HOW TO WIN A MODERN WAR

GET THEM “ON EVERYTHING”

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PENTAGON

Last night, my friend, LG, solved a problem in five minutes the Pentagon has been struggling with for decades. How do you win a modern war in full view of the media?

When you go back to World War 2, you find there was an ironclad strategy. Destroy the enemy’s country. Bomb everybody. Level cities. Civilian deaths? Who cares? In classical terms, destroy the enemy’s will to fight. It worked.

But with the rise of television, things changed. People didn’t want to see dead bodies and maimed persons while they were eating dinner every night. Vietnam was a PR disaster. Americans, confronted by the details of combat, were horrified.

And now, skipping ahead, we have Afghanistan, where American soldiers can’t fire a weapon at a suspected Taliban until they see proper ID. They have to radio back to headquarters for permission.

“Got a guy at twenty yards. He’s wearing a stained white robe and a head-thingy. Beard, no shoes. Can’t tell if he’s from a village we’re rehabbing. Requesting okay to blow his head off…”

And the villages. US soldiers are welfare workers. They’re shoring up huts, putting in roads, holding night classes in Principles of Three-Branch Government. A little community sing, a few marshmallows.

So instead, back off. Pull all the troops out. Forget the feel-good strategy. Everybody knows we’d have to stay there forever—kill Taliban, they hide, we leave, they come back. Why go up against that plan? Just vacate the country.

Then…put a winner of a plan into effect. Something that actually makes sense.

Start easy. From hundreds of planes, drop fast food all over Afghanistan. Burgers. Fishsticks. McMuffins. Legs, breasts, wings. It’s a good intro. Lighten everybody up a little. Two weeks of chicken done right.

Then, from those same planes—candy. Fifty thousand tons of gum drops, jelly beans, Almond Joy, Reese. Hell, Reese all by itself is unstoppable.

Sugar! You’re telling me people can resist sugar? Under threat of death, they’ll be scooping that stuff up off the frozen ground. In high mountain areas, tribes live on lichen cooked over yak turds. All of a sudden, here come 20 colors of jelly beans out of the sky!

Give them enough sugar, and they’ll be running in circles one minute and lying back and napping the next. It’s a law of biology.

A month of heavenly candy.

Then next, a million cases of various diet sodas dumped out of our planes. Get it? Aspartame! Weird those dudes out. Three months of diet-everything. They won’t be able to find their way back to their yurts. They’ll be bumping into rocks and trees, howling at the moon.

Now comes the heavy action. Carpet bomb the whole country with little TV sets. Satellite TV! Soaps, Judge Judy, Rachel Ray, Dave and Jay, Oprah, Little House on the Prairie reruns, Law and Order, CSI, and wait for it—sports! Soccer, and, you guessed it, women’s beach volleyball! You kidding me? Amazons wearing almost nothing running on sand, hour after hour. And the NFL! Cowboys, Steelers, Giants, Green Bay, Bears. ESPN.

“Hey, Ahmed, it’s time for the Friday night clan meeting.”

“Shh! Victoria and Billy just adopted a baby. She can’t have kids. Billy paid two million for a little girl. But it’s actually Daisy’s baby. Nobody knows it.”

The fabric of Afghan society comes apart at the seams.

US planes return with a few million cases of Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Ritalin. Open the bomb-bay doors. Drop those suckers right down the slot. And tranqs! Valium! Old stocks of Librium.

On the ground, pills and capsules everywhere. You can’t walk by without picking a few up and swallowing them. It’s another law of nature.

So after a few more months, you’ve got the whole country hooked on meds. They’re weaving and wobbling and gnashing their teeth, when they aren’t completely zoned. A suicide problem begins to develop.

And finally, out of those blessed US planes comes the coup de grace. Computers. Wireless. Afghanistan is online, which means—that’s right—porn! Porn and gambling!

This, in a matter of, oh, six months, will totally destroy the Afghan culture, such as it is. You see, my friends, we’ve got weapons we didn’t know we had. Real weapons!

So we let all this simmer for a while. We let things take their natural course. We’re out of there. Not a single US casualty is being sustained.

And then, just to make sure we have the entire country enveloped and warped beyond repair, the CIA begins to beam, through all those TV sets and computers—take a deep breath—ready?—the AFGHAN HOME SHOPPING NETWORK!

Boom!

Oh yes, my friends, where there’s a will, there’s a way. Don’t bother bringing up the fact that the Afghan people don’t have money. They’ll find money! They’ll sell each other if they have to! They’ll pawn their yaks and rifles and take out second mortgages on their shacks and huts and yurts.

The Afghan Home Shopping Network won’t be denied. Shampoos, soap on a string, Kleenex, shower caps, earrings, toe rings, rugs, couches, square-dance instruction CDs, kitchen knives, scarves, fans, belts, undies, shoes, pet food, bird houses, pot holders, battery operated hair dryers, perfume, books on tape, storage containers, stockings, lipstick, eye shadow, bathrobes, self-improvement tapes, bracelets…

Victory.

Absolute conquest.

And not a shot fired.

And when the population begins to develop all sorts of symptoms from this all-out campaign, as they surely will, we send in the doctors and the shrinks, and they diagnose! They diagnose diseases and illnesses and disorders from here to Sunday, and they prescribe more drugs.

It’s a party.

We do to the Afghans what has been done to us.

Because you see, that’s the pattern. We know it intimately, because we’ve bought into it ourselves.

We’re already that kind of society. Who better to impose it on another population?

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

LOUGHNER AND THE ARIZONA SHOOTING

Drug taker with weapons. Irrational outbursts. Was on the police radar for some time. People were scared of him. One ex-girlfriend says she thinks he’d been faking mental illness.

Liberal media straining—to the point of hernia—to tie him into: right-wing radio, the Tea Party, Arizona immigration law, “uncivil national discourse.”

But no evidence offered.

Hillary labels him an “extremist.”

Obama’s largely irrelevant, misdirected, and self-serving speech lauded by liberal media as a masterpiece.

A few legislators foam at the mouth, want a bill outlawing “incendiary speech” against politicians. Sure. Let’s all opt for rainbows and gentle purring. Bring in the thought police. Set up a Dictionary Task Force and a list of words you may not utter.

Congressman Peter King wants a law banning firearms in the vicinity of a politician. Drag the TSA into it and they can feel up millions of citizens who don’t even fly.

And of course, we have the standard liberal cry to take away guns from everyone except cops and criminals.

Psychiatrists use these occasions to stump for “early detection” of mental illness. They issue lists of warning signs, extol treatment, and in general make ignorant people think mental illness is all around them. It’s good for business—the business of psychiatry.

The NY Daily News publishes photos of a backyard “satanic shrine” behind Loughner’s house. One independent commentator is calling him a Jewish liberal satanist.

Loughner was into heavy metal. Maybe that makes him a drug-taking Jewish liberal satanic heavy metal freak.

Therefore, which group can we connect him with, so we can we can call him a representative of that group and smear the whole group?

Heavy metal people? Jews? Liberals? Drug heads? Satanists?

Just as the Oklahoma Bombing occurred at the moment when the militias and the patriot movement were on the rise, and just as the president (Clinton) used the occasion to tell the American people to “come home to the government,” we now have a crime that’s being used to turn the people away from the Tea Party and conservatism in general. Suddenly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Michael Savage and others are the real reason Loughner went on a killing spree at the Safeway.

Meanwhile, there is supposed to be something called a crime investigation going on, prior to prosecution.

In particular, what was Loughner doing during the weeks prior to the shooting? Who was he talking to? What plans was he making? Did he and Congresswoman Giffords know each other?

Will local police or FBI dig into that period of time, or will they brush it off because they already have enough witnesses to go to trial?

Normally, unless there is a compelling reason to think the suspect had help or was part of a group effort, the investigation cuts corners.

And there is no reason to assume law enforcement, in this case, will extend their net even more widely and look into less obvious connections Loughner may have had.

Lougner’s court-appointed attorney, Judy Clarke, a passionate foe of the death penalty, will do everything she can to keep her client off death row. She has succeeded with several high-profile clients: Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber; Zacararias Moussaoui; and Eric Rudolph, the Olympics bomber.

Was Lougner seeing a psychiatrist? Had he ever seen one? Did he ever receive a drug prescription for, say, depression? Was he on one of the SSRI meds—which can cause violent behavior—within the last year of the shooting?

Police tend to avoid that area.

The Democrats are trying to use the killings to fortify their voter base and reel in independent voters for the 2012 election. “Well, we knew something like this would happen, sooner or later, with all the hate speech on right-wing talk radio.”

So far, I’d say it’s not working. Connecting Loughner to the political right comes across as a transparent piece of campaigning. But fear is a hard thing to assess. Many Americans might feel that, somehow, Loughner is, in fact, a symptom of “the national polarity produced by right-wing pundits.”

On January 8, at 4:09PM, Dan Gibson posted some Loughner material on The Range, a Tucson weekly. Words from the accused killer. They are weird exercises in logic, combined with disjointed comments about “a new currency” and “a rare bird” sitting on his shoulder. There are also a few oblique remarks about government and language.

I would speculate that drugs played a part in Lougner’s statements. There have been reports that he took a plant drug called salvia, which is hallucinogenic and, in high doses, quite disturbing to some people. It produces a sense of spatial dislocation. Combined with Lougner’s practice of what he calls “conscience dreaming,” he could easily have become unhinged.

Reading over the Lougner quotes, one can imagine that this is the sort of language that could be provoked by mind-control experiments, but on the other hand, the statements could simply have been the product of a flipped-out person.

One important takeaway from all this chaos—the public is being trained to infer that anyone who “speaks oddly” or who has off-center ideas is a potentially dangerous criminal. This claim has been a common thread through assassinations: JFK, RFK. It was present with the Virginia Tech shooter, the Unabomber, the Columbine shooter, and other killers.

“Watch out for people around you who aren’t normal, who have odd things to say. Watch out for people who are loners, who stray from the average. Watch out for people who propose different realities. Watch out for people who criticize the government.”

This in itself is mass programing; this is mind control being exercised on the public, to keep people in line.

Psychiatrists are trotted out to make authoritative statements about disorders and abnormal behavior, and their potential connection to violence.

At a time when people are experiencing dislocation and pain themselves, because the economy has sunk to new lows, when people are becoming depressed and angry about their lives and the failure of the government to take real actions that will stimulate a recovery, we are strongly advised to walk straight ahead and behave.

Submit; don’t stray off course. Conform. Don’t think outside the consensus.

This is the program.

“See what happens when an individual tries to step outside ordinary reality? He becomes a murderer. This is what waits for anyone who fails to think in the same way that his neighbor thinks.”

This is a form of social engineering, and it is being worked hard at this moment.

The propagandists are the foot soldiers of Consensus Reality. Their job is to express shock, disdain, and criticism at what is essentially any departure “from what we all know” is acceptable thought and behavior.

Their job is to scare Americans straight. Straight into a mold of obedience.

Loughner, by implication, is a symbol. A symbol of what can happen to you if you begin to think for yourself.

No one comes out and says this, of course. But it’s there.

Television commentators exude a sense that they know what normal behavior is all about: “this is the America we all inhabit.” Therefore, they can also, by implication, judge what thoughts or statements constitute a departure from the average—and these are what we must avoid.

It’s preposterous, of course. But it has an effect on the public.

To bolster this piece of social engineering, psychiatrists appear and cite statistics about millions of people who have a mental disorder and need treatment. The figures are cooked. They’re extrapolated from definitions of “mental imbalance” dreamed up by committees, in order to sell psychotropic medications.

This is the medicalization of society.

Finally, as many have observed, the coming-together moment in Tucson after the shooting wasn’t a memorial, it was an event. The White House put it on: “Together We Thrive—Tucson and America.” T-shirts carried the message, and signs were placed on seats for Obama’s speech.

To say this was in bad taste is an egregious understatement. Why didn’t they just call it a campaign whistle stop? Stunning.

And don’t forget, the administration wants to squash the Arizona immigration law. They want to wire citizens of that state to the federal government, rather than to their own state government. In that light, could the meaning of the “event slogan” be any clearer?

The White House, with the assistance of the press, wants to plant a suggestion in the public mind: “Arizona? That’s the crazy state that’s taking the law into its own hands. They want to stop immigration. They’re gun-toting right-wing crazies. And look what happened? One of their own spun out of control and killed a federal judge and almost killed a Congresswoman and killed a nine-year-old girl. This isn’t America. This isn’t what America means. Come home to the federal government.”

You want to talk about bulls eyes and targets and cross-hairs? The state of Arizona is directly in the White House’s propaganda sights.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

Nullification of Federal Power

by Jon Rappoport

December 18, 2010

The US Constitution was written to establish a list of federal powers, and to reserve, for the states and the people, everything else.

In 1798, Thomas Jefferson pondered this matter, because the Congress had just passed the four Alien and Sedition Acts, which he opposed.

Jefferson maintained these Acts were illegal, because the federal government had no power to create them.

Secretly, he authored a text that became known as the Kentucky Resolution. Its opening statement pronounced two general principles: the individual states maintained all powers not specifically granted, in the Constitution, to the federal government, and the federal government was not the final judge of how far its own powers extended.

“…whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the [central] government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party [each state] has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

According to Jefferson and his allies, the states could nullify laws passed by the federal government, after judging them to be an exercise of illegitimate central power.

Now, in 2010, groups of Americans are resuscitating these principles. One objective is the nullification of ObamaCare. Twenty states are pursuing this course and claiming that compulsory national health insurance is a matter beyond the scope of the federal government.

Medical marijuana and gun ownership rights are two more issues in the spotlight.

But these modern nullification groups are not limiting themselves to campaigns against specific federal laws and regulations. They are enunciating the general principle of nullification.

Each state, through passage of a law, for example, can refuse to honor or obey a federal law that represents unconstitutionally taken central power.

Behind all these actions is a point about the composition of the Union. Was it meant to be a tight and uniform structure, or was it intended to be a loose federation, in which some federal laws were obeyed by some states and nullified by others?

In the current political climate, after decades of increasing federal control, it appears to many Americans that a loose federation would represent sheer chaos and unworkable government.

But is that an authentic perception, or just a nervous complaint based on habit and passive acceptance of top-heavy power?

For example, suppose California relaxed its attitude toward treatment of cancer by means other than chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation, while New York maintained the stranglehold on the three big therapies? Would this be untenable? Would the union collapse overnight, or would the free market deal with the differences?

Suppose Georgia rigorously enforced all laws concerning marijuana possession, while Colorado ignored them?

Suppose Massachusetts demanded that every resident pay toward mandated health insurance, while Texas decided that health insurance was an individual choice?

Does diversity in the states amount to rebellion against all that is American, or is it just an expression of free will?

Many pundits claim that, although state nullification of federal laws is well intended, and may actually be a good idea, it would never work, because the federal government would send in agents to enforce its laws.

Really? Suppose the Texas legislature and the governor decide that ObamaCare is unconstitutional and they strike it down? And suppose federal troops are sent in? Do you think the rest of America would sit by passively, or would there be a huge outcry against Washington power, as the governor and Texas legislators are carted off to jail? I’m not talking about armed insurrection. I’m talking about 24/7 news outlets and the internet and tweets and the power of the voices of the people.

And suppose Texas didn’t stand alone. Suppose 15 other states nullified ObamaCare. Would we have 15 federal-troop sorties into those states to make arrests?

Ah, but you say, none of this would ever happen. It’s a fantasy. To which I reply: everything is a fantasy until it happens.

“Hello, this is CNN State Watch, reporting on the week’s results in state legislatures. After Monday’s passage of the federal medical-speech law, making it a crime to oppose the administration of vaccines, twenty-two states promptly nullified the law. Here is the list of those states, headed up by Ohio, where the governor issued an executive order only hours after the president signed the legislation in the Rose Garden. The president stated that he expected a greater percentage of states to strike down the new law, and was gratified by the result. He’s spending the weekend at Camp David, where he and the first family will be watching the 3-D version of Lady Gaga Goes to Mars…”

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

RAPPOPORT ON RADIO X

DECEMBER 15, 2010. Yesterday, I did a one-hour commentary on nullification of excessive power and a history of America as it might have been and still could be. It’s one of the best commentaries I’ve done since I started my show, and I recommend it to you.

www.ProgressiveRadioNetwork.com

Click on the archive and scroll down to my name. The archived shows usually take a couple of days to post after the live broadcast.

I’m on with guests and commentary every Wednesday at 4-5PM PACIFIC TIME.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

WHEN HEALING MEETS MARKETING

THE PERFECT STORM

By Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

DECEMBER 5, 2010. About ten years ago, I decided that the medical cartel could become the most dangerous of all power groups on the planet. I have not changed my mind.

My decision is based on looking up the road 40 or 50 years and inferring what the picture will look like then.

It’s clear to me that drug companies, as they carve up markets and create new markets, are eagerly anticipating the day when every human, from cradle to grave—actually from inside the womb—has the status of Patient.

A person is born a patient and dies a patient. And in between, he receives 40 or 50 key diagnoses of physical and mental diseases/disorders and takes prescribed drug and surgery treatments.

More than that, though, he is stamped with the label, Patient, and he learns that everyone is in the same boat. “We’re all patients, this is a medical world, and it’s normal to be disabled in some way.”

People become proud, yes, proud to be victims. They wear their diagnoses as badges of honor. If you can’t see this trend, you’re not looking.

And universal health care insurance guarantees continuous treatment all the way along the line.

Every medical diagnosis becomes an excuse not to perform, not to excel, not to pursue big goals with large ambition.

Nowhere in the search to gain recognition as a victim do circumstances conspire so well as in the medical arena. It’s perfect. There’s no argument. The doctor told you you have X disease. That’s that. It’s not political. It’s not agenda-driven. It’s science. The proof is laid out on a silver platter. You ARE a victim.

In the coming future, every move a person makes, every step he takes will come under the umbrella of the doctor.

And, again, the main supporter of this system will be the patient himself. That’s how beautiful the marketing is.

In case you’ve been living in a cave for the last 30 years, drug companies and their researchers can invent any vague disease label they want to—and then they can invent five or six sub-categories of the label—and they can set out rules on how to diagnose each sliver of the label—and of course the doctors will make these diagnoses and prescribe drugs. It’s marketing and “healing” at the same time.

Parents who don’t have a clue will submit their children to this system—especially if the government pays for it—and the children will grow up trained to think of themselves as patients/victims…and the only contest will be: who has the most drastic diagnoses and treatments? Who can most proudly wear the badge of honor as Patient?

“Last month, they had to remove my head for five minutes while they fixed my brain.”

“Wow. Well, they put me in a body cast for three months and I couldn’t move, except for my left thumb.”

Cradle to grave.

If you go back and read Huxley’s Brave New World again, you’ll notice the factor of “patient pride.” It isn’t just that the society is controlled, the citizens are idealistic about it.

That’s where the victim industry is heading.

Against it, we have, what?

A little thing called individual freedom. Which includes the right to refuse medical treatment, no matter who prescribes it under what regulations.

People imagine that this right is some arcane matter best debated in medical-ethics journals. It’s an obscure curio.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

As I’ve been writing, the ObamaCare plan contains the seeds of a future in which, by law, the citizen will have less freedom to determine his own medical fate. The walls will gradually close in.

The Founders knew what they were talking about when they warned of the incursion of government and the loss of freedom. At every crossroad, since then, the issue of freedom has resurfaced as the unavoidable key factor.

Well, we’re at one of those crossroads again.

JON RAPPOPORT

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

PART TWO, SERIOUS CONSULTING

WHAT IS “CHANNELING?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And why is this so?

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

This is the prospect for adventurous minds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the goal of my consulting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JON RAPPOPORT

for inquiries: qjrconsulting@gmail.com

www.nomorefakenews.com

SERIOUS CONSULTING

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

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

It focuses on imagination and power.

Recently, this work has escalated.

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

These people have made a leap.

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

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

Imagination equals power.

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

And do you know the consequence of that?

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

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

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

My work involves liberating the power of imagination.

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

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

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

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

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

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

for inquiries: qjrconsulting@gmail.com

MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS: CONFUSION

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

What is an antibody test?

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

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

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

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

IT PRODUCES ANTIBODIES SPECIFIC TO VIRUS Y.

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

That’s right.

This is what is called a contradiction. 

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

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

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

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

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

A VACCINE CHALLENGE TO MAINSTREAM RESEARCHERS

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

By Jon Rappoport   

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

There are flaws and gaps and holes.

How should a controlled trial be done? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

WHEN DOES GOVERNMENT STOP GROWING?

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

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

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

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

Or will they find other ways to expand their functions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government is marketing.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

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