The strange fear of symbols

by Jon Rappoport

March 13, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

Groups use symbols.

But symbols have no inherent power.

None.

They have power only when people believe in them. In which case it’s the belief that is the power.

Just as important, symbols have no inherent meaning. They only have the meaning given to them.

So, for example, the famous eye and pyramid mean zero. Zilch. They only have meaning because Masons and other groups have assigned it.

There is no closed secret world of symbols that has magic in it.

There are no universally good symbols or bad symbols. A symbol is a word, term, sign, shape. It’s injected with meaning by a group. The group adopts a consensus about the symbol.

To a surprising degree, people think in terms of symbols. They operate as if they understand what they’re doing, but they don’t. They fear the power of certain symbols and attach themselves to the power of other “good” symbols. They’re hooked.

You could make a picture of a sun emanating three rays and call it Oobladee, and invent a whole mythology around it. You could claim it comes from Atlantis, or a secret society embedded in the old KGB, or an ancient Babylonian priesthood.

And then some people would react when they saw it. They would feel fear or anger or excitement.

It’s a con.

If you took this even further and created a whole set of symbols, dozens of them, and made up meanings for them, and worked with this game, you would eventually experience an interesting kind of liberation. You would see, to a greater extent, how arbitrary symbols are, how people trap themselves in “internal symbolic spaces.”

The whole point of frozen symbols is to enclose consciousness.

Let’s say you devised a picture of an eyeball hovering in a forest. A tear is dropping from the eye. The literal mind is looking for specific meaning. The literal mind wants an answer. It can’t find one.

The eyeball and the forest and the tear don’t add up. They provoke all sorts of associations, but no particular meaning, and the literal mind is frustrated.

So THEN you come along and assign a meaning. You say, “Well, this symbol was painted on masks in 834BC by the ancient Egyptian founders of a cult of pyramid builders. The eye and the tear stand for the tragedy caused by lack of faith in eternal life…”

And so forth and so on.

Now you’ve assigned specific meaning to the symbol. Now the literal mind breathes a sigh of relief. It has an answer. It can suck up that meaning and take it in and accept it. And now you can embellish the story and sell it to the literal mind. You can make that symbol into an object of fear and repulsion, if that’s the reaction you want to provoke in your audience, or you can make the symbol into an object of victory that stands for redemption.

You can twist and turn the symbol any way you want to.

The literal mind wants an answer to the mystery, a solution, and you provided it.

We’re talking about a very primitive form of art. When people operate at this level, buying symbols and their assigned meanings, it’s an indication they can’t appreciate or fathom more complex art.

They can’t read and fathom a novel or watch a stage play. That’s too much. There isn’t a clear one-to-one connecting pipeline between symbol and meaning, and so they’re confused. They’re frustrated.

I remember sitting in a movie theater watching a crime drama. The cops arrested the wrong man and framed him for a killing. A guy sitting next to me blew his top. He started telling his girl friend about how the cops were railroading this suspect and how bad the cops were, how the suspect was a victim of police brutality.

Well, yes. That was, in fact, the whole point of the movie. The movie was showing the audience how the police operated to create a false scenario and frame an innocent man. That’s what the movie was saying.

But this guy couldn’t get to that level. He thought the movie was actually on the cops’ side. He thought the movie was praising the arrest of the wrong man.

The literal mind at work.

In the same way, people accept the meanings that are assigned to symbols, and they react to those meanings in a reflex fashion.

In truth, symbols are open. They have no intrinsic meaning. People can inject any meaning they want to.

But when they’re trapped in a layer of symbolic thinking, they can’t see that. They’re determined to accept the already-assigned meaning and react to it.

Which is an invitation to propagandists.

Worse yet, it’s a fixation that artificially defines the limits of mind.

Symbols form a matrix-shell inside which minds live. Until they don’t.

In case you hadn’t noticed, lunatic school officials have been punishing students for symbols of guns. Pop tart chewed into the shape of a gun. Screen saver showing a picture of a gun. T-shirt with a message supporting the 2nd Amendment.

Then there are widening definitions of so-called hate speech. People want to ban the word “bossy.” They want to take any bland utterance and analyze it for possible “hate content.”

Among other things, this is puerile symbol-addiction.

A story about someone burning an American flag receives far more coverage and more reaction than a statement that the federal government violates the Constitution in a hundred ways.

Presidents are symbols. That is, the public reacts to the meanings broadly assigned to their images. The last time I looked, Americans in Kansas and Ohio weren’t sitting in the Oval Office having long conversations with Presidents.

Neither, I dare say, are Americans sitting down and talking with Satan. They’re reacting to meanings assigned to images of Satan painted by others.

Artists are in a unique position. They can make and unmake symbols at will. They can imbue symbols with meaning and then change the meanings or destroy the symbols. They don’t have to live under the dome of consensus symbols and their assigned meanings.

There are people who will argue that some symbols have “inherent meaning.” As if “the universe” sits around and writes down descriptions in a book, which is irrefutable.

Even if this were true, why do people have to accept those meanings?

Some symbols point to things that actually exist. Other symbols are fabricated with the intent of referring to fictions as if they were real. In both cases, the symbols are cooked and plumped up with meanings to impart a reaction.

I suppose God is the most widespread symbol on Earth. But instead of standing back and allowing the individual to decide what, if anything, it means to him, priest classes move in and organize religions to tell their stories, to embellish and codify the meaning of that symbol. And then to fight and kill to defend it.

Here is the symbol-maker’s proposition: “I’ll give you a symbol and tell you what it means and what it refers to. Then I want you to accept it, yes, but also to imbue it with feeling and awe and power. Give that power to the symbol. Make that investment. It’s your duty. Don’t vary or quibble.”

This is how humans are made into ciphers. This is mind control.

The Matrix Revealed

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

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

The age of imagination

The age of imagination

by Jon Rappoport

March 12, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

During the 20th century, awareness of human mythmaking grew to enormous proportions.

Looking back, it was obvious that cultures and civilizations had been inventing their own myths, before which they then bowed down.

This insight was then taken in two very different directions.

On the one hand, academics and psychologists drew the inference that all experience and perception were “relative.” That territory was infected by propagandists, whose job was to induce decay into all standards of ethics and morality.

On the other hand, some artists realized the core of the original insight was fantastically bracing and liberating for the faculty of imagination.

As in: imagination creates reality—therefore, use your own and invent your own.

We are living in the middle of that precept. What each one of us chooses to do with it is an open question.

Reality is no longer a given. The tyranny of What Already Exists is gone, should we choose to see that fact.

The catch is, the challenge is, the individual must shift from a passive to active stance.

Passivity includes seeing through various deceptions but then stopping there.

There are no limits on imagination except those imposed by Self.

When the iconography of every organization is viewed as an effort to entrance and entrain minds, the alternative is individual creation.

This can be launched in any field of human endeavor.

It is all art.

Complaints and objections are useless. One either invents or one doesn’t.

Obviously, not everyone is ready for this.

Exit From the Matrix

But for those who are, freedom takes on new dimensions. In fact, imagination/invention/creation becomes the core answer to the question, What is freedom for?

The implications are staggering. We are no longer contemplating the future with a query of “what will it look look like,” or “what will it be”? There is no It. The future is wide open. Side by side, many, many individuals will invent novel realities, leading to decentralization of power.

In a sense, we are no longer looking at one universe, but many.

This is the bottom-line reason for the preservation of the twin concepts of The Individual and Freedom.

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

Will healthy food crops go extinct?

Will healthy food crops go extinct?

By Jon Rappoport

March 12, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

A new US survey highlights the ominous “gene drift” problem, the contamination of organic food crops by GMOs from other farms.

This is not a new situation. It has been present since the introduction of commercial GMO crops in 1996.

The survey was conducted by two groups: Food and Water Watch, and Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing (on Facebook). Questionnaires were sent out to 1500 organic grain farmers. From the 268 responses, a key factor emerged:

“One out of three responding farmers have dealt with GMO contamination on their farms. Of those contaminated farmers, over half have been rejected by their [organic] buyers for that reason. They [the farmers] reported a median cost of a [rejected] semi-load (approximately 1,000 bushels) of $4,500.”

Contamination is accomplished by insects, birds, and wind. It’s a fact of life. It can’t be avoided, despite establishing buffer zones between farms.

In the long run, every healthy food crop is threatened. How can pure farming survive intact, when particles containing GMOs are in the wind?

We’re looking at something roughly analogous to lab safety, where contamination is famous. Stricter and stricter measures are put in place to avoid it, but even in the most secure facilities, it occurs.

For the past decade, in the US, major activism has been directed toward the labeling of food containing GMOs. It has been an uphill battle. Meanwhile, the gene drift continues.

At what point will labeling become an empty gesture, because the overwhelming majority of food grown in the US, including organic, is contaminated with GMOs?

Facing up to this is difficult, to say the least, for those activists who have been working themselves to the bone to achieve labeling of GMO crops.

They make an assumption of what I call temporary coexistence. The argument goes this way:

“We’ll use the battle to label GMOs as step one, which involves educating the public and acquiring a few victories in states. Soon, hundreds of thousands or millions more Americans, who are able to see, finally, what kind of food they’re buying, will reject GMOs. Food growers and sellers will be forced to switch over to non-GMO. This action will starve Monsanto and other food giants, and they’ll have to concede defeat…”

That’s the best-case scenario. Ignoring several questionable assumptions in that argument, the long haul to achieve a few labeling victories will compete with gene drift, which goes on no matter who wins or loses.

You can be sure Monsanto is counting on this. Monsanto sees a fait accompli. “Doesn’t matter what you people want, we’re all GMO now, all food crops contain GMOs, the gene drift wins.”

Activism took an inadvisable turn in the road some years ago. It opted for labeling, instead of outright bans on growing GMO crops.

Activist leaders decided coexistence with Monsanto was unavoidable—at least for the time being.

The result of that decision was available, for all to see, in the nature of the television ads taken out in California and Washington state, during the campaigns to pass labeling initiatives.

The ads were weak, bland, and without anything resembling a hard edge. Attacking Monsanto head-on was out of the question.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again—being on the side of the angels in a political battle doesn’t guarantee victory. That’s a brand of New Age thinking that will take you into extinction.

Exit From the Matrix

To achieve bans on growing GMO crops depends on showing people the true threat GMOs and Monsanto pose to: human health, the survival of non-corporate farmers, and the future of agriculture (and therefore life) itself.

In other words, you have to attack, no holds barred.

If the public feels no threat in their guts, they will walk away from the whole situation.

And again, most importantly, the gene drift isn’t waiting for a political vote on a ballot measure.

“The US still leads the world in GM plantings, with 170 million acres in 2012, which produce 95% of the nation’s sugar beets, 94% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 88% of the feed corn.” (USA Today, 2/28/12)

Think of that acreage as a weapon. It launches genes to organic farms, to non-GMO farms.

Monsanto is fully aware of this.

We’re past the point of arguing labeling vs. outright bans on growing GMOs.

Those men who have been leading and bankrolling the battle to label GMOs are businessmen. They see market forces, PR, consumer power, buying trends. They try to apply that knowledge and mindset to a political struggle. It doesn’t work.

And it certainly doesn’t factor in the rates and results of Monsanto genes drifting on the wind all across America, contaminating food on the land.

The counter-plan is simple and obvious:

For starters, at a fraction of the cost of bankrolling GMO labeling initiatives, engage fearless, talented, ingenious artists and filmmakers who absolutely take no prisoners.

Within several months, spread their new ads all over the Net. All over the planet.

These attack ads feature small farmers who have been put out of business by Monsanto and driven up against the wall, families of farmers who committed suicide, outraged mothers with their babies who are destined to grow up in a toxic Monsanto world, scientists who are ready to torpedo Monsanto with the facts about GMOs, terminally corrupt Congressmen who are on Monsanto’s pad

I’m talking about ads that are in your face, in your mind, in your soul. Ads that mock, that destroy, that rip open the truth and expose a nest of scrambling maggots.

Mercilessly go for the throat. Day by day, hour by hour. Attack the enemy.

Law suits mounted by Monsanto?

Beautiful.

Counter-sue.

Make a public non-stop spectacle of those law suits.

I know several stone-cold lawyers who would love to bring Monsanto executives and scientists to a deposition table, uncovering decades of corruption and driving the enemy to a Hell beyond his wildest dreams.

After six months, the idea of banning GMO crops will start to look very good, like a very, very sane action.

Do we want to win? Or be nice, and lose?

In this kind of battle, being nice is nothing more and nothing less than living in a trance. It’s a form of mind control.

Stop thinking of the war as fanning a small spark through polite education, and trying to make it spread.

Stop thinking of the public as a mass of politically correct cowards who have to be coddled and led through hoops, one at a time.

Stop thinking of the war against Monsanto and its allies as a consumer joust in the free market.

Anyone out there with a few deep pockets and an appetite for causing a very good kind of trouble should take note.

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

Snowden, Feinstein, CIA, NSA: the internal war

Snowden, Feinstein, CIA, NSA: the internal war

by Jon Rappoport

March 11, 2014

Senator Dianne Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, blows up.

She claims the CIA made efforts to sabotage her Committee’s investigation of illegal CIA interrogation/torture of detainees.

The CIA vehemently denies it did anything wrong.

So a new front in the internal war opens up.

The key fact here is: Feinstein’s Committee has been carrying on this investigation of the CIA for SEVERAL YEARS. It is preparing a 6000-page report.

For several years, the CIA has been aware of the coming storm.

The damage to its reputation will be large.

What does an agency like the CIA do when faced with such a problem? It tries to mount a major distraction.

Here is one hypothesis to consider:

The distraction was Edward Snowden.

Yesterday, I wrote a piece titled, “Is Edward Snowden lying?” It laid out a case that Snowden was actually still working for his former employer, the CIA, when he was handed a treasure trove of NSA documents by CIA pros.

Thus, casting a very bright light of blame on a different intell agency, the NSA.

The CIA wasn’t hoping to get away clean on its torture program. But it was hoping to maintain a degree of parity with the NSA, within the US intelligence complex.

The CIA didn’t want to be the odd man out with a scandal of enormous proportions on its hands. It wanted company.

For decades, the turf war over federal funding and importance has been going on, between CIA and NSA. At the CIA, for the past several years, the prospect of taking a dagger, for its torture program, and suffering the consequences, has been grim.

Absorbing public shame as the dirty little brother in the US intell nexus, while big brother, the NSA, appeared relatively clean, was too horrible to contemplate.

So the Snowden operation was launched.

Dianne Feinstein has now shown which side she’s on—and for whom she might be operating as a surrogate. She excoriates Snowden as a traitor, defends the NSA, and blasts the CIA with a charge of trying to torpedo her Committee’s investigation.

The NSA stays silent, while privately rejoicing that the CIA is taking the heat recently reserved for it, the NSA.

In this war, there are no real winners. There is only the shifting of blame, and the hope that the enemy takes more hits. If not, then each side can console itself with the knowledge that everyone’s hands are shown to be dirty.

Nothing about these events minimizes the importance of the documents Snowden’s press surrogates have released, or the importance of true findings about the CIA’s torture program.

But this internal war does highlight how destructive and amoral agencies and operatives of the federal government can be, even toward each other, and how low they will go.

Also highlighting the enormous rotting superstructure called the federal government, which continues to move further along in controlling our lives, while it claims to be only concerned about “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

The Matrix Revealed

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

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

Final goal of the Surveillance State

by Jon Rappoport

March 11, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

Surveillance is coming at us from all angles. Chips, drones, TSA checkpoints, smart meters, back-doored electronic products, video cameras, spying home appliances; our phone calls and emails and keystrokes and product purchases are recorded.

The government and its allied corporations will know whatever they want to know about us.

What then?

What happens when all nations are blanketed from stem to stern with surveillance?

Public utilities, acting on government orders, will be able to allot electricity in amounts and at times it wishes to. This is leading to an overarching plan for energy distribution to the entire population.

Claiming shortages and limited options, governments will essentially be redistributing wealth, in the form of energy, under a collectivist model.

National health insurance plans (such as Obamacare) offer another clue. Such plans have no logistical chance of operating unless every citizen is assigned a medical ID package, which is a de facto identity card. In the medical arena, this means cradle-to-grave tracking.

Surveillance inevitably leads to: placing every individual under systems of control. It isn’t just “we’re watching you” or “we’re stamping out dissent.” It’s “we’re directing your participation in life.”

As a security analyst in the private sector once told me, “When you can see what every employee is doing, when you have it all at your fingertips, you naturally move on to thinking about how you can control those patterns and flows of movement and activity. It’s irresistible. You look at your employees as pieces on a board. The only question is, what game do you want to play with them?”

Every such apparatus is ruled, from the top, by Central Planners. When it’s an entire nation, upper-echelon technocrats revel in the idea of blueprinting, mapping, charting, and regulating the flows of all goods and services and people, “for the common good.”

Water, food, medicine, land use, transportation—they all become items of a networked system that chooses who gets what and when, and who can travel where, and under what conditions.

This is the wet dream of technocrats. They believe they are saving the world, while playing a fascinating game of multidimensional chess.

As new technologies are discovered and come on line, the planners decide how they will be utilized and for whose benefit.

In order to implement such a far-reaching objective, with minimal resistance from the global population, manufactured crises are unleashed which persuade the masses that the planet is under threat and needs “the wise ones” to rescue it and us.

We watch (and fight in) wars and more wars, each one exacerbated and even invented. We are presented with phony epidemics that are falsely promoted as scourges.

The only response, we are led to believe, is more humane control over the population.

On top of that, we are fed an unending stream of propaganda aimed at convincing us that “the great good for the greatest number” is the only humane and acceptable principle of existence. All prior systems of belief are outmoded. We know better now. We must be good and kind and generous to everyone at all times.

Under this quasi-religious banner, which has great emotional appeal, appears The Plan. Our leaders allocate and withhold on the basis of their greater knowledge. We comply. We willingly comply, because we are enlisted in a universal army of altruistic concern.

This is a classic bait and switch. We are taught to believe that service for the greater good is an unchallengeable goal and credo. And then, later, we find out it has been hijacked to institute more power over us, in every way.

The coordinated and networked surveillance of Earth and its people is fed into algorithms that spit out solutions. This much food will go here; that much water will go there; here there will be medical care; there medical care will be severely rationed. These people will be permitted to travel. Those people will be confined to their cities and towns.

Every essential of life—managed with on-off switches, and the consequences will play out.

An incredibly complex system of interlocking decisions will be hailed as messianic.

Surveillance; planning; control.

This is the vision.

It isn’t ours. It never was. But we are not consulted.

Exit From the Matrix

Instead we are made witness to watershed events: the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center; the 2001 assault on the Trade Center and the Pentagon. These ops paralleled the unleashing of better and more far-ranging methods of surveillance.

We are profiled down to the threads on our clothing and DNA in our cells. But what is our profile of the technocrats and their bosses?

They are divorced from human life. They live in a vacuum. They take pleasure from that vacuum.

In 1982, I interviewed Bill Perry, who had just left his job as PR chief at Lawrence Livermore Labs, where scientists design nuclear weapons. Perry had been given the kind of job PR people long for. But one day, when he passed the desk of a researcher and listened to his complaints about budget limitations, Perry said, “Listen, America already has the means to blow up the whole planet eight times. What more do you need?”

The researcher looked up at him with a genuinely puzzled expression. He said, “You don’t understand, Bill. This is a problem in physics.”

In the same detached sense, the technocrats who want to calculate and direct our future, move by move, minute by minute, see us as components of a complex and very interesting problem.

Yes, they indeed expect to exercise power and control. But they also live in an abstraction. They deal their answers from that realm. They exercise cool passion. They see, for example, that not every single twitch of thought of every person on earth is yet mapped, so they want to finish constructing the means by which they can chart those “missing elements.” They want to complete the formula.

They view their research as a wholly natural implication of the mathematics they can manipulate. They swim in technology and they want to extend its architecture. To abandon the program would be tantamount to denying their own intelligence. They climb the mountain because it is there.

They do perceive that one factor does not fit their algorithms: the free individual. It’s the wild card. Therefore, they are compelled to analyze freedom and break it down into DNA functions and brain processes. They assume, because they must, that the free individual is an illusory idea that flows from some older configuration of synaptic transmission, at a time in our evolution when we needed it. But now, they suppose, the engineering of human activity and thought has superseded such quaint notions. Now we all can be tracked, traced, and studied on a different and wider scale. Now we can be seen for what we really are: a hive.

Therefore, we must be instructed, within tight limits, about our various functions.

Today’s technocrats flourish with great optimism as they design the future world and its single society. If they run out of pieces of their puzzle to study, they’ll try to track the motion of every atom and electron and quark in the universe. They’ll delight in it.

Knowing all this, we know the terms of the war we are in.

The Central Planners have an equation: “free=uncontrolled=dangerous.”

By the gross terms of that equation, they lump us in with thugs and murderers and terrorists. They even see the normal functioning of the brain as a threat, as an intrinsically defective process, and they have long since decided that organ must be corrected with drugs.

We, on the other hand, must assert, in every way possible, that freedom is real and inviolable, and we must back that up with our actions.

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

HazMat alert: use robots to approach Froot Loops

HazMat alert: use robots to approach Kellogg’s Froot Loops

by Jon Rappoport

March 10, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Actionnetwork.org describes Kellogg’s Froot Loops:

“We sent a box of Froot Loops to a lab for genetic testing and found the corn and soy are 100% Roundup Ready GMO. Sugar is also a Roundup Ready GMO.

“Roundup Ready means the GMOs are sprayed with Roundup (glyphosate), a toxic weed killer, which is absorbed by the plant. Glyphosate was also patented by Monsanto as an antibiotic in 2011.

“Not only is the corn in Froot Loops sprayed with Roundup, but it is a pesticide in its own right, registered with and regulated by the EPA.

“Every cell of the [corn] plant produces pesticides called Bt toxins. When rootworms bite into it, their stomachs rupture and they die. How disturbing is it that Kellogg’s is feeding children pesticides & antibiotics, without their parents’ knowledge or consent?”

The Matrix Revealed

A word to the wise and honest doctor, wherever he or she may be. This is the scenario you want:

A mother comes into your office with her little daughter. She takes out a piece of paper and reads a laundry list of the child’s inexplicable symptoms.

You, the doctor, sit back, nod sagely, pause, and ask, “Is your darling little daughter by chance eating Kellogg’s Froot Loops?”

The mother’s jaw drops. She nearly falls off her chair.

“How did you know, Doctor?” she says. “My girl can’t get enough of it!”

You incline your head toward her modestly, and reply, “Occasionally, I have psychic intuition. Let me put in a call to the local HazMat team and get them over to your house. Where exactly in the kitchen is the toxic material, the Froot Loops, stored?”

“Oh,” the mother says, “we leave the box out on the counter. My daughter snacks on it all day long.”

You shake your head. “I have a contact at the Pentagon. I’ll go to him direct. This is an emergency.”

Note: Kellogg’s kicked in $800,000 to defeat Prop 37 in California, thus avoiding the need to label genetically engineered food products.

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

Is Edward Snowden lying?

Is Edward Snowden lying?

by Jon Rappoport

March 10, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

I’ve written several articles questioning Edward Snowden’s past history. (Full blog archive here.)

Now, another serious point comes to light.

Snowden claims he raised concerns about NSA spying more than 10 times before he went rogue with stolen files.

Here is the quote from the Washington Post (March 7):

“Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden said he repeatedly tried to go through official channels to raise concerns about government snooping programs but that his warnings fell on the deaf ears. In testimony to the European Parliament released Friday morning, Snowden wrote that he reported policy or legal issues related to spying programs to more than 10 officials, but as a contractor he had no legal avenue to pursue further whistleblowing.

“‘Yes [said Snowden]. I had reported these clearly problematic [NSA] programs to more than ten distinct officials, none of whom took any action to address them…’”

As I’ve written before, we are supposed to believe that the NSA, the biggest, richest, and smartest spying agency in the world just happened to forget to secure its own data against theft from its own employees and hired hands.

NSA just forgot to do that. No compartmentalization of secret data. Just a clear open shot all the way to the top for an internal analyst who wanted to take tens of thousands of files. Or a million files. Snowden waltzed into work, and was given free access to everything and grabbed it.

But if Snowden is telling the truth now, in his latest statement, the likelihood of his data grab shrinks even further.

Because according to Snowden, he raised concerns about illegal NSA spying to his own supervisors and executives more than 10 times, before he walked away from his job with all those files.

Snowden painted a target on his chest with his complaints about illegal spying. But no red flags were raised at the NSA. Nobody put Snowden under close inspection.

Nobody said, “Hey, this kid is trouble. Big trouble. He’s working for us and he’s objecting to our programs, policies and secret operations. We have to track every move this kid makes. We have to spy on every inch of his life, at work and at home.”

Nobody did that.

Checking news stories about Snowden’s work history at NSA, the longest period he was alleged to be there was four years. Which means Snowden was filing roughly three claims of illegal spying per year with his bosses. Could he be more obvious? And yet no one at NSA thought he was a risk. No one put a heavy watch on his activities and caught him with his hand in the cookie jar.

And finally, when Snowden told his superiors he was leaving his job to seek medical treatment, no one interceded. No one reacted with suspicion.

Snowden, working at NSA, became familiar enough with the Agency’s complex architecture to steal anywhere from 20,000 to 1.2 million files, also lodged over 10 complaints about illegal NSA spying, and walked away into the night without so much as a peep from the biggest spying apparatus in the world.

If you believe that, I’ve got beachfront condos for sale on Jupiter.

The Matrix Revealed

For background, here is an excerpt from a piece I wrote last July about Snowden, the NSA, and the inconsistencies in the official story:

Let’s begin here: If you absolutely must have a hero, watch Superman movies.

If your need for a hero is so great, so cloying, so heavy, so juicy that it swamps your curiosity, don’t read this.

If you can’t separate the value of Snowden’s revelations from the question of who he is, if you can’t entertain the notion that covert ops and intelligence-agency games are reeking with cover stories, false trails, and limited hangouts, you need more fun in your life.

Okay. Let’s look at Snowden’s brief history as reported by The Guardian. Are there any holes?

Is the Pope Catholic?

In 2003, at age 19, without a high school diploma, Snowden enlists in the Army. He begins a training program to join the Special Forces. At what point after enlistment can a new soldier start this elite training program?

Snowden breaks both legs in an exercise. He’s discharged from the Army. Is that automatic? How about healing and then resuming service?

If he was accepted in the Special Forces training program because he had special computer skills, then why discharge him simply because he broke both legs?

“Sorry, Ed, but with two broken legs we just don’t think you can hack into terrorist data anymore. You were good, but not now. Try Walmart. They always have openings.”

Snowden shifts jobs. Boom. He’s now in the CIA, in IT. He has no high school diploma.

In 2007, Snowden is sent to Geneva. He’s only 23 years old. The CIA gives him diplomatic cover there. He’s put in charge of maintaining computer-network security. Major job. Obviously, he has access to a wide range of classified documents. Sound a little odd? He’s just a kid. Maybe he has his GED. Otherwise, he still doesn’t have a high school diploma.

Was Snowden being groomed for an operation that was to come? Was he, knowingly or unknowingly, being set up to do something big?

Snowden says that during this period, in Geneva, one of the incidents that really sours him on the CIA is the “turning of a Swiss banker.” One night, CIA guys get a banker drunk, encourage him to drive home, the banker gets busted, the CIA guys help him out, and then with that bond formed, they eventually get the banker to reveal deep secrets to the Agency.

This sours Snowden? He’s that naïve? He doesn’t know by now that the CIA does this sort of thing all the time? He’s shocked? He “didn’t sign up for this?” Come on.

In 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA. Why? Presumably because he’s disillusioned. Or did he actually stay on with the CIA as a covert operative?

It should noted here that Snowden claimed he could do very heavy damage to the entire US intelligence community in 2008, but decided to wait because he thought Obama, just coming into the presidency, might keep his “transparency” promise.

After two years with the CIA in Geneva, Snowden really had the capability to take down the whole US inter-agency intelligence network, or a major chunk of it? Or did he have an inflated sense of self-importance—in which case, he would have made a good target for a later mission “to shake up the whole world.”

In 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA and goes to work in the private sector. Dell, Booze Allen Hamilton. In this latter job, Snowden is assigned to work at the NSA.

He’s an outsider, but, again, he claims to have so much access to so much sensitive NSA data that he can take down the whole US intelligence network in a single day. The. Whole. US. Intelligence. Network.

This is Ed Snowden’s sketchy legend. It’s all red flags, alarm bells, sirens, flashing lights.

“Let’s see. We have a new guy coming to work for us here at NSA today? Oh, a whiz kid. Ed Snowden. Outside contractor. Booz Allen. He’s not really a full-time employee of the NSA. Twenty-nine years old. No high school diploma. Has a GED. He worked for the CIA and quit. Hmm. Why did he quit? Oh, never mind, who cares? No problem.

“Tell you what. Let’s give this kid access to our most sensitive data. Sure. Why not? Everything. That stuff we keep behind 986 walls? Where you have to pledge the life of your first-born against the possibility you’ll go rogue? Let Snowden see it all. Sure. What the hell. I’m feeling charitable. He seems like a nice kid.”

Here is a more likely scenario.

Snowden never took any of those thousands of documents on an NSA computer. Never happened. He didn’t hack in. He didn’t steal anything.

He was working an op, either as a dupe or knowingly. He was working for…well, let’s see, who would that be?

Who was he working for before he entered the private sector and wound up at NSA?

The CIA.

Would that be the same CIA who hates the NSA with a venomous fervor?

Would that be the same CIA who’s been engaged in a turf war with NSA for decades?

The same CIA who’s watched their own prestige and funding diminish, as human intelligence has given way to electronic snooping?

Yes, it would be. CIA just can’t match the NSA when it comes to gathering signals-intell.

Wired Magazine, June 2013 issue. James Bamford, author of three books on the NSA, states:

“In April, as part of its 2014 budget request, the Pentagon [which rules the NSA] asked Congress for $4.7 billion for increased ‘cyberspace operations,’ nearly $1 billion more than the 2013 allocation. At the same time, budgets for the CIA and other intelligence agencies were cut by almost the same amount, $4.4 billion. A portion of the money going to…[NSA] will be used to create 13 cyberattack teams.”

That means spying money. Far more for NSA, far less for CIA.

Turf war.

People at the CIA, who were planning this operation for quite some time, were able to access those NSA documents, and they gave the documents to Snowden and he ran with them.

The CIA, of course, couldn’t be seen as the NSA leaker. They needed a guy. They needed a guy who could appear to be from the NSA, to make things look worse for the NSA and shield the CIA.

They had Ed Snowden. He had worked for the CIA in Geneva, in a high-level position, overseeing computer-systems security.

Somewhere in his CIA past, Ed meets a fellow CIA guy who sits down with him and says, “You know, Ed, things have gone too damn far. The NSA is spying on everybody all the time. I can show you proof. They’ve gone beyond the point of trying to catch terrorists. They’re doing something else. They’re expanding a Surveillance State, which can only lead to one thing: the destruction of America, what America stands for, what you and I know America is supposed to be. The NSA isn’t like us, Ed. We go after terrorists for real. That’s it. Whereas NSA goes after everybody. We have to stop it. We need a guy…and there are those of us who think you might be that guy…”

During the course of this one disingenuous conversation, the CIA is killing 37 innocent civilians all over the world with drones, but that’s beside the point. Ahem.

Ed says, “Tell me more. I’m intrigued.”

He eventually buys in.

Put two scenarios on the truth scale and assess them. Which is more likely? The tale Snowden told to Glenn Greenwald, with all its holes, with its super-naive implications about the fumbling, bumbling NSA, or a scenario in which Snowden is the CIA’s boy?

Exit From the Matrix

And if Snowden is still working for the CIA, he and his buds aren’t the only people who want to take the NSA down a notch. No. Because, for example, NSA has been spying on everybody inside the Beltway.

Spying on politicians with secrets.

Congress.

So imagine this conversation taking place, in a car, on a lonely road outside Washington, late at night. The speakers are Congressman X and a private operative representing the NSA:

“Well, Congressman, do you remember January 6th? A Monday afternoon, a men’s room in the park off—”

“What the hell are you talking about!”

“A stall in the men’s room. The kid. He was wearing white high-tops. A Skins cap. T-shirt. Dark hair. Scar across his left cheek. Blue tattoo on his right thigh.”

“Jesus.”

“We have very good audio and video. Anytime you want to watch it, let me know.”

Dead silence.

“What do you want?”

“Right now, Congressman? We want you to come down hard on Snowden. Press it. He’s a traitor. He should tried and convicted.”

The Congressmen pulls himself together:

“Yeah, well, of course I’ll pound on Snowden publicly and call him a traitor. Sure. But I have to tell you, I know a dozen Washington players who’d like the NSA to take a hit. They’re pissed off. They don’t like to be spied on.”

If you’re a Congressman or a Senator, and you have nasty little secrets, and you know NSA is spying on you, because it’s spying on everyone in the Congress, who’s your potential best friend?

Somebody who can go up against the NSA, somebody who wants to go up against the NSA.

And who might that be?

The CIA.

It’s not perfect, but it’s the best you can do.

You get down on your knees and pray that Ed Snowden is still working for the CIA.

Who else, besides the CIA and numerous politicians inside the Beltway, would be aching to take the NSA down a notch? Who else would be rooting hard for this former (?) CIA employee, Snowden, to succeed?

How about certain players on Wall Street?

Still waiting to be uncovered? NSA spying to collect elite financial data, spying on the people who have that data: the major investment banks. NSA scooping up that data to predict, manipulate, and profit from trading markets all over the world.

A trillion-dollar operation.

Snowden worked for Booz Allen, which is owned by the Carlyle Group ($170 billion in assets). Carlyle, the infamous. Their money is making money in 160 investment funds.

A few of Carlyle’s famous front men in its history: George HW Bush, James Baker (US Secretary of State), Frank Carlucci (US Secretary of Defense and CIA Deputy Director), John Major (British Prime Minister), Arthur Levitt (Chairman of the SEC).

Suppose you’re one of the princes in the NSA castle, and Ed Snowden has just gone public with your documents. You’re saying, “Let’s see, this kid worked for Booz Allen, which is owned by the Carlyle Group. We (NSA) have been spying over Carlyle’s shoulder, stealing their proprietary financial data. What are the chances they’re getting a little revenge on us now?”

So there is the CIA, Congress, and Wall Street players, all of whom would like, privately, to get the NSA off their backs.

Snowden’s true CIA bosses know how to access NSA files. They do it, and they give those files to their secret front man, Snowden.

Perhaps we could be talking about a small number of genuine patriots within the CIA who want to take down the NSA a few notches, for laudable reasons.

But if you don’t like this CIA-Snowden scenario, feel free to assume the NSA is such a competent and brilliant organization when it comes to spying on the global population…but they just can’t get it together to stop one man from logging in and stealing their own farm and strolling away.

They can’t stop one man, who now says he filed over 10 official complaints about illegal spying while he was working at their Agency.

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

Introduction to The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix

Introduction to The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

March 8,, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Here is the breakdown on what is contained in my mega-collection, The Matrix Reveled:

250 megabytes of information.

Over 1100 pages of text.

Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

My complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and audio to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages.

Then there are several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix. 53 pages.

The ten and a half hours of mp3 audio are my solo presentation, based on these interviews and my own research. Title: The Multi-Dimensional Planetary Chessboard—The Matrix vs. the Un-Conditioning of the Individual.

Many people will not accept their own experience, when it exceeds their rock-hard idea of what reality is all about.

They will change their own past, their own memories, their own perception, if necessary.

This is how deep their loyalty to ordinary reality runs.

Crack after crack could appear in the Matrix, and they would feverishly patch them up, while pretending there are no cracks at all.

And if you think such people will ever admit to a role in creating their own narrow version of reality in the first place, you’re dreaming.

But an understanding of the Matrix has to involve both what elite controllers are doing to shape the world, and what each person is doing to define the limits of his own experience.

In September of 1974, exhausted, feeling at the end of my rope, wishing I could just take off from Los Angeles and find a place with white sand and blue water and a quiet cabin to sleep in for two weeks…

I found myself, instead, lying on a table in a dim room in a house in West LA, late in the afternoon.

One of the great body healers in the world, Hadidjah Lamas, who practiced a strenuous form of what’s calling Rolfing, was sitting next to me.

But she was just going to put her hands on my head, because that’s what I asked her to do. I had a feeling something might happen. I had a great deal of experience doing a simple form of “laying on of hands,” and I needed that myself now.

She held her hand on my forehead for fifteen minutes or so, and absolutely nothing occurred.

Then, with my eyes open, lying on my back, I saw a black contraption that looked like a mask. It seemed to be made out of iron. It was shaped like a skull. Strips of iron with spaces between them.

It meant nothing to me, but it was quite startling, especially because my eyes were open and this iron mask was sitting there, in the air, about a foot in front of my face.

It began to revolve, spin slowly in place.

It spun faster, and then like a ship gathering momentum, it moved off away from me toward the far end of the room.

It picked up speed and vanished through an open door and was gone.

This was rather astonishing.

I lay there.

Then, at the edges of my perception, little glitters of blue and yellow appeared.

More of them showed up.

Within perhaps 15 or 20 seconds, the blue and yellow were a sparkling field, and the field was all around me, and I was lying in it.

The field was pulsing.

I was going through rapid stages of relaxing, deeper and deeper, sinking into myself.

Finally, I just lay there and looked at and felt the field.

I said, “I think I just had my vacation.”

I got up off the table, stretched, and felt quite fantastic.

As Hadidjah and I talked, I noticed that the pitch of my voice had dropped a few notches.

Later that night, at home, I was sitting in a chair looking out the window, and I noticed—as if it were quite natural—that the trees, the street, the lights in other houses, the lawns were all, how to put this… participating together, collaborating to constitute a painting, a scene. They were animations of ideas. They were expressing themselves. They weren’t merely “there.”

Being “merely there” was an illusion we smugly and rationally employed and projected to assure ourselves that physical reality was solid, straightforward, and monolithic.

Our illusion was an overlay. A concept. A habit.

“Things in space” were actually “doing art” by expressing themselves. In that sense, they were alive, unmistakably so.

You might even say they were delighted at being able to show us what they were.

Whereas we usually perceive in a kind of monotone flat fashion, satisfied with far less, for the duration of our lives.

I realized how far people would go to protect their perceptual overlay on the world.

The Matrix Revealed

Exit From the Matrix

Fifteen years later, when I told my friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True, about this experience, he said, “Don’t stop now.”

“Don’t stop what?” I said.

“The whole investigation,” he said. “How we put ordinary reality together and keep manufacturing it. How we keep insisting it’s ordinary.”

The whole story of how I put together The Matrix Revealed is much bigger than what I’ve written here, but this is a significant thread.

What people call “paranormal” isn’t. It’s what happens when the “normal curtain” is taken away.

Richard Jenkins, the extraordinary healer I discuss in my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies, once told me, “’Normal’ is like taking a wonderful meal, all the parts of it, and putting them together in a grinder and reducing them to a gray mixture. “’Normal’ is the gray stuff. It’s forgetting what you had before.”

Forgetting what you had before.

“Enhanced reality,” “magical reality,” was what we had before.

Since that 1974 experience, I’ve worked on developing exercises that bring us back toward enhanced reality, because information is half of the process of understanding Matrix. The other half is daily practice that yields the actual experience of awake consciousness. I’ve included exercises designed for that purpose in my other collection, Exit From the Matrix.

For this work, I have to thank, in part, Jack True and several of his patients, who showed me that expanded perception of reality is factual, it can be integrated into life, and it is normal in the best sense of that word.

The investigation of Matrix inevitably leads back to Tibet where, 1500 years ago, exiled teachers from India, who had challenged major premises of the academic culture in their home country, wandered into Tibet and started “schools.”

These schools were very practical in nature. They taught that one’s own experience was paramount, and exercises designed to increase creative power would open doors and reveal secrets about the basis of reality, secrets that had been buried under a welter of ideas that added up to political control.

For a period of time, in Tibet, the control was removed, and as I would put it, infinity was laid out in full view, for those who wanted to see it.

The machinery of the Matrix was set aside, like a foolish joke.

Everything I’ve been doing for the past 20 years is unalterably committed to the conviction that we, now, can provide the punchline to the joke. And live at another level.

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

RIP, psychiatry: the “chemical-imbalance” theory is dead

R.I.P., psychiatry: the “chemical imbalance” theory is dead

by Jon Rappoport

March 7, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

This one is big.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”

Boom.

Dead.

The point is, for decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.

In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to cover his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:

“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”

Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.

And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…

…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…

…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct an imbalance?

Here’s what’s happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They’re taking heavy flack on many fronts.

The chemical imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage.

Psychiatry is a pseudo-pseudo science.

So the shrinks have to move into another model, another con, another fraud. And they’re looking for one.

For example, genes plus “psycho-social factors.” A mish-mash of more unproven science.

“New breakthrough research on the functioning of the brain is paying dividends and holds great promise…” Professional gibberish.

Meanwhile, the business model demands drugs for sale.

So even though the chemical-imbalance nonsense has been discredited, it will continue on as a dead man walking, a zombie.

Big Pharma isn’t going to back off. Trillions of dollars are at stake.

And in the wake of Aurora, Colorado, and Sandy Hook, and the Naval Yard, the hype is expanding: “we must have new community mental-health centers all over America.”

More fake diagnosis of mental disorders, more devastating drug prescriptions.

The Matrix Revealed

As Dr. Peter Breggin explains in his classic, Toxic Psychiatry, half a century ago the psychiatric profession and the drug companies began to shape a deal.

Psychiatry was dying out. Patients didn’t want to talk about their problems to MD shrinks.

So the deal was this: psychiatry would go along with and promote chemical-imbalance propaganda. In turn, the drug companies would turn out the pharmaceuticals, and they would bankroll psychiatry, sponsoring conferences, taking out massive numbers of ads in journals, offering grants to universities.

The deal paid off.

Psychiatry experienced a resurgence. “Talk therapy is useless. Mental problems are all about the brain, and the brain must be drugged.”

But now, the charade is exposed.

You can be sure major Pharma players are meeting behind closed doors with leaders of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The mafia is making a house call.

They are reminding the APA that they have a deal. No cancellation allowed.

“You guys promoted the chemical-imbalance theory. That was the arrangement. So keep promoting it. We don’t care how many lies you have to tell. Don’t try to develop a conscience all of a sudden. This is business.”

The mafia doesn’t like it when people try to interrupt business.

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

Power grab at the top of the natural foods industry

Power grab at the top of the natural-food industry

by Jon Rappoport

March 6, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

From a February 13 article, “Who owns organics now?”, at the Cornucopia Institute:

“In 1995 there were 81 independent organic processing companies in the United States. A decade later, Big Food had gobbled up all but 15 of them.”

At Cornucopia, you can view Philip H Howard’s monster chart (updated) depicting the Big Food owners and the companies they’ve bought.

http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/

Some of those Big Boy Buyers? Nestle, Coca Cola, Pepsi, M&M Mars, Campbell Soup, ConAgra. These are also companies who put up money to defeat GMO-labeling ballot measures in California and Washington state.

Consider another big buyer. Hain Celestial. Starting in the mid-1990s, they’ve purchased:

Ella’s Kitchen; Earth’s Best, Walnut Acres; ShariAnn’s; Mountain Sun; Millina’s Finest; Frutti di Bosco; Sunspire; MaraNantha; Westbrae; Westsoy; Little Bear; Bearitos; TofuTown; Nile Spice; Blue Print; DeBole’s; Garden of Eatin’; Arrowhead Mills; Breadshop; Health Valley; Casbah; Imagine/Rice; Dream/Soy; Dream; Celestial Seasoning.

This buying spree was aided by investments from HL Heinz and George Soros.

Currently among the top shareholders of Hain Celestial: Goldman Sachs and Blackrock.

Blackrock is the world’s biggest asset manager. In 2009, the US Federal Reserve and the US Treasury Department contracted Blackrock to evaluate “distressed federal assets” worth $130 billion.

From 2010-2013, notorious corporate raider, Carl Icahn, owned 12% of Hain Celestial.

-Nothing personal, it’s just business. We just add companies to our portfolio. We consolidate our position in the industry.-

People used to think the natural-food world was a dedicated mom-and-pop operation. Not anymore.

It’s big fish eating little fish.

And what happens to the food itself, when companies buying other companies becomes the real game in town?

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