Freedom is obsolete, go with genes

by Jon Rappoport

February 18, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

Let’s start here:

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

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

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

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

In other words, evolution could be managed through depopulation. Some live, some die, some are genetically enhanced, some are not.

Through movies, through the press, through heavily promoted speculation— “we are on the verge of enormous breakthroughs in genetics”—the population is being primed for a pseudo-philosophy of selection.

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

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

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

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

And any political document based on liberty and freedom can be trampled on with impunity.

“There are only brains and those brains operate purely by genetic determinism.”

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

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

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

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

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

Individual freedom has been cut out of the equation.

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

The rearranging of genes in humans has, for some time, been discussed openly in academic journals. The cat is out of the bag. Geneticists, biologists, social scientists, bio-ethicists are all weighing in.

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

David King, writing at Human Genetics Alert, states:

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

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

King continues:

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

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

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

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

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

And why should individual free will be an obstacle; that’s just a superstitious fantasy; freedom was never real; there was always and only The Experiment; natural selection, intentional selection—what’s the difference?

Scientific/medical/technological elitists are sitting at the table with many chips to play. They’re betting that, in the long run, they will win, because they are touting hypnotically entrancing “imperatives.”

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

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

What could go wrong?

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

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

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

When individual freedom is no longer discussed in great depth by people who should know better, when it is left to wither on the vine, many programs and structures are built to take its place.

These programs, like the genetic engineering of humans, are meant to erase the consciousness that freedom is important or even exists.

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.

297 scientists, experts sign statement: GMOs not proven safe

Feb5

297 scientists, experts sign statement: GMOs not proven safe

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

The statement was drawn up by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility. It was released on October 21, 2013.

Since then, 297 scientists and experts have signed it.

Thus exploding the myth that “the science is settled.”

Exploding the claim that a consensus about GMOs has been reached.

You can read the statement and the signatories at ensser.org.

http://www.ensser.org/media/0713/

Here are two excerpts from the statement:

“As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is ‘over’.”

“We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.”

The number of scientists on either side of a question does not, alone, imply a final answer. But it does indicate whether the question is closed or still open. It does indicate that those who claim the question is closed are wrong.

Completely wrong.

Monsanto PR and government PR and media PR are so many tongues wagging in the wind.

In previous articles, I’ve highlighted dangers and lies re GMOs. Here I’m simply reporting that a consensus about GMO safety is a delusion.

In other words, anybody can say “everybody knows…” And if those people have access to, or control, major media, they can make a persuasive case.

But the persuasion is nothing more than one voice drowning out other voices.

Other voices who, for example, make this declaration:

(Signatory, Dr. Margarida Silva, biologist and professor at the Portugese Catholic University)—“…research has been mostly financed by the very companies that depend on positive outcomes for their business, and we now know that where money flows, influence grows. The few independent academics left must work double shift to address the vast array of unanswered questions and red flags that keep piling up.”

Or this voice: Signatory, Dr. Raul Montenegro, biologist, University of Cordoba, Argentina—“As things stand, the governments of these countries [Argentina, Brazil] deny that there is a [GMO] problem even in the face of numerous reports from the people who are affected and the doctors who must treat them.”

So far, there are 297 such voices.

Will CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX report this story in full and overturn the false consensus? Will they make room for the 297 voices?

Of course not. Their job is to invent consensus by consulting “reliable sources.” Meaning: liars who also want to invent false consensus.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Truth about the Seralini rat-tumor-GMO study explodes

Jan19

Truth about the Seralini rat-tumor-GMO study explodes

by Jon Rappoport

January 19, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Remember a researcher named Gilles-Eric Seralini, his 2012 GMO study, and the controversy that swirled around it?

He fed rats GMOs, in the form of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn, and they developed tumors. Some died. The study was published in the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology (wikipedia). Pictures of the rats were published.

A wave of biotech-industry criticism ensued. Pressure built. “Experts” said the study was grossly unscientific, its methods were unprofessional, and Seralini was biased against GMOs from the get-go. Monsanto didn’t like Seralini at all.

The journal which published the Seralini study caved in and retracted it.

Why? Not because Seralini did anything unethical, not because he plagiarized material, not because he was dishonest in any way, but because:

He used rats which (supposedly) had an inherent tendency to develop tumors (the Sprague-Dawley strain), and because he used too few rats (10). That’s it. Those were Seralini’s errors.

Well, guess what? Eight years prior to Seralini, Monsanto also did a rat-tumor-GMO study and published it in the very same journal. Monsanto’s study showed there were no tumor problems in the rats. But here’s the explosive kicker. Monsanto used the same strain of rats that Seralini did and same number of rats (10). And nobody complained about it.

Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumer’s Union, explains in an interview with Steve Curwood at loe.org (click here for the full article):

“Well, basically what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study that Monsanto did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that study, they [Monsanto] used the same number of rats, and the same strain of rats, and came to a conclusion there was no [tumor] problem. So all of a sudden, eight years later, when somebody [Seralini] does that same experiment, only runs it for two years rather than just 90 days, and their data suggests there are problems, [then] all of a sudden the number of rats is too small? Well, if it’s too small to show that there’s a [tumor] problem, wouldn’t it be too small to show there’s no problem? They already said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity. So they’re actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini’s work was important, because you wouldn’t follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study.”

Boom.

I can just hear Monsanto felons gibbering: “Well, we the biotech industry people published our study. We used 10 rats and we used the Sprague-Dawley strain. And that was fine. It was especially fine because our study showed GMOs were safe. But then this guy Seralini comes along and does the same study with the same kind of rat and same number of rats, and he discovers tumors. That’s not fine. That’s very bad. He…he…used the wrong rats…yeah…and he didn’t use enough rats. He’s a faker. Well, I mean, we used the same kind of rat and same number of rats, but when we did the experiment, we were Good, and Seralini was Bad. Do you see?”

Yes, the mists are clearing and things are coming into focus.

Any comments, Monsanto? I’d be happy to pass them along to Michael Hansen.

Jon Rappoport

Social sciences and the destruction of individuality

Jan9

Social sciences and the destruction of individuality

by Jon Rappoport

January 9, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

You may or not be interested in the sexual practices of Trobriand Islanders. You may or not be interested in what some tribe in the Amazon jungle is doing on a slow Thursday.

But what sociologists and anthropologists have written about such subjects is as much science as you sitting in a park and writing notes on what people are doing in the playground.

One of the founders of sociology, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), coined the phrase “collective consciousness.” Durkheim insisted there were “inherent” qualities that existed in society apart from individuals. Exposing his own absurd theory, he went so far as to claim suicide was one of those qualities, as if the “phenomenon” were present beyond any individual choice to end life.

He wrote: “Man is the more vulnerable to self-destruction the more he is detached from any collectivity, that is to say, the more he lives as an egoist.”

In other words, according to Durkheim, the individual who rejects the norms of society must be wrapped up in himself in some morally repugnant way. There are no other alternatives.

In his book, The Division of Labour in Society (1893) (wikipedia), Burkheim spun moral conscience in the following fashion: “…Make yourself usefully fulfill a determinate function.” He cited this as a kind of command issued by collective consciousness. This is the presentation of the individual human as machine-cog.

From the mud of sociology’s beginnings, the long sordid history of the academic discipline brings us to something like this. Peter Callero, of the department of sociology, Western Oregon University, has written a book titled: The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives (2013, 2nd Ed):

“Most people today believe that an individual is a person with an independent and distinct identification. This, however, is a myth.”

When Callero writes “identification,” he isn’t talking about ID cards and Social Security numbers. He’s talking about an absence of any uniqueness from person to person. He’s asserting there is no significant distinction between any two people. There aren’t two individuals to begin with. They’re a group.

This downgrading of the individual human spirit is far from accidental. It’s launched as a sustained propaganda campaign, the purpose of which is top-down control.

“The cold truth is that the individualist creed of everybody for himself and the devil take the hindmost is principally responsible for the distress in which Western civilization finds itself — with investment racketeering at one end and labor racketeering at the other. Whatever merits the creed may have had in the days of primitive agriculture and industry, it is not applicable in an age of technology, science, and rationalized economy. Once useful, it has become a danger to society.” (Charles Beard, 1931)

Beard, a celebrated historian, appears to see no difference between individual racketeering and the individual freely choosing and living his own life. For him, society must rely on organization, and the individual takes the leftovers.

“British empiricist philosophy is individualist. And it is of course clear that if the only criterion of true and false which a man accepts is that man’s, then he has no base for social agreement. The question of how man ought to behave is a social question, which always involves several people; and if he accepts no evidence and no judgment except his own, he has no tools with which to frame an answer.” (Jacob Bronowski, Science and Human Values, 1956).

Bronowski is quite sure that hearing other people’s evidence and then keeping one’s own counsel is wrong. One has to accept that evidence on its face? This is sheer idiocy. Individuals are capable of deciding, on their own, what social agreements to enter into.

Even more to the point, Beard and Bronowski were both high-achieving individuals—who then turned around and celebrated the kind of society that would try to flatten and level the individual to an average.

The world has many such experts. They rise high enough and then they preach collectivism. They become social meddlers. They believe they have the tools to plan what kind of world we should live in—since they are not part of that world anymore.

Freed from the obligations with which they want to bind us, they can pontificate and scheme and fantasize about social, economic, and political constructs in which The Group is all.

This is elitism par excellence.

I’ll stick with Orwell:

“It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of.” (George Orwell, 1944)

The people who take it upon themselves to impose a planned society on everyone else don’t have much to say about freedom. Why would they? It’s a wild card, and it belongs to the individual, whom they consider merely an obstacle to the so-called progress of the group.

The very basis of sociology and anthropology, with which college students’ heads are filled, is: know the group. These pseudo-disciplines have thrived because elites with real power are doing everything they can to eradicate the concept of the individual.

Why would anyone perpetuate the myth that these two academic subjects are “social sciences?” There is nothing scientific about them. Their practitioners may devise computer models and debate the merits of one generality about cultures vs. another. But otherwise, we’re looking at nothing more than a gateway into planning a world management system.

In which the individual plays no part.

Jon Rappoport

Magic trick: promoting diseases that don’t exist

Oct10

Magic trick: promoting diseases that don’t exist

by Jon Rappoport

October 10, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The disease/treatment/profit machine requires more and more diseases, even if they aren’t real.

Here is an unspoken but largely accepted medical notion of what a disease is:

A group of physical symptoms shared by many people, which has a single cause.

For example, take the flu. Wikipedia lists the common symptoms: chills, fever, muscle pains, headache, coughing. For each type of flu, there is single virus announced as the cause. E.g., Swine Flu; H1N1 virus.

Drug companies develop medicines and vaccines to kill the virus or prevent it from gaining a foothold in the body. They sell the drugs and vaccines. Profits soar. Nice and neat.

Of course, many doctors don’t bother to test patients to see if they have a disease like seasonal flu. It’s too time consuming to take a blood sample and send it to a lab and wait for the results.

So the doctor makes an eyeball diagnosis based on symptoms and the season of the year.

As I explained in my previous article, “What happens when only 16% of flu patients have the flu?”, a cursory investigation of this practice can lead to embarrassing results.

Every year, many blood samples from patients are, in fact, sent to labs, and only a small fraction of these “flu cases” turn out to reveal any flu virus at all.

But this fact is blithely ignored.

You have hundreds of thousands of people in the US who display the general “flu symptoms,” but it turns out most of them don’t have the flu. They have a variety of other problems.

But admitting this is bad for business. How can drug companies justify making flu drugs and vaccines when most “flu cases” don’t have the flu?

The solution? Fake it. Pretend all people diagnosed with the flu actually have it.

Bottom line? Just because you have a group of people who have the same general symptoms…that doesn’t mean they have the same disease…and it doesn’t mean the same germ is causing their symptoms.

Consider Autism. If you were to go to startpage.com and search for “Diagnostic Criteria for 299.00 Autistic Disorder,” you would come to autreat.com where you would read through a whole menu of behaviors. These behaviors are, in fact, the definition of Autism. They are the entire definition.

There is NO cause listed. There is no single cause. No germ or fungus or mold or errant gene or neurological defect.

So in this instance, the medical cartel pretends they already somehow know Autism (the collection of behaviors) is a single disease, and “they will eventually find the single cause.”

But again, just because you have a great many children who have the same GENERAL symptoms (behaviors)…that doesn’t mean they have the same disease…that doesn’t mean the cause of disease is the same across the board.

Nowhere in the definition of Autism will you find a single cause or any sort of bottom-line physical explanation. You will only find lists of behaviors.

So…how do they know Autism (or each sub-category in the so-called spectrum) is a single disease?

THEY DON’T KNOW.

YES, the children are suffering. YES, they have serious problems. Yes, they are not like other children. YES. But is Autism a single disease? Is it even a spectrum of different types of “developmental disorder,” as advertised? No persuasive evidence exists to affirm that.

I chose Autism for a special reason: the vaccine connection.

I’ll try to boil it down. The medical bosses assert that vaccines COULD NOT be the cause of Autism. On what basis do they say this?

Follow closely. The reasoning goes like this… ‘There are diagnosed cases of Autism where the child did not receive any vaccines. Or the child didn’t receive any vaccine containing the neurotoxin mercury.’

‘And since vaccines are demonstrably not the cause IN EVERY CASE OF AUTISM, vaccines are not the cause at all.’

You might want to read that last sentence again.

Single cause of a single disease means: the cause is the same in every case of the disease.

This is how the medical bureaucrats refute vaccines as the cause of Autism. This is their “proof.”

“Okay. We know (pretend) Autism is a single disease. So it has to have one cause across the board, in every case. Let’s see. Can we find any diagnosed cases where the child didn’t receive vaccines with mercury in them? Yes. We can. All right, end of story. Vaccines couldn’t cause Autism.”

But is Autism (or any sub-type of Autism) a single disease? Is there any convincing proof? Is there a single cause in all cases?

No. If there were, you would find it in the official definition of Autism, and it isn’t there.

At this point, people repeat familiar medical-propaganda slogans: “We’re on the cusp of a breakthrough in finding a genetic cause.” “We’re closer than ever.” “It could turn out to be a virus.” “It might relate to early childhood infections.” “Its roots are neurological, and these days we understand that system at a deeper level than ever before.” “We’re seeing similar patterns in brain scans.”

All supposition. All speculation.

No reason under the sun to accept the idea that what is called Autism is one thing with one cause.

In many cases of what is called Autism, we are looking at vaccine damage, pure and simple. Then CALL IT VACCINE DAMAGE, NOT AUTISM.

In other cases, the cause would be chemical poisoning from a variety of non-vaccine sources. SO CALL IT CHEMICAL POISONING, NOT AUTISM.

In other cases, a severe oxygen deficit. CALL IT OXYGEN DEFICIT.

In other cases, major nutrient deficiencies. CALL IT NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCY.

In other cases, all four of these. CALL IT ALL FOUR OF THESE.

Call “it” what it is found to be, in that given child.

Look into the life and body of each unique child.

Stop using the generalized label, Autism.

Ah, but if that happened, doctors would be forced to do things they aren’t trained to do. And drug companies, the last time I looked, don’t have a safe and effective drug to reverse vaccine damage.

These companies wouldn’t be able to make billions on a drug aimed at some single mythical cause for “Autism.”

If Autism isn’t one disease with one cause, there is no single way to treat all children diagnosed with Autism.

The diagnosis itself is a misnomer and a deception. The label is a deception. A lie.

“Then what’s wrong with my child?” a parent says. “If it isn’t Autism, what is it?”

The answer could only come with a truly honest and competent and skillful examination of the child. That unique child.

Holding out for one grand solution to a problem that isn’t one general problem is doomed.

Many children are waiting for a successful universal treatment that will never come.

There are reports that, in some of cases of “Autism,” hyperbaric oxygen has shown good results.

But what about cases where the real problem is severe nutritional deficit?

It comes down to this: do parents want a solution to what their unique child is really suffering from? If so, then someone has to discover what that is. And then that practitioner has to come up with an answer that truly helps.

Calling all children who have similar generalized symptoms “Autistic” doesn’t help.

But it does provide an avenue of profit for drug companies. Their paid researchers can announce “breakthroughs” and “partial answers” and come in behind that with new drugs.

And then they can even say, “We’ve found the cause,” when they haven’t. They can market a whole raft of drugs that “alleviate the cause.” And make billions of $$, while children still suffer.

Here’s a real-life illustration. The parents of a young boy are at their wit’s end because he has withdrawn from the world. He can’t communicate. His physical coordination is lacking. He has other problems.

The doctor says: Autism.

But another doctor, someone who practices medicine but also has human instincts and a genuine desire to go the distance and help that boy, investigates.

And he finds several crucial things. The boy, who has never had vaccines, has severe nutritional deficiencies. On top of that, he’s extremely sensitive and reactive to certain artificial colors and dyes in processed foods. He has bowel problems, debilitating gastrointestinal infections. He almost strangled on the umbilical chord at birth.

Suppose the the doctor can prepare a comprehensive non-drug program to correct these problems. And after a time, the boy begins to emerge from his isolation. Into the world.

Did he have Autism?

This is like asking whether the victim of an automobile accident had Broken Bone Syndrome.

There is a simplicity at the bottom of all this. When the doctor says, “Your son has VCR$#S or some other label, the parent can say, “Do you have a treatment that will correct the situation?”

If the answer right now is no, there is no reason to buy the label and walk down the tortuous path the label implies.

If later on, the doctor says yes, we definitely do have a cure, then the parent can look at it through a high-power magnifying glass of intelligence and justified skepticism, to find the fine print, and understand what the doctor is really talking about.

Is he telling the truth? Is he lying? Does the supposed cure have such dire adverse effects the child is merely trading one set of crises for another? Are the new crises just masking the old ones?

Here is the rule: if someone claims that a cluster of symptoms adds up to a disease label for many people with that cluster, but the doctor has in his hands no cause for the cluster, there is no reason to assume the label means anything.

Yet still, the parent says, “All right, but the doctor said my son is Autistic. What am I supposed to do?”

Yes, and the doctor probably also says Autism is a neurological disorder and much research is underway, and the prospects are looking better…

But does the doctor have the cause of Autism? Does he have a treatment that really works? Is the parent in better shape by assuming her boy has “Autism,” whatever that is supposed to mean? Is the boy helped in any way by this?

Or is the mother of that child simply assuaged and relieved, because the doctor has put a label on her child who, up to now, was a troubling mystery?

I know people are going to write me with alt. solutions for Autism. They are going to assume there is such a thing (across the board) as Autism and it has a single cause, and there is a brilliant treatment for all of it.

To them I would suggest reading this article again and thinking about what it actually means.

People are also going to say, “But Autism researchers are making progress. They may not have the single cause yet, but they’re getting closer.”

Really? They SAY they’re getting closer. That’s different. What do you expect them to assert? They’re getting farther away?

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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

Myths and fairy tales about consciousness

Sep24

Myths and fairy tales about consciousness

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2013

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

“Pieces of what consciousness creates linger and form a kind of landscape. A person consults it, as if it were a guide, over and over, until his life wears out, feels old, bores him to the point where he wants something new… He can linger and grow old staring at this landscape painting, or he can imagine and invent novel things.” (Unfinished manuscript, The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

In view of the response I received to my article, “Proof that attributing consciousness to the brain is absurd,” I’m adding a few remarks.

Take this “scientific” assertion: if you have the complex concentration of particles known as the brain, who knows what they might produce? They might bring about consciousness.

Who knows? An ant hill might produce a full-size limousine made out of raspberry jello. A box of burner phones in a police evidence locker might give rise to a new moon orbiting Jupiter. Who knows?

The “who knows” and “might” argument is a far cry from the claim of conventional physics that consciousness HAS to arise from the brain because that’s all we have.

Then we have the ever-popular “consciousness is a mystical entity” proposition. In this case, not only is consciousness a vague cloudy thing, the statements about it are also vague and cloudy.

Therefore, anything goes. Consciousness exists in the 18^th dimension. Consciousness was born in the roots of a tree centered in a black hole three trillion light years east of Hoboken.

Many fairy tales spring from the idea that consciousness is a Something. The Something usually ends up being energy. What kind of energy? Take your pick.

There are many errors that derive from the fact that people like to label whatever they can with a noun. Consciousness, a noun. Therefore, a thing. Well, suppose consciousness is a situation.

And the situation is: people are aware. They know they’re alive. They know they’re looking and talking and thinking and doing—which, by the way, is not the situation of a machine.

This is why the technocratic blather about connecting the brain with computers for the purpose of infinite enhancement is a joke. It’s all on the level of mechanical process.

A machine can assist human choices, but it can’t think, and it isn’t aware.

You’re aware. I’m aware. That isn’t a thing and it isn’t “energy” and it isn’t a mystical cloud.

Neither is it restricted. What the conscious-you can become aware of is unbounded.

Being conscious is a non-material situation. Physics isn’t equipped to talk about it, because physics explores matter and energy, time and space. Consciousness isn’t any of those things. It’s, again, non-material.

Various elites don’t want to admit that, because “non-material” implies “can’t be externally shaped and controlled.”

Unfortunately, most people, when confronted with “unbounded” automatically go to “mystical.” This has resulted in numerous problems, including the hypnotic power of various priest-classes down through history, who have ruled societies with iron claws.

At its philosophical root, consciousness has been warred over by both materialistic and mystical forces, each claiming ownership, for different reasons, over that which belongs only to each person.

Fascism, Communism, scientism on one side assert their “consciousness=brain” absurdity, while on the other side, various heavily organized religious institutions promote their elite and exclusive keys to mystical consciousness.

Neither side is the slightest bit interested in individual freedom or the fully independent conscious human.

They’re dogs fighting over a piece of meat that isn’t even meat.

Here are several more quotes from The Magician Awakes:

“Scientism undermines consciousness, or tries to, by disparaging its essential poetic nature. Consciousness can revolutionize the lunatic consensus we call reality by forging it into poetry.”

“Suffering and pain and isolation keep giving themselves up to art and artists, to be transformed. The paradox is, if artists (which means everyone) took that offer in a full-blooded way, we would all rise to another level of life in which much of the suffering would no longer be necessary.”

“What consciousness can invent is, in terms of mystery and joy and complexity, light years beyond what is said about the nature of consciousness…”

Jon Rappoport

Drugs, steel, and MKULTRA: engineering the super-soldier

Aug23

Drugs, steel, and MKULTRA: engineering the super-soldier

by Jon Rappoport

August 22, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The reference here is a January 2013 report funded by the Greenwall Foundation titled: “Enhanced Warfighters: Risk, Ethics, and Policy.”

The report utilized military consultants, and reflects what the National Security State is promoting as “the wave of the future.”

Of course, this is a done deal. Enhancement is already an overall experiment.

Here is a key quote from the report: “…cognitive and physical enhancements aim to create a super-soldier from a biomedical direction, such as with drugs and bionics.”

This indicates pharmaceutical attempts to increase endurance, focus, and pain threshold, but also to alter states of mind: mood, emotional range (restricted), attitude (controlled, stepped up aggression).

Whatever mad chemists can fantasize about—for instance, the boosting of leadership traits—they’ll try to induce it in the lab.

Bionics, of course, means the replacement of body parts with machines. This would function as repair, in the case of wounds, but robotic devices would be installed simply because they work better than flesh. In which case, we can look forward to replacement as a general strategy—without the prior need for wounds.

“Listen, soldier, if we give you a new eye, you’ll be able to spot an enemy combatant at five hundred yards…and this miniaturized transmitter can be joined to your brain so you can receive commands directly from headquarters.”

With utter frankness, the Greenwall report continues: “For battle, we want our soft organic bodies to perform more like machines.”

This statement leaves no doubts about intentions. It also suggests that the number of bionic replacements per soldier isn’t limited. The goal is effective performance, come hell or high water, whatever it takes.

There’s more: “Somewhere in between robotics and biomedical research, we might arrive at the perfect future warfighter: one that is part machine and part human, striking a formidable balance between technology and our frailties.”

Why not call these soldiers human drones? Launched from command central, mission orders stored in their brains, operated remotely, their capabilities completely understood as elements of a program, the soldiers would fulfill the military meaning of war: complete victory as a function of underlying algorithms, regardless of the human cost.

This is the eternal wet dream of the war-makers.

It also happens to be the environment of video games. Therefore, volunteers should be plentiful.

“You’re only giving me one new arm and an enhanced ear? I was hoping for more. What about my brain? What can you do for me there?”

For those who still wonder whether the famed CIA MKULTRA mind control program of the 1950s continued after the announced cut-off date, your question is answered. Coerced brain and behavioral conditioning is at the core of creating the super-soldier.

Think about the money. The military can’t afford to risk trillions of dollars on pharmaceutical enhancement and body-part replacement, without also controlling the thoughts, responses, and actions of its high-priced personnel.

Technocrats are surely lining up, at the Pentagon, to provide this all-important MKULTRA element of warfare.

“Hi Mom. I’m home from the theater of operations. Don’t worry, I may look different with all these new enhancements, but I’m still your son. By the way, the girls love the new parts! And the Army spent $30 million on me! I’m very valuable! Oh…one little thing. If while we’re talking, I suddenly shut down or begin talking to someone who isn’t in the room, it’s okay. It’s business. What’s for supper?”

Finally, consider this. An all-out operation to transhumanize the military could not take place unless there is absolute dedication to fighting wars without end.

You don’t re-build humans for a future of skirmishes or peace treaties.

Jon Rappoport

The US government is bankrolling the engineering of humans

Aug22

The US government bankrolls the engineering of humans

by Jon Rappoport

August 22, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

If you still remember a piece of paper called the US Constitution, you might wonder under what section of that document the government is permitted to alter the human species.

A current Pentagon plan to create a biological platform inside the human body, using it to deliver new genetic information, and thus changing what the human body is and does…well, that is about as outrageous as you can get, when it comes to the violation of permitted federal powers.

Yet, the White House doesn’t care, nor does Congress, nor does the Supreme Court, nor does any federal agency or oversight department. It’s all right. It’s not a problem. It’s a “medical” program, you see. And therefore it will help people, and the government’s job is to help people.

This is the new version of the Constitution: “the government is here to help you, and anything it does in that regard is legal.” Sign up now. Get on the list. Help overrides anything written into the Constitution.

“If the government wants to help me, it’s fine. That’s what government is for. It’s like a parent. If the daddy is injecting me with genetic material to make me better, I love it.”

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is preparing to launch these genetic experiments. DARPA is organized under the Pentagon, which is organized under the Dept, of Defense, which is an agency of the executive branch, which means the White House, which refers to the President, where the buck stops. So that’s the chain of command. The violation of the Constitution goes all the way to the top.

Here is a key quote from the DARPA proposal: “…the successful development of technologies for rapid introduction of large DNA vectors into human cell lines will enable the ability to engineer much more complex functionalities into human cell lines than are currently possible.”

DARPA plans to insert a 47^th chromosome into human cell lines. That chromosome will serve as a kind of platform that will make subsequent delivery of new genetic information much easier.

New genetic information means alterations in the body, at the level of DNA.

Engineering humans.

(For a pdf copy of the DARPA solicitation in question — which is entitled “Advanced Tools for Mammalian Genome Engineering“, click here.)

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NlfqBlnciw?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

DARPA will justify these experiments on the basis of improving soldiers’ performance on the battlefield, their general health, their capacity to recover from illness, injury, exhaustion. They can justify it any way they want to, but it adds up to the same thing.

“We will change you. We will make you better. And, ahem, uh, easier to control.”

But this isn’t a debate about how a human could be made better or what “better” should mean or who should decide. It’s an argument that the whole program is a violation of the Constitution—because if we don’t stand on that, we don’t stand on anything.

Without invoking the law of the land, we allow various people to squabble about lesser issues and determine outcomes based on random and arbitrary factors.

“Well, I don’t think the Pentagon should be in charge of this program at all. It should be moved over to the National Institutes of Health, where it belongs.”

“I see no problem with Pentagon handling it, as long as there is civilian oversight from, say, the FDA. We could also have university scientists act in a consulting capacity…”

“The President should appoint a Genetics Czar. He could supervise the whole thing, with Congressional oversight.”

“It has to be run by the government. Otherwise, we can’t guarantee it’ll be done in an ethical fashion.”

No. The whole effort to engineer humans is unconstitutional, where government involvement is concerned. As for private companies taking part, there are already laws on the books about engineering humans. The adequate enforcement of those laws is another problem.

There’s nothing much at stake here. Only the future of the human species.

If private citizens, who are the target of this experimentation, don’t have standing to file a class action suit against the government, who does? A judge denying standing would, in and of itself, create an uproar.

“Let me see if I’ve got this straight, Your Honor. We, as private citizens, who would have our DNA changed, don’t have the right to object. Correct? Call us crazy, but we thought potential victims are precisely the class who must take action. Who should oppose this program? Ants? Rats? Chimpanzees?”

If there are any constitutional lawyers out there who see what’s happening here, I advise immediate filings. Take this horror to the most basic level: the gross violation of federal powers. Bury the government where they stand. Make the point. Cut this off at the pass.

If there is any issue around which the American people should be able to unite, the government alteration of their genes should be it.

If not, I suggest consulting travel brochures for other planets.

Jon Rappoport

Scientists create false memories: what part of Matrix is this?

Aug6

Scientists create false memories: what part of Matrix is this?

By Jon Rappoport

August 6, 2013

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

MIT scientists have found a way to plant a false memory in rats. They can provoke a fear reaction by manipulating the content of neurons in the rat’s brains.

The rats remember something frightening that never happened.

Well, not exactly, if remembering implies a conscious act.

Pavlov did what the MIT scientists did. He used dogs. He got them to drool when he rang a bell signaling it was feeding time, even though there was no food. The dogs “remembered” times when the bell accompanied food.

Conditioned reflex.

But there is something conditioned reflex doesn’t cover. The act of remembering. The knowledge that you are remembering.

Why is this important? Because we’re talking about being conscious, being aware, which, the last time I looked, has something to do with being alive as a human.

Life as conditioned reflex is about machines.

What Pavlov did, what the MIT scientists did, is, on another level, all about a propaganda operation aimed at convincing the masses that life is nothing more than conditioned reflex. One program inserted into the mind is just as good as another program. It just depends what the desired behavioral outcome is.

So we’re talking about tyranny over the mind. Fascism.

“We can get you to remember anything.”

No. They can force conditioned reflexes.

(In a similar way, 12 or 16 years of public education can convince a boy or girl that the world is a bunch of slogans and phony ideals that add up to collectivism as the pinnacle of existence. Planting the reflex just takes longer.)

If you grew up in Miami, and one day, while walking down the street, you realized you had a memory of growing up in India, do you seriously think you’d accept that memory?

Having a memory (passive) and remembering (active) are two vastly different things, if you’re not a machine.

The amount of force (torture) it would take to erase that difference is enormous.

So we’re back in MKULTRA territory. Wholesale conditioning. Coercion. Disorienting drugs. That’s what the famed CIA program was all about.

That’s what it takes to blot out one past and insert another, just for a few hours.

The conscious act of remembering is more than just brain activity. Consciousness is not a function or property of the brain. This isn’t woo-woo stuff. It’s as real as you sitting there reading this, the room you’re in, the light in the room.

Unless someone can talk you out of knowing that. Unless the tidal wave of propaganda about the brain as the center of all knowing can convince you to believe you’re nothing more than brain processes.

Unless you believe that all life in all its variety can always be measured.

In which case, we have the incredible situation of a non-material YOU believing you are only material. If you want a cosmic joke, that’s it. If you want to know something about Matrix, there’s a good starting point.

There is nothing about the brain that can give you the knowledge that you UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE WORDS ON THIS PAGE.

The brain does not possess “the understanding of meaning.”

A machine can process information, but it never understands it. A machine can process information and take action based on instructions, but it can never know what it’s doing.

Revving up the complexity of a machine doesn’t make it evolve into consciousness. That’s a fairy tale sold by technocrats. That’s all they’ve got. They’ve abandoned everything else. They’ve abandoned imagination and creative power and the capacity of the individual to invent new realities of all kinds.

The basis of the American Revolution was supposed to be freedom, but of course, if the brain is the center of all knowing and behavior, the brain—which is simply atoms in motion like all other atoms in the universe—contains no freedom at all.

Therefore, the whole idea of freedom is a preposterous hoax, and people, when they argue and fight for freedom, are terminally deluded. They should just stop what they’re doing and lie down and take it.

Take whatever program is jammed into their brains.

If the morons at MIT had any self-knowledge and courage, they’d stop what they were doing. They’d shut down the lab. They’d stop bothering the rats. They’d access the open sky of their own imaginations. They’d create something. They might figure out how to launch a revolution that could take back the freedoms we’ve lost. They might become artists. They’d give their materialistic bullshit a rest.

They’d realize they’re alive and conscious. They’d realize this has nothing to do with their brains. They’d realize they’ve been living in a psychotic state, believing on the one hand that all the particles that make up the universe have no life in them—and on the other hand, believing that those same particles, when arranged in something called the brain suddenly give rise to everything called life in humans.

It’s a matrix of contradiction, a loop in the labyrinth where science lives, where science tries to enlist everyone else in its primary illusion.

(See Scott Noble’s film Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century (posted at YouTube)).

Jon Rappoport

Do you mind if we store your DNA data and share it with everybody?

Aug5

Do you mind if we store your DNA data and share it with everybody?

By Jon Rappoport

August 5, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Helen Wallace, writing at Public Service Europe—“UK Building DNA database in the NHS ‘by stealth’”:

“In April, the Caldicott Committee, including British government chief scientist Sir Mark Walport proposed new rules for data-sharing electronic medical records. What they failed to make transparent is that genetic information including whole genomes will be integrated into medical records in the future – as part of a plan proposed by the Wellcome Trust, of which Walport used to be director.

“The plan, which is backed by United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron, involves sequencing the DNA of everyone in England and adding this information as an attachment to each person’s medical file. The data will then be shared with commercial companies including private healthcare companies, the pharmaceutical industry and web-based companies such as Google; without people’s knowledge or consent…Following statistical analysis of stored data, risk predictions made using computer algorithms will be fed back to individuals telling them the diseases they are expected to develop in the future.

“It raises serious concerns about government surveillance because it amounts to building a DNA database in the National Health Service by stealth. As well as commercial companies, the police, security services and government departments will be able to track every individual and their relatives. The data will be stored by the new Health and Social Care Information Centre and sold to private companies and government-run institutes worldwide – from the United States to China. Other personal records stored by the government, for example, from social care and education will be linked to people’s electronic medical records and also shared in [the] future. There is also a danger that risk predictions will lead to stigma and discrimination from insurers and employers.”

What’s that? The overwhelming majority of DNA data doesn’t prove useful in predicting, treating, or curing disease? Who cares?

Not a problem.

That’s because a) the more basic purpose of the project is surveillance and b) the medical cartel is an expert when it comes to faking cures.

“Mr. Jones, from your DNA records, we see you’re going to develop skin cancer in 10 years. We have medication for you. It’ll greatly improve your chances of staying healthy (as long as you never leave your house and keep the shades down).”

It isn’t enough to (mis)treat current illness. The medical boys and their pharmaceutical partners are eager to explore the market of not-yet disease.

Social scientists, software designers, welfare workers, patient advocates, and various other bogus experts will take on the challenge of handling people whose future illnesses are predicted.

For example, “what can we sell these frightened people?” will rank high on the list of priorities.

“Ms. Smith, if you decide to go ahead and marry your boy friend, knowing he will develop crippling arthritis at age 40, you’ll need extensive psychological counseling and training…we recommend a full four-year program leading to a degree in Victim Partnership.”

As for surveillance and tracking, it’s paradise for government snooping agencies and corporate contractors.

Let’s say a thief breaks into a high-end jewelery store after hours and steals diamonds. Immediately, all samples of retrievable DNA found in the store are analyzed. The thief wore gloves, a mask, and was covered in six layers of clothing, from head to toe? Doesn’t matter. DNA recovery is SOP.

A hundred different samples are collected in the store. They’re run through a standard program and matched to the national DNA database. The names of potential suspects are flagged in files. Police interviews are conducted. The suspects are put on a watch list and their DNA signatures are moved to a priority category—which means more intense future tracking…

It’s a party for the Surveillance State.

You apply for a job. In your interview, the human resources clerk tells you: “Sir, I see by your DNA file you were present at two crime scenes in the past three years. The bombing of a cruise ship and the theft of candy from a drug store. Any comment?”

“I didn’t commit a crime! I was just there!”

“Well, those felonies remain unsolved. And I’m wondering whether you have a tendency to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We call this condition Associative Propensity. The latest studies indicate 12 percent of population is afflicted. It’s a negative classification that’s predictive for workplace errors…”

In all this grinding machinery, the notion that your DNA somehow belongs to you and is private has gone the way of the dinosaur.

If you think finding a map of your own DNA by way of a public search engine allows you to file suit, you’re sadly mistaken. It’s no more significant than finding your picnic photo posted on a Facebook page.

News headlines will undergo a revolution: “Movie star will become an alcoholic in ten years, doctors say.”

“Shocker: Secretary of Defense claims eating GMO corn changed his DNA profile, allowed him to avoid clinical depression.”

If you think my extrapolations are too far-out, consider the fact that a recent analysis of hundreds of thousands of samples from diagnosed flu patients revealed that 84% showed no sign of any flu virus. Not only didn’t these people have the flu, the idea that a flu vaccine could have prevented their illness is, a priori, completely absurd. But this doesn’t stop the government from hyping the vaccine.

We’re already in la-la land. And very few people care.

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Science Fraud

Freedom is obsolete, go with genes

297 scientists, experts sign statement: GMOs not proven safe

Truth about the Seralini rat-tumor-GMO study explodes

Social sciences and the destruction of individuality

Magic trick: promoting diseases that don’t exist

Myths and fairy tales about consciousness

Drugs, steel, and MKULTRA: engineering the super-soldier

The US government is bankrolling the engineering of humans

Scientists create false memories: what part of Matrix is this?

Do you mind if we store your DNA data and share it with everybody?