the same way, but their brain measurements revealed NO such changes.

In other words, the brains of the meditators anticipated the timing of the unpredictable interruptions.

The future was registering now. This, of course, opens up another way of thinking about time.

Serial time, the idea that, in this continuum, we experience a smooth progression of moments, with the present becoming, so to speak, the future, is the conventional view. But suppose that is a grossly limiting and sketchy premise?

Suppose that, for those who can be aware of it, the future is bleeding into the present? It is making an impact “before it happens.”

The non-dual method of meditation seeks to eliminate walls between “now and then, you and I, here and there.” It has also been studied by Zoran Josipovic (New York University). In 2012, Josipovic and colleagues found that, for non-dual meditators, two areas of the cerebral cortex, loosely labeled “external” and “intrinsic,” shifted their operating basis.

These two areas of the brain, long known for their independence from each other (if one is switched on, the other is switched off), both began operating with significantly less “antagonism.”

If time is deeply rooted in perception, Dean Radin’s study indicates that this even extends to the future. If people can register the impact of the future now, then our notions of time are up for grabs.

So are conventional concepts of cause and effect, which rely on chains of events moving like trains from the past to the present. We need to consider that causes can sit in the future and produce their effects in the present.

In which case, what is the future? It certainly is an expanded territory that extends beyond our normal view of it.

In correspondence with me, Dean Radin offered further information about his study:

“All participants knew that they would receive a light flash, an audio tone [beep], both, or none. In one condition they didn’t know when these would occur or what type of stimulus. In another condition they knew when it would occur but not what. In all cases no one, including experiment[ers], knew what the next stimulus would be because we used a true random number generator to select it on the fly.

“The conclusion of the study was that the reported subjective experience of exceptional spaciousness, or timelessness, reported by some advanced meditators, appears to be objectively correct. That is, their subjective sense of ‘now’ appears to expand substantially, and our experiment indicates that this was not an illusion.”

I then asked Dr. Radin how closely correlated the light flashes and audio tones were to the brain changes in the meditators. His answer was stunning. The brain changes occurred 1.5 seconds before these interruptions. And the changes obviously occurred even though the meditators didn’t know when the interruptions were coming.

Radin’s remarks offer us a major point: these meditators were expanding their consciousness of the present moment, so that it included the future.

Therefore, we would be interacting with far more than this continuum is supposed to represent.

Such a framework of understanding travels far beyond modern ideas about the makeup and laws of the physical universe. It implies more than merely a holographic or pixel-based cosmos. It speaks to titanic capabilities on our part.

Of course, having sunk to a state in which we navigate in an amnesia about ourselves, we look at these ideas with skepticism. We pretend we are trapped in a container-continuum of space and time, as Einstein and others have fleshed it out.

What if this is not the case at all? What if we are trying to resolve our problems within a highly narrow context, when in fact the ultimate solution—the only one that will finally satisfy us—depends on us waking up to what we are?

Like recovering our political freedom, the journey to re-establish our greatest hidden capacities is a magnificent enterprise. We no longer need to consign ourselves to dreams of comic-book heroes. We would be the heroes.

When I first read Dean Radin’s breakthrough book, The Conscious Universe, I was floored. Far from merely recounting anecdotes of paranormal phenomena, Radin was proving that decades of well-formed and well-conducted published laboratory studies, in the areas of telepathy and psychokinesis, revealed that these human capabilities exist.

He had performed a staggering feat. He had shown the science was valid.

It remains for other branches of the scientific community to catch up, to admit their consensus about reality is provincial, distorted, and pathetically behind the times. They are now the Roman Church of old, denying Galileo and Bruno. They are the flat-earthers, fearing that to sail in a straight line too far will drop them off the edge of a giant dinner plate into emptiness.

Consider what could be the most astonishing extension of Dean Radin’s work: suppose that for those elements of the future that aren’t yet planned or on the drawing boards at all, people can still register their presence in advance. Then we would be talking about the human capacity to reach out into a vacuum, a nothing, and still “bring back” what is going to happen.

If we all added up those moments in our lives when we suddenly and inexplicably knew what was about to occur, and then it did, we would have a significant number. What if we were foreseeing events not scripted on any possible chart? What if we were going beyond time altogether and correctly discovering “something in nothing?”

Jon Rappoport

The ruthless State of the Union: the current crime boss speaks

Feb13

The ruthless State of the Union: the current crime boss speaks

by Jon Rappoport

February 13, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Perhaps it’s presidents running down the whole laundry list of issues, but it seems to me the last dozen or so State of the Union speeches by presidents could put a galaxy of insomniacs to sleep.

Originally, the State of the Union was the president talking to Congress. Now we all know no one from the Senate or the House is going to move a new inch by anything the president says in his speech.

It’s just a dog and pony show. It’s also a chance for the president to talk to the television audience. That’s the real event. The president’s on TV.

It’s a stage play and it closes the night it opens. The script is always too long. It should have been cut by nine-tenths in rehearsals.

The droning of the laundry list is, of course, a reflection of the fact that big government has its paws and nose in every facet of our lives. I was waiting for Obama to talk about an adequate supply of toilet paper and paper towels in public-park restrooms, and the danger of pictures of guns brought to school.

And how about those unsightly vegetable gardens growing on front lawns? Would he bring in the FBI and the ATF and DHS to solve that problem?

Would he push for free sex-change operations for all college students? Radioactive body scanners in coffee shops? I think the system for assigning names to hurricanes and blizzards should be subjected to a task-force study.

When tonight Obama said the only way to make progress was for us all to work together, he didn’t just mean the Congress. He meant the American people, aka the television audience. But I’ve never understood that idea. What are we all working together to accomplish? What’s the program? Giving away more of our income to the federal government? Agreeing to more surveillance of our movements? Supporting the invasion of more countries? Refraining from photographing the police making arrests? Restricting our Facebook posts to happy faces and rainbows?

Are we all working together to surrender our guns in exchange for movie tickets and candy? Are we pretending to be overjoyed that the federal government wants to force everyone to get vaccinated and eat GMO food, and take SSRI antidepressants that demonstrably cause people to go crazy and kill others? Is that it?

Are we somehow working together to print endless amounts of money? Are we working together to push the percentage of Americans collecting free government money from 40 percent to 60 percent? Is that the glorious goal?

Are we working together to give money to alternative-energy companies so they can go broke and declare bankruptcy? Are we working together to protect and defend the World Trade Organization, so ravenous mega-corporations can export jobs to China and roam the global landscape, raping and pillaging resources and labor?

Are we working together to accept Obamacare, which will steadily eliminate natural-health alternatives and enroll more people in a medical system that kills 225,000 people (actually a lot more) every year like clockwork? Is that the goal?

Are we working together to pretend we have two very different major political parties in the country, instead of one party with two heads?

Are we working to assure that no bankster is ever sent to prison for scamming the American people out of trillions of dollars?

Are we working together to take guns away from people who would only use them to defend themselves and their families against criminals, while at the same we work to ignore gang violence stemming in part from the fact that Mexican drug cartels use these gangs as subcontractors, under the protection of the federal government?

Are we working together to imagine that our troops are really fighting wars to protect and defend the nation?

Are we working together to hide the fact that, although interest rates are artificially low, we’re spending more and more money every month to buy what we need to survive?

Are we working together to hamstring every small business in America with red tape and taxes?

Are we working together to ignore the absurd insanity called climate-change science, so the government can install carbon taxes and penalties and lop the top off of American industry?

Are we all working together to frame attractive free incentive packages for unlimited numbers of immigrants who come to America, while untold numbers of Americans are going hungry every night, and people can’t find jobs anywhere? Is that the objective? Destabilization of society, under the cynical guise of humane gift-giving?

Are we working to dream that when the president says he’s going to focus on jobs in his second term, this means he’s actually going to do more than squint at the sun?

Are we working to find more foreign enemies we can invade, as our military advance teams pave the way for imperial corporations and continue to launch some sort of ridiculous “surround Russia” operation?

Are we all working together to drown the Third World in “free” medical drugs and vaccines that destroy immune systems, rather than cleaning up contaminated water supplies and installing simple sanitation systems (at a millionth of the cost of the drugs)?

Are we all working together just “to work together” and continue the fine tradition of destroying the nation from the inside?

That’s what I thought. Yes, that’s what I thought.

Hell of a speech, Mr. President. You and GW and Bill and Bush the Elder and Ronnie and Jimmy and Gerry and Nixon really know your laundry lists. You talk, and the government gets bigger. It’s magic.

There’s always more to do and the government has to make it happen. Otherwise, what are you there for?

I ask myself that question all the time. I’m still looking for an answer, other than, “We’re all in this together.”

Who is this WE you keep taking about? And what is this TOGETHER? You mean we who are watching on television and you who are talking on television? You mean you who are slicing the Constitution into little pieces while ridiculing it as a Neanderthal document? You mean you who are covert agents of Globalism? You mean you who have been vetted to make sure you’re on board with the op to take American down into a planetary management system that will bring a thousand years of peace to people made over into androids?

That’s what I thought.

You talk and the government gets bigger. You bankroll education and students are brainwashed into “uplifting social themes,” and become more dumb. You talk and the state-corporate media strain themselves into hernias to praise your erudition or passion. You talk and thousands of lobbyists who have the inside track on your souls parse your words and plan their new strategies. You talk and the American people desperately try to imagine you’re making a grain of sense. You talk and the winds blow and the snow falls and Somebody Actually Important, at a much higher level of the Mob, pats you on your shoulder and folds you up like a puppet and drops you in his pocket and walks upstairs to the Residence and puts you to sleep.

Asleep, you dream of a strange and alien thing: the freedom and power and independence of the individual. For you, it’s a nightmare.

Jon Rappoport

Are we all living inside a virtual simulation?

Feb9

Are we all living inside a virtual simulation?

By Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

A study out of Bonn University has led to a new round of speculation about the nature of the universe.

The study proposes that cosmic rays undergo a strange energy shift. The energies are “re-fitted” to align with an underlying pattern or lattice. There is only one proper fit; no exceptions are permitted.

If the lattice is, indeed, the basic pixel-like Reality we are interacting with every day of our lives, then we could be living inside a created artifice.

A simulation.

Put this description alongside the hypothesis that the universe is a hologram: lines of code inscribed on a two-dimensional surface deliver instructions on how the lattice is built, and what its properties are.

In other words, the software which holographically projects the universe includes the exact structure of the lattice.

Then, by the rules of the game, energies which don’t automatically plug into the lattice framework precisely as they’re supposed to are “snapped to” a correct fit, as Mike Adams (Natural News) has suggested.

Mike has made the analogy to a television picture, which consists of pixels that have their own dimensions and structure. So if we imagine an all-encompassing “television picture,” this would be the lattice-controlled reality we live in.

Paul Watson (infowars) asks the question: is this universe-simulation our own creation? Since time could be quite flexible where simulations are concerned, might we have made this reality from a platform in the future and then inserted ourselves into it?

What interests me is the notion that humans have used technology to construct a scientifically designed cosmos.

Is this possible, or are we applying a contemporary paradigm to a universe whose nature actually exceeds that paradigm?

In a 10-year project of putting together a collection called The Matrix Revealed, I did a great deal of research on other notions of creation or “reality-building.”

It is clear that at deep levels, propaganda turns into self-propaganda. In order to live inside a Matrix or universe of our own making, we would have to produce, in ourselves, an extraordinary level of amnesia about what we did. Otherwise we would know. We would walk around knowing full well we had designed our own illusion, and the whole thing would fall apart.

Immortal and free from the structure, we would hardly want to spend all our time trapped in it.

The ancient Tibetans knew a great deal about this conundrum. Before they became a theocratic society of rites and rituals and a rigorous elitism, they were daring adventurers on the edge of experiments in consciousness.

Relying on the teachings of itinerant outcast adepts from India, they developed a practice called, by a few later scholars, “deity visualization.” (See John Blofeld, The Tantric Mysticism of Tibet)

Perhaps based on an already existing mandala-painting, a teacher would give his student a very detailed and specific “personage” to create in his imagination. This effort, if it was successful at all, might take months or even years.

The objective was to mentally hold the complex image intact, in every detail, not just for a few seconds or minutes, but indefinitely. If the student was successful at this arduous task, he would soon find that the personage he created seemed to take on a life of its own.

The personage or deity would become the student’s friend and guide and give him valuable advice and counsel. When the teacher sensed this relationship had progressed to a very close point, he would order the student to get rid of the personage altogether.

This, it was said, was more difficult than the original act of creating it. But if the student was able to perform both aspects (creative and destructive) of the exercise, he would then realize, see, and know, with full consciousness, that THE UNIVERSE WAS A PRODUCT OF MIND.

At that crossroad, he would be able to spontaneously take apart pieces of “the hologram” or “the lattice,” and even create (out of nothing) new objects that hadn’t existed before.

It’s fascinating that now, at the beginning of the 21^st century, we have come full circle. We are contemplating the possibility that we created this universe—but through technological means.

Perhaps those Tibetan adepts, in their practice, actually saw the lattice or even the two-dimensional surface on which the holographic code of the cosmos is inscribed.

Another clue concerning the origin or underlying force that made the universe is revealed through a study of the famous alchemical diagram: two crossed staves.

The four endpoints were said to represent the basic aspects or elements of Nature: earth, air, fire, and water. According to some alchemical interpretations, these elements were in eternal conflict with one another.

The resolution of the conflict was represented by the center-place where the two staves met. This mysterious intersection was called Quintessence, and its meaning was long debated.

Paracelsus, one of the most famous of the European alchemists, seems to have thought that Quintessence was, in fact, imagination.

In other words, our creative power could change the inherent design of reality. If so, then it is just a step from there to infer that our imagination invented the design in the first place.

Some will take that step; others will not. Regardless, the history of millions of artists on this planet directly points to the fact that, when freed from restraints, human beings become enormously creative. Every painting, play, poem, novel is a world of its own; a universe. Perhaps this suggests that the physical universe is but one work of art, out of a possible infinity of universes.

William Blake, one of the most revered English poets, made several remarkable statements about the power of imagination:

“Some see nature all ridicule and deformity…and some scarce see nature at all. But to the eyes of the man of imagination, nature is imagination itself.”

“Imagination is the real and eternal world of which this vegetable universe is but a faint shadow.”

Of course, the notion of multiple universes is reflected in contemporary science. Physicist Brian Greene, author of The Hidden Reality, explains that Relativity and Quantum Theory, each highly useful in its own way, come into high mathematical conflict when set side by side.

One resolution of that conflict can be achieved through String Theory, in which tiny vibrating strings (in 10 or 11 dimensions) explain the makeup of this universe. But String Theory also suggests many surfaces or membranes or islands on which matter, energy, and time can exist: multiple universes.

No matter what force or power we say made this universe, a new day is here. We are coming to grips with the idea that the universe isn’t all the reality there is. Some find this disturbing. Others are inspired to feel it is intensely liberating.

Beyond any hypothesis about the underlying structure of the universe, there remain the basic questions about us, as succinctly expressed in the title of Paul Gauguin’s famous 1897 painting: Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where are We Going?

For those who answer these questions in terms of the Divine and God, it’s interesting to consider the original essence and principle of the Kabbalah. Contrary to many interpretations, the whole idea of this evolving text is proliferation: by advancing all knowledge, all science, all poetry, all the arts, humans move closer and closer to God. In other words, for the religiously inclined, nothing learned about our potential power—even the boggling possibility that we invented this simulation called universe—subtracts from Divine power.

I recently studied Gauguin’s intriguing painting again. Behind the three central groups of people representing the three basic questions, the light-blue background shows figures and scenes from what the artist called the Beyond.

That gives rise to yet another hypothesis. We are living in an interpenetration of several simultaneous universes or planes of existence. And they’re all here now, if we could see them.

The rigorous lattice or holographic code defining this universe is merely the way one plane of existence is structured.

Rather than reduce all possible universes to the principles on which this one may be built, why not consider many, many other such “works of art?” Each universe is constructed or improvised out of the infinite well of creative freedom…

Could there be a greater illustration of the principle of Abundance?

Throughout history, humans have been reaching for, and elevating the idea of greater abundance. In one of the early Bible stories, Old Testament Joseph, as a boy, dreams of dancing sheaves of wheat. Wheat, grain was, for the ancients, a living symbol of abundance.

Johanna Stuckey, well-known researcher on early goddesses, points out that the Sumerian grain goddess, Ezina/Ashnan, was also called Lady of Abundance.

We have always sought, in faith, in hope, in myth, in story, in investigation the means for unending abundance. Now, we also see it reflected in our most far-reaching contemplations: not just one universe, but many universes, without end. Because if we are living in this virtual space and time, why shouldn’t other continua exist?

Are they all simulations? Is a painting a simulation? Not really. It’s an independent invention, undertaken in freedom, launched from the unfettered imagination of an artist. It is its own universe.

We are all artists.

With all veils and curtains lifted, this is the truth we have been waiting for, the truth we have always known.

The three questions Paul Gauguin asked could be titanically re-framed: Dissolving the societal myths of false limitations, what can you truly create? How powerful is your imagination? What universes will you create?

Jon Rappoport

10 things the media don’t want to discover about Sandy Hook

Feb9

10 things the media don’t want to discover about Sandy Hook

by Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Slashing through the bland authoritative front the media have presented, people want to know more about the Sandy Hook massacre. But the elite networks have no intention of answering the most obvious questions.

Why? Because the follow-up agenda of gun control is all important, and the official Sandy Hook scenario must stand, in order to forward that agenda.

Any return to the scene of the crime will:

divert media coverage from its all-out push to make guns into taboo objects of scorn, ridicule, fear, and hatred;

focus attention on reasons for the massacre that have nothing to do with guns;

engender deep distrust of the Sandy Hook police investigation and therefore, by association, throw into doubt the notion that law-enforcement personnel should be the only people carrying guns in America.

Here are 10 things the media doesn’t want to know about and has no intention of investigating. These are only the basics, amid a wider sea of unanswered questions:

Where is the video footage from inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School, footage that surely exists and shows some part of the massacre? Who has that video record? What does the video reveal? Where is the video (or photo) evidence that Adam Lanza was the shooter?

How did the accused killer, Lanza, gain entrance to the school? Having just installed a new security system that required outside (and presumably heavy) doors to be locked, and with a procedure for entry that demanded two-way video communication with the principal’s office—what exactly happened?

From available information, it seems almost certain Lanza was seeing a doctor and was on medication. Who was the doctor and what drugs did he prescribe? Did they include SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil, or Ritalin and Adderall—drugs known to cause violent behavior, including suicide and homicide. If so, then all the focus would shift to excoriating the drugs and eliminating them from our society.

What was the exact story on the two or three other suspects captured and detained by the police? Who are they? Why were they pursued? What did their questioning reveal? Why were they released? No vague generalities. Instead, all the details. And let’s have in-depth television interviews with these suspects.

Once and for all, let’s have a definitive statement on what guns were used in the killings and what guns were found in the trunk of the car. So many lies and contradictions were floated, it’s a sea of confusion. So let’s have the facts—and evidence to back them up. For starters, let’s see photos of the killer and his weapons taken inside the school. Undoctored photos.

What is the detailed explanation for the massive shift from Lanza’s father being killed in New Jersey to Lanza’s mother being killed in Connecticut? No vague generalities. No nonsense about “typical early confusion” in reporting. Let’s see the whole chain of information and the people who forwarded it. Similarly, if the early conclusion pointed to Adam’s brother Ryan as the killer, a conclusion which was withdrawn because Adam was carrying his brother’s ID, explain that. According to reports, Adam hadn’t seen his brother in more than two years. Offer hard evidence that Adam was, in fact, carrying his brother’s ID.

Where are complete statements and interviews with witnesses who were in the school at the time of the shooting? We have seen a few short interviews. There must be more. Let’s have them or get them. Are we to believe (as independent investigator Mike Powell has rightly doubted) that one teacher stuffed all her children into classroom cabinets, which ordinarily are filled with school supplies?

In the television interviews with parents of children murdered in the Sandy Hook School, not one parent was angry, not one parent demanded a deeper investigation. Obviously, this screening of interviewees was purposeful. Where are the outraged parents? What do they have to say? Do they know anything we don’t know? Have they been told (as people were at Columbine) to keep quiet?

And now, as the gun-control agenda is being pursued, precisely how will new laws curb the majority of gun violence in America, violence which is taking place in cities—much of it gang-related. Explain why President Obama doesn’t vigorously and publicly target these high-crime areas, if his objective is to reduce the gun violence, rather than gun ownership.

The pending and often postponed Chicago trial of Jesus Niebla, high-ranking member of the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel, experiences delay after delay. What vital facts are being kept from the public? There are serious defense charges here; namely, that Niebla and other Sinaloa members have received permanent immunity from prosecution in a prior deal with the DEA and FBI, in return for supplying information on rival cartels. In fact, the US federal government has obtained a suppression of defense-attorney documents in the trial, claiming their exposure would violate National Security.

Does Sinaloa have explicit US government permission to deliver tons of cocaine and heroin into Chicago, and then to cities all over America? This enterprise would certainly, as a side effect, produce a significant amount of gun violence. Does the federal government really want to curb this violence, or is its arrangement with Sinaloa taking precedence?

Finally, in the wake of Sandy Hook, how does President Obama’s declaration that mental-health services will be expanded across America add up to reduction of gun violence? In fact, this will lead to higher levels of prescribed dangerous psychiatric drugs, which in turn will cause a serious escalation in gun violence and mass shootings.

Major media don’t want to know anything about these points. And yet they’re betting they will retain the public trust. But the fact that their ratings are sinking, month after month, year after year, is a message from the public.

The media refuse to hear it, though. They glide through their rehearsed paces and pretend they are captains of information. Their elite owners would prefer to let the media ship go down, rather than tell the truth.

That’s understandable. After all, these owners, and the owners who own them, are guilty of all sorts of crimes, the reporting of which would make ratings soar but destroy their own empires, reputations, and lives.

Jon Rappoport

The psychiatric wolves attack more innocent children

Jan28

The psychiatric wolves attack more innocent children

by Jon Rappoport

January 28, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

To understand even a little bit about real psychiatry, versus the false picture, you have to know that someone running around the streets naked and screaming has nothing to do with a mental disorder.

If you can’t grasp that, you’ll always have a lingering sense that psychiatry is on the right track. It isn’t, and never was. Not from its earliest days, and not now, when it has the full backing and force of the federal government behind it.

Psychiatry is the kind of all-out fraud few people grasp.

In a moment of weakness and exhaustion, Allen Frances, the most famous and honored psychiatrist in America at the time (2000), understood part of it. He told Gary Greenberg of Wired Magazine, “There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

This was an admission that the bible of the profession, the DSM, the latest edition of which Frances himself had led in compiling, could not draw separations between the 297 official mental disorders listed in it. It was, in other words, a pretense. The whole bible.

In a PBS Frontline episode, Does ADHD Exist?, Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, spelled out the fraud even more clearly.

Here it is.

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

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

Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 297 mental disorders. They’re all hoaxes. Because there are no tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.

You can sway and tap dance all you like and you won’t escape the noose around your neck. We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.

But you see, we’re still left with the naked man who’s running around the street screaming. What is he? Doesn’t he have a mental disorder?

He does not, because the term “mental disorder” isn’t just a colloquial phrase, it’s a technical designation, and it underpins everything that psychiatry is. And there is no basis for its diagnosis. None.

There are many reasons the man may be running naked in the street. If he has a blood clot or lesion on his brain, if he has been poisoned, if he folded up and left this world as a child after he received a vaccine, if he has been pushed over the edge by Paxil or Zoloft, if he has been brutalized and is terrified, if he has been given electric shocks by a psychiatrist, if he is on Vicodin, if he has snorted cocaine laced with some horrible filler, if he has been driven mad through starvation, if he has been harassed by people who are threatening his life, he could be running naked in the street.

That is a matter for honest and complete discovery. It isn’t an occasion to slap on the label, “mental disorder.”

Now that President Obama has decided the expansion of mental health services must be effected to protect us all from people with guns, we are looking up the immediate road at government programs in schools, among other disastrous innovations.

Children are concocted as a prime target for early diagnosis of non-existent mental disorders, because in the past, a number of these children, diagnosed and drugged by psychiatrists, went on to kill people as a result of the drugs’ actions on their brains. That’s called irony. It’s also called a crime, in the very real sense that psychiatrists contributed mightily to the killings.

So now, every child in school who twitches the wrong way or picks up a bubble-gum toy shaped like a pistol, or points his finger at a friend and says Bang, or looks sad and lonely for ten minutes at the back of the class on a rainy Tuesday, or draws pictures when he should be adding numbers in his notebook, or wears odd clothes, or gets angry for any reason at all, or objects to taking a vaccine, or wears a jacket with a small American flag sewn to the shoulder, or doesn’t play well with others, or makes a positive statement in class about the Bill of Rights, or reminds a teacher of a little criminal in a movie, or has a bottle opener in his pocket, or dreams in class about designing a rocket that will take people to Mars…can be referred to a counselor, who in turn will refer him to a psychiatrist, who will make some sort of off-the-shelf diagnosis, which will travel with the child for the rest of his life, making the child believe he has a brain problem, and the psychiatrist will prescribe that child drugs like Ritalin, Adderall, Zoloft, Paxil, or Prozac, drugs that scramble neurotransmitter systems and can very certainly cause that child to go violent.

That is the reality.

When Obama announced his intention, in the wake of Sandy Hook, to go nuclear with expanded mental-health services across the country, the president of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Dilip Jeste, praised the program.

“I am strongly encouraged by the President’s recommendations because they include a focus on improving mental health,” Jeste said to a Psychiatric News reporter.

The Psychiatric News article continues: “A new initiative outlined by Obama would provide training for school personnel and help ensure that young people who need help are referred to treatment…[and this new program would] train 5,000 additional mental health professionals to serve students and young adults.”

[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/58014801 w=500&h=275]

APA President Dilip Jeste, MD January 2013 Address from American Psychiatric Association on Vimeo.

What we are looking at here is wolves circling prey.

If you don’t think so, consider these hidden facts about Ritalin, which is normally considered to be a much lighter drug than any of the SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil) or the drugs given for so-called Bipolar Disorder (Valproate, Lithium).

Ritalin, manufactured by Novartis, is the close cousin to speed which is given to perhaps four million American schoolchildren for a condition called Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder).

ADD and ADHD, for which no organic causes have ever been found, are touted as disease-conditions that afflict the young, causing hyperactivity, unmanageability, and learning problems. Of course, when you name a disorder or a syndrome and yet can find no single provable organic cause for it, you have nothing more than a loose collection of behaviors with an arbitrary title.

Correction: you also have a pharmaceutical bonanza.

Dr. Peter Breggin, referring to an official directory of psychiatric disorders, the DSM-III-R, writes that withdrawal from amphetamine-type drugs, including Ritalin, can cause “depression, anxiety, and irritability as well as sleep problems, fatigue, and agitation.” Breggin then remarks, “The individual may become suicidal in response to the depression.”

The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics reveals a strange fact. It states that Ritalin is “structurally related to amphetamines … Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as those of the amphetamines.” In other words, the only clear difference is legality. And the effects, in layman’s terms, are obvious. You take speed and after awhile, sooner or later, you start crashing. You become agitated, irritable, paranoid, delusional, aggressive.

A firm and objective medical review needs to be done in all of the school shootings, to determine how many of the shooters were on, or had at one time been on, Ritalin.

In his landmark classic, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.”

Children are frequently medicated with this combination, and when we highlight such effects as aggression, psychosis, and emotional instability, it is obvious that the result is pointing toward the very real possibility of violence.

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate”) [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed over a hundred adverse affects of Ritalin and indexed published journal articles for each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects then, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

• Paranoid delusions
• Paranoid psychosis
• Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
• Activation of psychotic symptoms
• Toxic psychosis
• Visual hallucinations
• Auditory hallucinations
• Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
• Effects pathological thought processes
• Extreme withdrawal
• Terrified affect
• Started screaming
• Aggressiveness
• Insomnia
• Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphatamine-like effects
• psychic dependence
• High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
• Decreased REM sleep
• When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
• Convulsions
• Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

If psychiatrists are the wolves—and they are—and children are the sheep, then what do you call the parents who permit their children to be captured by these marauders?

Am I saying that “mental health,” as defined by organized psychiatry, and backed by the federal and state governments, is a vast criminal enterprise, rather than a science?

Yes, absolutely. I’m saying that because that’s what it is.

Jon Rappoport

Flashback: mind-control programming on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno

Jan24

by Jon Rappoport

January 23, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ve recently been writing about the corrosive effect of television on the national psyche, and how media depictions of tragedies, like the Sandy Hook murders, are geared to create artificial story lines divorced from reality.

I thought it would be a good idea to go back to a 2003 article I wrote about the famous appearance of Arnold Schwarzenegger on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

The show had been hyped as the moment when Arnold would announce whether he was going to run in the recall election against California Governor Gray Davis.

Public anticipation was sky-high. No one seemed concerned that NBC was turning over its news division, for one night, to its entertainment division.

This was precisely the subject of the best movie ever made about television, Paddy Chayefsky’s Network. That fact didn’t register with the national media, either.

If Arnold decided to run, he wouldn’t be announcing it at a press conference at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, after a brief introduction from LA Mayor Richard Riordan. No, Arnold would obtain a rocket boost from Jay Leno.

Here is a blow-by-blow account of Arnold on The Tonight Show. I obtained a tape of the show and watched it many times.

The degree of psychological programming was extraordinary. Keep in mind that talk shows warm up and prep their audiences to act and respond with amphetamine-like enthusiasm. And then that audience transmits its glow and howling racket to the wider television audience, thereby exploding an artificially enhanced event across the landscape.

On the night of August 6, 2003, Tonight Show host Jay Leno devoted two six-minute segments to an interview with The Arnold.

Of course, it was more than an interview. Jay had been touting this night as the occasion for a key revelation in the comic play called the California Recall.

Arnold would say yes or Arnold would say no. He would run or he would decline.

Bigger than conventional news, Arnold strode out on to Jay’s stage. A Tonight Show camera picked him up from a grossly complimentary low angle, making him appear even larger and more physically imposing than he is. Jay was positioned standing behind him, applauding, lending an affirmative gloss to the entrance. Already, it looked and felt political.

This was not a beginning; the impression was of something already in motion, a train to catch up with.

As the man of the hour sat down next to Jay, he commented that there was a big audience in the house (“Can you believe all these people here?”) and, capping his first gambit, he stated that every one of them was running for governor of California. (The recall ballot was bulging with candidates.)

Quickly, Jay gets down to business. The business of making the evening extra-special: “Now, I don’t think we’ve ever had this much press at The Tonight Show for any—[let’s see] our press room—normally [the press] sit in the audience.”

Cut to a stark room, shot from above. About 40 reporters doing almost nothing at tables. Obviously, the room was set up for this event.

Jay cracks a couple of jokes about the press gaggle, lowers his voice and turns his full attention to Arnold: “…it’s been weeks…and people going back and forth…taken you awhile, and you said you would come here tonight and tell us your decision. So what is your decision?”

Arnold replies, “Well, Jay, after thinking for a long time, my decision is…”

Very brief pause, the sound cuts out, and then the TV screen displays, in black and white, the old PLEASE STAND BY notice. Thick white letters against a background of an ancient station test pattern from the 1950s. There is an accompanying tone that plays for several seconds.

The audience laughs. There is applause, too.

Cut back to Jay and Arnold. Arnold says, “That’s why I decided that way.” Big audience laughter.

Jay shouts, “Right, good, right! I tell you I am shocked! I can’t believe it! I can’t believe it!” More laughter.

Jay then starts out from the bottom again. “[Whether you’re going to run has been] in my monologue…it’s been good for, like, a thousand jokes over the last couple of weeks…”

Once more, Jay gently poses the question. “What are you going to do?” It’s still too early for an answer, and everybody knows it.

Arnold wants another false start. He’s planned it.

“Well, my decision obviously is a very difficult decision to make, you know…it was the [most] difficult decision that I’ve made in my entire life, except the one in 1978 when I decided to get a bikini wax.”

Laughter, applause, whistles.

This may have been the most important few seconds of the interview. The studio audience warms to the fact that Arnold glimpses an absurdity about the whole proceeding.

“He’s our Arnie, laughing the way we laugh. Hell, all we’ve got are laughs in this life, and our boy isn’t going to go stuffed shirt on us.”

An absolutely important confirmation.

Arnold then gives his rehearsed political speech. He reflects that California was a grand land of opportunity when he arrived in 1968. It was the greatest state in the greatest nation.

However, now the atmosphere in California is “disastrous,” he says. There is a “disconnect” (thank you, pop psych 101) between the people and the politicians.

“The politicians are fiddling, fumbling, and failing.” Very big applause follows. The audience is doing its job.

Close by, off camera, we hear Jay thumping his own personal hand claps. The host is pumping his studio crowd and, albeit with a shmear of irony, giving his seal of approval to a remark whose veracity is supposed to be tested by the recall election itself.

It’s clear there is a phalanx of teen-age girls screaming at a very high pitch in the studio. They’re adding a major element of hysterical enthusiasm. Where did they come from? Are they a legitimate Arnold demographic? Were they pulled out of a mall to paper the crowd? Do they migrate from talk show to talk show? From this point forward, they will play a huge role in every audience outburst.

Arnold gathers steam. He tells one and all that the people of California are doing their job.

They’re working hard.

Paying their taxes.

Raising their families.

But the politicians are not doing their job.

Now he executes a decent blend around the far turn: “And the man that is failing the people more than anyone is Gray Davis!”

The crowd goes wild. The girls scream at this political denunciation as if they’re at a kiddie rock concert in the magic presence of four sixteen-year-old pretty boys. It’s eerie.

And now the audience is suddenly on an edge.

They can handle the juice.

Arnold senses it.

He lets the audience-hysteria roller coaster die down and then, taking it up to heaven, announces that, yes, he, Arnold is, yes, GOING TO RUN FOR GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA.

Boom. Bang. Pow. Zow.

The studio audience cracks the ceiling. Wilder than wild. The girls are shrieking clouds of sound way above high C. Undoubtedly, the show is flashing applause signs.

Jay shakes his head and grins like a pro hypster who’s just witnessed a very, very good variation on bait and switch. As if Arnold was supposed to say no, but now he’s saying yes. (Yet Jay knew if Arnold declined to run, the whole show would have been a dud.)

The Tonight Show band lays down some heavy chords.

Jay shouts, “There you go! There you go! That woke ‘em up! That woke ‘em up!” We cut to the press room, and sure enough, the reporters are now on phones, typing at their keyboards. The story is live and good to go. A global event is underway.

Amid the roar and the music, Jay, smiling broadly and wisely, shakes his finger at Arnold and says to him, “You know something?”

It seems he’s about to utter, “That’s the best damn switcheroo I ever saw!” But he doesn’t do it. Instead, as the noise abates, he says it’s a good time to go to a break.

The band plows into a funk riff, under the applause, and the show cuts to commercial.

The sea has parted. The consecration has been performed.

The ax felled the tree in the forest, and everyone heard it.

Marshall McLuhan rolled over in his grave, sat up, grinned, lit a cigar, and sipped a little brandy.

In the next six-minute segment, Jay and Arnold attain a few more highs of audience madness.

High one: Arnold mentions that 1.6 million Californians have signed the recall petition and are saying, “We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore!” Wowee.

No one notices or remembers this line was made massively famous in Network, a bitter satire on news as entertainment.

Is it remotely possible that Arnold recalls the 1976 Paddy Chayefsky film and its wacked-out news anchor, Howard Beale, who survives a ratings dive and firing by delivering a delirious populist message on air and becomes, for a short time, the most revered man in America?

Is it possible Arnold knows the TV network portrayed in the film gives its news division to its entertainment division—precisely what’s transpiring right there, for the moment, on The Tonight Show?

High two: Arnold clarifies his message to all politicians everywhere. “Do your job for the people and do it well, or otherwise you’re out. Hasta la vista, baby!” Zowee.

High three: After reminding the crowd that they all know Gray Davis can run a dirty campaign “better than anyone”—and that Davis has been selling off pieces of California to special interests—Arnold says with conviction and confidence, “I do not have to bow to any special interests; I have plenty of money; no one can pay me off; trust me, no one.” Audience hysteria. They love that he’s rich.

High four: Arnold says of Davis, “Everyone knows this man has to go!” Zow. Huge roar.

High five: Arnold plays a final joke card. “I will pump up Sacramento!” Yet another roar.

The band takes it out with more funk. Jay stands up and goes over and hugs Arnold, in profile, near his desk, and follows him closely toward an exit at stage left. Jay starts to whisper something in Arnold’s ear, but pulls back and smiles and, still on camera, applauds Arnold along with the audience.

It’s show biz in a bottle. Jay, Arnold, the crowd, the band, bouncing off one another and yielding the effect of absolute (synthetic) thrill.

Beyond the fact that Arnold made a political speech on The Tonight Show and announced his candidacy and cuttingly attacked his major opponent, there were the semi-subliminal aspects. The Tonight Show had created its own enormous esteem over decades—and then, out of nowhere, it provided the background for a globally famous actor to decide—almost on the spot—to run for office in the same state where the show originates. In the entertainment capitol of the world. In front of the clear prime-cut admiration of the host.

And the studio audience, that specialized creature from whose maw instant credibility can be coaxed and birthed in seconds—the audience was very, very ready to go. All along.

The audience is not an isolated force. It distributes waves of simulated feeling to its initiated in-the-fold brothers and sisters, in their apartments and homes and huts at all points of the globe. These waves also flow to every media outlet from Nome to Tierra Del Fuego to Cape Town to Hong Kong.

Every nuance of expression on Arnold’s face, on Jay’s face, was registered and absorbed above the feverish in-house cheers and screams and shrieks.

This means something.

“I know a guy who can introduce your message to the softest, wildest, water-cooler crowd this side of paradise.”

“Oh yeah? How big?”

“Only a thousand or two. But they are instantly hooked up to, say, ten million people in the target area. It’s as infectious as Ebola.”

“Come on.”

“And that’s not all. I’ve got a host for that softest, wildest audience, and he has the whole world in the palm of his hand. When he exposes your message—for the first time anywhere—and when his audience goes nuts with glee, nothing will stand in your way. Your opponents will go down like bowling pins.”

“Too good to be true.”

“I know. And let me point out what I’m saving you from, you most fortunate of all mothers. If you tried to launch your message at a shopping center or a press club or a hotel ballroom or construction site or on a movie-studio sound stage, you could get laughed right out of town. Really. Because, let’s face it, you do have a pretty vapid message when you boil it down. You need a unique venue, where the joke and the camp and the craziness are all folded into the event itself, and the shock and surprise and hoopla are integrated as well. You need an audience that celebrates bad and good jokes as all good, and the host has the ability to marry up every shred of this bizarre happening and take his crowd to orgasm. Talking multiple.”

“And the contagion factor?”

“The audience in the television studio and the viewing audience at home are One. What stuns and delights the former incorporates itself into the living cells of the latter. Right now. The home audience is terrified of being left out of the party. They’ll go along. The host and his in-studio crowd give instant universal legitimacy to the moment. Believe me, it’s irresistible.”

“Like that McLuhan thing. The audience becomes the actor.”

“Precisely.”

That is how it happened. That is how Arnold S obtained his billion-dollar ad on Jay Leno, on August 6, 2003, and that was when he won the recall election. There was no counter-strategy for it.

Gray Davis was left with his putz in his hand.

Arnold’s announcement of his candidacy was the end of the election.

In the aftermath, media pundits did not punch up this piece of mind control with any serious heat; nor did they immediately seek a heavy investigation of the ethics of NBC in allowing the Leno-Arnold event to take place.

For example, NBC is owned by GE. What business interests does GE have in California? Might such interests be assisted by an Arnold victory at the polls?

It’s amusing that another NBC heavy hitter, Rob Lowe, left the liberal West Wing series and joined the Arnold campaign to add a little more sparkle to it.

The overwhelming media play that slammed into gear the day following the Leno-Arnold moment formed a synapse-welding juggernaut. It was, of course, all based on where Arnold made his announcement to run.

It was a perfect killing ground: Arnold, the earnest and powerful and Germanically jolly and occasionally self-deprecating soul, aware of the comic-book component of his success; Jay, the jokester, who can work as a homer and straight man at the drop of a hat; and Jay’s audience, willingly propelled into the late-night nexus of “we’ll laugh so hard at any old damn thing we’ll make a cosmic celebration out of it.”

Something out of nothing.

GE: We bring good things to life.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

There are many who are afraid to admit that twelve minutes on Leno won the election. They refuse to believe that the audience-to-larger-audience infection is real. They want to exist in a fantasy where most citizens turn the factual issues over in their minds before casting their ballots.

It’s too nasty to confess that garble and gobbledygook can sustain us on the ridiculous basis that other people have attached themselves to it like barnacles—and that therefore we too must adapt to this submarine force.

But it’s time we admit that reality can be passed, hand to hand, mind to mind, adrenal gland to adrenal gland, from a concocted, groomed, cultivated, prepackaged television audience to any target area on the planet.

A target area like voting precincts.

When private citizens show up in the studio to see Leno in person, they soon get the message. They are not just there as happy onlookers. They are drawn into the process. They are offered a trade-off.

If they become active shills for the show right there in the studio, they will become part of the story. They will attain a new status. Their laughs and squeals and shrieks and rebound guffaws, their revved-up salvational applause at those moments when a guest segment is falling flat—the audience is providing key segueways and fillers and affirmations and speed candy for the larger audience at home. It’s a group collaboration.

And it’s overtly political when a fading movie action hero trying to roll a seven on his latest film suddenly says he’s going to take over the reins of California.

Then it becomes a whole different twelve minutes. Then the studio-audience overreach of wild hysteria and laughter and clapping hands and standing O’s and the quality of the emotion are everything.

The movie hero, Arnold S, is suddenly carrying an immense amount of good will to the moon.

He is outlined and underlined and haloed in what they used to call pure jive, but this jive is now viewed by millions of at-home viewers as the real thing. Because on television, very little is the real thing and you have to accept all substitutes. Otherwise, you are doomed and exiled to the dark realms where you will question the authenticity of what everyone else is buying.

Much better to re-invent an exuberance that comes from an earlier branch of the evolutionary tree. Much better to find out you can roar from the belly and help this Arnold dude go for his coronation. Much better to experience a synthetic facsimile of emotional torque and bust a move that will shower sparks around his head and push him through a porthole into an ozone that just might be the closest thing you’ll ever find to immortality.

The signs are on in the TV studio, the final directions are being given, the musicians are ready, the applause fluffers are gesturing at the audience, the go-signal is given.

We have a hero, we know his name, we know what to do. What else do we need?

That’s television.

That’s a slice of Matrix programming for America.

Now in 2013, it’s standard practice. Politicians plan their guest shots on Leno, Letterman, Fallon, Ferguson, Kimmel, The View, etc.

If they want to appeal to the younger crowd, they do Fallon, who plays the wild child with a juvey rap sheet, backed up by a howling studio audience who must be breathing meth through the ventilation system.

If they want to hit the fading boomer crowd, they do Letterman, who persists in his nightly imitation of a semi-retiree on the verge of dementia.

The formula is the same. Jack up the studio audience, transmit the hysteria to the viewing audience at home, and spread the television disease.

The audience as actor.

Which, by the way, is why reality shows are so popular. People who otherwise would never have moved out of the audience are now stars in their own right, in front of the camera.

The audience is now thoroughly aware that their contribution makes or breaks a television show, and so they feel perfectly entitled to celeb status and their own reality series, in a jungle, in a house, in an apartment, in a bathroom.

Entitlement-audiences and entitlement-citizens walk hand in hand through a society where rights are expanding to mean “I’ve got my cell phone, I’m somebody.”

The content of an idea or the value of an object is merely the number of reflections of applause that accompanies its presence.

And there is this evolution: a) What’s marketing? b) I have to market myself. c) I am what I’ve marketed.

The tree falling in the forest never makes a sound. There is no sound unless and until and only when the sound is promoted, preferably on television. Then it exists.

Then the people who watch the tree fall on their screens hear it, and they become important. They become kings and queens in a cartoon matrix.

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Matrix Revealed

Two words that don’t go together: “medical” and “journalism”

The era of programming the mind

This is your brain on neuroscience

The hideous BAM in Obama: map your brain for your own good

New study: are we all living in the future now?

The ruthless State of the Union: the current crime boss speaks

Are we all living inside a virtual simulation?

10 things the media don’t want to discover about Sandy Hook

The psychiatric wolves attack more innocent children

Flashback: mind-control programming on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno