PART 6, TAKING IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL

“THE HUMAN CONDITION”

APRIL 10, 2011. If you’ve stuck with me through this whole series of articles, I commend you. Because what I’m writing about goes very much against the grain. It’s counter to virtually all cultures. I’ve received emails from some quite thoughtful readers, and my appreciation for that runs deep, believe me.

The “human condition” is a phrase that has been worn out to a nub. It used to be employed by art critics celebrating the latest attempt at so-called realism. “Hemingway explores the human condition as few have dared to.”

The phrase refers to eternal struggle, inevitable death, acts of heroism, sacrifice, ignorance in the face of a stark uncaring universe.

The human, according to this doctrine, is forever faced with mounting problems, and no matter how hard he tries to get them off his back, they pile up, and he is ill-equipped to master them. There are no answers. There are only everyday battles against the encroachment of Reality.

In the ultimate irony, humans are riddled with emotions and thoughts that legislate against permanently solving their problems. No matter which way they turn for help, their own foibles bring them to their knees.

Well, the 1960s swept all that away. Instead, there were cosmic rainbows …and drugs.

Somehow, however, that route didn’t pan out.

Now we have a transfigured version of the human condition. It’s called victimhood. Anyone can qualify, if they present (a real or phony) tale about oppression and abuse…and the Great Solver is government.

As always, I return to my basic theme: imagination.

Imagination is capable of alchemical transformation of all the elements that supposedly create the roadblocks of the human condition.

With imagination, you can deploy and/or transcend those elements.

This is, in effect, what the playwright does—whether he knows it or not.

On stage, the most grim drama is one level removed from reality.

The dramatist (again, whether he knows it or not) is outside, looking in. If he weren’t, he wouldn’t be able to write the play.

Some people find this idea extremely offensive. They want the artist to be mired in the same swamp that affects everyone else. They want the artist to reflect what they think of as universal failure.

Perhaps heroic failure, but failure.

Such eternal fans of the human condition are imagining failure all the time. It’s their theme.

Looked at from a different angle, however, there are trillions of possible realities, and failure is only one of them. In other words, planet Earth, for some reason, is getting the short end of the stick, and apparently is dedicated to it.

“So for your next life, you can choose from this trillion-card deck. Which one do you want?”

“I’ll take the place of failure.”

Of course, Earth has its redeeming features. There is this thing, here and there, called FREEDOM. It has a bad name, but there are still a few adherents. And with freedom, you may not get paradise automatically, but at least you aren’t compelled to sign on to puerile rainbows and Brave-New-World-happy-happy android programming. At least, not yet.

You could be an artist, in the widest sense of that word.

You could create without limits.

You could use internal foibles and doubts and transform them into energy sources.

You could give free rein to your imagination. Most people won’t know what you’re doing, which gives you breathing space.

Just one note of caution: if you opt for widespread acceptance of your work as your first priority, what you create, in the long run, will sour you. It’ll turn you old before your time. It’ll make you bitter. You’ll beg for praise and that will be, well, embarrassing.

If, on the other hand, you give the widest possible latitude to imagination, you’ll invent realms that give you more than you ever hoped for.

You’ll discover you have endless energy and power.

The so-called human condition will shrink down to a distant dot on the horizon and disappear entirely.

This is not an option for the weak. This is not an option for those who desire instant gratification on all fronts. This is not an option for those who believe in saluting the flag of the lowest common denominator. This isn’t for those extol the virtues of the group. This is not an option for those who whine that they’re misunderstood.

You need to celebrate being misunderstood. You need to a build a fire out of it to warm you on cold nights. You need to expand your capacity to laugh at androids…

You need anger, too.

Now that’s a stumbling block for a lot of people. They’re been trained like dogs to beg and be nice. They’ve been taught by “spiritual leaders” that anger is a sign of an unevolved human. They’ve surrendered their outrage for pastel colors. They think their own anger will swallow them up and make them gruesome.

This is called PROGRAMMING.

Of course, if you’re not creating, if you’ve deserted your own imagination, then, if you become angry, that’s a whole different situation. You’re not operating from a higher platform. You’re in the swamp and then you’re getting angry. You have nowhere to go AND you’re in a rage. That’s curtains.

ANY emotion can be counter-productive and destructive if you’ve abandoned imagination. That emotion will lead you around in a circle and bring on fatigue and waste.

This is why spiritual systems engender decay. First, you’re trapped in the system, no matter how good it looks. Second, the emotions “inspired” by the teaching are mazes you wander in, and you never find the pot of gold. The emotions are energy-leaks. Finally, you just want to lie down and let “the superior power” take over.

One great use of anger is: it can vault you out of whatever system you’re in, as you realize you bought a lemon…and then, boom, you’re outside the structure…and you can start imagining and creating. IF YOU WILL.

If not, you sink back into the swamp.

You sink back into a sense of acceptance of WHAT EXISTS.

WHAT EXISTS is the big con on the road to what is being sold as the far shore of consciousness and spiritual enlightenment.

“You see, there are realities behind realities, and when you travel this path the ancient sages carefully laid out, you’ll eventually come to the castle which is the ultimate peak of WHAT EXISTS, and there you will find Illumination…”

“There are 573,456,769 layers of reality, and the last one is the ultimate in WHAT EXISTS, and when you arrive there, all questions and doubts will disappear.”

The big con.

WHAT EXISTS is always, in the long run, a scam.

Always. At all levels.

Teachers tell students, “Write what you know.”

Translation: CREATE WHAT ALREADY EXISTS.

“Listen, schmuck, if I write what I know, if I create what exists, then I’m not really creating. Tell you what. You write what you know, you deal with that. I’m walking out the door. I’m out of the system.”

Here is something else to keep in mind: In a culture dedicated, to its last dying breath, to WHAT EXISTS, people are naturally going to be brainwashed down to their underwear by that very theme—so when they approach the notion of imagination and invention and creation, they are going to say, “WHAT SHOULD I IMAGINE? WHAT SHOULD I CREATE? I DON’T UNDERSTAND. IT’S A MYSTERY.”

Of course it’s a mystery, because THEIR HEADS ARE FILLED TO THE BRIM WITH WHAT ALREADY EXISTS.

IT’S THEIR RELIGION.

If you wonder why, in addition to this work, I’ve spent so many years as a reporter going after the medical cartel, it’s because the future of that cartel is all about convincing people they are BASICALLY ill…as part of “the human condition,” as part of WHAT EXISTS…and the only way to manage that situation is to submit to a whole life of treatments, from cradle to grave, with drugs that, as a side effect, deflate and sedate and tranquilize the ability to…

IMAGINE AND CREATE.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

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

PART FIVE, TAKING IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL

MODES OF PERCEPTION

APRIL 9, 2011. Let’s say we have a very large piece of light blue paper, and on that paper are a hundred shapes in different colors.

There is no clue what this is.

A person enters the room, where the sheet of paper is laid out on a table under lights.

He examines it. He figures out what kind of paper it is, where the paper came from, who the possible manufacturers are, what inks were used to make the shapes.

Another person comes in. He looks at the shapes and says they are code. So he begins substituting letters and numbers for the shapes.

A third person enters. He claims it’s a form of compressed information. He examines the shapes and begins to catalog the various ways in which they are similar. He looks for common features. He finds many.

A fourth person walks into the room. He says the whole collection of shapes is a representation of DNA sequences.

A fifth person comes in. He states the shapes are shapes on a piece of paper.

A sixth person enters. He states the shapes are meaningless.

A seventh person walks in. He says the shapes are symbols. They stand for a cosmology of an ancient culture that predicted the end of the world.

An eighth person walks in. He doesn’t say anything. He looks at the shapes for a long time. He is imagining what they might be. He knows he is imagining, and he also knows the shapes are already there—so it’s a kind of interaction between the shapes and his imagination. He knows he can see the shapes in many different ways. He can see them as people, as objects in a landscape, as a hundred different kinds of entities. He catches glimpses of realities he never considered before. He’s exhilarated.

Now the artist enters the room. He was the one who made the shapes on the sheet of paper.

He tells the first person where the paper came from and what inks were used.

He tells the second person the shapes are part of an arcane code the Chinese used in 1949.

He tells the third person he worked very hard embedding similarities among the shapes. In fact, that’s how he created them. Through a list of similarities. The shapes are compressed information…and unlocking them would give the viewer access to the entire contents of the New York Public Library system.

He tells the fourth person the shapes are a visual representation of junk DNA isolated during the Human Genome Project.

He tells the fifth person the shapes are just random shapes printed on the paper by a machine.

He tells the sixth person the shapes are meaningless doodles.

He tells the seventh person the shapes are symbols that were once inscribed on a spacecraft that flew to Earth from a star system a billion light years away.

He looks at the eighth person, says nothing, and leaves the room.

Oddly, each of the first seven people only heard what the artist said to him, not what he said to the others in the room.

The eighth person yawns and leaves the room.

The people left in the room begin to argue. Another person walks in, watches the argument, looks at the shapes on the paper, and proclaims the artist is a secret agent tasked with creating chaos, destabilizing society, and eroding traditional values.

Outside in the street, the eighth person catches up with the artist.

He says, “Why were you spewing all that crap in there?”

The artist says, “You kidding? Those people are fundamentalists. They can only see one thing. Either you feed people like that what they want to hear, or you don’t feed them anything. Today I felt like feeding them.”

Yes, THE UNIVERSE IS WAITING FOR IMAGINATION TO REVOLUTIONIZE IT DOWN TO ITS CORE, BUT…

MAYBE THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED…AND THE PEOPLE ARE STILL DETERMINED TO SEE UNIVERSE AS IT WAS.

BEFORE IMAGINATION REVOLUTIONALIZED IT.

They’re very good at that.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

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

PART 4, TAKING IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL

April 8, 2011. I call them the SOB People. In this case, SOB stands for State of Being. You may recall that the verb “to be” and all its forms is labeled “the state of being” verb. It expresses no action.

It’s about Is. It’s about What Exists.

The SOB People love What Exists. They pray at that altar every day.

The SOB People look at imagination as an activity like the re-arranging of deck chairs. For them, nothing new ever occurs. Invention merely puts together what is already known. It takes ideas and images and fits them together in different ways. The present is only a redistribution of the past.

They are married forever to What Exists. They stake out their territory there. “Nothing new under the sun.” They take pride in this view. They think it makes them very wise.

Actually it deteriorates their lives and energy one drop at a time.

In their graves and beyond, they keep mouthing, “What Already Exists, What Already Exists, What Already Exists.”

A conversation with an SOB Person can be like talking to a meat grinder. When you emerge at the other end, you want to jump into a pool and drown.

Teachers in writing classes and seminars often tell their students, “Write about what you know.” This pearl has stalled large numbers of aspiring authors. I would tell them, “Write about anything you want to—especially what you don’t know.”

From the perspective of ordinary reality, imagination is all about what is impossible. If that sounds like a koan, chew on it for a while.

Imagination is that faculty that can raise the dead.

Imagination can give rise to the spontaneous creation of what has never been before.

Imagination shifts the whole emphasis of living from the discovery of What Exists to the creation of something new, a new reality(ies).

Imagination decimates the entire library of human programming.

With imagination, you aren’t buying a story; you’re inventing countless numbers of stories.

But this invention isn’t just aimless ruminating—you create something new, you express something new, and you propel it into the world.

Without that, you float in a sea of gauze.

Of course, there is fear of the New.

People think something terrible might happen if they invent something new. Their friends might ridicule them. The whole universe might suddenly collapse. Their minds might shred.

Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that there are 3,456,876,217 levels of reality, including realms so nuanced and subtle in their energies that they are virtually invisible. Okay?

Now let’s suppose that an individual can invent, INVENT, one more level that was never there before.

In fact, let’s suppose he can invent 50 trillion new levels.

This is my point. No matter how you define or describe WHAT EXISTS, no matter how wide a net you cast, no matter what qualities or powers you ascribe to those levels that ALREADY EXIST, someone can come along and create levels that are entirely new, and THESE levels aren’t in the net, they aren’t in any net, they are beyond what has been established in the past.

Given this fact, are you ready to say that the search for illumination ends with what has already been established? Are you ready to say that REALIZATION OF SELF ends with discovering some level of reality that has already been put there?

This is where human programming really bites hard. This programming assumes and asserts that, with enough voyaging, with enough discovery, one can find the Ultimate, one can find “everything that needs to be found.”

Whereas the truth is you can create infinitely.

AND WHAT YOU CREATE IS NEW.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

TAKING IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL, PART 3

APRIL 7, 2011. To those who’ve made it this far in my current series of articles, congratulations. I don’t have two tickets to Hawaii for you or a new car, but I tip my hat.

Some long-time readers know what I’m going to say in this piece, because they’ve read it before—although I manage to come at the major idea from a variety of angles.

Others have no clue where I’m ultimately heading. They’ve come along for the ride because I’ve structured the articles as a developing mystery, and they want the punch line—which proves the precise point I’ve been making. And I expect them, once I take the lid off, to say, “Oh, that wasn’t so hot.” Or “I don’t understand.” Or “I can’t do that.” They will turn away and forget the whole thing.

But somewhere in the readership, there may be a few people who grasp the import, and they will see a kind of daylight that has previously escaped them. And they will take the reins and go for the ride.

Okay.

The obsession to discover What Exists is the greatest distraction known to humans. It goes a lot farther than mere curiosity. It swallows up whole lives.

The enduring hope is that what is behind the locked door will somehow immediately confer new power to the seeker, will forever alter his life.

When that doesn’t happen, instead of trying to figure out where the deception came from, most people embark on another mystery, another secret, with the same hope.

And so I offer this; part-metaphor, part-truth: The human being was placed in a universe that appeared to beg for discovery of its secrets.

The die was cast. Humans would forever try to satisfy that hunger.

They would never suspect there was another way. They would never graduate, through a fundamental shifting of gears, up on to another echelon.

They would never guess that you have to game the system that is rigged to defeat you.

You have to turn the con around.

If things (life) are designed to subvert you…BECOME A DESIGNER.

If art and artifice—universe and human psychology—conspire to make you eternally search for meaning…INVENT MEANING.

If What Exists proves to be an endless labyrinth, landing you, finally, back at the starting gate…INVENT WHAT EXISTS.

If reality is created to gobble you up in a voyage for answers and solutions…CREATE REALITY.

If all the elements of the Continuum hem you in…BECOME AN ARTIST AND CREATE MANY CONTINUA.

If your search envelops you in trying to understand the imagination that built the universe…IMAGINE YOUR OWN UNIVERSES.

If the physical universe seems to be so powerful it has a monopoly on expression of facts…INVENT AND EXPRESS YOUR OWN FACTS AND INSERT THEM INTO THE WORLD.

If the nature of reality seems to limit you to idle fantasies…GIVE VOICE AND IMAGE AND SOUND AND MOTION AND POWER TO YOUR OWN INVENTED IMAGININGS AND PROPEL THEM OUT BEYOND THE SPACE OF YOUR MIND INTO THE WORLD.

Turn the tables.

Move away from merely discovering What Exists and recognize the voyage was the primary reason you kept yourself in the dark about your own creative power.

Understand, once and for all, that every religion and spiritual system is another version of What Exists…they are murals you attach yourself to like barnacles on a ship.

Know that the further you travel on the road of IMAGINING AND CREATING AND PROPELLING WHAT YOU INVENT INTO THE WORLD, the more you will obtain, spontaneously, as a side effect, THE ANSWERS TO ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU EVER POSED AND PONDERED.

No one said it would be easy.

But it is doable.

Freedom is the platform from which imagination can spread out infinitely.

The universe is waiting for imagination to revolutionize it down to its core.

And since that is so, whether there are three or 50 or five billion quarks on the tiniest tip of an iceberg on a planet a billion light years from Earth is of no concern. Whether waves or particles are the basic elements of physical reality is of no concern. Whether a million people thinking the same thought can move a rock in the Arizona desert is inconsequential.

Coming: Part 4.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

PART 2, TAKING IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL

APRIL 6, 2011. Literature, plays, films, and television are littered with stories that contain a mystery—and at the end comes the payoff, when the mystery is solved.

For a moment, the audience is absorbed, and then there is the let down.

It’s as if a voyage through a rich forest suddenly ended in a vacuum, in a Nothing.

As long as the secret and the mystery can be prolonged, you have the audience with you. But when the solution is revealed, all you have is the thirst for another mystery. “Tell us more! Tell us another one! Give us another puzzle!”

An ancient manuscript, an unexplored cave, a probe sent to a distant planet…there is a powerful desire to come to the punch line…and then…boredom edges in.

I once had a conversation with a modern guru in the field of self-improvement. He is a very successful author and lecturer. At one point, he said, essentially: You know, I have nothing left. I’ve written these books, I’ve told my audiences what they need to know. They keep wanting more. The next book, the next lecture. I’m tired. I don’t have any more secrets. They don’t really want to know what works in their lives. They want stories. They want the thrill of the hunt for the next big thing. But when they get it, I can see them go over the edge into depression…

It’s a paradox. People want to massage a secret, but they want it to be solved. Yet, when it’s solved, they don’t care anymore. But if you give them a real secret, one that doesn’t resolve, one that challenges them in a different way, they throw up their hands and give up. They claim they “don’t understand.”

Several years ago, I went to the Vatican, to the Sistine Chapel, to see the Michelangelo fresco. I sat in the room with several hundred other visitors. We all craned our necks, looking at the famous ceiling. I’m sure that for many of those people, it was the fulfillment of a dream: to finally witness the greatness of one of the most famous works of art on the planet.

Afterwards, outside in the corridor, I watched them leave. What I saw on their faces was a neutrality tinged with boredom.

The mystery was solved. They had seen the thing in person, finally. It was the end.

I could have papered over that ceiling with a modern painting that would have puzzled them for the rest of their lives—withholding its mystery—but then the travelers would have been angry. They would have said, “I don’t understand!” No, the secret must be revealed, even if the outcome is a let down.

I’m sketching in here the anatomy of The Voyage to Discover What Exists.

It is one of the great enduring passions. But it has a vast and gaping downside. The payoff melts into a sagging passivity. “Well, that’s over. What’s next?”

Remember the Mike Nichols film, The Graduate? In that middle-class drama, the young Benjamin goes to extreme lengths to win Elaine, the daughter of Mrs. Robinson, who has seduced him. He storms into Elaine’s wedding; she deserts her fiancee. Outside the church, Ben and Elaine catch a bus and take their seats in the back. As the film ends, Ben just sits there. He has captured the prize. The secret is his. He stares vaguely at nothing. No joy. Only a blank.

Here is a statement attributed to Nobel Laureate Albert Szent- Gyorgyi (1937 Prize for Physiology and Medicine): “In my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am now retracing my steps…”

Try to count the number of cosmologies that have been floated since the dawn of time on this planet. Each one is a picture of What Exists behind What Seems to Exist. Even at that level, the search goes on. The master of them all, Plato, formulated a Theory of Forms, static and perfect Ideas sitting above and beyond ordinary reality. What a “discovery”–and yet, when he tried to put together a political state based on it, he was forced to conclude that utter fascism was the only possible authority.

In fact, fascism tends to become the outcome of every metaphysical search for What Exists, once an answer has been settled on. High priests, despots, mad rulers, kings who claim divine right run the show.

Up the road 50 or a hundred years, we will see whether science itself and its voyage of discovery turns into a genetic dictatorship.

Something that appears so right and so real and so entrancing, the attempt to nail down What Exists, has such a strange result.

What is going on?

How many seekers after the grand conspiracy behind all conspiracies become bogged down in their own journey, especially after they believe they have the answers to their ultimate questions? How many travelers along this road decide their findings add up to a portrait of a hopeless locked-down future, from which no one can escape—and then give up the whole enterprise in disgust and disillusionment?

How many people will fall into a weary swamp after December 21, 2012, passes and the revelation, the secret they have been chasing, doesn’t yield up the kind of personal illumination they were counting on?

Many years ago, a friend told me about a UFO cult that had existed somewhere in the Midwest, in the 1920s. The leader informed her followers that a great ship was coming to take them all away to a better place, a wonderful planet. The date and time were set. The leader had been receiving instructions from alien ET guides.

On this basis, all the members of the cult sold their houses and belongings (as if money would be useful on Planet X?). On the appointed date, the group was sitting in room, waiting for the ship to arrive. After several delays, the leader emerged from another room and said the UFO guides had just told her they weren’t coming after all, because the catastrophe that was supposed to decimate Earth had been sidetracked and avoided.

So there they were, sitting in a room, all dressed up and nowhere to go (and nowhere to live).

The result? The effort at recruiting new members expanded, and the cult grew! The leader told them a new story about what was coming in the wonderful years ahead—a new mystery was in progress.

THE OBSESSION TO DISCOVER WHAT EXISTS.

What Exists is, on a significant level, the greatest con game ever invented.

Everyone wants to chase down WHAT EXISTS and reveal it.

If Jesus really survived the crucifixion or was never hung on the cross, and escaped the Middle East, and if he married and had children, and if those children had children, and if that bloodline still exists…

Ten or 20 years after this great secret is exposed…how many of the millions of people who were originally galvanized by it still care or think about it….it’s old hat…we want another story…tell us another story….

Oh yes, that whole business about Jesus…that was pretty fantastic, wasn’t it…so tell us another story….

Well, perhaps I could tell you one story that keeps on driving its way through time and space and even beyond the Continuum. I don’t know whether it would interest you. I don’t know whether you would be willing to buy it. It has a few unusual wrinkles in it. It cuts across the grain of all human programming, especially the programming you’re sure doesn’t exist in your particular case.

And it definitely contradicts the whole obsession with finding out What Exists. It’s definitely not one of those I-have-a-mystery stories, so you might be exasperated. It might puzzle you and make you turn away. But on the off-chance that you would enjoy it, I’ll give it a shot…

Coming: Part 3.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

TAKING IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL

APRIL 7, 2011. For the past two weeks, I’ve been writing extensively about genetic engineering and the human future. Now I want to move to another level, one which some people will think is esoteric.

Looked at from a particular angle, the mad dash for knowledge about genes is, actually, a sub-category of a much larger obsession:

THE DESIRE TO DISCOVER WHAT EXISTS.

This may, at first glance, seem like an empty truism.

Well, of course we want to know what exists. We want to know it at the bottom of the sea and out in the stars and within our own minds and in realms outside the normal channels of perception. Of course we want to journey to those places and find out what’s there.

Nothing wrong with that, right?

But there is a problem. Along with that urge to discover what exists in all these places, there comes a glitch.

We search for design and pattern and structure and system, in order to reach the highest kind of knowledge about existence, and then all our forward motion seems to bring us back around to the place where we began: ignorance.

Oh yes, we’ve found out a great deal along the way, but about the nature of life and the life-force itself, we’re still at the starting gate.

Many physicists experience this. For their whole careers, they probe the realm of micro particles, they accumulate massive amounts of information, and then they see these particles as neutral dead entities, and they wonder where life went.

There needs to be a new approach.

Instead of the Discovery Process, there needs to be something else.

It’s not a question of looking in the wrong place for enlightenment and illumination, it’s a matter of the Looking itself.

I’m not, however, proposing we all go blind.

We need a different platform.

Design, structure, system, and shape are not the end of the voyage. They are objectives that serve lesser goals. They are real and very useful and fine and good—but they are limited.

Obsession means people don’t see that. They think the structure and system are the grandest end-points.

This obsession is a deep part of human programming. When operating at full-bore, it obscures the farther shore.

It keeps the human race in one place.

It absorbs people with magnetic force.

And all programming is meant to limit power.

It is meant to divert and ultimately confuse us.

When the goal of discovering-what-exists takes over to the point of obsession, it forms a mesh of reality that surrounds us.

It is the meta-program that allows the matrix to have strength.

It is the externally applied input that keeps the whole matrix humming.

It’s interesting to reflect on those three Matrix films, and how they disintegrate step by step, from the discovery of the reality-prison—and the rush of adrenaline which ensues—on to the mindless war—as if that kind of struggle will actually free anyone.

The collapse of the storyline mirrors what happens when the impulse to see through to the Final Structure tries to continue past that point: there is nowhere to go.

Why? Because the heroes are really only armed with the all-consuming desire to uncover What Exists. Beyond that, they are clueless.

There is something about that voyage that degrades like an element with a very short half-life. It sputters out. The heroes revert back to older, more basic programming. Fight, conquer territory, defend, attack.

One: the thrill of profound discovery. Two: then the feeling of vacuum and confusion. Three: then the reversion back to primitive hatreds. With that sequence—now you are talking about the real Matrix.

In the arena of genetic research, there is the hope that, someday, we will find a gene which will somehow “wake up” all the dormant circuits in the brain—and then we will gain back fantastic insight and power. But based on what scientists have so far unearthed, is there any reason to believe this? Or is it just one more illusion which propels us forward on the voyage of discovery?

No one wants to swallow a bitter pill. Everyone wants to believe that what he is believing will bring him into port. Everyone wants to believe the voyage of discovery will finally reveal, not just the secrets, but the immediate means to transcend the limited programming of life in this Continuum.

However, we must consider that the road to such a place is a different kind of road.

I’m not talking about religions or myths or fairy tales or the collective unconscious. I’m not talking about revisiting some paradise.

Coming: Part 2.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

DEPOPULATION, GENETIC ENGINEERING, AND THE “NEW WORLD”

APRIL 1, 2011. Yesterday, I was on another radio show; a station in Oregon, AM 1440 KMED.

The host, Bill Meyer, has the number-one rated program in the Medford area. He and I had a very interesting conversation about human genetic engineering. He extended our segment, and we talked for nearly an hour and took calls.

This subject is hot. People want to know about it. They sense that researchers are willing to overstep legal and moral boundaries and try to design “an improved human being.”

They understand that promises and pretty pictures conveying “amazing genetic breakthroughs” in curing diseases are mostly PR, because the hard evidence is not there.

On my own radio show, which airs live every Wednesday at 4 PM

Pacific Time, at www.ProgessiveRadioNetwork.com, I did an hour of commentary this week on gene engineering and the connection to IG Farben, the infamous Nazi chemical cartel. You can catch it in the archive at that URL. (There are many shows of mine you’ll want to listen to there. Interviews with Peter Breggin, Peter Duesberg, Jeffrey Smith, etc.)

Bill, the KMED host, broached a very interesting question: are we nothing more than the sum total of our genes?

You see, this is where the discussion ultimately leads. People feel the gene researchers are really fronting for a materialistic philosophy that claims we are “particles and particles only.” Well, this is the great theme of 20th-century science.

And our experience tells us it is rubbish. We are aware. We are conscious, and this irreducible fact carries a message: you can’t make science out of the core of life itself. You can’t describe it in equations and technology. Consciousness isn’t a quality the world of science can capture.

It can pretend to surround it. It can pretend to ascribe it to the organ called the brain. But it fails. Consciousness doesn’t come in a bottle. It doesn’t arrive in a welter of formulas. It isn’t synapses and neurons.

Both the infamous CIA mind control program, MKULTRA, and the current gene-engineering mania are trying to make consciousness into a matter of pure conditioning—but it doesn’t work. We aren’t dogs waiting for Pavlov to ring the bell and feed us.

Some of you will remember two Nazi-like researchers, Jose Delgado, and psychiatrist Ewan Cameron. They were obsessed advocates of re-engineering society. They both stated that an individual human doesn’t have an intrinsic right to his own personality. For the good of all, that personality should be modified.

At the bottom of their heinous experiments was the belief that the human being is simply a collection of cells. An aggregate of atoms.

Therefore, re-arranging those particles would be no crime.

A car uses too much gasoline? Build a more efficient one. A human being doesn’t fit into the overall plan of “a better society?” Build a better human.

Those people who see a nasty globalist planet over the horizon should think very seriously about the long-range role of genetic engineering in that framework. It’s there. It’s part of the growing technocracy that wants to inject “the genes of Paradise” into favored individuals and slip other kinds of genes into “lesser people.”

Talk about depopulation? You’re talking about genetically canceling the ability of certain populations to reproduce. Quietly done over time, it’s a much more likely scenario than overt destruction.

Consider this quote from Psychology Professor Richard Lynn, director of the Ulster Institute for Social Research, and winner of the US MENSA Award for Excellence (1985, 1988, 1993, 2005-6):

“What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the ‘phasing out’ of such peoples…Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent.” (interview in Newsday, January 9, 1994, cited by the Center for Genetics and Society)

And how does this go down with your morning cereal:

“Many people love their retrievers and their sunny dispositions around children and adults. Could people be chosen in the same way? Would it be so terrible to allow parents to at least aim for a certain type, in the same way that great breeders…try to match a breed of dog to the needs of a family?” (Gregory Pence, professor of philosophy, School of Medicine and Humanities, University of Alabama at Birmingham, “Who’s Afraid of Human Cloning,” cited at the Center for Genetics and Society)

Here is one more:

“Some will hate it, some will love it, but technology is inevitably leading to a world in which plants, animals, and human beings are going to be partly man-made…Suppose parents could add 30 points to their children’s IQ. Wouldn’t you want to do it? And if you don’t, your child will be the stupidest child in the neighborhood.” (Lester Thurow, professor of economics and management, MIT, “Creating Wealth: The New Rules for Individuals, Companies and Nations in a Knowledge-Based Economy.”)

This last quote makes me want to coin a new mental illness: BLITHE INSANITY OF THE UNIVERSITY-CODDLED SUPER-PUNDIT.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

INTERVIEW WITH A GENE RESEARCHER

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

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

Q: Why are you talking to me?

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

Q: Are they motivated by money?

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

Q: And that’s a bad thing because?

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

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

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

Q: No published studies?

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

Q: Complete secrecy?

A: Yes.

Q: How could that happen?

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

Q: And in that venue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: For example?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Wherever there is coercion and imprisonment.

A: Of course.

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

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

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

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

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

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

MORE FALLOUT FROM THE NOORY SHOW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There’s no triumph.

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

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

Then there’s the Mozart myth.

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

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

RAPPOPORT NOTES ON NOORY SHOW

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

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

Accomplished.

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

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

First, here are several examples of patented genes—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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