Rob Schneider dropped from State Farm ads: guess why

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2014

“State Farm Insurance will no longer run a television advertisement starring Rob Schneider because of the actor’s anti-vaccination views. The move comes after a social media campaign called for Schneider to be dropped as a spokesperson.

“Phil Supple, the insurance company’s director of public affairs, told PR Week, ‘[Schneider’s] ad has unintentionally been used as a platform for discussion unrelated to the products and services we provide,’ he said. ‘With that, we are working to remove the ad from our rotation at this time.’

“Schneider reprised his popular ‘Saturday Night Live’ character ‘the Copy Guy’ for the State Farm campaign. But it didn’t go over well with some viewers, and the social media pages ‘Science Babe’ and ‘Chow Babe’ are being credited with starting the push for State Farm to pull the ads.

“Critics of the ads also produced a video that asked supporters to post comments on State Farm’s Facebook and Twitter pages.

“’State Farm provides health insurance, and nothing ensures public health more than getting vaccinated,’” the video says. ‘It is time to end the anti-vaccination movement; with your help, we can elicit change.’”

So there you have it.

Schneider also released a statement a couple of weeks ago, stressing the importance of CDC whistleblower William Thompson’s confession of fraud—Thompson and co-authors cooked the data on a 2004 study that should have, but didn’t, point to an MMR-vaccine autism connection.

Schneider has guts and intelligence. Which of his Hollywood buddies will come to his defense?

Don’t hold your breath. I’m sure they’re staying away in droves, protecting their careers.

With rare exceptions, showbiz people absolutely must toe the line when it comes to medical matters. Support the establishment. Stump for unconscionable research on toxic treatments.

Vaccines damage the brains of children? An inconvenient truth that needs to be brushed aside.

And of course, there is this: On State Farm’s website, read a friendly greeting: “Relax…We Have Health Insurance Plans to Meet Your Needs.”

You might write them: “I like Rob Schneider’s ads. By the way, as a responsible parent, if I want to protect my child from brain damage, and therefore don’t vaccinate, can I still get health coverage from you?”

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com.

There are 2 other MMR vaccine whistleblowers

Sep24

There are 2 other MMR vaccine whistleblowers.

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

We all know about CDC whistleblower William Thompson now.

On August 27, he released a statement through his lawyer, Rick Morgan, in which he admitted research fraud.

Thompson confessed he and his co-authors cooked the data in a key 2004 study, thereby exonerating the MMR vaccine from any connection to autism.

But what about Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski?

Who?

They’re two former Merck virologists who filed a qui tam suit against Merck, the manufacturer of the very same MMR vaccine.

The suit claims Merck defrauded the US government by selling the vaccine, under a federal contract, when Merck knew the mumps component of the vaccine was far less effective than advertised.

Of course, Merck disputed this claim, but on September 5th, Judge Jones, of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, gave the green light for the suit to move forward.

Krahling and Wlochowski assert several levels of Merck fraud:

To achieve a slam-dunk success, Merck tested the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine against the version of the virus in the vaccine, rather than against the natural mumps virus a person would catch in the real world.

Merck irrelevantly and deceptively added animal antibodies to the test results, thus giving the false appearance of strong human immune response to the vaccine.

On top of that, Merck faked the quantitative results of the tests to which the animal antibodies had been added.

Here is where these two Merck whistleblowers and Thompson, the CDC whistleblower, intersect:

In 2004, Thompson wrote a letter to CDC Director, Julie Gerberding, warning her that he was about to present troubling and sensitive data about the MMR vaccine at an upcoming conference on vaccines and autism.

Thompson’s meaning was clear. He had found a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Gerberding never answered his letter, and Thompson’s presentation at that conference was canceled.

Gerberding left the CDC in 2009.

She is now…

the president of Merck Vaccines, the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine.

Major media consider this a non-story, on the level of a can of overflowing garbage on a quiet street corner.

Well, they have to consider it a non-story. If they reported it and pressed it, they would fracture the pillars of the entire vaccine establishment.

Jon Rappoport

The vaccine-autism lie

Sep24

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ve analyzed this lie before and approached it from many angles. Here I’m going to keep things as simple as possible.

Vaccines can and do cause damage.

Neurological damage, brain damage.

Parents of damaged children know this. There were there. They saw their children before vaccination and after vaccination.

End of story.

Everything else, and I mean everything is diversion. High-class sophisticated deceptive slimy arrogant diversion.

Shuffling various disease and disorder labels; the studies claiming there is no link between vaccines and autism (see also this); the hoops the government makes parents jump through, in order to try to obtain financial compensation; the legal deal allowing vaccine manufacturers to avoid law suits; the invented cover stories claiming autism begins in utero or is a genetic disorder; the pretension that autism has even been defined—there is no defining diagnostic test for it—

All lies. All avoidances.

A child gets a vaccine. The child suffers brain damage. That happens.

That’s the truth which the government buries in a mountain of obfuscation.

In general, how much damage do vaccines cause every year in the US?

Unsurprisingly, there is no reliable count.

For a sane reference, see “In the Wake of Vaccines,” by Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center. Her article was published in the Sept./Oct. 2004 issue of Mothering Magazine.

Gathering information from several sources, Fisher makes a reasonable estimate of vaccine damage—actual figures are not available or carefully tracked or vetted. The system for reporting adverse effects is broken.

Fisher:

“But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]

“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting [via VAERS]; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.

“Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, ‘Vaccine safety,’ Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]

“However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Then why does the government say, over and over, that vaccines are safe?

Because they want to lie.

What about all the studies that show this vaccine and that vaccine are safe?

The following quote will give you a clue. The writer is an insider’s insider, and a doctor. She’s scrutinized more published medical studies than all the “highly educated” science-blog writers in the world put together.

Dr. Marcia Angell, for 20 years, was the editor of the most prestigious medical journal in America.

On January 15, 2009, the NY Review of Books published Dr. Angell’s devastating assessment of medical literature:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” —(Marcia Angell, MD, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)

If the universe were poised on the brink of extinction, and it could only be saved by avoiding one more lie, and you had to choose between believing a distinguished medical expert on vaccines and autism or the mother of a vaccine-damaged child, it would be no contest. You could make your choice in a second without hesitation, and it would be the right one.

Believe the mother.

Jon Rappoport

CDC liars: “1 million Ebola cases by January”

Sep23

by Jon Rappoport

September 23, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

In “WHO: 21,000 Ebola cases by November if no changes” (AP/USA Today), 9/22, there is this:

“CDC scientists…also predict that the two countries [Sierra Leone and Liberia] could have a staggering 550,000 to 1.4 million [Ebola] cases by late January.”

CDC employees don’t know they’re alive unless they’re lying.

And many of those lies are launched in order to promote vaccines. Shiny new Ebola vaccine, anyone?

The CDC made up one of these astonishing lies in the fall of 2009. Swine Flu, a dud of an epidemic, was the topic then.

Sharyl Attkisson, at CBS News, had just torn the CDC to pieces with her investigation, which uncovered the fact that the CDC had stopped counting cases of Swine Flu. The real reason? The overwhelming number of blood samples from likely Swine Flu patients showed no sign of Swine Flu or any flu.

The hoax of an epidemic had been revealed.

So what did the CDC do? They doubled down. They told a galactic lie.

Let’s go over the Swine Flu debacle, piece by piece:

Swine Flu? The dreaded H1N1 virus? It was the “Ebola” of 2009. The whole world was going to be infected. The World Health Organization declared it a “level-6 pandemic,” their most dangerous category.

The US Centers for Disease Control was turning out press releases like hot cakes, churning up fear, promoting the Swine Flu vaccine.

The CDC had one official job: letting the press know, up to the minute, how many cases of Swine Flu there were in the US.

That was their only real job.

If they couldn’t get that one right, they had no reason to exist.

How did the CDC decide how many cases of Swine Flu existed? They took reports from health agencies in the 50 states and they added them up.

Not exactly rocket science. You could say any idiot could perform that task.

Well, along came Sharyl Attkisson, and she exploded a bombshell:

“If you’ve been diagnosed ‘probable’ or ‘presumed’ 2009 H1N1 or ‘swine flu’ in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn’t have H1N1 [Swine] flu. In fact, you probably didn’t have flu at all.

“That’s according to state-by-state test results obtained in a three-month-long CBS News investigation.

“In late July, the CDC abruptly advised states to stop testing for H1N1 [Swine] flu, and stopped counting individual cases. The rationale given for the CDC guidance to forego testing and tracking individual cases was: why waste resources testing for H1N1 flu when the government has already confirmed there’s an epidemic?

“…we [CBS News] asked all 50 states for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 [Swine Flu cases] prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July. The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico.” (cbsnews.com, October 21, 2009, “Swine Flu Cases Overestimated?”)

The CDC exposure was titanic, even if many readers didn’t get the point:

The CDC had stopped counting the number of Swine Flu cases in America, by blithely assuming there was an epidemic; and therefore, its job was done.

But that was a naked lie. The CDC had actually stopped counting cases because the tests of patients who most likely had Swine Flu didn’t have Swine Flu at all, and most of them didn’t have any kind of flu. In other words, the whole Swine Flu “epidemic” was a bust. A dud.

This was apparent from Attkisson’s article.

The CDC was lying through its teeth.

And the staggering capper on this tale? Roughly three weeks after Attkisson’s Swine Flu revelations appeared in print, the CDC, obviously in great distress over the exposure, decided to double down. The best lie to tell would be a huge lie.

Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon)

In other words, leaping from overblown and false reports of tens of thousands of Swine Flu cases in American, the CDC was now saying that roughly 1 out of every 14 Americans had Swine Flu—when their own tests showed the overwhelming number of people presumed to have Swine Flu didn’t have it at all.

I interviewed Sharyl Attkisson. She told me the following:

“…we discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was ‘the most original story’ he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others [at CBS] pushed to stop it and, in the end, no [CBS television news] broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It [Attkisson’s investigation] was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.”

Trust government pronouncements about diseases?

Are you serious?

Jon Rappoport

Snowden, the CDC whistleblower: who owns information?

Sep22

Snowden, CDC whistleblower: who owns information?

by Jon Rappoport

September 22, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Let me start with this general statement: there are scientists and politicians who are trained like dogs to believe that corrections to the deepest crimes of government can be achieved through an orderly structure and process.

This belief is a form of mind control. It’s engraved in a place where so-called rational people still entertain a fairy tale about rescue and “everything working out properly, through channels.”

Among the many differences between Ed Snowden and William Thompson, the CDC whistleblower, there is one striking similarity.

They’ve both taken government documents. In Snowden’s case, NSA material. In Thompson’s case, CDC vaccine-data.

Casual readers of the Thompson scandal don’t seem to realize that, beyond his public statement admitting gross fraud in a 2004 study falsely exonerating the MMR vaccine and its connection to autism, Thompson has sent out thousands of pages of CDC vaccine data to several people. And as yet, we don’t know what these pages contain.

(The study in question: DeStefano F, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Boyle C. “Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan atlanta.” Pediatrics. 2004;3:259–266. The link to this study is here.)

It’s estimated that a paltry 2% of the cache Snowden walked off with has been released so far. Control of the material is in the hands of a small number of journalists.

Thompson has apparently sent his data to Brian Hooker, PhD, Andrew Wakefield (?), and Congressman Bill Posey.

In both the Snowden and the Thompson situations, there is a bottleneck on release of the information.

Re Thompson’s situation: it would seem that by blacking out names of vaccine recipients, all his data could be released without further attention.

Who owns the Thompson vaccine-data? The federal government? The CDC? Of course not. The feds can “own it” only by self-aggrandizing assertion and/or force. The people have a right to see it, read it, analyze it, understand it, use it, share it.

In Snowden’s case, journalists and media outlets are deciding, in concert with lawyers and government people, what to release.

In Thompson’s case, Hooker, Wakefield (?), Posey, and whoever else might have this cache of CDC data relating to vaccines are making the decisions about release. And Thompson is, too, of course.

This is absurd. Perhaps 100,000 pages of Thompson material, which every person has the right to see, are being held out of circulation.

On what basis? Well, the usual basis: in order to “keep the story alive,” small amounts should be dribbled out online now and then; the material should be analyzed and vetted by experts—in this case, independent experts—because “no one else can really understand it”; and the best place to put all this information is the Congressional Record—back into the hands of government, from whence it came.

These arguments don’t cut it. They don’t make sense. They violate a basic principle: vital government information belongs to the people.

The holders of the Thompson data need to understand this. Thompson’s passing of the data to them gives them no special right to oversight or control.

The pages of data weren’t Thompson’s to begin with. He didn’t own them. He had access to them. He took them. That’s all. He wasn’t transferring his personal property to other people.

Presumably, Thompson’s cache points to evidence of vaccine harm and damage, evidence which has been concealed from the American people.

Past damage, present damage, future damage.

Hooker, Wakefield (?), Posey: why are you holding back the data? Why are you keeping it hidden? Under what delusion are you operating? How long are you going to keep this up?

Have you decided the data should be secreted until a Congressional hearing takes place? Are you willing to discuss the dubious wisdom of that strategy openly?

I am.

Releasing the CDC data doesn’t preclude a hearing, if that’s what you’re waiting for. If anything, it strengthens the case for a hearing—although I foresee no great effect from a day of wrangling testimony in a House Committee room.

Why do otherwise intelligent people keep falling for the solution of “a Congressional hearing?” There is no rainbow there, and no pot of gold. Don’t you get it? The CDC and its allies are powerful enough to rig a hearing. The federal government is never going to admit extreme liability in the area of vaccines. Never.

Face up to that. Accept it.

Am I the only one calling for a wholesale release of the Thompson vaccine-data?

Government scientists routinely believe they have some proprietary right to research data. They’re dead wrong. So why should a few people who now have the Thompson data assert the same proprietary right?

In my opinion, it’s because they continue to believe in some order and structure that can save the day. Their own order or the order of Congress.

There are hundreds of thousands of independent researchers around the world who can look at all the Thompson and analyze it and see what it means and says.

And there are laypeople and independent reporters who deserve a crack at it, too.

Unless this is some gigantic boondoggle and con, and the Thompson data aren’t very important at all.

Either way, we need to know. Now.

Jon Rappoport

What is the CDC whistleblower’s strategy now?

Sep22

What is the CDC whistleblower’s strategy now?

by Jon Rappoport

September 22, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Congressional hearing. That’s what CDC whistleblower William Thompson wants or is willing to deal with. That’s what his closest, or formerly closest, confidantes are looking for. An explosive Congressional hearing.

Congressman Bill Posey has many (thousands?) of pages of vaccine documents Thompson has sent him. Posey’s (qualified?) staff are going through them now.

Posey doesn’t, however, have a great deal of clout in the House. Can he gain support for a hearing?

If it occurs, it could take place after the first of the year. Earlier, say November, would be a bad time for garnering much press attention.

I would be happy to write the conclusions of a hearing right now:

On the subject of the 2004 MMR-vaccine study, about which co-author Thompson has admitted fraud: “Reasonable scientists can agree and disagree on research methods. The other co-authors of the 2004 study disagree with Dr. Thompson’s views. They believe the data were analyzed fairly. The omitted data lacked usefulness and reliability, for purposes of the study.”

On the general subject of vaccines causing autism: “The studies have already been done. Despite some misguided objections, the conclusion is clear. There is no vaccine-autism connection.”

End of hearing.

For that reason, waiting and hoping and planning for a day in the sun is an ineffective strategy.

Unless…whistleblower Thompson is ready to take the stand and assert, with great conviction, that a whole array of fraud at the CDC exists, with respect to vaccine research. He’ll have to name names and make very serious accusations and present himself as a highly knowledgeable insider. No wishy-washy nonsense. No hedging his bets. No remote “balanced” posturing of the typical scientist.

So far, I see no signs that Thompson is prepared to put the CDC, where he still works, through the ringer.

The one possible advantage of a hearing? Many revealing documents can be entered into the record, and attorneys can draw on them to file a class-action suit, on behalf of parents of autistic, vaccine-damaged children, against the CDC.

However, as I’ve written before, why wait? Why don’t Brian Hooker, Congressman Posey, Andrew Wakefield, and possibly others dump all their Thompson documents online now?

If those docs are truly explosive, put them out there.

In case you haven’t noticed, the whole whistleblower story is losing momentum. Forget the mainstream media blackout, which continues. Even alternative news sites are moving on. And why shouldn’t they? They have nothing new to report.

Do you really think a hearing is going to spur mainstream news networks to characterize “the Thompson affair” as a major scandal?

Closer to home, Thompson’s strategy is opaque. He’s retained the services of a well-known whistleblower lawyer, Rick Morgan. Morgan specializes in qui tam filings.

Qui tam is a process by which an employee of a government contractor exposes misdeeds of his own company, thereby saving the government money that has been wasted. The employee can gain 15-30% of the assessed damages.

But the law is cloudy when the qui tam whistleblower is an employee of the government, not a company:

“A much maligned and controversial group are former and current federal employees who file qui tam actions. The Act, as amended in 1986, does not exclude federal employees from being a relator [quit tam filer]. However, when a federal employee does file a qui tam action, it results in considerable controversy and numerous court challenges as to whether the employee, due to his or her responsibilities, are obligated to disclose the fraud. The courts have been mixed on whether a federal employee has standing under The Act, but, generally, rule against the relator, and the Justice Department remains hostile toward this type of relator. Concerns have been raised as to whether a federal employee filing an action presents a type of conflict of interest.” (The Bauman and Rasor Group, a whistleblower advocacy and assistance organization)

Perhaps Thompson’s lawyer has put together an innovative strategy for a qui tam filing, and is using the threat of such action as a barrier against the CDC punishing his client.

The lawyer isn’t talking and neither is Thompson.

As I’ve detailed in past articles, it appears that Thompson has enough insider knowledge to send a highly destructive torpedo into the center of the CDC.

He and the CDC are playing nice with each other. On the surface.

However, the entire vaccine establishment, including the CDC, understands that Thompson represents a distinct threat. From their point of view, he has to be neutralized, discredited, or eliminated.

Publicly, Thompson is assuring one and all that he has no intention of attacking the hand that feeds him. So what kind of witness would he make in front of a Congressional hearing?

Would he echo remarks he made on phone calls—which, he alleges, were recorded without his knowledge or permission—during which he launched a passionate attack on vaccines containing mercury? Or would he retreat to his public position—reasonable scientists can agree and disagree, questions about vaccines remain to be explored, and one subset of data from one study was wrongly omitted.

Which Thompson would show up in front of a Congressional committee?

I’m not betting on the “phone-call” Thompson.

Jon Rappoport

Interviewing the dead Albert Einstein about free will

Sep21

Interviewing the dead Albert Einstein about free will

by Jon Rappoport

September 21, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

It was a strange journey into the astral realm to find Albert Einstein.

I slipped through gated communities heavily guarded by troops protecting dead Presidents. I skirted alleys where wannabe demons claiming they were Satan’s reps were selling potions made from powdered skulls of English kings. I ran through mannequin mansions where trainings for future shoppers were in progress. Apparently, some souls come to Earth to be born as aggressive entitled consumers. Who knew?

Finally, in a little valley, I spotted a cabin, and there on the porch, sitting in a rocker, smoking a pipe and reading The Bourne Ultimatum, was Dr. Einstein.

He was wearing an old sports jacket with leather patches on the elbows, jeans, and furry slippers.

I wanted to talk with the great man because I’d read a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview with him. He’d said:

“I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will…Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.”

Dr, Einstein went inside and brought out two bottles of cold beer and we began our conversation:

Q: Sir, would you say that the underlying nature of physical reality is atomic?

A: If you’re asking me whether atoms and smaller particles exist everywhere in the universe, then of course, yes.

Q: And are you satisfied that, wherever they are found, they are the same? They exhibit a uniformity?

A: Surely, yes.

Q: Regardless of location.

A: Correct.

Q: So, for example, if we consider the make-up of the brain, those atoms are no different in kind from atoms of the same elements, wherever in the universe they are found.

A: That’s true. The brain is composed entirely of these tiny particles. And the particles, everywhere in the universe, without exception, flow and interact and collide without any exertion of free will. It’s an unending stream of cause and effect.

Q: And when you think to yourself, “I’ll get breakfast now,” what is that?

A: The thought?

Q: Yes.

A: Ultimately, it is the outcome of particles in motion.

Q: You were compelled to have that thought.

A: As odd as that may seem, yes. Of course, we tell ourselves stories to present ourselves with a different version of reality, but those are social or cultural constructs.

Q: And those “stories” we tell ourselves—they aren’t freely chosen rationalizations, either. We have no choice about that.

A: Well, yes. That’s right.

Q: So there is nothing in the human brain that allows us the possibility of free will.

A: Nothing at all.

Q: And as we are sitting here right now, sir, looking at each other, sitting and talking, this whole conversation is spooling out in the way that it must. Every word. Neither you nor I is really choosing what we say.

A: I may not like it, but it’s deterministic destiny. The particles flow.

Q: When you pause to consider a question I ask you…even that act of considering is mandated by the motion of atomic and sub-atomic particles. What appears to be you deciding how to give me an answer…that is a delusion.

A: The act of considering? Why, yes, that, too, would have to be determined. It’s not free. There really is no choice involved.

Q: And the outcome of this conversation, whatever points we may or may not agree upon, and the issues we may settle here, about this subject of free will versus determinism…they don’t matter at all, because, when you boil it down, the entire conversation was determined by our thoughts, which are nothing more than atomic and sub-atomic particles in motion—and that motion flows according to laws, none of which have anything to do with human choice.

A: The entire flow of reality, so to speak, proceeds according to determined sets of laws. Yes.

Q: And we are in that flow.

A: Most certainly we are.

Q: The earnestness with which we might try to settle this issue, our feelings, our thoughts, our striving—that is irrelevant. It’s window dressing. This conversation actually cannot go in different possible directions. It can only go in one direction.

A: That would ultimately have to be so.

Q: Now, are atoms and their components, and any other tiny particles in the universe…are any of them conscious?

A: Of course not. The particles themselves are not conscious.

Q: Some scientists speculate they are.

A: Some people speculate that the moon can be sliced and served on a plate with fruit.

Q: What do you think “conscious” means?

A: It means we participate in life. We take action. We converse. We gain knowledge.

Q: Any of the so-called faculties we possess—are they ultimately anything more than particles in motion?

A: Well, no, they aren’t. Because everything is particles in motion. What else could be happening in this universe?

Q: All right. I’d like to consider the word “understanding.”

A: It’s a given. It’s real.

Q: How so?

A: The proof that it’s real, if you will, is that we are having this conversation. It makes sense to us.

Q: Yes, but how can there be understanding if everything is particles in motion? Do the particles possess understanding?

A: No they don’t.

Q: To change the focus a bit, how can what you and I are saying have any meaning?

A: Words mean things.

Q: Again, I have to point out that, in a universe with no free will, we only have particles in motion. That’s all. That’s all we are. So where does “meaning” come from?

A: “We understand language” is a true proposition.

Q: You’re sure.

A: Of course.

Q: Then I suggest you’ve tangled yourself in a contradiction. In the universe you depict, there would be no room for understanding. Or meaning. There would be nowhere for it to come from. Unless particles understand. Do they?

A: No.

Q: Then where do “understanding” and “meaning” come from?

A: [Silence.]

Q: Furthermore, sir, if we accept your depiction of a universe of particles without free will, then there is no basis for this conversation at all. We don’t understand each other. How could we?

A: But we do understand each other.

Q: And therefore, your philosophic materialism (no free will, only particles in motion) must have a flaw.

A: What flaw?

Q: Our existence contains more than particles in motion.

A: More? What would that be?

Q: Would you grant that whatever it is, it is non-material?

A: It would have to be, but…

Q: Then, driving further along this line, there is something non-material which is present, which allows us to understand each other, which allows us to comprehend meaning. We are conscious. Puppets are not conscious. As we sit here talking, I understand you. Do you understand me?

A: Of course.

Q: Then that understanding is coming from something other than particles in motion. Without this non-material quality, you and I would be gibbering in the dark.

A: You’re saying that, if all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom. There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

Q: Yes. That’s what I’m saying. And I think you have to admit your view of determinism and particles in motion—that picture of the universe—leads to several absurdities.

A: Well…perhaps I’m forced to consider it. Otherwise, we can’t sit here and understand each other.

Q: You and I do understand each other.

A: I hadn’t thought it through this way before, but if there is nothing inherent in particles that gives rise to understanding and meaning, then everything is gibberish. Except it isn’t gibberish. Yes, I seem to see a contradiction. Interesting.

Q: And if these non-material factors—understanding and meaning—exist, then other non-material factors can exist.

A: For example, freedom. I suppose so.

Q: And the drive to eliminate freedom in the world…is more than just the attempt to substitute one automatic reflex for another.

A: That would be…yes, that would be so.

Q: In one way or another, there is a great impulse to deny the non-materiality of the qualities that are inherent to human life. Scientists, for example, would be absolutely furious about the idea that, despite all their maneuvering, the most essential aspects of human life are beyond the scope of what they, the scientists, are “in charge of.”

A: It would be a naked challenge to the power of science.

Einstein puffed on his pipe and looked out over the valley. He took a sip of his beer. After a minute, he said, “Let me see if I can summarize this, because it’s really rather startling. The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material.”

He nodded.

“In that case,” he said, “there is…oddly enough, a completely different sphere or territory. It’s non-material. Therefore, it can’t be measured. Therefore, it has no beginning or end. If it did, it would be a material continuum and we could measure it.”

He pointed to the valley.

“That has energy. But what does it give me? Does it allow me to be conscious? Does it allow me to be free, to understand meaning? No.”

Then he laughed. He looked at me.

“I’m dead,” he said, “aren’t I? I didn’t realize it until this very moment.”

I shook my head. “No. I would say you WERE dead.”

He grinned. “Yes!” he said. “That’s a good one. I WAS dead.”

He stood up.

“Enough of this beer,” he said. “I have some schnapps inside. Let me get it. Let’s drink the good stuff! After all, I’m apparently Forever. And so are you. And so are we all.”

Jon Rappoport

Paranormal You: welcome back

Sep21

by Jon Rappoport

September 21, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Throughout the madness of what we call human history, people have always managed to make room for places where imagination can operate.

This operation isn’t about the normal avenues of emotional feedback. It isn’t about solving problems. It isn’t about staying faithful to standard beliefs. It isn’t about reflecting daily life.

It’s about something Beyond.

It doesn’t matter that most people consider these flights brief respites from the real business of living. It doesn’t matter that most people prefer to remain spectators. It doesn’t matter that most people deny their own imaginations have any true power.

It doesn’t matter that the works of artists have been co-opted, frozen, and recast as organized religions. It doesn’t matter that, time and time again, the work of artists has been stolen to assist control agendas.

Humans continue to make a place for something Beyond, in the hope that they can experience what they really are.

In my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies (included as a bonus in Exit From The Matrix and Power Outside The Matrix), I recount my friendship with Richard Jenkins, an extraordinary healer, who worked with many people in New York, in the 1950s and early 60s.

Richard once wrote to me, “There you are in your apartment on Bleecker Street, painting night and day. You come up to my apartment to watch me work with patients, to find something different. I’m telling you that it’s the same thing. I hope you realize that. We’re in strange times, and they’re going to become stranger. People are organizing themselves as never before, on a much larger scale, all over the world. That’s the space of the future. Then there are other spaces, which very few people believe in. In those spaces, the most extraordinary things happen. This will be the choice that humanity makes as it creates its own fate. Live in the organized territory, or explore the other spaces…One day you’ll look back on our work together, and you’ll either cherish it or you’ll think of it as a momentary illusion…”

1960. First day of rehearsal for a college play, The Lower Depths. I walk out on the stage and look around. It’s quiet, but inside I feel thunder. Everything is different. New shining space. I start smiling. Without knowing it, I’ve been waiting for this moment for God knows how long. A place apart. A world where imagination takes on flesh and comes to life.

The theater director, Walt Boughton, is leaning against a wall. He looks at me. He sees and he knows. He nods. His message is clear: That’s right, my boy, you’re here, this is it, nothing will ever be the same…

We live in a society where consumers can pick and choose among thousands of narratives about themselves, their lives, their future, their duties, their needs, their status—all happening in the consensus organized space.

Awhile back, I wrote about a new Pentagon/DARPA project aimed at studying brain signals, in real time, to understand how and why people buy some narratives and reject others.

A common feature of most narratives is: limited life, limited power.

Or to put it another way, limited access to larger aspects of Self.

The trick of narratives, as retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy, once told me, is: built-in limitation; it looks like “desire fulfilled”; it looks like happiness.

But it isn’t.

And when people find that out, they experience buyer’s remorse.

“Why did I think that narrative described what I wanted? Why did I think it would make me satisfied?”

The space-continuum in which we live has its own narratives. They hang from it like barnacles. The gist? You can’t get out. There is nothing to get to.

Again, I refer to the brilliant hypnotherapist, Jack True, whom I interview 43 times in my collection, The Matrix Revealed. Jack did sessions with patients that went directly at the space-time matrix.

“Under hypnosis,” he said, “I had people look at the continuum and tell me what they saw. I had them describe it in their own way. Then I asked them to look outside it.”

The material from those sessions is extraordinary, in several respects. It helped me, when I was researching my companion collection, Exit From The Matrix.

Some of Jacks’ patients came “back around the barn,” as Jack characterized it, and ended up relating what sounded like dreams, dreams they would have while asleep. The narrative wasn’t smooth, it wasn’t moving from beginning to end. It was asymmetrical, just as in dreams, where the scenery shifts, where one event ends in midstream and another pops up, where the “plot line” dissolves…and a new plot takes over.

Several of Jack’s patients said their encounters outside the space-time continuum felt very familiar—as if they’d been there before.

Jack: “One patient said he found himself in a dim hall. It was very large. People were talking, but he couldn’t see them. A single voice took over, and a character stepped out of the shadows. He told the patient this was one of a great number of places outside ordinary space-time. He said there was no reason to consider this ‘visit’ strange or unusual. On the contrary, life inside space-time was unusual…”

There are millions and millions of narratives that are used to convince people that life inside this space-time is It, is all there is, is normal…

And normalcy is the key. That’s the icon, the symbol, the header, the trance-inducer. What is normal seals the deal. It labels what is allowed to be experienced. It tells people what is not allowed to be experienced.

These narratives about normalcy hold people inside the gates, and provide boundaries for Self. “Self can’t get any bigger than this.”

In the early 1960s, I was teaching at a private school in West Los Angeles.

These kids in our small private school were all rejects from the public system, or from other private schools. They couldn’t make it there. Many of them were what the psychologists called “acting out.”

I’d have to write a few hundred pages just to begin giving you the flavor of what it was like to deal with 15 or 20 of them, at once, in a classroom. It wasn’t about teaching content, believe me. It was about me surviving.

But at bottom, every one of those kids was, in his/her own highly idiosyncratic way, Not-Normal. That’s all. And what was driving them completely bat-crazy was, no one would deal with them on their own terms.

Everyone was trying to fix them. Everyone was feeding them narratives about “normal, fitting in.”

One day, out of desperation, I changed all that. In my classes, we worked up improvised sketches. Theater. No plot, no direction, no narrative, just off-the-cuff dreamtime in the moment and lots of roles, some of which they were already playing every day to a dead audience of teachers. But it wasn’t dead now. They had me and they had each other.

They jumped at the chance. They didn’t need any direction or instruction. It was as if they’d been waiting all their lives for someone to say, “Just perform what you’re already performing.”

They were actors. That’s what they’d been trying to tell adults.

And everything fell into place. They loved it, I loved it, we all offloaded a few tons of stress and a whole lot of insane normalcy…and then they calmed down. Not because there was a strict rule about behavior, but because they had escaped the tyranny of Is. And Has To Be. And Must. And Normal.

That day, the space-time of the continuum, in that classroom, went away. It disintegrated. What took its place was an island of joy. Which is to say, what sits outside this matrix is more real than real. When you find it.

It doesn’t have to be spooky.

It’s Magic Theater.

Sit down some time with a bunch of real stage actors and ask them when they feel most alive. A certain percentage of them will confess it’s when they’re on the boards, performing a role. That’s when they feel most like themselves, even though they’re pretending to be somebody else. That’s when the day-to-day space-time continuum goes away and new one comes into being.

That’s when normal steps aside and paranormal makes its entrance.

A fake space, a repressed space, a continuum of frustration vanishes.

Conventional standards don’t explain what is happening. They can’t.

Life. Theater. Theatricality. Roles played to the hilt. The Paranormal.

There is no single narrative for a human being. Sometimes the stage is dead, the lights are off, the seats are empty. But then we get a glimpse of something else. We walk up on the stage and feel that space and realize the old walls are gone and this is it, and we’re ready, and the energy comes out of nowhere and we do things we thought were impossible.

Normal disintegrates.

This is art. This is a level of life that is waiting for all of us. And whether we admit or not, we’ve been waiting for it, too.

Jon Rappoport

Exit From The Matrix: the individual is immortal

Sep19

Exit From The Matrix: the individual is immortal

by Jon Rappoport

September 19, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Out of the morass of modern society emerges the Individual. He is always there. Sometimes he is disguised, or asleep, but he never goes away.

He has the unique capacity to invent new reality. He does this through that forgotten, discredited, and buried capacity: imagination.

The individual is immortal. He is not a machine. He is not a brain. He is not the sum total of his chemistry. He inhabits a physical form, but he is not that form.

His creative capacity is also immortal.

He can accept the totality of what is created for him, and adjust himself to it, or he can invent, as an artist.

He can live by fitting in, or he can imagine and create on his own.

The creative existence, lived long enough, produces an interesting side-effect: answers to the big questions and the imponderables.

The path of imagination is a spiritual path.

On this basis, I developed the collection called Exit From The Matrix. It is not just an intellectual presentation. The heart of it is a series of imagination techniques that are designed to awaken and expand the power, scope, and range of the individual’s creative power.

There are many reasons why the civilizations of Earth are in decline. But at the root, the decline has everything to do with the abandonment of individual creative power.

As that leaks away, society becomes, more and more, a collective machine. People become the moving parts. Technocracy, which hails the machine as the highest good, moves into gradual ascendance.

The ultimate response and solution to this problem is not found in the group, any group. All groups eventually drift toward the lowest common denominator. They all eventually try to diminish the importance and primacy of the individual.

Yes, certain dedicated groups can achieve remarkable things. But in the long run (and that is what I’m talking about here), power, joy, love, invention, and surpassing the reality that has been created for us is the work of the individual.

Reality that is presented to us is, from the smallest detail, to the largest framework— including the so-called rules and laws of space, time, and energy—all this reality is a kind of simulation, a stage play, a movie, a work of art pretending to be the only work of art. That is the illusion.

That is the cosmological prison.

That illusion.

Here are the contents of my collection, Exit From The Matrix:

First, my new audio presentations:

* INTRODUCTION: HOW TO USE THE MATERIALS IN EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* 50 IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* FURTHER IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* ANESTHESIA, BOREDOM, EXCITEMENT, ECSTASY

* ANCIENT TIBET AND THE UNIVERSE AS A PRODUCT OF MIND

* YOU THE INVENTOR, MINDSET, AND FREEDOM FROM “THE EXISTENCE PROGRAM”

* PARANORMAL EXPERIMENTS AND EXERCISES

* CHILDREN AND IMAGINATION

* THE CREATIVE LIFE AND THE MATRIX/IMAGINATION

* PICTURES OF REALITY AND ESCAPE VELOCITY FROM THE MATRIX

* THIS WOULD BE A VERY DIFFERENT FUTURE

* MODERN ZEN

* THE GREAT PASSIONS AND THE GREAT ANDROIDS

Then you will receive the following audio seminars I have previously done:

* Mind Control, Mind Freedom

* The Transformations

* Desire, Manifestation and Fulfillment

* Altered States, Consciousness, and Magic

* Beyond Structures

* The Mystery and Magic of Dialogue

* The Voyage of Merlin

* Modern Alchemy and Imagination

* Imagination and Spiritual Enlightenment

* Dissolving Stress

* The Paranormal Project

* Zen Painting for Everyone Now

* Past Lives, Archetypes, and Hidden Sources of Human Energy

* Expression of Self

* Imagination Exercises for a Lifetime

* Old Planet, New Planet, New Mind

* The Era of Magic Returns

* Your Power Revealed

* Universes Without End

* Relationships

* Building a Business for Success

I have included an additional bonus section:

* My book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies (pdf document)

* My book, The Ownership of All Life (pdf document)

* A long excerpt from my briefly published book, Full Power (pdf document)

* My 24 articles in the series, “Coaching the Coaches” (pdf document)
And these audio seminars:

* The Role of Medical Drugs in Human Illness

* Longevity One: The Mind-Body Connection

* Longevity Two: The Nutritional Factors

(All the audio presentations are mp3 files and the documents and books are pdf files. You download the files upon purchase. There is no physical ship.)

What has been called The Matrix is a series of layers. These layers compose what we call Reality. Reality is not merely the consensus people accept in their daily lives. It is also a personal and individual conception of limits. It is a perception that these limits are somehow built into existence. But this is not true.

What I’ve done here is remove the lid on those perceived limits. This isn’t an intellectual undertaking. It’s a way to open up space and step on to a new road.

That road travels to more joy and fulfillment. More and more power.

Jon Rappoport

Anti-logic: the education plague

Sep19

by Jon Rappoport

September 19, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

In all times and places, logic is never taught to the masses. There is no intention to do so.

Now, in our “egalitarian society,” education carries with it great PR pretension, a fakery that outflanks any other period in history.

Therefore, graduating students wrongly believe they know how to think.

In my collection, The Matrix Revealed, I include a basic logic course that analyzes passages of text for flaws and fallacies in reasoning.

In my latest collection, Power Outside The Matrix, I include a long audio tutorial, Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation, which is all about carrying out deep investigations of major official scenarios/stories, and discovering how and where these official structures can be penetrated, taken apart, and unfolded, so all their flaws and deceptions are exposed.

These two trainings are meant to remedy the deep hole people find themselves in, when they go up against entrenched (or even alternative) “knowledge.”

In this article, I want to focus on a particular logical fallacy I call: “this means that.”

It runs rampant throughout society. The fallacy bleeds into the reasoning process, into notions of self-worth, into people’s need to identify themselves with an “acceptable” position.

Take the concept of manmade global warming. For many people, affirming this as a reality means:

“I’m defending the sacred quality of life on Earth, I’m helping the planet, I’m exposing the nasty crimes of big corporations, I’m acknowledging and shining a spotlight on the selfish and petty actions of the masses, I’m in the vanguard of recognizing that this issue represents the greatest threat humankind has ever known, I’m transcending ‘profits over values’, I’m envisioning with others a better world, I’m aligning myself with the best international scientific minds, I’m experiencing the sensation of having a larger mission in life.”

This—manmade global warming—means all that.

Therefore, how do you approach rational discourse on the subject of manmade warming?

You don’t.

There is no logic to be found. There is only “this means that.”

The concept or idea or symbol of manmade warming is so fully packed with sentiment, it resists all attempts at entry.

Here is another example: “America must field a powerful military force all over the world.”

For many people this means: “US wars are good and righteous wars, support our troops, admire the representations of war in sports, praise large American corporations, vote for a ‘tough President’, winning is everything, expand the Pentagon budget, develop a kick-ass attitude, love technology in all forms and degrees, obey and agree with institutional authority, assume that bigger is always better.”

“This means that.”

Therefore, a rational discussion about the wisdom of deploying the US military all over the planet is impossible. The amount of packed sentiment is a suit of body and mind armor.

In the case of manmade warming, examining the science behind the hypothesis becomes completely irrelevant. To even begin to look at it feels like an act of betrayal to the person who has “this means that” firmly in place.

Nothing in the person’s education has ever challenged his reflexive hard-wired “this-that” formulation. A breakthrough has never been made in the area of logic.

Instead, education has, at best, skated across the surface of “this means that” and left it undisturbed.

With some degree of accuracy, one could say that all the other traditional logical fallacies—ad hominem attack, straw man, vague generality, circular reasoning, appeal to authority, etc.—spring from “this means that.”

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

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

When I attended college in the 1950s, it was my good fortune to have a logic professor who could analyze and separate a thousand angels dancing on the head of a pin—and at the same time, maintain his great and natural charm and sense of humor.

Our conversations outside of class were moments of excitement. They were also rugged mind workouts.

His parting shot to me, as I was about to graduate: “Know what you don’t know.”

Some 20 years later, when I began a career as a reporter, that piece of advice came back to me.

I was prepared to do investigations, because I could make assessments of what I didn’t know and therefore needed to find out.

I could evaluate sources, who would often try to deploy logical flaws to derail me.

One of the great delights of reporting is discovering that the story you’re working on isn’t the story. The story turns out to be something else entirely.

That was the case in 1987, when I got down to writing my first book, AIDS Inc (note: AIDS Inc is included as bonus in both The Matrix Revealed and Power Outside The Matrix collections). People were coming at me from every direction, feeding me their half-baked theories about what AIDS “really was.”

They seemed to believe that, because they were departing from the conventional wisdom on the subject, they must be right.

Encountering that odd notion of self-entitlement stood me in good stead, from that time forward.

When I eventually arrived at the bottom of the AIDS story, I was shocked to see it wasn’t at all what I predicted it would be.

It’s astounding how many logical steps people are willing to skip over, when they have a “this means that” cooking in their heads.

Like a foreign traveler visiting a bizarre museum, I’ve encountered many varieties of sophistry over the past 30 years.

Logic isn’t the be-all and end-all. But it is, in the largest sense, an ever-expanding method you can use to probe deeper and deeper into an argument, a line of reasoning, and engage with the basic assumptions that underlie a position a person is occupying.

It’s as if you’re learning a story backwards, moving toward the beginning, where all the secrets are.

And chances are good that you will eventually encounter some form of the abiding “this means that,” hiding like a horned toad under a bush.

He’s there, he’s quiet, he’s waiting, and when you turn a branch away from a shadow, he stares at you and you know you’ve arrived at the nexus:

the unyielding stubborn source of confusion and illogic.

And sometimes, on good days, you can get the horned toad to tell his story. His real story. All the way through. And you can see him regain his lost sanity.

That’s an experience not to be missed. You’ll remember it for your whole life.

Jon Rappoport