What better target-rich environment for pharma/psychiatry to exploit than colleges?

Constantly renewing enrollments of the young and vulnerable, under pressure to perform academically, away from home for the first time, becoming aware that a degree may earn them zero security in the shrinking job market.

Through on-campus counseling services, feeder lines channel students into psychiatrists’ office. Some colleges even have “crisis response teams” to guide students with problems into the heart of psychiatric-drug darkness.

The JED Foundation is an example of a group that networks with colleges to set up comprehensive systems for mental-health services. It boasts two past presidents of the American Psychiatric Association on its boards. JED’s medical director, Dr. Victor Schwartz, writes:

“In the past year, 21.2 percent of college students received a psychiatric diagnosis or were treated for mental health issues such as depression or eating disorders, and an estimated 6.6 percent of students reported having serious thoughts of suicide…”

One out of five college students in the psychiatric pipeline.

And this figure is going to increase, in the wake of “cautionary events” like the Aurora, Sandy Hook, and Navy Yard shootings, which are being promoted as posters for earlier “mental-health interventions.”

Watch for it. The “see something, say something” mantra of the DHS will cross over. “If you see a fellow student exhibiting the following signs, it’s your duty to say something to the college counseling office…treatment is the answer.”

If you went to college, I’ll bet you can remember numerous moments when—if a “mental-health atmosphere” had pervaded the campus—a psychiatrist would have diagnosed you with a disorder and prescribed a toxic drug.

It’s now an open secret (even mainstream news outlets are sticking their toes in the water) that the SSRI antidepressants induce violence, including suicide and homicide. See SSRI Stories for many sourced accounts.

Psychiatry is random MKULTRA in the express lane. Drug millions, stand back, and watch the violence spread like blood on a blotter.

One of my many articles on medical fraud, “The lying liars who lie about psychiatry,” establishes that: there are no definitive physical diagnostic tests for ANY so-called mental disorder; therefore, these disorders are rank fictions; and drugs used to treat patients are highly toxic.

There are, in fact, many reasons why people in general, and college students in particular, go off the rails, suffer, feel pain, experience disorientation, wrestle with problems they can’t resolve:

Severe nutritional deficits; prior toxic medical drugs; environmental chemicals; food sensitivities; peer pressure; physical and emotional abuse; vaccine injury; oxygen-deficit; head injuries. The list goes on.

Health practitioners who have the knowledge and take the time can discover particular causes in a given patient. In many cases, these problems can be reversed.

The concept called “mental disorder” is a sales pitch backed up by extraordinary PR, money, academic gibberish, and government-granted official status.

After the recent mass killings in Aurora, Sandy Hook, Boston, and Washington, psychiatry is flying high. It’s doubling down on its lies, and making a case, with its federal allies and media know-nothings, for more intervention, more diagnosis, more drugs, more “surveillance of early warning signs.”

People need to wake up to the fact that the whole panoply of human suffering has been co-opted, taken over, redefined, re-translated into a lexicon of pseudoscience.

This would be bad enough, but when you add the toxic and violence-inducing drugs to the mix, you have an underworld of RICO crime the mafia could only dream of. Because it’s right out in the open, and its priests in white coats can even testify in court trials as experts.

Waking up is hard to do, for people who’ve already bought the premise of mental health. They hope against hope (and thus believe) that the cure is here, the analysis is real, the science is true. They imagine that only Neanderthals would reject psychiatry.

They trust in promises of the march of progress. They believe the press releases.

They send their children to college.

They pay the price of their faith. Their son or daughter is now in the psychiatric system.

Here is one such story, from Dr, Peter Breggin’s landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry:

“Roberta was a college student, getting good grades, mostly A’s, when she first became depressed and sought psychiatric help at the recommendation of her university health service. She was eighteen at the time, bright and well motivated, and a very good candidate for psychotherapy. She was going through a sophomore-year identity crisis about dating men, succeeding in school, and planning a future. She could have thrived with a sensitive therapist who had an awareness of women’s issues.

“Instead of moral support and insight, her doctor gave her Haldol. Over the next four years, six different physicians watched her deteriorate neurologically without warning her or her family about tardive dyskinesia [motor brain damage] and without making the [tardive dyskinesia] diagnosis, even when she was overtly twitching in her arms and legs. Instead they switched her from one neuroleptic to another, including Navane, Stelazine, and Thorazine. Eventually a rehabilitation therapist became concerned enough to send her to a general physician, who made the diagnosis [of medical drug damage]. By then she was permanently physically disabled, with a loss of 30 percent of her IQ.

“…my medical evaluation described her condition: Roberta is a grossly disfigured and severely disabled human being who can no longer control her body. She suffers from extreme writhing movements and spasms involving the face, head, neck, shoulders, limbs, extremities, torso, and back-nearly the entire body. She had difficulty standing, sitting, or lying down, and the difficulties worsen as she attempts to carry out voluntary actions. At one point she could not prevent her head from banging against nearby furniture. She could hold a cup to her lip only with great difficulty. Even her respiratory movements are seriously afflicted so that her speech comes out in grunts and gasps amid spasms of her respiratory muscles…Roberta may improve somewhat after several months off the neuroleptic drugs, but she will never again have anything remotely resembling a normal life.”

Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.

They lie. They obfuscate. They parrot. They don’t investigate beyond a comfortable point. They leave loose ends, which are often far more important than the supposed central facts.

And there is always a psyop after the event. It goes like this: “tragedy,” “unspeakable,” “will bring to justice,” “our thoughts and prayers are with,” “this didn’t happen in a war, it happened here,” “vigil for victims,” “grieving,” “closure,” “nation mourns the loss.”

Why is this a psyop? Because the government officials and mainstream media reporters don’t feel what they claim to be feeling. Their “positions as leaders” feel something, which is the same thing as saying it’s an act.

Beyond that, the purpose of the psyop is to divert attention from the fact that law-enforcement officials are bending the investigation, abandoning significant leads, and taking the short path to a “satisfactory” wrap-up.

To boil down the psyop: “it was tragic, and now it’s solved.” One, two. Open wound, closed wound. That’s the government/media formula.

In my previous article, I mentioned the psychiatric drug connection as a distinct possibility that haunts every one of these crimes. Rarely will reporters bother to look into this. It’s dicey for them. Exposing pharmaceutical companies and their horrendously toxic drugs is bad for business.

Imagine this front-page NY Times headline: “Four leading physicians state that, in all likelihood, the shooter was on one of the SSRI antidepressants, which can and do push people over into violence, including murder.”

Sub-head: “The doctors vow to press the authorities until they get to the bottom of the psychiatric-homicide connection.”

Sure. That’s going to happen when a rooster flies a spaceship to the Orion Belt.

If the purported shooter at the Navy Yard, Aaron Alexis (where is/are the other shooters?), was suffering from PTSD, as his family apparently claims, was he seeing a psychiatrist? What was the diagnosis? What drugs were prescribed? What effects do these drugs have?

Perfectly reasonable and legit questions.

Then we have the drills. In a number of these shootings/bombings, official drills that cover the same kind of event that eventually happens were held at the crime scene. Normal? Or op rehearsals? Desensitization of personnel to the real thing?

It turns out that Navy Citadel Shield security drills were held nationwide, at naval facilities, in February/March of both 2012 and 2013. From dcmilitary.com, Feb. 28, 2013: “…various training exercises with an emphasis on realism to train personnel. Scenarios included active shooters, mass casualty drills, bomb threats, surveillance, and false credential exercises.”

From USA Today, 9/16: Dave Sarr, an environmental engineer, was walking down a nearby street when he saw people running from the Navy Yard. Sarr had seen an evacuation drill a few days earlier at the Navy Yard. “At first I thought it was another drill,” Sarr said. “Then I saw an officer with his weapon drawn.”

The same USA article cites a federal law-enforcement source (off the record) who states that Aaron Alexis, the accused shooter, cleared a Navy Yard security checkpoint in his car. After parking in the lot, he got into an argument and opened fire on one or two people. He then entered the building where he went on a killing spree.

So did Alexis shoot his way past security guards at the building’s separate checkpoint? Why weren’t the guards waiting for him just outside the building with their weapons drawn, after he, Alexis, had already shot people in the parking lot?

And then, of course, we have the many reports of one or two additional shooters at the Navy Yard. Where is he/they? Authorities now state one of these suspects has been cleared.

In Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, there were reports of “extra” shooters. They faded out in the repetitive media reports of horror, shock, and grief, never to be mentioned again.

Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.

We’re looking at one op after another, one crime after another, one cover-up after another, one threat, one psyop after another. It never ends.

To a significant degree, all these operations are just that, planned moves. And they do concern all of us, because the scope of the operations is vast.

However, on another level, these ops are designed for the purpose of engaging all of us so that we’ll keep thinking in terms of the group (“all of us”)…and never think about anything else.

If you can tune up the population to keep thinking about the group, the collective, you’ve got them.

Hence, the title of this piece: “What concerns all of us at this time.”

But what about: what concerns NONE of us at this time.

What about that?

What about what doesn’t even exist at this time?

What about what has yet to be imagined and created?

Who handles that?

What department do you contact to find out about THAT?

Well, you can consult DARPA or any number of think-tanks or the CIA, but again, these blueprints of the future involve all of us.

I’m talking about something else:

That discredited and stepped-on and discounted faculty of the individual called imagination which, by the way, is not a container holding shielded secrets, but is instead a capability of invention.

Everything mind control ever was, is, or will be, is ultimately aimed at producing amnesia about that capability. Therefore, when you bring up the subject of imagination, most people just shake their heads and move on. They are clueless about their own astonishing power.

Being ignorant, they are easy marks. They can be cajoled into spending their whole lives thinking about “what concerns us most at this time.”

When I put together my two mega-collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, I was cognizant of this. But I also knew there were people out there who were looking for something else, something beyond group concerns that could trap them forever— concerns that build a wall between them and their own creative power.

Creative power—this “little selfish preoccupation,” as it’s been called—is the difference between night and day, civilization and chaos, desire fulfilled and victimhood, life-force and walking death, deception and insight, fierce joy and a sinkhole in which the same emotions go around and around and around.

The reason behind the reason I write about fraud and crime and conspiracy in public life is: I want to expose how reality is being built for us. How perverse designers are constructing a collective mural of existence.

Understanding that, one can begin to see how he can create other realities—without end.

It’s as if we’re living in a huge room with no ceiling and yet we’re behaving as if there is a ceiling 10 feet high. The “10- feet high” is the result of amnesia about our own imaginations.

The purpose of the collective is destruction of imagination.

But imagination can never be destroyed. All individuals can do is force themselves to stay asleep about it.

Or decide to wake up.

Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.

HE SAYS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE BEING GIVEN INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS THAT SYRIAN LEADER BASHAR ASSAD ORDERED THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

So what do they do in these secret briefings? Show Congressmen a classified CIA handshake? Kill a pig? Hand out stacks of cash?

Here’s the thing, and remember it. Obama invited us all to the party. He said we had to take responsibility for going to war or not going to war.

He said we were involved. The American people.

And since that’s the case, we have to see the evidence. Not just the report to the President. Not just the summary by the CIA. Not just the statement of Mr. Kerry-Heinz. Not just McCain looking up from his video poker game to remind us that we have to go to war to avoid undermining the credibility of the United States.

Evidence is in the details. Put it all on the table. Now. Open it up. Open up the folders and the files and the statements.

Otherwise, how can we make up our minds? We’re not going on faith. We’ve had enough of that.

If you think relying on members of Congress, who’ve had secret briefings behind closed doors, is adequate, you’re quite insane.

Obama says he’s certain Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. That’s where we start. Prove it. Do you know what “prove” means? It means PROVE.

Here’s a novel idea. In these hearings that are taking place now, call to the stand 30 or 40 members of Congress who’ve had the confidential briefings and ask them: what in particular convinced you that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people?

And accept NO generalities. Grill these Congressmen, press them, get down their necks, corner these weasels. Make them make their case.

“Oh, sir, you mean you saw photos of dead people? Is that it? You’ve got nothing else?”

“Sir, let’s cut the crap. You’re basically telling this committee that you know Assad used chemical weapons on his own people because the CIA told you so. Right? When you boil it down, that’s what you’re saying. My ten-year-old daughter could do better than that.”

Evidence, when you get past the propaganda line, is a strange thing. You know why? Because it’s EVIDENCE. That’s right. It stands there and says, “Hey, look at me, I’m evidence. What do you think? Do I make sense?”

It can be questioned. It can be analyzed. People can chop away at it and defend it and turn it over in their hands and see it from several sides. Each piece of it.

The federal government has certain departments that look at evidence and interpret it. And then they release conclusions. That’s all these people do. And we’re supposed to bow down and say, “Well, those are the people who deal with evidence. We the people have nothing to do with that.”

It’s hypnotism. We’re supposed to accept that the government has people who handle evidence and we’re too stupid to take on the job ourselves. That’s the trance.

And it’s a crock.

“We, the CIA, and allied intelligence agencies, declare that we OWN the area of discovering vital and secret information and then interpreting it. We don’t just DO it. We’re exclusively IN CHARGE of it. Every activity in society has a function and that function is delegated to some government department. You, the people, aren’t in charge of anything…”

The government doesn’t want us to look at evidence because it knows we’ll ask questions and pry and poke and analyze it with more care and more righteous suspicion than they do. Minus the official agenda.

There was a self-appointed citizen grand jury who did just that in the case of the Oklahoma City bombing. It was headed up by Charles Key. These people made the hypnotized official Grand Jury directed by official prosecutors look like idiots. What Charles Key’s group discovered would fry your brain. Because they actually looked at the evidence and punched holes in it and found new and better evidence, and they didn’t stop until it was obvious that the whole OKC bombing was a very different kind of op.

So, in this situation, the war in Syria, we’re invited to the party, but not really. They don’t want us to see the evidence because they know what we’d do to it.

“Mr. Obama? You want us to bear the burden of responsibility for bombing Syria? You said that. All right, then we have to look at the evidence for ourselves. You see, that’s what responsibility entails. If, on the other hand, that invitation to the party was just a straight con, and meant nothing, then okay. At least we know where we stand. But don’t issue the invitation then. We don’t need it and we don’t want it. Also, just out of curiosity, is John Kerry alive? He looks like a corpse who’s been re-animated in a castle in Transylvania. Just asking.”

And now, here’s Putin. His boys have put together a 100-page report showing it’s the rebels who used chem weapons in Syria. They sent the report to the UN. Let’s see it. The whole thing. Open it up. Put it side by side with the US intell assessment and compare and contrast.

Somebody is going to say, “This is ridiculous. The government can’t expose everything they know, because it would ‘compromise methods and sources’ and it could get agents and assets killed.”

Right. They always trot that one out. It ends all arguments.

“Okay, wow, I see. Yes. In that case, just keep all your secrets and tell us what to do and we’ll do it. Tell us what to go along with and we will. We’re the peons and you’re the pros.”

Here’s my response to that. One, the government frequently uses the excuse to hide information that wouldn’t get anyone killed but would expose government crimes to the people.

And two, needless and criminal wars also get people killed, and if government has the exclusive right to decide when to make war, we’re living in a fascist State. Why? Because those decisions are often made on the basis of issues miles removed from defending America.

The invitation to the American people to participate in deciding whether to attack Syria? It’s like sitting on a jury in a murder case and having the judge tell you you can’t hear or see the evidence. You’re only going to hear witnesses spout generalities about whether they believe the defendant is innocent or guilty.

Welcome to the charade, the con, the big lie, the imitation of reality.

Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.

One: Give the appearance of unifying the country behind the President, who “did his job the right way,” by going to Congress for approval. This elevates Obama’s ratings and, by inference, suggests that his other programs should be accorded more merit. A wartime president always gains more support.

Two: Give the people an adrenaline rush. The effect should never be underestimated. Cleanses the pores, cleans the slate, and relieves frustration by proxy, temporarily…if you have very little access to your cerebral functions.

Three: In this case, winning Congressional approval reinstates the illusion, for a few moments, that we are a Constitutional Republic, with a government dedicated to justice.

Four: Help fulfill the long-planned US-Israeli agenda of destabilizing Syria and causing it to partition into warring and chaotic ethnic factions.

Five: Stop the construction of a natural gas pipeline across Syria, which would boost Iran’s economy by sending Iranian gas to Europe. Iran’s economy must be torpedoed.

Six: Send a message throughout the Middle East that the US is all-powerful and the dollar must remain the reserve currency in all oil transactions.

Seven: Feed the US military-industrial complex, which demands wars.

Eight: Aid the long-term goal of Globalism/Free Trade, which involves putting the entire Middle East into unresolvable debt and suffering…and then coming in with outside elite bankster financing, to rebuild the entire region and own it, lock, stock, and barrel.

Nine: Distract Americans from a number of scandals, including: Benghazi, Fast&Furious, IRS non-profit division crimes, NSA spying, the continuing failed war in Afghanistan, and a tanking domestic economy with more and more people living below the poverty line.

None of these reasons has anything to do with “punishing Assad for using chemical weapons.” In any case, that whole scenario has been thrown into extreme doubt.

Your government at work.

Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog

The big-3 Sunday morning news shows are basically politicians talking through the screen to their colleagues in Georgetown. Gibberish from idiots to other idiots.

In so far as the shows reach the general viewing public…

The unspoken premise of This Week, Meet the Press, and Face the Nation goes like this: Given the fact that America is making constant war to expand the imperial corporate empire, the military industrial complex is suffering a hernia from carrying so much money, multiple agencies are spying on everybody all the time, the medical system in America is killing 2.25 million people per decade, millions of acres of untested GMO food plus Roundup are a runaway health disaster, the Fed Reserve is a private banking monopoly posing as a government agency, the Mexican border is a sieve for the Sinaloa Cartel to kick off their Washington-approved drug routes to a distribution hub called Chicago, only “the cops and thugs should have guns,” the government-sponsored mental-health monopoly called psychiatry is destroying the brains of countless numbers of children, vaccines are filled with toxic ingredients, the federal government is pouring wet cement on the Constitution every hour of every day, more people are using food stamps than are working, our children are learning how to become little robots in school, the free and independent individual is an anathema, television is brainwashing 300 million people, and all presidents are vetted to ensure they’ll support a Globalist planet…NONE OF WHICH WE’LL TOUCH ON IN THE NEXT HOUR…

WHAT’S NEW THIS WEEK?

“Well, David, gurgle, gurgle, ahem, and then we have, but of course, some people believe, although I would say…”

Riveting.

These Sunday morning shows should be a ring of Hell, where sinners experience an eternity of soul-eating boredom and rage.

The challenge for David Gregory, George Stephanopoulos (This Week), and Bob Schieffer (Face the Nation) is: how do I make the interviews and conversations sound real, when more and more viewers realize we’re just doing another trance-induction?

The basis of hypnotic trance is: no authentic context. That’s it. The victim narrows his focus, under the direction of the hypnotist, producing a free-floating state devoid of any significant external connections.

David Gregory’s ratings-dive to third place, among the Sunday puppet shows, is mainly the effect of him failing to affect a persona that enhances the basic hypnotic effect of the non-news. He’s just a bland gray egg.

He doesn’t produce the sing-song mesmerizing rhythms of Bob Schieffer, who learned that trick as an anchor. Stephanopoulos, the “boy wonder” from the Clinton years, works an earnest front for the This Week audience, pretending he’s really “searching for answers” to weighty questions.

Gregory is basically a poor actor. He’s clueless about how to present clueless news. And he replaced the popular Tim Russert, who made his reputation by liking every disingenuous moron he ever interviewed.

The Sunday morning news-talk shows were invented to transmit the impression the networks were doing “public service by exploring political issues in greater depth.” They became prestige items for corporate advertisers.

The Sunday shows also evolved, over the years, to present the entirely phony idea that, on all major subjects of interest, the two political parties in America hold widely diverging views. Media companies, of course, specialize in that nonsense. The public must never learn there is basically one political party in the US.

Absent any prurient scandal, mass shooting, or disaster, these shows hobble along until election season, when they really swing into gear and feature The Horse Race. At that point, they vibrate between giving free ad time to candidates and asking deep thinkers to assess how the competing election PR teams are doing in their efforts to rope in voters.

In general, the Sunday morning viewing audience is supposed to feel they’re peering through a window to obtain insiders’ views on topics of great import.

David Gregory is dying on camera. Perhaps Mr. Wackadoodle, Chris Matthews, will ascend to the Meet the Press throne.

However, in the endless op to persuade Americans that the two-party system encompasses the whole spectrum of political thought, the Sunday shows have already been upstaged by more asinine and, therefore, popular installments: MSNBC and FOX. There you can find bigger hacks and hustlers shoveling 24/7 manure. They don’t bother with the niceties. They just pile it on by the ton. There, also, the proof of the pudding is in the eating during election season. If there is any lingering hope that newspeople believe the Constitution holds a shred of validity, those networks dispel it when they start wall to wall campaigning for the latest presidential crime figures.

About-Face on the Nation, This Weak, and Meat the Press don’t stand a chance. They’re relics of a time when lies were supposed to be delivered politely.

The three major networks should bury those corpses and use the time to re-air the most outrageous partisan political moments of the week, from FOX, MSNBC, and CNN.

A special segment, called Operation Mockingbird, would feature a CIA spokesman delivering “the best lie we planted as a news story in the past seven days.”

A final feature, played for comic value, The NSA Spies on an Entirely Innocent Private Citizen, would highlight the blow-by-blow tracking of an American at work and at home.

And then it’s on to golf, infomercials for vacation paradises and juicers, and Mail Your Money to This Particular TV Preacher Before It’s Too Late.

Not to worry. I’m developing an exciting Sunday show called The Food Stamp President. We’ll take cameras into the homes and cardboard boxes of formerly employed Americans who are learning a valuable lesson: Dependence means never having to say you’re sorry. We’re negotiating with a primary sponsor. Planned Parenthood. They have deep pockets, via your generous tax contributions to the federal government.

The overriding message? The gov will always and forever save you, but you should abort all those extra family members before they come into this world. It’ll give you a stress-free existence.

Other sponsors? Cell-phone companies. “Talk is cheap, and we’ll prove it. Sign up for your gratis phone. The White House loves you.”

Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog

F. Scott Fitzgerald, Tender is the Night (1934)

Remember the old saying, the map is not the territory? The map is especially not the territory when its directions and locations are symbols that refer to false paths.

In that case, using the map takes you to the wrong place. It keeps you moving toward an imitation of the destination. And when you arrive, you may think you’ve found the treasure, but you’ve actually discovered a trap.

And you’re in it. You can believe, even while in the trap, that you’ve found the gold. Because you did the right thing. You followed the symbols. You agreed to their meanings. But you ended up with an illusion of wealth.

Worse, you buy the illusion and now believe that what you originally sought was just a fantasy

In this democracy, freedom is a symbol that refers to a specific set of permissions the government grants to individuals.

And even then, the actual list of permissions is shrinking—which means the government is arbitrarily redefining what was originally granted.

Freedom is situated in the hands of those who rule from Washington.

Arguing about how much freedom the government should allow is like arguing about the degree to which you are a property owned by government. 43%? 78%?

It’s also like calling you a time-share. Should government decide it can spend two weeks a year in your mind and body? A month? Eleven months?

The symbol of freedom, for those who love big government, is malleable, depending on the latest official (vague) description of “greatest good for the greatest number,” which automatically trumps all individual rights.

“Hi. I’m a time-share named Joe. Today, I found out that the federal government can move in to my body & mind 24 days a month. That’s a new decision. I fully support it, because government is calculating greatest good for the greatest number.”

Accepting the symbol of freedom is tantamount to excluding all other formulations of freedom. That’s how a symbol co-opted by psyop agents works. It supplants older definitions. It replaces reality.

What is the reality? Freedom is a natural state of being. Every individual has it. Governments and pacts and laws don’t alter that one iota.

And when we look at it in this way, without blinders, several questions arise.

The major question is: what is freedom for?

Is it just a vine we watch wither away and dry up and blow into dust?

Is it only and forever something we fight to preserve?

Is that the full and complete story?

What do we DO with freedom when we HAVE it?

In any civilization, freedom has to be a platform, from which a certain number of individuals imagine and create at the height of their power.

Without interfering with anyone’s freedom.

They imagine and create new realities that never existed before.

They are the ones who unlock the gates to an open future.

The actual content of their creations is never known before it appears. They don’t repeat what’s already been done. They embark on new roads. They never give up. They never fold. They never stop.

They don’t settle for half. They don’t reduce their dreams and visions to fit the group. They don’t try to blend in. They don’t care about their critics. They invent new worlds that supersede this one.

They breathe freedom and taste it and do something with it. They make freedom into a prelude for action, for creation on the largest possible canvas.

Normal and Average and Fitting In and Compromise and Collective are words for decay and death.

We are in unusual times, because every word and phrase that suggest greater creative power have been twisted and co-opted by marketers, PR men, advertisers, educators, media anchors, psychologists, propagandists, psyops specialists, and political leaders. This is, of course, no accident.

It’s a sustained program for reducing meaning to pedestrian terms, for reducing culture to cartoon caricatures.

This is what mass mind control is all about.

But the free, independent, and creative individual doesn’t submit to that programming.

Archetypes of heroes, artists, and true revolutionaries are still alive in consciousness. They are touchstones, not for mimicry, but as reminders of achievements that are possible.

These archetypes survive the death of cultures and nations. They endure.

The open sky of possibility is born out of consciousness and reflects back to it.

We fight to gain freedom, to preserve it, and to ascend from it.

The spirit of our government has become a foul, stench-ridden mass of corruption, even as it cynically promotes ideals of freedom, for a little more leverage. Fools believe in it.

The government is now in the business of making robots and androids. That is its mission. That is democracy.

Those who compromise and give in every day of their lives seek cover and protection in The Group. They think hiding is their best option.

But dreams appear. Dreams that momentarily take slaves out of their chains.

These are the real nightmares for those who, at every level, seek to maintain their passive acceptance of What Is.

There are two basic worlds: what already exists; and possibility.

The second world is infinite.

The over-trained mind believes possibility is just another system.

But imagination, when unleashed, has no boundaries.

Trying to understand imagination by referring to society is futile. There is nothing in how society is managed that clarifies imagination or explains it.

Our current society is a living example of what happens when individual imagination is downplayed.

Modern society, intentionally and falsely, portrays the free and independent individual as a moral criminal.

So here we are. Freedom exists in a pure state. It’s real. It’s a choice that exists inside every person. Whether or not the State grants it has nothing to do with that fact. Freedom Is. Knowing that, the slate is clean. We can choose. We can start a new life at the drop of a hat.

The more we see of freedom, the bigger the space of it, the more likely it is that we’ll choose to create rather than fit in. The more we see the space of freedom as possibility without limit, the more likely we’ll dig deeper for inner resources—as fuel for our fire.

Some take that road. Most do not.

Most are content to accept the shadow symbol of freedom as the real thing, even when they know it isn’t.

Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog

But these are fictions. There is no such thing as rule by everybody or by “the voice of every citizen.”

Politicians and their cronies, of course, know this. So one of their jobs is to present illusions of “togetherness.” These illusions are crafted. They are long-term covert ops.

PR people and propagandists and educators and media pundits are deployed for the purpose of painting pictures of “free democracy,” whatever that means. (Note: it doesn’t refer to the Bill of Rights, because that was part of designing a constitutional Republic.)

In a democracy, organizations of citizens are put together. These groups then reach out to government with their agendas. Each group becomes a faux individual seeking…what? Key symbols and phrases are deployed to answer that question—and one of the most potent is JUSTICE.

Groups are going to government to find justice.

This action becomes part of the mythology of what democracy is.

Hundreds, thousands of groups in the democracy seek justice, which simply means: favorable treatment. I’m talking about every kind of favor, from government-funded gender-changing surgery all the way to massive corporate tax breaks…and everything in between.

If you add up all the long-term effects and outcomes of this seeking, you discover that much of what the groups win for themselves doesn’t last. It deteriorates over time. Planned obsolescence is built into the system.

The quality of individual, free, independent, responsible, ethical life, for example, certainly doesn’t improve. Instead, we get politically correct life, in which people are expected to talk and act in ways that reflect “care, concern, mutual admiration, acceptance, passivity.”

This charade is promoted as progress. It’s really a program. It’s a script. It’s a stage play. It’s called democracy.

It supports small, medium, large, and jumbo crimes. Paid for by taxes.

What’s actually happening in democracy is consolidation of power at the top. The top includes both corporations and governments. But what’s out front is share and care. That’s the flag rippling with all its stars to obscure the true operation.

If a constitutional republic, with severely limited government, can exist at all, it requires eyeballs looking at each other close up. It requires small populations, educated and dynamically charged with living ideals, not dead ones.

The covert op called democracy, on the other hand, requires groups seeking so-called justice to be pitted against each other to fight over a limited pie.

Here is a cameo. In the early 1980s, I interviewed a dean of students at UCLA about the mood and attitude on campus, in the wake of the Vietnam war.

He told me that, during the late 60s and early 70s, students were united in their protests against the war, but once the forced military draft was called off, the students broke up into groups seeking justice (money) from the University.

The competition among groups, he said, was quite nasty and vicious. It involved character attacks, wild accusations, and threats.

This might seem like a vindication of the unity that had prevailed during Vietnam, but it doesn’t take a genius to see that the military industrial complex made out quite well during that war; and various wars and police actions since Vietnam—Iraq and Afghanistan the most extensive—have continued to line the pockets of military-industrial mongers.

Here is the elite psyop formula:

endlessly promote democracy;

create and empower groups that will seek justice from government;

grant some groups favors, reject others;

set these groups against each other;

in the ensuing conflict, pretend to appeal for unity;

grab more and more power at the top.

By osmosis, the individual learns what works in a democracy. He must have a cause, and that cause must reflect an unjust and disadvantaged status. He needs to seek redress and help from government. He needs to chisel and cheat and game the system.

He also needs to vote. He needs to vote for the side most likely to give him favors and breaks and loopholes and $$.

Many individuals will conclude that, in this hustle, the superior choice is to work for the government. A few years ago, I compiled a very rough tally of numbers of Americans who work for some form of the State. The total was 1 out of every 9 people.

In a small nation, that might be shocking. In a large country like America, it’s disastrous.

During a recent radio interview out of Norway, I was told that nearly 50% of Norwegians work for the government. We’re not there yet, but we’re moving in that direction.

The concept of democracy, once you peel back the layers on the covert op, is a scam. But the even greater problem comes when overwhelmingly numbers of people organize their own minds to match that scam.

They assemble and coordinate their own mental processes for the job of living and winning inside a massive crime-bubble.

Obama, like every president, operates as a PR front man for the op called democracy. The difference is, he’s made the PR into a religion. He’s taken it to a new level.

It may seem strange, but a person living out of an Obama-welfare cell phone, and a Wall Street investment banker dealing from an office high in Manhattan, are both working from the same basic mental playbook.

Their situations are vastly different, but they’re making moves inside the crime-bubble.

And if, by some miracle, they could sit down and talk long enough and honestly enough, they would see, emerging out of the fog, familiar game plans.

Yes, Virginia, there is true injustice in this country. It comes from the power grab at the top, and it leaks down to every person. But you won’t find that injustice revealed in the ubiquitous PR-op. There you’ll only find lies and groups toiling to push the rock to the top of the hill, while fighting a war of attrition against each other.

There you’ll only find the great hustle, the con, short and long, and layers of operators telling us “we’re all in this together” to remedy wrongs.

One of the keys to breaking out of mass mind control is being able to see and make the distinction between the real thing and a fake copy.

To survive and meet scheduled payoffs and bribes and deliver calculated favors and demean the independent individual, a democracy must fly the highest flags of ideals. The songs must be sung by pros. Every drop of sympathy must be wrung out of that rag-flag. Every soap opera story must be elevated to tragic heights.

And every mind must confuse this with the real thing.

Which takes us to education of the young, and the preparatory mind-control programs for living as an adult in a democracy.

I won’t bother to run down the various teaching tools for this job. I’ll simply remind you of how willing and open the young mind is.

When I was 12 or 13, my parents took (dragged) me to a lecture. The speaker was Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey. I dreaded the all-too-predictable pain I was in for. I would rather have been eating a casserole of spinach, broccoli, liver, and cockroaches.

On this night, in a jammed hall with a few hundred people, I listened to the Senator for two hours. He spoke about progress and humanity and hope and share and care.

I was riveted. Nailed to my chair. In a contest, that version of Humphrey would put Obama away cold and turn him upside down.

I saw visions of a new world. I saw humanity rise as one and conquer all obstacles. I saw liberalism and all it stood for as a god on Earth.

Those were the days when the Humph was at the absolute top of his game. He was on fire. He ascended one mountain range after another. He stood on a troubled sea and opened up the sky.

It took me a decade to realize I’d been conned by a master.

The op works. It taps into oceanic impulses in every mind and diverts them along channels that turn poetry into fake religion. It freezes poetry and sculpts it into idols and symbols of a labyrinth that eventually dumps you out into an alley at midnight with empty pockets.

You’re chewing on a dream of stale bread and figuring out how to get home.

People say that in a modern society, poetry no longer has meaning or force. This is one of the titanic jokes of the age. Poetry always strikes the deepest chords. It always parts the sea of the mind.

The only issue is, to what ends is it put? Does it rest there on the page and on the tongue and ear with its own fierce beauty, to be absorbed and re-imagined by the reader and the listener? Or is it run along channels where wardens of the State patrol, catching souls in their nets?

This is an MKULTRA rarely spoken of. It has stood the test of time.

It feeds on rubes and yokels and sleepwalkers and the desperate, from freezing caves in prehistoric Asia, down to the deserts of ancient Egypt, over to dank cathedral vaults of Europe, across to the streamlined consumer paradise of America.

It winds up as: Democracy. Progress. Enlightenment. Equality. Sharing.

Neon signs in the bought and paid for sky.

The great civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, the marches, the rallies, the protests, the suffering, the pain, the violence, the legislation—all based on a simple premise: equal protection and opportunity under the law.

Groups sought redress and justice from the government.

The movement celebrated victories. And then it was taken and twisted down other train tracks and turned into a slow-motion crash the likes of which we’re seeing splattered across television screens and the pages of newspapers around the world today.

How did that happen? How did the civil rights movement come to Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman?

Through careful planning. Through manipulation of people and ideas, to transform honor into great misery.

The Statist machine gives, and the machine takes away. True justice is never its goal.

It preys on the worst human instincts and praises them as legitimate. It sets the agenda for democracy and gives the mob the drug of hope based on, yes,poetics.

Understanding the frequencies along which that hope is broadcast to the populace, and how the populace sponges up those transmissions, is a step out of the maze.

When you hear the particular strains of music that convey widely held sentiments, and you know the music is made for tin ears, because your ears aren’t tin, you’re regaining a species of true hope most people can’t understand.

You get a piece of the immortal joke that has traveled through eons and dipped into countless places, ever since the universe was dreamed up as a holographic blueprint on somebody’s notepad.

The chemical (drug) factors and heavy metals alone would fill a book. The covert political, psychological, and economic ops would fill another book.

Those who design the problem, from behind the scenes, those who help create widespread violent crime, intend to provoke a specific demand from the populace: stop the violence!

Then, a solution is promoted: “science” enabling the authorities to predict who will commit violent crime. This leads to “treatment” that will keep violence from happening.

In other words, if you watch movies, The Minority Report and Clockwork Orange.

The LA Times is reporting the results of a new study. “Brain scans of inmates turn up possible link to risks of reoffending.” Prisoners with low activity in the ACC region of the brain (anterior cingulate cortex) are said to be more likely to commit new crimes.

In the research community, this study is hailed as a potential step forward in the march to reduce violence.

People in the general population, hearing about the study, while watching violence on the streets of America, in the wake of the Zimmerman verdict, breathe a small sigh of relief.

“Maybe this will bring peace. Maybe they’ll find a way to change the brains of criminals so they don’t go off again. Maybe they can find people before they commit their first crime and treat them…”

Oh, psychiatrists will. They already do. Toxic and destructive anti-psychotic drugs are big money makers for pharmaceutical companies. Of course, these drugs cause motor brain damage. (See, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press)

As of 20 years ago, Breggin established there were already several hundred thousand cases of psychiatric-induced brain damage in America.

The public fails to understand that medications aimed at curtailing behaviors are hammers. Despite assuring pseudoscientific propaganda, the drugs don’t end up targeting very specific neurological processes.

The drugs powerfully sedate. They attack multiple neurotransmitters in an unpredictable fashion. They “normalize” patients by putting them in a trance or manic state. They toxify the liver. They injure the brain.

Under the cover of “repairing specific brain dysfunction,” doctors can easily prescribe drugs that simply render patients into a state of poisoned docility.

The published studies won’t, of course, admit this. Pharma-funded clinical trials will “prove successful outcomes.” Selective highfalutin babble will confirm the new miracles.

There are all sorts of tricks that can be staged. For example, the early research on Prozac found the drug changed serotonin levels in the brain. Then, the announcement went out: altering serotonin was the key to reversing depression. It was science by circular reasoning.

But when violence, regardless of causes, escalates in society, people are ready, willing, and eager, to grasp at straws. Stop the crime! Do whatever you have to do!

It’s no accident that, in the wake of the Aurora and Newtown murders, the watchword is “mental health.” With new clinics springing up across the country, people vaguely suspected of having a propensity toward violence (lawful gun owners, for instance) will be ushered into the psychiatric arena.

Doctors will diagnose and drug these patients. The results will be devastating.

In a related development, AFP is reporting that the FDA has just approved the first brain-wave test for ADHD. The test is not certified as a stand-alone diagnostic tool. But, we are told, with other standard measures, doctors will now have a better method for accurately assessing children who are hyperactive.

A better method? Compared to what? There is no gold standard for ADHD. It’s a fictional catch-all category, and it always was.

On one end, you have kids who are bored, restless, poorly educated, smarter than their fellow students and teachers, living in homes where conflict between their parents is a daily event, frightened of other students who are bullying and coercing them. Pick one. Pick several.

On the other hand, these children are feeling the effects of sub-standard nutrition, toxic ingredients in their food, fluorides, heavy metals, drugs, vaccines, pollution, allergies. Pick one. Pick several.

Now reduce all this to a menu of behaviors, apply the ADHD label, and prescribe drugs that, in the long run, exacerbate out-of-control behavior, bring on depression, and in some cases elevate aggression.

The entire covert op to stimulate violence in America, following up with interventions, and finally “prediction of future violence,” is underpinned with, yes, a philosophic position: the mind is nothing more than the brain.

Therefore, an all-out assault on brain function is the answer. If you want a supposition guaranteed to sink a civilization, this is it.

It’s called Materialism, and it relegates humans to the status of biological machines (See Scott Noble’s film Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century (posted at YouTube)). Huxley’s Brave New World is an apt portrait of where this philosophy leads us: the garbage bin.

But a pleasant garbage bin. Because all citizens are birthed in genetic labs and endowed with pharmaceutical low-level happiness. It’s “good science.”

Crime is a thing of the past. The cure solves the problem and invents a society in which problems are outlawed.

That was one of the messages of Clockwork Orange. Do whatever is necessary to end violent impulses; the world will change; it will get worse.

Here are three different ideas: the individual is essentially non-material; he is free; he has tremendous latent creative power.

Were these ideas to form the basis of a society, and were its people to explore the implications, a vastly different status quo would emerge.

It would be no status quo at all. Instead, an open dynamism would serve as the prow of the ship. Hidebound fanatics and devious psychopaths would fail to affect our journey.

Violence, both as a problem and a solution, would disintegrate in our wake.

Since our present leadership has no authentic interest in these matters, the future falls to individuals. Where it has always been.

An out-of-date photo, showing Trayvon Martin as a young innocent boy, flashed across television screens all over the world.

News stories asserted that a white man named Zimmerman killed a black child.

NBC-edited 911 audio between Zimmerman and a police dispatcher made it seem as if Zimmerman was voluntarily profiling Martin as black, when this was not the case. Several NBC employees were fired over the editing incident.

In the same 911 audio, according to CNN and other media sources, Zimmerman said, “Fucking coons.” This was corrected to “fucking cold.” Finally, this became “fucking punks.”

President Obama said if he had a son, that son would have looked like Trayvon Martin.

NBC and CNN weren’t the only the major network outlets that presented false information to the public. ABC obtained footage of Zimmerman at the police station on the night of the Martin killing. The network claimed there was no visible evidence Zimmerman had sustained head wounds. But then a still from the video surfaced which showed cuts on the back of Zimmerman’s head, supporting his statement that he and Martin had been in a fight. At that point, ABC broadcast the video, stating they’d “re-digitized” it and the wounds were now apparent.

These actions, taken together, defined the case as a black-versus-white hate crime.

The door was pushed wide open, letting in millions of voices to assert their positions and feelings on the matter of race.

The whole race issue was dealt a blow when it turned out that Zimmerman wasn’t white. His father was white. His mother was Peruvian. Her grandfather was African-Peruvian.

But by then, it was too late. Media forces and politicians and hustlers and private citizens on both sides of the race issue had already shoved in their chips and rolled the dice. They couldn’t turn back.

They couldn’t say, “Oh, well, this is the murder of a black boy but a white man didn’t do it, so let’s re-frame it as another tragic killing…”

Al Sharpton couldn’t say, “We thought we had the quintessential white-on-black murder of a young boy, but we don’t. Let’s fold our tent and go home and wait for another day and a better reason…”

Likewise, it was hard to put the genie back in the bottle after the press reported that Zimmerman said, “Fucking coons.” Ensuing corrections to the translation of his words didn’t affect the black- versus-white scenario.

Nor did that scenario dissolve when it turned out NBC had perniciously edited a section of Zimmerman’s 911 call, to make it seem as if he had put Trayvon Martin’s race front and center. NBC’s admission it had cooked the books was looked upon as a grievous media slanting of the truth, but the basic black-vs.-white storyline was still intact.

This is all quite astonishing when you stop and think about it.

The wave was building, it had already been put into motion, and nothing was going to stop it, not even the simple glaring fact that Zimmerman wasn’t white.

Obama weighed in. He took the wave to another level. If I had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon Martin. (Looked like Martin in which photo? The first one, or later ones?)

The race of the accused is the whole issue, and yet everyone can see, right out in the open, that his race has been wrongly identified—and it doesn’t matter.

“We’re going to go forward as if Zimmerman is white.”

None of the above is proof that Zimmerman is innocent or guilty. Taken together, it is all about establishing black-vs.-white as the context.

That context is patently false, but it functions as enduring symbolism for the issue of race.

It’s as if Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, OJ Simpson’s purported victims in the 1994 murders, had turned out to be black, after America was already riveted by a “black-on-white” crime and refused to let go of it.

How many people have ever heard of the 2008 murder of James Shamp, a black man, by Richard Bordelon, Hispanic, in Los Angeles? Two factors prevented nationwide publicity. Bordelon was a gang member—and it was a Hispanic-vs.-black case.

Zimmerman-Martin is part-Hispanic vs. black, but it’s not playing that way.

Claims that Trayvon Martin was stalked and profiled would not be enough to turn the Zimmerman trial into a national event, unless Zimmerman were still held up, even if only in false memory, as a white man.

Many media outlets and politicians, including the president, have been instrumental in forwarding this psyop.

Inflaming racial hatreds and grabbing guns are two objectives of the op.

But Zimmerman-Martin is part of a much larger program: identifying so-called racial characteristics and cementing them in the mind. White=certain qualities. Black=certain qualities.

At bottom, this is one more way of insisting that the individual no longer matters. It’s a way of claiming that what matters is the group an individual belongs to. In this instance, skin color defines the group.

The primacy of the group over the individual is the true devastating operation in America.

Individuals have freedom. Individuals have independence. Individuals have potential power. These elements are anathema to fascists.

Groups only have agendas. They seek fulfillment of those agendas through government. That kind of partnership increases, in the long run, the dominance of government.

Underneath it all, this is what we’re talking about here: individuals must go, only groups should remain.

Black vs. white is the useful occasion and the smokescreen for the deeper aim.

In 1959, two friends of mine, Carl and Michael, staged a spy experiment at the small Ithaca, New York, airport. They were students at Cornell University.

Michael was coming in on a little commercial plane from New York late at night.

In the one-room terminal, Carl waited for him and paced around, wearing a British raincoat and sunglasses. Occasionally, he’d look at his watch and glance out at the airstrip.

Finally, the plane arrived.

Michael, also wearing a British raincoat, descended the steps from the plane, and Carl walked out to meet him on the tarmac. They stood, head to head, for a few minutes, talking to each other. They gestured toward the terminal.

Security personnel arrested them.

On suspicion of seeming suspicious.

Which was the point of the experiment.

Since America is now a spy state, where everyone is expected to snoop and snitch on everyone, why not play the game?

A hundred college students walk into a large coffee shop and sit down.

They starting passing notes to each other. (1950s spy-iconography)

A few of these students approach the counter, ask for the manager, and when he appears, inform him that the waiters/waitresses are doing suspicious things: staring; avoiding eye contact; lingering too long at tables while taking orders.

This little stage play is repeated every day, until media pick up on the story.

A few hundred college students gather in front of a government building. As employees come out at the end of the day, the students pull out cell phones and pretend to make calls. They talk loudly, mentioning that they’re seeing suspicious activity from government workers.

Repeat daily, until media pick up on the story.

In a small town, a hundred parents bake cookies in the shape of guns. They give them to their kids to take to school on the same day.

Repeat every day until the literal robot-minds of school officials implode.

I think everyone in the US should have a screen saver with a picture of a gun on it.

Five hundred students hold a birthday party and picnic in a park. They all wear very large badges hanging from their necks: “CITIZEN SPY.” They pretend to make phone calls, reporting suspicious activity, while pointing at other people in the park. It’s sure to garner some attention, after two or three days.

What? You might be arrested for these activities? Oh, I see. Yes. The entire country is on lockdown. That’s right. We can’t interfere with federal and state agencies doing their jobs, 24/7, to protect us. From ourselves.

A website. Secular Confessions. People are invited to confess their own “suspicious activity.” In detail. You can add, as a bonus, a section for Thought Crimes.

“I thought about plotting the overthrow of Monsanto. I confess. I’m guilty, and I want expiation if not excommunication…”

“I considered masturbating when DHS tanks rolled through my town. I don’t know why. I was suddenly gripped by an uncontrollable impulse…”

“During work today at USDA, where I inspect samples of wheat, I started feeling that I was a suspicious character. I thought about lifting the whole building in one hand and turning it upside down and dropping it on Henry Kissinger’s head…I’m a very bad person.”

Let’s all confess.

I personally am suspicious (it should be “suspect,” shouldn’t it?) because I have a lingering obsession about the Bill of Rights. I’ve tried to purge it from my consciousness in favor of the far more cogent, “we’re all in this together,” but I can’t. I need re-education.

And I have strange thoughts when I drive through an

intersection outfitted with video cameras…I want to burn those cameras in a bonfire. I want to see thousands of those cameras burn together. Why does that image produce such unalloyed joy? Something must be wrong with me. Right?

I’m guilty of another thought crime. I want to see Russ Tice, a long-time employee of the intelligence community, featured on page one of the New York Times. I want to see his assertion that the NSA was spying on Obama in 2004 plastered in a giant headline across the top of the page.

I want to see Chris Matthews, up to his Obama-tingling legs in muck, working in a giant industrial pig farm in Mexico. This thought surely marks me as a danger to the State. I must be plotting something. I just don’t know what it is yet.

I’m reporting Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Dianne Sawyer as suspicious characters engaged in a mass hypnosis operation. I want action. It must stop. Every night, these morons appear in millions of homes and frame the news in terms even Mickey Mouse could see through.

I want the Reality Manufacturing Company to cease doing business at once.

I’m suspicious, you’re suspicious, we’re all suspicious. Let’s form a new nation based on that irrefutable premise. Let’s quit piddling around. Let’s be SUSPICIOUS.

Stop smiling. Start looking at things sideways. Squint. Learn how to growl convincingly like a dog. Screw Labor Day. It should be Suspicion Day.

Paint on the back of your shirt: WE ARE ALL NSA.

Get into it.

WE’RE ALL NSA, WE’RE ALL SUSPICIOUS, WE’RE ALL SPYING, WE’RE ALL GUILTY.

Go for the home-run ball.

It’s a game. I can spy on you faster than you can spy on me.

“Are you saying your neighbor is a suspicious character because he’s spying on you?”

“No, he’s suspicious because he isn’t spying on me enough.”

CONFESS. REPORT.

“My neighbor is growing Chinese cabbage on her front lawn.”

“Chinese? Thanks. We’ll get right on it. You just earned a gold star, Ms. Good Citizen.”

This is the era of the busybody. The scum rises to the top.

That old lady who lives down the block and peeks between her curtains at whatever is going on outside? She’s beginning to feel like King Kong. The world is catching up to her at last.

It’s the time of the literal mind, which operates blind to context. In the middle of a conversation, a phrase like “they should be shot” or “I’d like to blow the whole thing to kingdom come” surfaces…and certain faces register a pause, a flinch. Hmm. “That might be dangerous. He shouldn’t have said that…”

One of my favorite media glosses is: “…understandably nervous in the wake of…”

This is used to justify grand-slam law-enforcement officers reacting to harmless events and innocent civilians.

There is always a prior event that can used to rationalize a robot response.

“Understandably nervous in the wake of the Great Flood, officials took a man named Noah into custody today, after he let two rabbits and two hamsters loose in his garden…”

The real objective of the War on Terror is the creation of literal minds, entrained to think in lowest-common-denominator terms.

“There will be no metaphors, no distinctions. Automatons forever.”

The literal mind lives, every day of its existence, guilty of obstruction of justice. It functions at the level of an insect, and delivers far less.

This is what the Surveillance State is meant to induce.

Operant conditioning is based on the premise that humans are nothing more, in their native state, than programmed biological machines. Therefore, replacing one program with another is perfectly apt.

When I was five years old, in 1943, I went to a nursery school around the corner from our apartment in New York. The first day I was there, a teacher gave me preliminary instructions. I can’t remember the specifics, although I do recall they were inane. I replied, “Okay.”

She froze. Then she smiled one of those big fake smiles. “No,” she said. “We don’t say ‘okay.’ We say ‘all right.’”

From that moment on, I remained on guard, because I knew I was in an alien environment.

I soon learned that the goal of this school was socialization. Pretended harmony.

Say the proper thing. Share and care. Be polite. Don’t be frank, be earnest. Smile. Achtung.

For the rest of the term, I observed this strange cockeyed little world. I said little. I was from another planet, called 19th Street, and I wanted to understand how these lunatics at the school were operating.

On the last day of imprisonment, as we were all assembled in the yard, the head gooney bird approached me and thanked me for my “cooperation.” She thought I had surrendered.

I don’t remember whether a politeness-certificate was involved, but I did recognize this was a wild misunderstanding on her part.

Homogenized America is now moving to a new level: wherever you see cream separating, report it to the authorities and they’ll shake and stir.

See anything, say everything.

To any literal minds who may be reading this article by accident: don’t worry your pretty little heads; there’s a flower growing over there; report it; report the breeze, the summer, the moon; and don’t forget the most important thing of all…

Jon Rappoport runs No More Fake News. The author of an explosive collection, The Matrix Revealed, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.

Copyright © 2013 Jon Rappoport

Every director of the NSA is a general or an admiral.

The NSA is organized under the US Dept. of Defense.

Imagine that you are a powerful player who straddles two worlds – the Dept. of Defense and the private sector where corporate defense-contractors live and flourish.

You’ve served many times in both arenas. Your name is Mr. Military Industrial Complex.

Your mission is war.

The reasons for war don’t matter. Reasons can be invented at the drop of a hat. You want endless armed conflict.

That’s how you make your money. That’s how you express your impulses. That’s your single obsession. That’s how you forward Empire.

You don’t have to justify what you do or consult your conscience. Those days, if they ever existed, are long past. You’re a war-monger and you’re proud of it.

Your basic challenge, on behalf of the military industrial complex, is working the political machinery in Washington – the Congress, the president, the two major Parties – in order to make war happen.

One day, you look around and you say, “I have a whole super-agency at my disposal. It’s organized under the Dept. of Defense. It-called the NSA. It spies on everybody all the time.”

You realize you can use the NSA to collect endless amounts of information on Congress, the White House, the president, the press, and the Democratic and Republican leadership.

Well, the NSA is already doing that.

So the question is: will you use that explosive information, that very private information gained through spying, to coerce these politicians to go to war when you want to go to war?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Of course you’ll use it. You’d be a complete fool not to.

In fact, in the long run, this may well be the most important function of NSA.

Yes. Given your overriding mission in life, it is the most important function of NSA.

It’s job number one.

So you’re going to make sure the resources of the NSA are tuned up quite effectively to extract the information you need.

It’s called blackmail.

It’s called extortion.

It’s beautiful.

It’s the natural use of the NSA, within the overall structure of the military industrial complex.

There are always recalcitrant members of Congress and reluctant presidents who could use a push to go to war.

These politicians, the overwhelming majority of them, are criminals. Let’s face it. They’re remarkably indifferent to human life.

They cheat and lie and steal. They have private secrets. They commit acts that would, if exposed, embarrass them and destroy their pathetic careers.

They’re wonderfully fertile targets for spying and blackmail.

You have the spear. The leading point that can penetrate those secrets.

The NSA.

The logic is perfect and complete.

So you really have two enemies or targets. One, the foreign nation you intend to invade, and two, the politicians you need to convince to support that war.

In light of your latter target, the politicians, these words of Sun Tzu (The Art of War) take on new meaning:

“Attack [your enemy] where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.” For example, in a Senator’s hotel suite, with video capability, while he is in the arms of a hooker.

“The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle.” For example, calculations focusing on politicians’ offshore bank accounts.

In the era of kings and queens, the monarch’s court was rife with intrigue and extortion. We labor under the misapprehension that this has all been cleared up and swept away in the time of “open government.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Only means and tools have changed.

Relentless PR projected at the public makes a case for honest, honorable, and embattled politicians. Secondary layers of PR make the case that rabidly morbid partisanship infects political life.

Both of these psyops are cover stories.

The core truth is harsher. Politicians are, overwhelmingly, creatures who have decided whom to sell their souls to.

That’s who they are. People of this stripe always wander off course in their private lives.

The NSA is there to record the wanderings and compile the secrets.

NSA is the elephant in the infested room called Washington.

It remembers everything.

War is war, and preparing to go to war is also war. The military industrial complex needs the NSA to close the deal.

Spying, blackmail.

This is how politicians’ arms are twisted and war is guaranteed.

Things aren’t left to chance. It isn’t, “Maybe some day we’ll go to war or maybe we won’t.”

The military industrial complex sells death. It’s backed up by the largest spying agency in the world, who has red-hot files on politicians’ scandalous private behavior.

From Russ Tice, former intelligence analyst with 20 years of experience at NSA, the US Air Force, the Office of Naval Intelligence, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, in a June 2013 interview with Boiling Frogs:

“They [NSA] went after [spied on] – and I know this because I had my hands literally on the paperwork for these sort of things – they went after high-ranking military officers; they went after members of Congress, both Senate and the House, especially on the intelligence committees and on the armed services committees and some of the – and judicial…

“They went after lawyers and law firms. All kinds of – heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after State Department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House – their own people.

“Here’s the big one… this was in summer of 2004, one of the papers that I held in my hand was to wiretap a bunch of numbers associated with a 40-something-year-old wannabe senator for Illinois. You wouldn’t happen to know where that guy lives right now would you? It’s a big white house in Washington, D.C. That’s who they went after, and that’s the president of the United States now.”

The Best of Jon Rappoport

The NSA is spying on everybody.

That includes a major, major, prime target: 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 a covert unit inside 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.”

“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, there’s another side to this story. If Snowden gets enough support, if the wave rises high enough, the NSA could take a hit. I know a dozen Washington players who’d like that very much. They’re pissed off. They don’t like to be spied on. It’s possible Snowden was their guy from the beginning. I couldn’t say…”

Let’s make a deal. That ends up being the topic of this and other similar conversations inside the Beltway.

“Senator, we know about the underage cheerleader in Ohio. Your trip there in 2012, just before the election.”

“Look, you’ve brought this up before. But now I’ve got a trump card to play. Ed Snowden. This whole scandal can escalate like a tornado in Kansas, or it can die down…”

Let’s make a deal.

If you want to see this starkly played out in a fictional series, watch Netflix’s House of Cards. For House Majority Whip, Frank Underwood, substitute the NSA. Track what happens to Congressman Peter Russo, and you have a rough approximation.

Here’s another vector. A Congressman gets a visit from his favorite lobbyist, who works for a private defense contractor in the Congressman’s home state:

“Congressman, here’s the thing. The NSA is an integral part of our nation’s defense system. Right? This Snowden thing is messy. We want it to go away.”

“It may not go away. I’m not some kind of traffic cop who can put up his hand and stop the tide.”

“We understand that. I was just talking to XXX at NSA, and he’d really appreciate your help on this. Slam this bastard Snowden. Make him into the worst scumbag in the world.”

“And if I do?”

“Your offshore account in Panama will remain protected. That’s what XXX wanted me to tell you.”

Calling in markers. Putting on pressure. Let’s make a deal.

If you’re a Congressman or a Senator, 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.

And who might that be?

The CIA.

It’s not perfect, but it’s the best you can do. For years, the CIA has been watching the transformation of intelligence-gathering. The CIA been participating in that transformation: from humans using sources to obtain crucial data, to computers doing blanket-spying.

That’s the trend. It’s inescapable.

The big problem for the CIA is: their specialty is human intell. And when they go to computers, they’re second rate, behind the massive NSA machine.

Federal budget money for spying has been flowing in greater amounts to NSA and away from CIA.

This is one of the key elements of the turf war between CIA and NSA.

So if you’re a Congressman, you go to a friend in the CIA and you have a chat about “the NSA problem.” How can you get NSA off your back? Your CIA friend has his own concerns about NSA.

He tells you in confidence: “Look, maybe we can help you. We know a lot about the NSA. We have good people. You might say one of our jobs is watching the watchers at NSA, to, uh, make sure they don’t go too far in their spying.”

This sounds interesting. If you have to sell your soul, you’d rather sell it to the CIA than the NSA. It’s a judgment call.

And now…you read about Ed Snowden blowing a hole in the NSA. You take note of the fact that Snowden worked for the CIA. He worked for them in Geneva. Then he left for the private sector and got himself assigned to the NSA.

Hmm. Maybe you have some cause for optimism.

You, the Congressman, don’t give a damn about the NSA spying on all Americans all the time. You couldn’t care less about that. You just don’t want NSA looking over your own shoulder.

You know the incredibly naïve American public would never imagine what’s going on behind the scenes, with CIA, NSA, and Congress. The yokels and rubes in America actually believe their Congressional representatives are, well, representing them in Washington.

This fact is good. It means privacy for you: you can try to work out your problems without public scrutiny. You can play all the necessary games to hide your own secrets and crimes, and you can do it in back rooms.

Unless those bastards at NSA decide to leak one of your embarrassing secrets. That’s why you need your friend at CIA.

And now, again, you look at the recent article and see that Ed Snowden worked for the CIA. You hope he still is. You hope this a signal from the CIA that they’re taking a battering ram to the NSA.

Some schmuck reporter asks you about the current NSA scandal and you say, “Of course we have to protect classified data, in order to prevent terrorist attacks. But at the same time, we need to respect the Bill of Rights. People can’t go around spying on anyone for no reason.”

You’re sending your own signal.

You’re tipping your CIA guy. You appreciate his help, if in fact he’s helping you. You can’t ask him directly. If you did, he’d never give you a straight answer. But just in case…

As for the naïve rubes in your home state, the voters, you don’t give them a second thought. They’re not on your radar. They’re merely clusters of polling data, and you’ll look at the data when election comes around again. They don’t have a clue about how the game is played, and they never will.

You’re representing two defense contractors, a pharmaceutical company, a big AG corporation, and a bank. Those are your only true constituents. You give them all the time they need.

To keep those relationships on track, you only need to hide your peccadillos from embarrassing exposure. The hooker in DC, the bank account in Panama, the influence you used to move a sizable donation to a university where you intend to teach when you retire.

There are only two things you really need to think about in your job. First, what happens when your Party leaders come down the hall and tell you which way you’re going to vote on a bill – and you know your vote is going to upset one of your key constituents back home.

That’s a tricky situation. But you’ve been successful in keeping feathers from being ruffled. That pharmaceutical company understands you can’t side with their interests every single time.

You’ve got to go with your Party. The Pharma boys don’t like it, but they get it.

The other thing you’ve got to think about is darker. Nobody is going to give you stats on it, because stats don’t exist. Here’s how it shakes out:

How many people in Congress are so controlled by the NSA that they’d never try to break out? How many people, with how many secrets, are so blackmailed, they’d never dare go up against NSA?

This is an important calculation. The battle might already be lost. You might not stand a chance. Maybe nobody can help you. Maybe you can’t escape.

Maybe you shouldn’t even hint that NSA has overstepped its legal boundaries by spying on Americans.

That’s the conundrum that keeps you up at night.

What if the spies spying on their own government are running the government beyond the ability of anyone to stop them?

You don’t give a damn about what this would mean for America. You only care about what it means for you and your secrets.

Maybe this is the jail you’re in for the rest of your life.

When you’re back in your home state showing your face and giving speeches, and a voter comes up to you and voices a concern about his dwindling paycheck, his house payment, his endangered pension…and when you nod and gaze out at the horizon, as as if to pluck a magic answer from the aether, you’re really thinking about the conundrum.

You’re thinking about the life sentence you’re serving in the Surveillance State.

And that night, in your hotel room, you get down on your knees and pray that Ed Snowden is still working for the CIA.

The Best of Jon Rappoport

Boom. Explosive revelations. The NSA is using telecom giants to spy on anybody and everybody, in a program called PRISM.

But the information is not new.

Three books have been written about the super-secret NSA, and James Bamford has written them all.

In 2008, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now interviewed Bamford as his latest book, The Shadow Factory, was being released.

Bamford explained that, in the 1990s, everything changed for NSA. Previously, they’d been able to intercept electronic communications by using big dishes to capture what was coming down to Earth from telecom satellites.

But with the shift to fiber-optic cables, NSA was shut out. So they devised new methods.

For example, they set up a secret spy room at an AT&T office in San Francisco. NSA installed new equipment that enabled them to tap into the fiber-optic cables and suck up all traffic.

How Bamford describes this, in 2008, tells you exactly where the PRISM program came from:

“NSA began making these agreements with AT&T and other companies, and that in order to get access to the actual cables, they had to build these secret rooms in these buildings.

“So what would happen would be the communications on the cables would come into the building, and then the cable would go to this thing called a splitter box, which was a box that had something that was similar to a prism, a glass prism.

“And the prism was shaped like a prism, and the light signals would come in, and they’d be split by the prism. And one copy of the light signal would go off to where it was supposed to be going in the telecom system, and the other half, this new cloned copy of the cables, would actually go one floor below to NSA’s secret room.

“… And in the secret room was equipment by a private company called Narus, the very small company hardly anybody has ever heard of that created the hardware and the software to analyze these cables and then pick out the targets NSA is looking for and then forward the targeted communications onto NSA headquarters.”

In James Bamford’s 2008 interview, he mentions two Israeli companies, Narus and Verint, that almost nobody knew about. They played a key role in developing and selling the technology that allowed NSA to deploy its PRISM spying program:

Bamford: “Yeah. There’s two major – or not major, they’re small companies, but they service the two major telecom companies. This company, Narus, which was founded in Israel and has large Israel connections, does the – basically the tapping of the communications on AT&T. And Verizon chose another company, ironically also founded in Israel and largely controlled by and developed by people in Israel called Verint.

“So these two companies specialize in what’s known as mass surveillance. Their literature – I read this literature from Verint, for example – is supposed to only go to intelligence agencies and so forth, and it says, ‘We specialize in mass surveillance,’ and that’s what they do.

“They put [this] mass surveillance equipment in these facilities. So you have AT&T, for example, that, you know, considers it’s their job to get messages from one person to another, not tapping into messages, and you get the NSA that says, we want, you know, copies of all this. So that’s where these [two Israeli] companies come in. These companies act as the intermediary basically between the telecom companies and the NSA.”

AMY GOODMAN: “Now, Jim Bamford, take this a step further, because you say the founder and former CEO of one of these companies [Verint] is now a fugitive from the United States somewhere in Africa?”

JAMES BAMFORD: “…the company that Verizon uses, Verint, the founder of the company, the former head of the company, is now a fugitive in – hiding out in Africa in the country of Namibia, because he’s wanted on a number of felony warrants for fraud and other charges. And then, two other top executives of the company, the general counsel and another top official of the parent company, have also pled guilty to these charges.

“So, you know, you’ve got companies – these [two] companies have foreign connections with potential ties to foreign intelligence agencies, and you have problems of credibility, problems of honesty and all that. And these companies – through these two companies pass probably 80 percent or more of all US communications at one point or another.

“And it’s even – gets even worse in the fact that these companies also supply their equipment all around the world to other countries, to countries that don’t have a lot of respect for individual rights – – Vietnam, China, Libya, other countries like that. And so, these countries use this equipment to filter out dissident communications and people trying to protest the government. It gives them the ability to eavesdrop on communications and monitor dissident email communications. And as a result of that, people are put in jail, and so forth…”

AMY GOODMAN: “And despite all of this…these telecom companies still have access to the most private communications of people all over America and actually, it ends up, around the world. And at the beginning of the summer [2008], the Democrats and Republicans joined together in granting retroactive immunity to these companies for spying on American citizens.”

The fugitive CEO of Verint, whom Bamford mentions, is Jacob “Kobi” Alexander. In 2006, the US Dept. of Justice charged him with conspiring to commit securities and wire and mail fraud. The SEC weighed in and filed similar civil charges.

Alexander fled to Namibia, where he finally settled with the SEC for $46 million. The DOJ criminal complaint, as far as I can tell, still stands. Alexander continues to fight against extradition to the US.

He is no longer the CEO of Verint.

It’s obvious that these two Israeli companies, Narus and Verint, working for NSA, have been able to divert duplicate mega-tons of data to Israeli intelligence.

The recent media stories on this NSA PRISM spying system indicate that NSA is tapping into the servers of huge tech companies; Google, AOL, Microsoft, Skype, Apple, Yahoo. The methods of data theft may have expanded, but the result and intent remain the same.

The government-corporate juggernaut moves ahead. Their rationale – catching terrorists – is, in great part, a cover story to obscure the fact that the State wants control over the lives of all citizens, as it ratchets up the very conditions that provoke rebellion.

It’s a classic pincer movement.

As far as the current NSA PRISM spying is concerned, look for limited hangouts. These are partial admissions and excuses, offered to conceal greater crimes and stop investigations.

The giant tech companies already have their limited hangout in place: “We didn’t know it was happening, we would never have allowed it to happen, and we’ll be much more careful in the future.”

Obama is saying: Yes, let’s have dialogue on this matter…there’s a fine line between national security needs and overweening intrusion into citizens’ privacy.

The NSA is saying: We do spy, but we don’t read content of emails and phone calls. We just keep ‘records’ of the communications.

The lies lying liars tell. The NSA has multiple and redundant methods of spying. If they have to cut back, for a while, on directly accessing the servers of the giant tech firms, they can do it without losing a step.

After all, as James Bamford revealed five years ago, NSA cuts directly into fiber-optic cables and splits the data into two copies, one of which it keeps for itself. They can access Google and Yahoo in other ways.

Most easily, they can say to these willing tech partners, “Give us all your data.” And it will be done.

Firms like Google are already spying on their customers, putting together extensive profiles to craft better targeted ads. Google knows spying. Doing it for commercial purposes, or for “national security” purposes? They don’t make those distinctions.

The Best of Jon Rappoport

“What is finished is the idea that this great country is dedicated to the freedom and flourishing of every individual in it. It’s the individual that’s finished. It’s the single, solitary human being that’s finished. It’s every single one of you out there that’s finished. Because this is no longer a nation of independent individuals. It’s a nation of some two hundred odd million transistorized, deodorized, whiter-than-white, steel-belted bodies, totally unnecessary as human beings and as replaceable as piston rods.” – Howard Beale, in Paddy Chayefsky’s 1976 film, Network

But that was only a movie. Who cares about that? You go into a theater, sit there in the dark for a couple of hours, walk out, and think about something else.

For several years now, I’ve been writing about the decline of the individual. The wipeout.

Every time I write an article on this subject, I receive suggestions. I should go back and re-read Marx. I need to understand the difference between “communal, communitarian, community, communist.” I should research worker-owned businesses. What about trans-substantial transpersonal sub-brain algorithmic psychology? How about the pygmies? Ego? Superego? Id?

I appreciate these and other remarks, but I’m talking about the individual, about Self, beyond any construct, beyond citizenship, beyond membership, beyond sociology or anthropology or archeology.

The individual is enshrined in various political documents, but his rights don’t originate there. Neither does courage nor imagination.

I’ve laid out the enormous psyop designed to submerge the individual in unconscious goo. This psyop depends on the repetition of words like: unity, love, caring, community, family. And phrases like “we’re all in this together.”

The individual is characterized as: lone, outsider, selfish, greedy, inhumane, petty. Turn him into an exile, excommunicated from the great body of humanity.

Here, in the usual prose, is a familiar formulation of the grand psyop: “We can no longer afford the luxury of thinking of ourselves as individuals. The stakes are too high. Finally, we must all come together and realize our presence on this planet is a shared experience. The decimation of our resources, through hatred and divisive behavior, the denial of love and community, the cold greed and excessive profit-making, the whole range of social and political injustices – all this can ultimately be laid at the door of the individual who refuses to join the rest of humanity…”

Is this manifesto valid? It’s a deception, BECAUSE it’s aimed at making the individual extinct.

And once that happens, the collective, managed by Globalist princes, will have a clear path to the control of Earth, at the expense of the rest of us. And the cruelties we now witness will pale in comparison to what is in store for us.

“When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets, it is well for the timid to lock doors, shutter windows and lie low until the wrath has passed. For there is often a monstrous incongruity between the hopes, however noble and tender, and the action which follows them. It is as if ivied maidens and garlanded youths were to herald the four horsemen of the apocalypse…The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race, or his holy cause…Collective unity is not the result of the brotherly love of the faithful for each other. The loyalty of the true believer [who surrenders Self] is to the whole – the church, party, nation – and not to his fellow true believer. True loyalty between individuals is possible only in a loose and relatively free society.” – Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, 1951

Wait. Isn’t that a bit harsh? Isn’t that too “critical and negative?” Where is the cosmic share-and-care we need to spread like butter over the whole universe? I mean, Eric Hoffer was a wonderful writer, and he was a working man, a longshoreman for his whole life, so we should admire him, but today’s prophets are wired directly into the Unity that will save us all automatically – like a toaster popping up with toast every time…right?

On some mid-west college campus, a wide-eyed kid of 19, full of hope and optimism, is studying political science. His professor is running down the catalog of stunning injustices that populate far-off regions of the planet.

The boy wants to help. His professor gives him the name of a humanitarian group that runs operations in Africa. The boy, in some sort of “personal crisis,” drops out of school and signs on with the group.

Little does he know that the charity he is now working with in Africa has ties to USAID, which in turn is a solid CIA front. The real mission of the charity, unknown to most or all of its members, is gathering information that can be used as intelligence.

Under the banner of justice, help, hope, and unity of all peoples, the charity is providing actionable intell to CIA-backed “rebel forces” who are carrying out assassinations and bombings in advance of a political coup.

The coup will pave the way for new deals with multinational scum, organized as corporations, to enter the scene and plunder natural resources and labor at more formidable levels.

Five years later, the boy leaves the charity and returns to the US. He is confused, looking for another group in which he can submerge himself. He’s hooked on groups…

The naïve have given up the ghost on their own independent existence. That is the key.

Think of some of the messages of recent pathetic presidents. Bush the Elder: “Kinder, gentler.” Clinton: “I feel your pain.” Bush 2: “No child left behind.” Obama: “We’re all in this together.”

Judging by these presidents’ murderous actions, it’s clear they were selling unity and caring and togetherness as cover stories for oppressive business as usual.

The op? Make the individual extinct, present him as a useless and dangerous and outmoded construct. Then, whatever real unity that might exist between individuals will vanish, because the population will take on the shape of a coagulated mass melted down into a cosmic glob of androidal harmony.

Artists have warned about all this. Their so-called supporters say, “Oh yes, he was a wonderful writer. Misunderstood, of course, but brave in the face of utter rejection.” The usual claptrap. Point is, these gushing advocates conveniently and easily forget what the artists actually wrote.

Here is another reminder from an Outsider who was glad to be outside. He was a hero to some. He was reviled by many.

“A bureau operates on opposite principles of inventing needs to justify its existence. Bureaucracy is wrong as a cancer, a turning away from the human evolutionary direction of infinite potentials and differentiation and independent spontaneous action to the complete parasitism of a virus…Bureaus die when the structure of the state collapse. They are as helpless and unfit for independent existence as a displaced tapeworm, or a virus that has killed the host.”

“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.”

“There is simply no room left for ‘freedom from the tyranny of government’ since city dwellers depend on it for food, power, water, transportation, protection, and welfare. Your right to live where you want, with companions of your choosing, under laws to which you agree, died in the eighteenth century with Captain Mission. Only a miracle or a disaster could restore it.”

The author? William S. Burroughs. But not to worry, he was crazy. Of course he was. He didn’t profess utter loyalty to the mass of humanity. He didn’t prostrate himself before “the greater good.” He didn’t preach unity and togetherness.

He was an individual. Therefore, he is obsolete. A cherished memory of a time now wiped from the mind. Now we are all dancing and marching in the psyop.

Here’s another psyop and cultural theme: the distortion of money and the free market.

The psyop goes this way: The making of $$ is a religious event comparable to the arrival of Jesus or the appearance of the Great Buddha. Indeed, isn’t Christmas the season measured by consumer sales?

A life justified is a life of the bottom-line cash register, a poem to make Shakespeare turn pale with envy.

It doesn’t matter what a product is. If it sells, it must be good. It must mean something profound.

Nail polish, a new plastic toy, a little robot that sings songs – they’re Walt Whitman and Michangelo and Bach because they jumped off store shelves.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are geniuses because they and their companies amassed billions. It has to be so.

The team that put together Goofy Bird III, the summer blockbuster hit, are the Chaucers of our time. The box office proved it.

What product makes more money than any other? War. Therefore, Jesus wore a white leisure suit and played golf with generals and made deals for weapons systems.

“If a young man or woman today wants to express his true individuality and succeed with other like-minded individuals who have no fear of failure, the two businesses to go into are war and banking. My father told me that, and it’s stood me in good stead all these years. It’s the apotheosis of America…”

An artist named Paddy Chayefsky, in his film, Network, covered this waterfront pretty well:

“You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multi-variate, multi-national dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and sub-atomic and galactic structure of things today! And you have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and You Will Atone!”

Hail to the collective, managed from the top. Ah, but as I said, Network was just a movie.

Who cares about American artists? They need monuments and grants here and there, if they’re still alive, but…taking them seriously? Who would want to do that? They’re just…INDIVIDUALS.

Who would want to keep the individual alive, especially the free, independent, and creative individual? We can learn all we need about that by listening to TED lectures!

Here is another quote from an American artist. This one is REALLY not in the politically correct mode. I mean, how dare he!:

“Tomorrow you may bring about the destruction of your world. Tomorrow you may sing in Paradise above the smoking ruins of your world-cities. But tonight I would like to think of one man, a lone individual, a man without name or country, a man whom I respect because he has absolutely nothing in common with you – MYSELF. Tonight I shall meditate upon that which I am.” – Henry Miller, Black Spring, 1936

And this! From the most celebrated American poet of all! Is this what he really wrote?

“I CELEBRATE myself, and sing myself/And what I assume you shall assume/For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you/I loafe and invite my soul/I lean and loafe at my ease observing a spear of summer grass/…Creeds and schools in abeyance…I will go to the bank by the wood and become undisguised and naked…The smoke of my own breath/Echoes, ripples, buzz’d whispers, love-root, silk-thread, crotch and vine…The delight alone or in the rush of the streets, or along the fields and hill-sides/The feeling of health, the full-noon trill, the song of me rising from bed and meeting the sun.” – Walt Whitman, Song of Myself, I, II, VI & LII

A celebration of self, and self expanded out into limitless dimensions?

And this is is our real poet laureate?

Something must be wrong.

Yes, the individual, the self – these individual artists – far too messy, too uneven, too unpredictable, too complex to fit into a scheme of the future in which we’ll all be subsumed in a cosmic order.

No, the individual, the self, must be shaved and carved so we can all meld together in a simplified enlightenment.

Here, from the universally acclaimed author of Moby Dick, Herman Melville, another quote that sticks out from the great uniform mass of group-think:

“There is the grand truth about Nathaniel Hawthorne. He says NO! in thunder; but the Devil himself cannot make him say yes. For all men who say yes, lie; and all men who say no, – why, they are in the happy condition of judicious, unincumbered travellers in Europe; they cross the frontiers into Eternity with nothing but a carpet-bag, – that is to say, the Ego. Whereas those yes-gentry, they travel with heaps of baggage, and, damn them! they will never get through the Custom House.”

There is no doubt; these Individuals are too thorny, too different – and even different from each other. How can we build a world of unity and unified enlightenment if we let them in the door?

We must erase the memory that these people ever existed. We need to cut down space and time, leave them out, and outfit a new continuum so it will accept only the brainwashed and reduced and harmonized desires of the collective.

Yes. That’s it.

Let’s cause everyone to accept one of two things. We are either “all in this together forever,” or money is the supreme and final god of all time and space. Those are the two choices. They both flatten out the soul and prepare it for the endless gray day.

The Individual must be put into permanent exile. We can’t even say what he is. We can’t define him. We can’t hold him within borders. We can’t know what he’ll do.

Sometimes he’s up, sometimes he’s down, sometimes he’s sideways. Sometimes he embraces the whole cosmos, sometimes he’s alone in a room.

The new world can’t have him. For sake of the coming glory, he has to exit.

The Great Psyop hath spoken.

So, you see, when it comes to freedom, I’m not talking about columns and columns of people marching in one direction, most of them moving ahead together, and a few dropping out and scattering. I’m not talking about a billion androids, among whom a few thousand defect.

I’m not talking about androids or columns of marchers at all. I’m talking about Self. The individual apart from any coordinated picture, apart from any tedious idea about what a human being is.

I don’t care whether he chooses to live in a one-room apartment in New York or a commune in Georgia. I don’t care whether he votes Republican or Democrat or the Party of Golden Lucifer. I don’t care about any of those distinctions, because they all proceed from some horrendous and mutilated idea, some shrunken desiccated idea of what the Self IS in the first place.

“Well, we’re really all the same, so the choices a person has aren’t that important…”

We’re really all the same AFTER the great curtain has lowered on the individual and his psyche and his imagination and his daring. Yes, THEN we’re all the same. And then it doesn’t matter what the individual thinks or does, or whether he goes left or right or stays down the middle. THEN he begins to concoct systems and counter-systems and parochial visions he wants to impose on everyone else.

The truth is, we’re all different, astonishingly different. So different, in fact, that left to our own devices, over a long enough span of time, how each one of us would express his deepest thoughts and inventions would make the world into a completely different place.

The individual, the Self, isn’t just a little different or moderately different or quite different. The individual is a revolution all his own, a living breathing revolution.

He can become and identify with any other thing or creature in the universe – or not. He can think with seventeen brains and walk on eight legs if he wants to. He can be Self inventing more Self. He can destroy all forms and shapes of slavery – most importantly his own.

He can love and he can hate. He can experience and create emotions that have never been dreamed of. He can dance with the angels on the head of a pin or drift off past the stars.

He knows freedom is real, and he doesn’t have the slightest interest in interfering with another’s freedom.

This is what political and social movements are FOR: to establish enough freedom for the individual, any individual, so that he can then, if he wants to, become what he is, which is to say, invent his existence entirely according to his own fecund imagination. It will not be a copy of anyone else’s existence. It will not even be close.

After enough time has elapsed, it will be astonishing.

I know many people who believe they are already free and are already living life exactly the way they want to. This is preposterous. At a superficial level, yes. But beyond that, there are oceans of potential expression and invention they haven’t begun to fathom. If by “free” they mean relatively unencumbered by outside forces, but locked down tight as a drum from the inside, then yes, they are free, and good luck to them.

I’ve quoted artists in this essay because I want to impart at least some sense of how different we are from each other. This doesn’t mean we can’t bridge the gulf; of course we can. In fact, it becomes far easier when each of us is speaking with a Voice uncoupled from the “wisdom” of this joke of a society in which we currently live.

The ultimate and permanent fusion of all things is a myth and fairy tale. It’s a fairy tale bought by people who have never ventured off the reservation to discover and invent their own Voice.

If all this is true, then why do I write about the crimes of the medical cartel, the crimes of Monsanto, the corrosive destruction wrought by television? Why bother with any of this? Because I’m for authentic movements to end these crimes. The mafias of this world are out to gain as much control as possible…and finally and ultimately, this means a war against the freedom of every individual. It means writing the individual and his enormous untapped potential out of existence.

When the android-uniformity of all individuals is being sold as marvelous unity, that needs to be pointed out. When millions of people believe uniqueness=uniformity=unity, that’s more Orwellian than Orwell, and it needs to be pointed out.

The Best of Jon Rappoport

When Chris Matthews files for divorce from Barack Obama, you know the world is upside down.

When the liberal online rag, Politico, features a clip of Matthews saying, “[Obama] obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch,” we’re through the Looking Glass.

The liberal jackals are stalking their own leader, the President. After making mind-bending excuses for Obama’s disastrous presidency, they’ve suddenly heard a supersonic whistle, and they’re out for blood.

Jonathan Turley, famous liberal constitutional lawyer, is counting Obama’s sins, ranging far beyond the current IRS and AP phone-tapping scandals.

James Goodale, former lawyer for the NY Times, is writing, at the Daily Beast, “Obama is fast becoming the worst national security press president, worse than Nixon, and it may not get any better.”

Liberal radio host Bill Press is calling for Obama to fire Eric Holder. Charley Rangel says, “No one believes that the president has given us a sufficient answer [to the IRS and DOJ scandals].”

Representative Zoe Lofgren and NBC’s Brian Williams are down Obama’s neck.

Just a few weeks ago, after the Boston bombing, Obama was unassailable. He was still the king with his own people. Now, he’s turning into lunch meat.

Liberals could be shouting and claiming that the IRS targeting of conservative, patriot, and constitutional groups had nothing to do with Obama, that he’s entirely innocent, that he just got rid of the IRS chief and all is well…but they’re not saying it.

They could be insisting that the DOJ tapping AP phones was all on Eric Holder, and Obama had nothing to do with it…but they’re not saying it.

The current press virus is: Obama is Nixon.

What’s going on?

Who’s giving liberals the order to go after Obama? Who shifted the political wind overnight?

Yesterday, I examined Watergate from the perspective of Nixon’s betrayal of the Rockefeller family. That was the key to his ouster from the presidency. The Washington Post was used as the attack dog. Are we looking at something similar here?

Has Obama failed to live up to his promises to people far more powerful than he is? If so, what is his betrayal?

Is it simply the fact that the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations have chosen Hillary Clinton as the next president – and in order to make that happen, major diversions have to guide the press and public away from her role in the Benghazi catastrophe? Is that why we’re suddenly seeing the IRS and DOJ scandals erupting?

Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission (TC) certainly wields enough power to torpedo Obama, if they want to. And they surround Obama.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.” Consider the following TC members, who have held Obama posts:

• Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;
• James Jones, National Security Advisor;
• Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;
• Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

All Trilateralists.

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The TC is the hand that feeds Obama. Has he bitten it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

A closer look at Tim Geithner’s circle of economic advisers reveals the chilling Trilateral effect: Paul Volker; Alan Greenspan; E. Gerald Corrigan (director, Goldman Sachs); and Peter G Peterson (former CEO, Lehman Brothers, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations). These men are all Trilateral members.

How many foxes in the hen house do we need, before we realize their Trilateral agenda is controlling the direction of our economy?

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs(2003):

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

So yes, if the Trilateral Commission wanted to sink Obama’s presidency, they could call that shot. They could radically influence press coverage of the president, they could pull strings and end the worshipful celebration of Obama as the great prophet. They could bring hard doom to him.

Nixon started imposing tariffs on imported goods. That was his Waterloo. He ran afoul of the massive Rockefeller free trade agenda. What has Obama done?

Is he stalling on war with Iran? Has he gone too far in his embrace of Islamic partners? Has he finally balked at continuing the war in Afghanistan?

Setting economic and political policy for the US is a prime operation of the Trilateral Commission. If Obama has crossed swords with the TC, he would be treading on very dangerous ground.

From the shadows of history, let me give you an illustration of how far and deep the TC can reach. It really does boggle the mind.

Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment – in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper.

The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others?After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

Source: Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.

Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.

If the mainstream press had made hay out of this interview, had reported it widely, and commented upon it with relentless fervor and disgust and shock (a pipe dream, to be sure); if the interview had been pushed and publicized as a scandal of the greatest depth; if ensuing denials and distractions had been cast aside; the exposure of the Trilaterals would have shaken the country’s foundations, and the press would have had to admit all their coverage of government was a farce and a cartoon.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission – the Commission had been been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.

Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that, if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost – because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff. He gave up.

That’s the kind of power we’re talking about. Barack Obama would merely be a minor figure blowing in the wind, if the TC decided he’d betrayed them. Obama’s administration is stacked with TC members.

They could foment the sudden liberal opposition to this president, which has bloomed overnight like a mushroom in the dark.

No one at the moment is playing the race card for Obama, which has been an effective strategy. No one in the press is claiming that Obama’s Republican opponents are racists. Why not?

The IRS and DOJ scandals are manageable. By themselves, absent the press firestorm, they can be contained. Eric Holder can go. The IRS chief has already been dispatched to nowhere land. The president can claim immunity from these two doofuses. Indeed, he may try that.

As long as his liberal allies keeping pounding on the fact that he’s a great president who has been served badly by his inferiors, the ship could hold water. But right now, that’s not happening. The sudden sea change is swamping the boat.

Remember, with Watergate, we saw a successful attack on the US Attorney General, John Mitchell, on the way to nailing Nixon and knocking him out of the box. That Rockefeller operation worked like a magic machine.

Eric Holder, the current Attorney General, has just testified before Congress that he doesn’t know anything about anything. He’s pretty much said, “Ask me a question about any scandal and I’ll plead vast ignorance. That’s my defense.”

Holder is ripe for a takedown. And then the press hounds would be that much closer to pinning blame on Obama himself.

I’m not saying Obama will be impeached or will resign – although in politics, never say never. I’m saying his presidency, such as it is, could be destroyed very quickly among and by his own supporters.

The clue here, again, is the sudden and boggling liberal press turnaround, their all-out assault on Obama. This kind of thing doesn’t happen by accident. It certainly doesn’t happen from the bowels of the president’s rabid worshipers. But it is happening.

That means marching orders. That means screws have been turned by people who expect and demand and can count on obedience. Those people are players who live far above government. Government is their mechanism, as is the press, when it needs to be.

And right now, it needs to be.

The Best of Jon Rappoport

Watergate eventually became the story of two young rookie reporters who exposed and took down a president.

Try to think of another major story in your lifetime where the reporters themselves took center stage, and in the process nearly eclipsed their own work. Odd.

One of them, Bob Woodward, expanded his fame. The powers-that-be permitted him to go on and, with extraordinary access, write books criticizing future presidents. Woodward became the in-house attack dog. Mr. Limited Hangout.

The other reporter, Carl Bernstein, faded into relative obscurity. Well, he began connecting journalists to the CIA. That wasn’t a smart career move. That was, perhaps, a case of biting the hand that had fed him.

To learn why Richard Nixon was really blown out of the White House, you could begin with the infamous Nazi chemical/pharmaceutical cartel, IG Farben. The cartel that pushed Hitler over the top into power in Germany.

One of its lasting legacies is the multinational corporation ballooning out into titanic proportions. Farben didn’t just buy smaller companies, it forged favorable agreements with huge corporations all over the world: Standard Oil (Rockefeller); Rhone-Poulenc; Imperial Chemical Industries; Du Pont; Dow.

During World War 2, Josiah Du Bois, representing the US federal government, was sent on a fact-finding mission to Guatemala. His comment: “As far as I can tell the country is a wholly owned subsidiary of Farben.”

What Farben stood for was an attempt to remake the planet in terms of power.

Farben held important cards. It employed brilliant chemists who, in some ways, were far ahead of its competitors. Farben was all about synthetics. Rubber, oil, dyes, pharmaceuticals.

Farben saw itself as a modern version of the old alchemists. Transforming one substance into another. It came to believe that, with enough time, it would be able to make anything from anything. It envisioned labs in which basic chemical facts would be changed so that, in practice, elements and compounds would be virtually interchangeable.

This was in line with the Nazi obsession to discover the lost secrets of the mythical Aryan race and then reconstitute it with selective breeding, genetic engineering, and of course the mass murder of “lesser peoples.”

On one level, there was the idea of chemical transformations, and on another level, the transformation of the human species.

It was really all one piece. The Nazi ideology was the glue.

It was the picture of scientism – the philosophy that asserts science should absolutely rule all facets of life. Nazi Germany showed the world what that philosophy looks like in practice. Farben had prisoners shipped from Auschwitz to its nearby facility, where horrendous medical/pharmaceutical experiments were carried out on them.

At the end of World War 2, the Farben executives were put on trial and, despite the efforts of Telford Taylor, the chief US prosecutor, the sentences handed out were light.

There was a reason for this. A new world was coming into being, and mega-corporations and cartels were at the heart of it. They would be the engines driving the global economy and pillaging the natural resources of the planet. It was colonialism with a different face, the East India company running on technology and industry and a planetary reach beyond anything ever attempted.

So the Farben moguls, and those like them, were seen by many as designers of the new “peace.”

Consider the total volume of international trade of goods today – the largest 300 corporations in the world are responsible for an unbelievable percentage of it…as high as 25%.

So now you see the reason why these treaties like GATT and NAFTA and CAFTA have been launched. Mega-corporations want to roam free. They want to be able to inject money into any entity in the world and suddenly remove it at will. They certainly want to be able to ship goods from one nation to another without paying tariffs, which otherwise would cost them an extraordinary amount of money. For these corporations, nations don’t really exist anymore – they are convenient fictions. These corporations don’t want any restrictions on their plundering of the Global Village.

Farben envisioned and planned for this kind of licentious freedom. It saw itself as more than a German cartel. It was already international, and it was moving toward domination.

However, more powerful forces would overtake it – and I’m not just talking about American soldiers. In the sphere of international influence, there are the Plan A and Plan B people. The Plan A controllers (think Rockefeller dynasty, among others) opted for a “softer, gentler” approach, a more covert program, whereby, over a long period of time, the world population would be brought under a global management system, in which mega-corporations would play the central role. The Plan B people, Nazis and their allied interests, wanted crushing force and violence to achieve a somewhat similar goal in a much shorter period of time – with Germany as the leading prow of the movement.

It is in the arena of pharmaceutical domination that one of Farben’s goals has endured. Two of its original components, Bayer and Hoechst, have survived and prospered. And many other drug companies have copied the basic model.

For a number of years, I’ve researched and published on this subject. Death, maiming, destruction, poisoning – these are correct assessments of the overall effects of drug-based medicine. Judging solely by these effects, one could say that war by other means has continued after 1945. And the fronts of devastation have spread.

On the mega-corporate front, the plan for world control remains the Rockefeller template. “Free trade.” This plan was advanced, ceaselessly, for 40 years until, on January 1, 1995, the World Trade Organization was fully formed and took charge of the criminal rules of global commerce: the crowning moment.

However, back in the early 1970s, the whole operation had almost been derailed. One man, a crook, a president, a liar, an insecure parody of a head of state, Richard Nixon, went off script. He REALLY went off script.

In an effort to bolster US companies and protect them from foreign competition inside the United States, Nixon began erecting tariffs on a range of goods imported into the US.

If this Nixon economic plan spread to other countries, the entire global program to install “free trade” and mega-corporate emperors on their thrones for a thousand years could crash and burn.

Nixon was a Rockefeller man. He was owned by them. He’d been rescued from financial ruin by The Family, and now he was in the White House undermining their greatest dream. You can’t overstate the degree of the betrayal, from the Rockefeller point of view. You simply can’t.

Something had to be done. The president had to go. This was the real motivation behind Watergate. This was the real op. Yes, there were sub-motives and smaller contexts, as in any major op, but the prime mover was: get Free Trade back on track, and get suitable revenge on the puppet in the White House who went off the script.

Any historian who overlooks this is an outright fool or a deceiver.

Whether the Watergate break-in was planned to serve the higher goal or was pounced upon, after the fact, as the grand opportunity, is beside the point. It was there, and it was used. It became the starting point for the Washington Post, its publisher, veteran editor, and two cub reporters to break Richard Nixon into pieces.

And if the Rockefeller people needed an inside man to report on the deteriorating mental state of the president as he heated up in the pressure cooker, they had Henry Kissinger, who was another Rockefeller operative.

The Washington Post was owned by Katharine Graham, who was herself a very close friend of the Rockefeller Family. Years later, she would be awarded a medal of honor by the University of Chicago, a an institution founded by John D. Rockefeller. On her death, a paid heartfelt obituary was inserted in the NY Times by the trustees, faculty, and staff of Rockefeller University, where she had served on the University Council.

And she and Nixon already hated each other by the early 1970s.

The managing editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, was an old hand at writing promotional material, having worked in Europe crafting releases for a CIA front group. A former Naval intelligence man, he liked one of his cub reporters, Bob Woodward, who had also worked for the Navy in intelligence.

When Woodward came to Bradlee with a story about a man in a parking garage who was passing secrets from the White House/FBI about Watergate, we are supposed to believe that Bradlee naturally responded by giving the green light to a major investigation. Woodward and Carl Bernstein, another cub, would undertake it – with nothing more than Bradlee’s reputation and the future survival of the Post and Katharine Graham’s empire on the line if the cubs got it wrong.

We are supposed to believe Bradlee gave the green light, without knowing who the man in the garage was, without knowing whether Woodward could be trusted, without even getting permission from Graham to move ahead.

Bradlee, a grizzled veteran of Washington, understanding exactly what Washington could do to people who told secrets out of school, just said to Woodward and Bernstein, “You’d better be damned sure you’re right, because otherwise we’re all in trouble.”

Two untested cub reporters set loose in a cage with tigers.

The odds of that happening were nil. Bradlee had to know a great deal from the beginning, and he had to have Katharine Graham’s signal to move. The series of breaking stories would be spoon-fed to the unsuspecting young reporters. They would be consumed by their ambition to advance their careers. Bradlee was confident because he had the essentials of the scandal in hand – all the way up to Nixon, the target – well in advance of his two reporters.

To have proceeded otherwise – Bradlee was simply not that kind of fool. Whatever Deep Throat, the man in the garage, was dishing out to Woodward didn’t really matter. Bradlee already had it in his pocket. Deep Throat was merely a contrivance to allow the story to expand and grow by steps, and to permit Woodward and Bernstein to believe they were peeling layers from an onion.

The man behind the curtain was David Rockefeller.

After the whole scandal had been exposed and Nixon had flown away, in disgrace, from the White House for the last time, Rockefeller addressed a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the European Community (October, 1975). He was there to allay their fears about Nixon’s betrayal of the new economic world order. There was really very little he needed to say. David had already created (1973) the free-trade Trilateral Commission. And a new puppet, Gerald Ford was in the White House, and Ford had appointed David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller, as his vice president.

David told the European attendees, “Fortunately, there are no signs that these anti-[free] trade measures [of Nixon] are supported by the [Ford] Administration.”

And that was that. The global mega-corporate colossus was back on track.

The temporary rip in the Matrix had been repaired.

On a far lower level of power politics, everyone and his brother was consumed with the contrails of the scandal that had driven away Nixon and his colleagues. People were congratulating each other on the expunging of a corrupt conspiracy from public life.

The real players, of course, were still in place, more powerful than ever. David Rockefeller and his aides were preparing for an even greater coup. They had chosen an obscure man with zero name recognition to be the next president of the United States. Jimmy Carter. Carter would function to forward the goals of the Trilateral Commission in bold view of anyone who knew the score.

And every president since Carter, regardless of party affiliation, has supported and extended those Globalist-corporate goals. No questions asked. Obama, who fatuously remarked during his 2008 election campaign that NAFTA “needs to be revisited,” has taken his cues like any other puppet.

When, from this perspective, you examine the global takeover of land and resources by GMO agribusiness, the destruction of small family farms, the plundering of natural resources in the Third World, the use of UN “peacekeepers” and “humanitarian groups” and intelligence agencies to create a wedge, for corporations, into these areas, you see the hand of the Rockefeller plan.

When you see the destruction of currencies and the escalation of insupportable debt, the incursion of a bewildering number of UN-affiliated groups sinking their teeth into local communities all over the planet to “manage sustainable development,” you see the plan.

On the approaching anniversary of Watergate, you can see that the trashing of Nixon, who like every president since, was put in place to serve his masters, is an opportunity to notice the Plan Behind the Curtain.

Obama? Merely the latest willing front man. A third-rate hustler.

The innocuous-sounding “free trade” policy is the number-one priority of every American president. He must do two things: rarely speak of it, and allow it to move forward. That’s all. In return, he gets to act as if he’s the most powerful man in the world.

But if he wobbles and considers taking up a position against free trade (corporate domination of the planet), he can look back and see what happened to Richard Nixon. He can learn from that example.

He can recite the famous words of Zbiggie Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and David Rockefeller’s intellectual flunkey: “The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”

Like Jimmy Carter, a future president can espouse the most wide-ranging humanitarian philosophy and ascend to a cloud of beautiful altrusim, admired by all. As long as he sticks to the plan.

If not, two reporters coming out of nowhere, wet behind the ears, eager for advancement, will magically learn of his missteps and demolish him.

The Best of Jon Rappoport

This article is dedicated to Bonnie Lange, my dear friend and publisher, who passed away last week. Bonnie was an unbound creative spirit who lived her life as a titanic vision. Leaving her physical form behind, she expands her vision, her life, her work, her ever-present joy. Much love, my friend…

NBC News is in the process of appointing a new chief. The purpose? To rearrange what is already false reality, to make it more interesting and dramatic.

The desperate networks are grasping at straws. Their ratings reflect a continuing audience exodus.

I once wrote that, if tomorrow the top news anchors admitted they were drag queens, the whole country would immediately collapse. That’s how fragile America actually is.

I’ve updated that comment, because the USA is now so tolerant the top anchors could come out as collies or toasters and everyone would feel compelled to consider the revelation with warm regard.

So here is the new formulation: If tomorrow, television news disappeared completely, the human mind would lose its mirror and chaos would ensue.

The minds of most viewers lack context, are satisfied with cartoons of reality, yearn for authorities, and will accept any version of “being informed.”

This is what the news is all about. The superficial mind clings to the news as a representation of what the mind is.

Take away that mirror and millions of people would enter a highly disturbing void, an absence, a vacuum.

It would be quite interesting.

Some people would realize the degree to which they demand to be told what to think, what to see, what to assume. Others would simply spin into a deep confusion.

At bottom, most minds want to know what exists, even if the portrait is a total lie. A lie is better than nothing. “Give me something, anything.”

That morbid desire is in direct proportion to the absence of any ambition to create reality on one’s own.

Every psyop since the dawn of time is based on, and works because of, the individual’s refusal to create his own reality.

This refusal is, in turn, the cornerstone of highly organized, layered, hierarchical, top-down societies.

These societies generate majestic deceptions, enemies, wars, and huge disparities between the haves and the have-nots. History reveals many elements of progress, but it doesn’t show a solution to these chronic injustices.

To put it another way, the solutions will not appear, in the long run, until millions of people do, in fact, create their own realities.

And that capacity to create requires a revolution at the deepest possible level.

Most people don’t even understand what it means, and/or won’t admit it’s possible.

They would rather rearrange deck chairs on a sinking ship:

“Give me THESE liars as leaders (creators of mass reality), and if you won’t do that, give me THOSE liars as leaders…”

“Ladies and gentlemen, this is the end of the last newscast anywhere. Good night and good luck.” Blackout.

If government’s media mouthpiece were gone, people would be forced to make up their own minds about government. And eventually, they would. And it wouldn’t be a happy moment, for government.

Unsurprisingly, the first “newspapers,” in ancient China, Egypt, and Rome, were government-issued bulletins. They were decrees, commands, and announcements.

They were deployed to control citizens’ actions and paint an official picture of reality.

At some point, leaders recognized that, with the expansion of individual freedom, more subtle methods for control and “guided perception” were necessary. Hence, modern media.

For this to work, reporters had to be elevated to privileged status. They were now town criers dressed to kill.

“Owing to excessive propaganda, lies, and style masquerading as substance, all news is canceled.” That would be a kind of forced declaration of independence.

In 1982, when I began writing for LA Weekly, I sat down with the editor, who explained that investigative reporting was a dying function of the news, because it was too expensive. Its outcome was always uncertain – a newspaper could assign a reporter to a story and pay him for a few months, and at the end of it he might or might not come up with something explosive.

There was, of course, another reason for squelching investigative reporting. A reporter might dig too deep and find too much gold. The wrong people (actual high-level criminals) could be indicted and exposed.

For the most part, mainstream news has canceled real investigation. It’s gone. It exists as limited hangout, meaning it’s constructed to execute partial and ultimately harmless exposure of crimes. The limited hangout pretends to be the last word, and everybody packs up and goes home, thinking the job is done.

Which is exactly the way most minds operate, when it comes to the truth. They poke around a little, come up with a bit of “deep” material, and check out. Nothing more to see, move along.

Any reporter who goes too far with a story is stopped by his bosses and reassigned to lighter topics. I know of one such hound, who broke open several heavy scandals and was then pulled off to do other work. Allowed to continue his investigations, he would have torn apart the Dept. of Justice and the CDC.

All of mainstream news is a limited hangout, because it purports to be coverage of reality. Actually, it invents reality by establishing narrow context, selecting which stories are important, and twisting their meaning.

So my original question, what if television news disappeared, is in a way a moot point. It’s already disappeared. It never was. It was always a simulacrum.

The Matrix can be viewed as the simulacra the mind invents to stand in for reality. This obsession for what psyops specialists used to call stereotypes is the putty-like target for engineers of deception:

“People already want false images. We merely make sure they buy our false images.”

Coming out of World War 2, US psychological warfare operators turned their attention to new conditions of “peace.” They fed the population images and simulacra of distant peoples and places and cultures.

The premise was: there are billions of people Americans will never meet or come to know. We, the princes of psyops, have to give them pictures of who these foreign humans are, to align with US foreign policy (empire building).

Now, the psyop operators’ target has expanded to a significant degree. The premise reads: there are billions and trillions of bits of information people will never be able to evaluate or organize. We have to tell them what all this information means. We have to shrink it down and frame it and paint shorthand pictures of it. Our pictures, not theirs.

Hence, the news.

Notice the basic fixation in all this madness. It’s the fixation on deciding what reality is, rather than what new realities can be created.

That is the threshold most people refuse to cross or understand. They’ll do anything to avoid it. And when I say most people, I don’t mean groups, I mean individuals.

Here is the real news: People’s problems and confusions and anxieties will never be resolved until they invent realities they truly desire with power and imagination.

I’m talking about inventing social reality and political reality and personal reality and aesthetic reality. This is no cotton-candy prescription. It calls for the deepest conviction and commitment.

When, in the 1960s, various Asian philosophies and spiritual systems were twisted and reduced and re-cooked and distorted, for importation into the West, one of the underlying themes was: enlightenment comes by accepting What Is.

That was a psyop of major proportions, on the level of consciousness and spirit. It was aimed at the closing the door on the oceanic creative impulse.

Accept What Is. Don’t try to change it. Surrender. Stop struggling. Then all your problems will disappear.

False.

The ability to accept reality ultimately and paradoxically depends on surpassing it by inventing new realities in profusion. Then, you can look at What Is and accept it as a fact that, like all other facts, can be radically changed.

Peace attained through a struggle to “let go of everything” is a deception. It’s one piece of a much larger story. That story centers on us and our creative force, the titanic and submerged faculty that always was and always will exist, no matter how many ploys are engaged to reject it.

The news doesn’t cover this story

The news is a drug to put this story to sleep.

The news is a voice expressing itself. But what about the far more important voice of the individual? What is it expressing, if consciousness itself is buttoned up?

I can tell you this. 100 percent of individuals have no idea what they would express if they opened up all creative channels. Oh, they might know what their opening shots would be. But beyond that? They don’t know. They couldn’t know. Because they haven’t invented the full range of their voices.

You could sit down and write a thousand pages to “express what you really want to say,” and you would only be scratching the surface. You would only be warming up your engine.

The mind is trained for delivering summaries and bytes. After throwing off that colossal inhibition, you’re at the beginning of the road. Just the beginning.

The news and all its allied support systems are a reflection of the mind held in check, the imagination held in check. As such they are really meaningless.

We have no clue about what a civilization would be, if many individuals entered the untapped universes of what amounts to endless expression. We live in a shorthand world. We convince ourselves that’s all there is.

That isn’t all there is. It’s just one atom of potential experience.

As far as individual creation is concerned, we live in a world that’s a kindergarten. It’s a nursery school. When people are asked to invent something, to express something, they look for the short form. The brief statement (like the news).

Write a thousand pages and see where you are. Paint a thousand paintings and see where you are. Reinvent your business a hundred times and see where you are. Reinvent your group that seeks to fulfill a social cause a hundred times and see where you are. Become an endless artist of expression and invention and see where you are.

Now we are getting down to the real crime of the news. It looks for the lead paragraph and the bottom line. It searches for the wrap-up and the stinger. It short-circuits the potential of the individual mind because the mind wants to be short-circuited.

And within this prison, people look for answers. It’s a joke. There are no answers there.

We are operating at one tiny end of the light spectrum, claiming that the whole remaining arc of possible light is invisible. Yes, it’s invisible because we shut ourselves off from it, because we fail to realize it becomes visible only when we live through and by imagination.

The myth of Prometheus is really an expression of self-limited creative consciousness seeking to break out and invent realities and worlds without end. The fire Prometheus stole from the gods wasn’t merely “knowledge” or “technology.” It was the infinite creative force.

There was no crime. The gods were already bored to death with their own powers. They had abandoned imagination. They had become tyrannical managers of humans. The gods were pathetic paupers living on borrowed time.

And when Prometheus delivered fire to humans, he wasn’t punished by the gods. He wasn’t chained to a rock and tortured. He was astonished by humans’ refusal to pick up the torch.

The Olympian gods were the News. They were the purveyors of What Is. They demanded allegiance.

The people chose to listen to the news from above. They chose to abdicate the endless road of expression and creation and instead worship an external narration of existence, a tired and bloated and worn-out and stench-ridden song emitted from Broadcast Central.

Imagine this: Scott Pelley, the anchor of the CBS News, appears on screen and says, “Tonight I begin to tell you a story. The story of myself. But not the narrow history. Not just where I was born and what happened to me. Yes, there will be some of that. But my story, like yours, is largely unknown, because I haven’t launched it yet. It isn’t only memory or fact. It’s a fuller and deeper expression, and it’s also an invention. Every night, for a thousand and one nights, I’ll be here on television unspooling and imagining myself. There will be many starts and stops. There will be moments of confusion, and there will be times when I don’t know where to go. But I’ll continue, because I want to, because I’m the artist of myself. As I talk, you’ll see parts of myself disappear and new parts surface. No doubt there will be long periods when I speak impersonally, and then a new intimacy will arise. It will loom up, vanish, and I’ll move into other realms. There is no wrong way to go. This is an Everything, an everything that expands and shrinks and submerges and ends and begins and swells and explodes and starts again from nowhere. This is an adventure. The goal is not a specific thing. The goal is not the truth. The truth is an illusion we concoct to sum up the adventure and give it structure, but this story will be about far more than the truth. It occurs to me that the news is our way of avoiding the ocean of our being, and that ocean contains logic and illogic, myth and also what could never happen but does happen. We perceive certain immovable and credible boundaries that we actually throw up to cover ourselves, to eliminate great cores of energy, to pretend we exist in one centralized space and time. I will tell this story in as many dimensions as I can…”

As improbable as it seems, if such an event took over the news, night after night, for years and years, the so-called vital events of our time, as usually reported by the news, would pale in importance, and something else would take over.

Something we sense but do not express. Something that will revolutionize our lives. We will remember we once knew the endless telling of the endless story, we knew it was the projection of both dream and reality that could and would change, not just the world, but how the world is built…taking it out into uncharted islands, snapping the chains we forged to keep us in a minor tale, always waiting for a romantic moment of liberation to come, forgetting what we need to do to change the sameness of the music:

Tell the endless story without limits.

Ordinary self, extraordinary self, both fuel for the fire.

Here is a quote from a work-in-progress, The Magician Awakes: “There is a thing called Endless Story. It has no walls, floor or ceiling. It reflects how consciousness actually operates, once the programming is cast aside. Endless Story isn’t a cultural artifact. It cuts across all cultural lines. It is pure invention. Nothing that has already happened is sacred…Imagination finds its energy. All common and inhibiting symmetries are cast into the creative fire. Exploration and discovery are redefined. They no longer depend on what already has been laid down as Pattern. Symbols no longer have conventional meanings. Endless Story is the answer to the old alchemical mystery called Quintessence, or Philosopher’s Stone, which was supposed to be the key to transformation of unresolvable conflicts. Endless story overtakes and overrides ‘things as they are.’ Beginning, middle, and end, the cherished components of traditional story, fly out the window into a new dawn, a new day, a new night…”

Focus on the network evening news. This is where the staging is done well.

First, we have the image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

The managing editor, usually the elite anchor, chooses the stories to cover and their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. We want to government to avoid a shutdown. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a thousand are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot. Do the Chinese doctors know what they’re doing? Crowded cities. Maybe more cases all of a sudden. Ten thousand, a hundred thousand.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition, and this trend has jumped quickly since the Newtown, Connecticut, school-shooting tragedy…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? People in small towns. I don’t need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if he broke into the house?”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against Autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. Germs. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned almost nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of continuity.

It would never occur to him to wonder: are the squabbling political legislators really two branches of the same Party? Does government have the Constitutional right to incur this much debt? Where is all that money coming from? Taxes? Other sources? Who invents money?

Is the flu dangerous for most people? If not, why not? Do governments overstate case numbers? How do they actually test patients for the flu? Are the tests accurate? Are they just trying to convince us to get vaccines?

What happens when the government has overwhelming force and citizens have no guns?

When the researchers keep saying “may” and “could,” does that mean they’ve actually discovered something useful about Autism, or are they just hyping their own work and trying to get funding for their next project?

These are only a few of the many questions the typical viewer never considers.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context small and narrow – night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this, yes, staging, is small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

Billions of dollars are spent by the networks to build a reality the size of a room in a cheap motel.

Next we come to words over pictures. More and more, news broadcasts are using the rudimentary film technique of a voice narrating what the viewer is seeing on the screen.

People are shouting and running and falling in a street. The anchor or a field reporter says: “The country is in turmoil. Parliament has suspended sessions for the third day in a row, as the government decides what to do about uprisings aimed at forcing democratic elections…”

Well, the voice must be right, because we’re seeing the pictures. If the voice said the riots were due to garbage-pickup cancellations, the viewer would believe that, too.

How about this: two-day-old footage of runners approaching the finish line of the Boston Marathon. A puff of smoke rises at the right of the screen. A runner falls down in the street. The anchor is saying: “The FBI has announced a bomb made in a pressure cooker caused the injuries and deaths.”

Must be so. We saw the pictures and heard the voice explain.

We see Building #7 of the WTC collapse. Must have been the result of a fire. The anchor tells us so. Words over pictures.

We see footage of Lee Harvey Oswald inside the Dallas police station. The anchor tells he’s about to be transferred, under heavy guard, to another location. Oswald must be guilty, because we’re seeing him in a police station, and the anchor just said “under heavy guard.”

Staged news.

It works.

Why?

Because it mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what the world is, at any given moment.

Since the dawn of time, untold billions of people have been urging a “television anchor” to “explain the pictures.”

The news gives them that precise thing, that precise solution, every night.

“Well, Mr. Jones,” the doctor says, as he pins X-rays to a screen in his office. “See this? Right here? We’ll need to start chemo immediately, and then we may have to remove most of your brain, and as a followup, take out one eye.”

Sure, why not? The patient saw the pictures and the anchor explained them.

After watching and listening to the last year of news, the population is ready to see the president or one of his minions step up to a microphone and say, “Quantitative easing…sequester…”

Reaction? “Don’t know what it is, but it must be okay.”

Eventually, people get the idea and do it for themselves. They see things, they invent one-liners to explain them. They’re their own anchors. They short-cut and undermine their own experience with vapid summaries of what it all means.

“Here are the photos. Just look at these photos. Don’t look at any other photos. These are the killers. Here’s what it means: we’re going to send in SWAT teams and rout you out of your homes at gunpoint, we’ll search your homes, no warrants, and you’re going to comply, and when it’s over and we’ve caught them, you’ll cheer.”

“Sure. Okay. We will.”

Pictures, explanation, obedience.

The staging of reality, the staging of news; they’re the same thing.

These days, we are witnessing an acceleration in the use of psychiatry to target Americans, to label them as dangerous, to take away guns they own, to blame gun violence in the US on mentally ill people. (see also this story by Dan Roberts).

It’s a winning strategy, because most Americans don’t have a clue about the way psychiatry actually works or its pose of being a science.

The public hears techno-speak and nods and surrenders.

If psychiatrists are experts on the human mind, mice can navigate the Arctic in canoes. But psychiatrists are educated to be able to talk a good game.

And politicians are more than happy to mouth vagaries, and consign the problems of society to “mental-health professionals.”

It turns out that the phrase “mental health” was invented by psyops specialists, who needed to create an analogy to physical well-being.

The needed to, because the mind was (and is) a mystery to psychiatrists.

An open secret has been slowly bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

But we have a mind-boggling twist. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for 2 years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.

Finally, at the end of the Wired interview, Frances flew off into a bizarre fantasy:

“Diagnosis [as spelled out in the DSM-IV] is part of the magic…you know those medieval maps? In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here’…we have a dragon’s world here. But you wouldn’t want to be without the map.”

Translation: Patients need hope for the healing of their troubles; so even if we psychiatrists are shooting blanks and pretending to know one kind of mental disorder from another, even if we’re inventing these mental-disorder definitions based on no biological or chemical diagnostic tests – it’s a good thing, because patients will then believe and have hope; they’ll believe it because psychiatrists place a name on their problems…

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with science.

If I were an editor at one of the big national newspapers, and one of my reporters walked in and told me, “The most powerful psychiatrist in America just said the DSM is sheer b.s. but it’s still important,” I think I’d make room on the front page.

If the reporter then added, “This shrink was in charge of creating the DSM-IV,” I’d clear more room above the fold.

If the reporter went on to explain that the whole profession of psychiatry would collapse overnight if the DSM was discredited, I’d call for a special section of the paper to be printed.

I’d tell the reporter to get ready to pound on this story day after day for months. I’d tell him to track down all the implications of Dr. Frances’ statements.

I’d open a bottle of champagne to toast the soon-to-be-soaring sales of my newspaper.

And then, of course, the next day I’d be fired.

Because there are powerful multi-billion-dollar interests at stake, and those people don’t like their deepest secrets exposed in the press.

And as I walked out of my job, I’d see a bevy of blank-eyed pharmaceutical executives marching into the office of the paper’s publisher, ready to read the riot act to him.

Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM-IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definition of Bipolar was expanded to include more people.

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

• acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;
• life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;
• brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

• intercranial pressure leading to blindness;
• peripheral circulatory collapse;
• stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

• serious impairment of cognitive function;
• fainting;
• restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

Dr. Frances’ label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of toxic Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of choice.

So what about Ritalin?

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

Paranoid delusions
Paranoid psychosis
Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
Activation of psychotic symptoms
Toxic psychosis
Visual hallucinations
Auditory hallucinations
Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
Effects pathological thought processes
Extreme withdrawal
Terrified affect
Started screaming
Aggressiveness
Insomnia
Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
Psychic dependence
High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
Decreased REM sleep
When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
Convulsions
Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

A recent survey revealed that a high percentage of children diagnosed with bipolar had first received a diagnosis of ADHD. This is informative, because Ritalin and other speed-type drugs are given to kids who are slapped with the ADHD label. Speed, sooner or later, produces a crash. This is easy to call “clinical depression.”

Then comes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. These drugs can produce temporary highs, followed by more crashes. The psychiatrist notices the up and down pattern – and then produces a new diagnosis of Bipolar (manic-depression) and other drugs, including Valproate and Lithium.

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week? They are in harness.

And Dr. Frances is somehow let off the hook. He’s admitted in print that the whole basis of his profession is throwing darts at labels on a wall, and implies the “effort” is rather heroic – when, in fact, the effort leads to more and more poisonous drugs being dispensed to adults and children, to say nothing of the effect of being diagnosed with “a mental disorder.”

I’m not talking about “the mental-disease stigma,” the removal of which is one of Hillary Clinton’s missions in life. No, I’m talking about MOVING A HUMAN INTO THE SYSTEM, the medical apparatus, where the essence of the game is trapping that person to harvest his money, his time, his energy, and of course his health – as one new diagnosis follows on another, and one new toxic treatment after another is undertaken, from cradle to grave.

The result is a severely debilitated human being (if he survives), whose major claim to fame is his list of diseases and disorders.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

Here is a smoking-gun statement made by another prominent psychiatrist, on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker – that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]

Without intending to, Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession.

So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.

These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.

If I said the moon was made of green cheese, even if I were a Harvard professor, sooner or later someone would ask me to produce a sample of moon rock to be tested for “cheese qualities.” I might begin to feel nervous, I might want to tap dance around the issue, but I would have to submit the rock to a lab.

Dr. Barkley employs a version of logical analysis in his statement to the PBS Frontline interviewer. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. But if a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have science at all, and that would mean our whole profession rests on nothing – and that is absurd, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”

That logic is no logic at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.

Close to 50 years ago, psychiatry was dying out as a profession. Fewer and fewer people wanted to see a psychiatrist for help, for talk therapy. All sorts of new therapies were popping up. The competition was leaving medical psychiatry in the dust.

As Dr. Peter Breggin describes it in his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, a deal was struck. Drug companies would bankroll psychiatry and rescue it. These companies would pour money into professional conferences, journals, research. In return, they wanted “science” that would promote mental disease as a biological fact, a gateway into the drugs. Everyone would win – except the patient.

So the studies were rolled out, and the list of mental disorders expanded. The FDA was in on the deal as well, as evidenced by their drug “safety” approvals, in the face of the obvious damage these drugs were doing.

So this is how we arrived at where we are. This was the plan, and it worked.

Under the cover story, it was all fraud all the time. Without much of a stretch, you could say psychiatry has been the most widespread profiling operation in the history of the human race. Its goal has been to bring humans everywhere into its system. It hardly matters which label a person is painted with, as long as it adds up to a diagnosis and a prescription of drugs.

And now, in the wake of the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings, it matters even less who or how many people are labeled with mental disorders. The more the better, as far as government is concerned.

Just as in the old USSR, psychiatry becomes an instrument of oppression, a way to discredit any person the State wants to silence and destroy.

“…in the disputes between the East and West concerning the Russian opponents of the Soviet regime… [m]any dissidents went to lunatic asylums and were treated as mentally sick. Western doctors and the press accused Soviet doctors of being blind instruments of the regime and of having broken the solemn oath of their calling. The Russian doctors thought the West had gone mad in reproaching their behavior. For them, anyone who opposed such an efficient police power must be mentally disturbed. In their view, only those who had what Seneca called Libido morienti (the death wish) would dare to provoke the State. The Russian doctors were convinced that they were undertaking a humanitarian mission by placing the opponents of the regime in asylums and thereby reducing their aggression–the only hope for their survival. To reduce the outstanding to mediocrity was always a medical and human duty in a state where mediocrity had the better chance of survival.” – “Man: The Fallen Ape” by Branko Bokun

I’ve been working as a reporter for 30 years, and during that time, I’ve spoken with numerous mainstream reporters and editors, off the record, who’ve confirmed that:

They are absolutely not permitted to take down a major government institution for any reason. No matter how many horrendous crimes that institution or department commits, it will never disappear. It will never vanish in the night. It will never turn to dust.

That may seem quite obvious, but it’s only because we’ve become conditioned to believe that government can never shrink in size.

Off the top of my head, there are three agencies of the federal government that should be stripped of all their power, de-certified, and disbanded. Once that’s done, wholesale reorganization could take place – if there were honest people to do it.

And I’m not even including, for the purposes of this article, the Pentagon or the Federal Reserve or the IRS, or the departments of Education and Energy and Justice. They all should have their employees fired and the numerous buildings they occupy fumigated, for starters. Then the criminal trials could begin.

No, the agencies I have in mind are the FDA, the CIA, and the USDA. They are RICO mafias. They have engaged in long chains of abuses and crimes. A smart sixth-grader doing pattern recognition would be able to ferret out these felonies in a few days.

The crimes range from approving, as safe and effective, numerous medical drugs that kill, at a minimum, 225,000 Americans a year, like clockwork (FDA); to running an inhuman mind-control program (MKULTRA/CIA); to overthrowing foreign heads of state (CIA); to certifying, as safe and effective, a wholly untested form of corporate agriculture (GMO/USDA), which has subsequently been shown to cause horrendous health effects, as its leading proponent, Monsanto, has gained a stranglehold on the seed market.

I’ve written extensively on these subjects.

Major media could not, even if they wanted to, expose these crimes to such a degree that they would end the life of these federal agencies in the process.

“Expose” has a specific reference here. It doesn’t mean an occasional negative piece or a he said-he said. It doesn’t mean a piecemeal revelation, for example, about this drug and that drug causing deaths. It means an all-out attack that brings to light a long-standing pattern of abuse and felony.

Reporter after reporter, and editor after editor, have looked at me, when I brought up the subject, as if I were crazy. “Impossible. Could not and would not happen, under any circumstances.”

And yet, this is exactly what the American people need, because the crimes go deep, deeper, and deepest. The profession of journalism, the “free press,” is supposed to serve as a watchdog, to prevent these government agencies from ascending to such height that they become untouchable.

We should have seen massive takedowns and erasures of federal agencies many times during our nation’s history.

From the editor’s and publisher’s perspective, there is one way to accomplish it. I’ve mentioned this before.

A news outlet lets the hounds loose.

Day after day, week after week, month after month, the newspaper or network publishes the unvarnished truth and continues to dig for, and print and broadcast, more and more devastating material.

We do not see that approach in major media. It’s not there. It’s missing in action.

The editors and reporters and publishers and producers and anchors understand the approach well. They know what they could do if they wanted to, but of course…

The corporations that control the press would not allow it.

This is why people, otherwise bright, actually believe the federal government is a force for good. They don’t see the naked exposure of its crimes, and so they acquiesce. They go passive.

Here is a reconstruction of my notes, from a long-ago meeting with a highly regarded mainstream print reporter, who finally opened up to me about “taking down a whole government agency”:

“It’s a dream. It’s a dream that more reporters than you know about actually have. For example, the CDC. I know three reporters who would make it their life’s work to destroy that organization from front to back. They can feel it, believe me. They would drop everything to take it on. They know how corrupt those bastards are.”

“Exposing a whole federal agency to the point where it would be disbanded isn’t like a decommissioning a battleship or an aircraft carrier. It’s like walking naked into arena, with no weapons, and facing a starving lion.”

“The federal government is the final frontier. It’s in some ways worse than a mega-corporation, in terms of dismantling it. If you could [take down] a whole federal agency, that would start a domino effect, and other agencies would fall, too.”

“Left-wing media, right-wing media, it’s a joke when it comes to the size of the federal government. Neither side is going to go all-out after a federal agency with the intention of destroying it. The expanding size of the government is a given.”

Consider media franchises like FOX, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. You’d think they would be up for an all-out attack on a federal agency, with “the intention of destroying it.” But obviously, that’s not the case, not when it comes to a serious department like the FDA or the USDA.

Why? Because those agencies protect giant pharmaceutical corporations and giant biotech corporations, and that’s “sacred ground.” So in the end, these so-called conservative reporters and commentators are supporting the size of the federal government in very significant ways.

In fact, they would probably say the FDA and the USDA are inhibiting the actions of corporations.

No matter where you look in major media, you see an op to conceal the truth about these agencies. It’s ongoing. It’s every day. It’s a media RICO crime, given the fact that the press is supposed to be fearless in its mission to protect the rights and safety of citizens.

The sold-out cowardly nature of the press leads to millions of people believing that politics as usual is the status quo forever, nothing can be done about it, and all mature adults should accept this as a fact of life.

Yes, it’s a fact. Until it isn’t.

Now we’re talking about psychology, real psychology, not the fatuous brand taught at universities. The psychology of mass acceptance. Mass surrender. Mass delusion.

And the press, as well as the man on the street, is subject to it.

People want stories, nice neat stories. They’ll buy a scandal, for example, that touches on a government agency. It’s titillating. It’s fun. It’s vicarious revenge. It’s “important.” But a wholesale revelation that exposes a criminal mafia like the FDA down to its very core, that explodes it into a million pieces?

That breaks the hypnotic trance. It’s surreal. It leaves people feeling reality is no longer what it’s supposed to be. The ground is shaking and cracking and truth is oozing out of the cracks.

Such a revelation penetrates the buffered and protected and dead psyche. It wakes it up. And that’s absolutely verboten for most people.

They would begin to realize part of the reason they’re dead inside: they’ve been settling for nice neat stories and refusing to admit the truth runs much, much deeper.

Down in the psyche of the individual, all evidence to the contrary, there still burns a flame. To take down an entire federal agency through an exposure of its most heinous and continuing crimes is exactly the sort of thing that makes the flame jump higher.

This is what people are protecting themselves against. They re-channel the energies of the flame into partisan anger. They settle for a substitute. They take this president over that president. They go left or they go right.

The press is supposed to tear away the substitute and show the more profound reality. That is its job.

But like millions of citizens, the press is dead inside, too. Reporters and editors are dead. They’re going through the motions, and a surprising number of them know it. They’ve abandoned their courage and their mission.

They do everything they humanly can to snuff out the inner flame. Being dead is part of the code of their fraternity.

And what is the opposite of this?

Individuals rebelling against the prevailing empire.

The kind of rebellion I’m talking about is self-generated. It’s not a gift, it’s not in the genes.

Along with this rebellion, people need to realize they create their own minds.

That may sound like a very curious thing to say, but it’s a truth that’s buried thousands of feet below the absurdity we call education.

It doesn’t matter if teachers, parents, and other authorities try to train the mind like a dog. It’s up to the individual to take whatever is useful in that training and then leave the rest behind in the dust.

To do that, a person has to WANT to do it. He wants logic? He learns it and uses it. He wants to think on the basis and foundation of freedom? He does it. He wants to torpedo the psychology of self-chosen victimhood? He does it. He shapes his own processes.

This is about a bottom-line refusal to accept consensus fairy tales manufactured out of a craving need for absolute rescue.

The struggle recorded by history is the individual coming into being out of the mass, the group, the tribe, the clan, the gang, the mob. When courage fails, we see periods when the group ascends to greater power.

But even the group is a kind of misnomer, because at the top is a leader, or a small number of leaders who promote the group as the answer, in order to maintain their exclusive power.

Yet the flame inside the individual doesn’t go out. It never does.

Every so-called mental or emotional problem stems from this: No matter what the individual does to demean or reduce himself, the fire remains. No matter how many lies he tells himself, no matter how strong the group is or its leader, the individual has the potential to reclaim what he is.

Without that, we would all be planted like vegetables in a garden.

At levels even they don’t understand, the titans of media must try to destroy the individual in favor the group. That is why they cannot allow, under any circumstances, journalists to dismantle and wreck a controlling agency of government with the truth.

Such destruction would call into question the concept of the group itself. It would fan the sparks that live in every individual psyche and imagination.

It would signal a breakout from the prison of the trance.

George Orwell described the trance this way: “…consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.”

A retired propaganda operative, Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), once told me: “When you say a person is in a trance, that doesn’t mean he’s walking around like a robot. He can seem very alive. But he has a connection to established institutions of society, and that connection, that wholesale acceptance, does put him in a trance. It’s a trance he wants and inflicts on himself.”

For the self-hypnotized individual, there are certain basic building blocks in the organized world that must never be shattered. These institutions reflect his own stolid faith in automatic regulated function. Were the blocks to crumble, he would see himself crumble.

He would be forced to unseal his own tomb where the central undisturbed flame burns. He would gain entrance to his inner sanctum. He would feel alive in a way he had forgotten was possible. He would shrug off the folds of the mass, the group, the organization, and step out of the shadows.

The hammering pulse of his own blood would make him ready for action.

Much better, he concedes, to support and exalt all the structures of the world that hold his mind in thrall, that keep him in contact with his false self, that mirror his gift for deception.

In that way, the silent partnership will live on.

At the root inside the root, people aren’t stupid. They choose to be stupid. They aren’t asleep. They decide to go to sleep. They don’t forget. They make themselves forget. They aren’t simply fooled. They fool themselves on purpose.

Then they look out on the world for confirmation of their own acts of sabotage. And they see institutions that have been built on the same blueprint as their own, and they support such institutions and rely on them.

“Yes, the world is fake and so am I, and we must do everything possible to keep it that way.”

This, believe it or not, is a species of art. This fakery. It may not be timeless art, but it is universal. It’s an enduring creation.

The great traditional media monoliths of our time are devoted to the invention of a common form of sleep for all. It must be common and shared; otherwise, the institutions of government and corporate power would immediately split apart and fall into the sea. They only exist as long as they reflect the consensus dream that souls enact to protect themselves from the flame, the unique ever-burning force.

Jon Rappoport runs No More Fake News. The author of an explosive collection, The Matrix Revealed, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.

The Best of Jon Rappoport

In the fabled 1960s, the cops were called pigs, and anybody on the political Left who wanted a ticket to the show knew that and mouthed it often.

At rallies, protests, and riots, people said: are the pigs here yet? I heard they were three blocks away. Wonder how many pigs they’re sending today? There! There they are! The pigs!

Now, on the Left, that tradition has morphed into: repeal the 2nd Amendment; turn in your guns; citizens with guns are satanic; the police will protect us; a private citizen with a gun is a killer and needs psychiatric lockdown; suspend that five-year old with the gun screen-saver.

What happened?

In 1968, if you asked a leftie college student whether a black man living in the inner city had a right to own a gun to protect himself against the cops, the answer, ten out of ten times, would have been yes.

Now, that leftie kid will be talking about the insanity of anybody owning a gun. Except for the cops.

Well, three things have happened since the 1960s. The end of the military draft, and the end of anybody caring who smokes pot or who has sex with who. Those changes melted away the whole “movement.”

A professor friend taught at UCLA during the turbulent 60s and early 70s. He told me as soon as the Vietnam war was over, the campus transformed in a flash. Students were suddenly all about finding a niche in the job market after graduation. Boom. Switch on, switch off.

The titanic idealism was put away in a drawer and filed under “crazy shit I did.”

The one remaining piece from the 60s that has endured is hatred of big corporations. But gradually, a parallel mindset has developed. First, grudging acceptance of big government; then toleration; then admiration.

Now, the Left is all about big government and the “positive changes” it can make.

And when I say the Left, I also mean the center, and a great deal of the right, because they’ve come along for the ride, too. They are the Left now.

In 1968, a big-time liberal presidential candidate, Hubert Humphrey, was the target of riots, by the Left, at the Democratic National Convention. Those riots tore apart half the city. Two years earlier, a march, by the Left, on the Century Plaza Hotel in LA, where Democratic President Lyndon Johnson was staying, sealed his fate. It was the last stone. Johnson, who had presided over the war on poverty and the creation of “The Great Society,” the biggest federal program since FDR’s New Deal, was mangled into oblivion.

Johnson announced he wouldn’t run for office again in 1968.

If Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and Obama had been around then, they would have been hammered in the same way by the Left. If they were for the war in Vietnam.

That was the big key, the war. Or to be precise, the military draft.

“Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?!”

Meaning: “I won’t risk my neck going to Nam!”

The elite Left has become the personification of the soccer mom now. Worries about everything. Danger everywhere. Needs more helmets. Schedules more play dates. Wants more state surveillance. “If you’re against intrusion on your privacy, maybe you have something to hide.” “Keep the poor bottled up in inner cities, give them anything they want, just don’t let them into my neighborhood.”

The Left has also become the promise of a vague fairyland new age. “We’re all in this together.” “We can raise up the lowest among us (by printing more money).”

And the police are part of that fantasy. They’re the centurions at the gate. “Arm them to the teeth.” “Render the rest of us powerless.” That’s the grand solution to all our social ills. Naked, hairless, unarmed, watched around the clock, we’ll be beautifully safe, under the machine of a national police force.

You think I’m attacking a straw man here? You think I’m devising a distorted picture of the collectivist Left and their allies? You think there’s some still-powerful rebellion, on the political Left, against the State, that can put a million people on the street to protest a specific fascist program of that big power? Where is it?

What was it, really, even in 1968? If the Vietnam war had been fought with no draft, with a volunteer army, a large part of the 1960s wouldn’t have happened at all.

As the 1970s droned on into the 80s, a rapprochement was achieved between the citizens and the police. More and more, the Left came to believe the whole idea of rebellion against the State was an old delusion. It was something people like Camus and Sartre had written about. It was really a European thing, an abstract philosophical pose.

Once the dust and the smelly underwear of the 1960s had been cleared away, the real State Op came into being. Encourage, in every way possible, crime and criminals; and then come in behind that with an answer to the horrific threat: cops.

Irresistible. On the streets, in the newspapers, on television, enact crime after crime after crime…and then promote the only answer: cops. More cops. More cops with bigger and better weapons.

Disarm everybody and leave the police and the FBI and the military and numerous other government agencies with the only guns.

Does this excuse the actual perpetrators of street crimes? No, of course not. In fact, it makes them more guilty, because they’re aiding and abetting a much larger plan. I’m not here to excuse a man who picks up a gun and shoots somebody. I’m spelling out context:

Seed the whole country with violence-inducing toxic psychiatric drugs and you will get plenty of crime. Which is exactly what has happened. All the way from Ritalin (cheep speed) to the SSRI antidepressants, to the brain-hammer anti-psychotics, the drug companies and their allied psychiatrists have been creating killings.

Allow American street gangs to work for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, while providing those cartels with US government protection as they sell tons of heroin and cocaine and crack all over the country, and you will get plenty of crime.

Pour billions of dollars into “rehabilitating” inner cities and stand by while the money disappears and is stolen, dedicate funds to programs that have no chance of working, stop genuine grass roots movements to build vast urban farms and provide free food and a sense of community, and you will get plenty of crime.

These and other strategies are the actions of a war to expand crime, to necessitate massive intervention by the State. This is an Op.

Our current leader, after similar mouthpieces like Bush and Clinton, is the one man who couldn’t possibly be on board with the Op. Barack Obama. He couldn’t possibly be doing his part to destabilize the whole society. He couldn’t. Which is exactly why he is the president of the United States now. Because he seems to stand for something better. But he doesn’t. He is definitely part of the Op.

But if he really did stand for something better, he could do several things, by executive order, that would detonate a real revolution in this country. Three crazy wild out-of-left field things, just for starters.

Declare and wage an all-out war on drug cartels and their sub-contracted domestic gangs.

Kick off a huge – and I mean huge – genuine urban farming program in every city in America. Free, clean, non-GMO food for the poor, grown by the poor, shared by the poor. The ramifications of such a program, carried out swiftly, would be astonishing on every level.

And attack, with a vengeance, Big Pharma and their psychiatric drugs.

What???

Huh???

The baffled response to such a program illustrates just how deep the brainwashing in this country goes.

And some people would say, “If Obama stood up and did those things, he’d be killed tomorrow.”

That’s getting us closer to the truth. But it would be senseless to stand up alone. He would need allies. Lots of them. Where would he find them? (Assuming he would launch this three-pronged program…a ludicrous assumption.)

Would he meet with Pelosi, Frank, Reid, Hillary, Boehner, Paul Ryan, Rubio, Rachel Maddow, Rush Limbaugh….

Where in the familiar circles of power would any president find allies to turn things around?

Nowhere.

And that’s exactly why rebellion against the State isn’t just some old crusty abstract idea.

That’s why decentralization of power in America, at all levels, is THE counter-agenda. Intentional communities, nullification of unconstitutional federal laws, boycotts against corporations like Monsanto, alternative news sources, growing your own food, local parents threatening school boards to back off forcing psychiatric drugs down the throats of their children, home schooling, etc., etc.

Rendering every citizen weaponless, while at the same time giving the police every possible weapon and surveillance tool, is a solution in the same way that closing your eyes and jumping into a big barrel and pulling down the lid over your head is a solution.

300 million barrels with TV sets and smart phones is exactly what the State Corporatists are pushing.

The political Left promoted rebellion against the State as long as they saw themselves outside in the cold. But when they began to realize that they were, in fact, becoming the State, with all the power of the federal government, they dropped the idea of genuine rebellion like a hot potato. They praised big government, they assured everybody it was the solution, not the problem.

They shed bottom-up revolution because they were top-down.

There are lots of old Lefties who have been working to stop GMOs. When Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act the other day, they paused and pondered. They began to realize they’ve been caught in a squeeze play. Their man, the president, isn’t who they thought he was. Not at all.

This disaffection is a familiar theme: outsiders feel solidarity in their revolution; then their leaders become insiders; then the ideals vanish, leaving the foot soldiers in the lurch.

Down through history, this scenario has played out countless times, in every conceivable organization that became big, bigger, and biggest. But history isn’t our strong suit. If a teacher really wanted to educate his college students, he’d put together a course on this very subject: The Carrot and the Stick.

The promise of something better, announced from a perch or pulpit of leadership; and what eventually happened to that promise.

What happens is a grand reversal. The very force that is being fought against eventually becomes the “guardian of the Good” and the supreme ruler.

The cadre who once railed against the rise of the police state is now dealing, not pot, but the surveillance of every phone call, email, text, computer keystroke, and purchase in this country. They’re dealing the TSA and the war in Afghanistan. They’re dealing covert ops in the Middle East and executing regime change, using thugs and terrorists. They’re bailing out mega-corporations and banks. They’re buying billions of rounds of ammo. They’re appointing people to hold the door open for Monsanto. They’re using psychiatry to drug the population. They’re spraying heavy metals in the sky. They’re presiding over and sustaining the economic disaster. They’re funding the transhuman future.

They’re doing all this while continuing to mouth the ideals they once swore to uphold.

In the words of the 1960s, they’re working for the Man.

The Man is the group of elite Globalists who have always followed the same plan: put the management of the planet under one roof.

To accomplish this Globalist aim, every honest cop and effective cop and idealistic cop and indifferent cop and corrupt cop will have to be turned into a faceless pig with a weapon pointed against his own people.

These “former rebels” who now rule the roost are saying, “Today, the pigs work for us. We tell them what to do. Just love the pigs and everything will be okay. You don’t need to own a gun. It’s all good. Just keep your eyes straight ahead and march into the future.”

Who would have thought rebels of bygone days would be staging their own version of neocon glory?

Anyone with a grain of sense.

In the fabled 1960s, the cops were called pigs, and anybody on the political Left who wanted a ticket to the show knew that and mouthed it often.

At rallies, protests, and riots, people said: are the pigs here yet? I heard they were three blocks away. Wonder how many pigs they’re sending today? There! There they are! The pigs!

Now, on the Left, that tradition has morphed into: repeal the 2nd Amendment; turn in your guns; citizens with guns are satanic; the police will protect us; a private citizen with a gun is a killer and needs psychiatric lockdown; suspend that five-year old with the gun screen-saver.

What happened?

In 1968, if you asked a leftie college student whether a black man living in the inner city had a right to own a gun to protect himself against the cops, the answer, ten out of ten times, would have been yes.

Now, that leftie kid will be talking about the insanity of anybody owning a gun. Except for the cops.

Well, three things have happened since the 1960s. The end of the military draft, and the end of anybody caring who smokes pot or who has sex with who. Those changes melted away the whole “movement.”

A professor friend taught at UCLA during the turbulent 60s and early 70s. He told me as soon as the Vietnam war was over, the campus transformed in a flash. Students were suddenly all about finding a niche in the job market after graduation. Boom. Switch on, switch off.

The titanic idealism was put away in a drawer and filed under “crazy shit I did.”

The one remaining piece from the 60s that has endured is hatred of big corporations. But gradually, a parallel mindset has developed. First, grudging acceptance of big government; then toleration; then admiration.

Now, the Left is all about big government and the “positive changes” it can make.

And when I say the Left, I also mean the center, and a great deal of the right, because they’ve come along for the ride, too. They are the Left now.

In 1968, a big-time liberal presidential candidate, Hubert Humphrey, was the target of riots, by the Left, at the Democratic National Convention. Those riots tore apart half the city. Two years earlier, a march, by the Left, on the Century Plaza Hotel in LA, where Democratic President Lyndon Johnson was staying, sealed his fate. It was the last stone. Johnson, who had presided over the war on poverty and the creation of “The Great Society,” the biggest federal program since FDR’s New Deal, was mangled into oblivion.

Johnson announced he wouldn’t run for office again in 1968.

If Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and Obama had been around then, they would have been hammered in the same way by the Left. If they were for the war in Vietnam.

That was the big key, the war. Or to be precise, the military draft.

“Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?!”

Meaning: “I won’t risk my neck going to Nam!”

The elite Left has become the personification of the soccer mom now. Worries about everything. Danger everywhere. Needs more helmets. Schedules more play dates. Wants more state surveillance. “If you’re against intrusion on your privacy, maybe you have something to hide.” “Keep the poor bottled up in inner cities, give them anything they want, just don’t let them into my neighborhood.”

The Left has also become the promise of a vague fairyland new age. “We’re all in this together.” “We can raise up the lowest among us (by printing more money).”

And the police are part of that fantasy. They’re the centurions at the gate. “Arm them to the teeth.” “Render the rest of us powerless.” That’s the grand solution to all our social ills. Naked, hairless, unarmed, watched around the clock, we’ll be beautifully safe, under the machine of a national police force.

You think I’m attacking a straw man here? You think I’m devising a distorted picture of the collectivist Left and their allies? You think there’s some still-powerful rebellion, on the political Left, against the State, that can put a million people on the street to protest a specific fascist program of that big power? Where is it?

What was it, really, even in 1968? If the Vietnam war had been fought with no draft, with a volunteer army, a large part of the 1960s wouldn’t have happened at all.

As the 1970s droned on into the 80s, a rapprochement was achieved between the citizens and the police. More and more, the Left came to believe the whole idea of rebellion against the State was an old delusion. It was something people like Camus and Sartre had written about. It was really a European thing, an abstract philosophical pose.

Once the dust and the smelly underwear of the 1960s had been cleared away, the real State Op came into being. Encourage, in every way possible, crime and criminals; and then come in behind that with an answer to the horrific threat: cops.

Irresistible. On the streets, in the newspapers, on television, enact crime after crime after crime…and then promote the only answer: cops. More cops. More cops with bigger and better weapons.

Disarm everybody and leave the police and the FBI and the military and numerous other government agencies with the only guns.

Does this excuse the actual perpetrators of street crimes? No, of course not. In fact, it makes them more guilty, because they’re aiding and abetting a much larger plan. I’m not here to excuse a man who picks up a gun and shoots somebody. I’m spelling out context:

Seed the whole country with violence-inducing toxic psychiatric drugs and you will get plenty of crime. Which is exactly what has happened. All the way from Ritalin (cheep speed) to the SSRI antidepressants, to the brain-hammer anti-psychotics, the drug companies and their allied psychiatrists have been creating killings.

Allow American street gangs to work for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, while providing those cartels with US government protection as they sell tons of heroin and cocaine and crack all over the country, and you will get plenty of crime.

Pour billions of dollars into “rehabilitating” inner cities and stand by while the money disappears and is stolen, dedicate funds to programs that have no chance of working, stop genuine grass roots movements to build vast urban farms and provide free food and a sense of community, and you will get plenty of crime.

These and other strategies are the actions of a war to expand crime, to necessitate massive intervention by the State. This is an Op.

Our current leader, after similar mouthpieces like Bush and Clinton, is the one man who couldn’t possibly be on board with the Op. Barack Obama. He couldn’t possibly be doing his part to destabilize the whole society. He couldn’t. Which is exactly why he is the president of the United States now. Because he seems to stand for something better. But he doesn’t. He is definitely part of the Op.

But if he really did stand for something better, he could do several things, by executive order, that would detonate a real revolution in this country. Three crazy wild out-of-left field things, just for starters.

Declare and wage an all-out war on drug cartels and their sub-contracted domestic gangs.

Kick off a huge – and I mean huge – genuine urban farming program in every city in America. Free, clean, non-GMO food for the poor, grown by the poor, shared by the poor. The ramifications of such a program, carried out swiftly, would be astonishing on every level.

And attack, with a vengeance, Big Pharma and their psychiatric drugs.

What???

Huh???

The baffled response to such a program illustrates just how deep the brainwashing in this country goes.

And some people would say, “If Obama stood up and did those things, he’d be killed tomorrow.”

That’s getting us closer to the truth. But it would be senseless to stand up alone. He would need allies. Lots of them. Where would he find them? (Assuming he would launch this three-pronged program…a ludicrous assumption.)

Would he meet with Pelosi, Frank, Reid, Hillary, Boehner, Paul Ryan, Rubio, Rachel Maddow, Rush Limbaugh….

Where in the familiar circles of power would any president find allies to turn things around?

Nowhere.

And that’s exactly why rebellion against the State isn’t just some old crusty abstract idea.

That’s why decentralization of power in America, at all levels, is THE counter-agenda. Intentional communities, nullification of unconstitutional federal laws, boycotts against corporations like Monsanto, alternative news sources, growing your own food, local parents threatening school boards to back off forcing psychiatric drugs down the throats of their children, home schooling, etc., etc.

Rendering every citizen weaponless, while at the same time giving the police every possible weapon and surveillance tool, is a solution in the same way that closing your eyes and jumping into a big barrel and pulling down the lid over your head is a solution.

300 million barrels with TV sets and smart phones is exactly what the State Corporatists are pushing.

The political Left promoted rebellion against the State as long as they saw themselves outside in the cold. But when they began to realize that they were, in fact, becoming the State, with all the power of the federal government, they dropped the idea of genuine rebellion like a hot potato. They praised big government, they assured everybody it was the solution, not the problem.

They shed bottom-up revolution because they were top-down.

There are lots of old Lefties who have been working to stop GMOs. When Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act the other day, they paused and pondered. They began to realize they’ve been caught in a squeeze play. Their man, the president, isn’t who they thought he was. Not at all.

This disaffection is a familiar theme: outsiders feel solidarity in their revolution; then their leaders become insiders; then the ideals vanish, leaving the foot soldiers in the lurch.

Down through history, this scenario has played out countless times, in every conceivable organization that became big, bigger, and biggest. But history isn’t our strong suit. If a teacher really wanted to educate his college students, he’d put together a course on this very subject: The Carrot and the Stick.

The promise of something better, announced from a perch or pulpit of leadership; and what eventually happened to that promise.

What happens is a grand reversal. The very force that is being fought against eventually becomes the “guardian of the Good” and the supreme ruler.

The cadre who once railed against the rise of the police state is now dealing, not pot, but the surveillance of every phone call, email, text, computer keystroke, and purchase in this country. They’re dealing the TSA and the war in Afghanistan. They’re dealing covert ops in the Middle East and executing regime change, using thugs and terrorists. They’re bailing out mega-corporations and banks. They’re buying billions of rounds of ammo. They’re appointing people to hold the door open for Monsanto. They’re using psychiatry to drug the population. They’re spraying heavy metals in the sky. They’re presiding over and sustaining the economic disaster. They’re funding the transhuman future.

They’re doing all this while continuing to mouth the ideals they once swore to uphold.

In the words of the 1960s, they’re working for the Man.

The Man is the group of elite Globalists who have always followed the same plan: put the management of the planet under one roof.

To accomplish this Globalist aim, every honest cop and effective cop and idealistic cop and indifferent cop and corrupt cop will have to be turned into a faceless pig with a weapon pointed against his own people.

These “former rebels” who now rule the roost are saying, “Today, the pigs work for us. We tell them what to do. Just love the pigs and everything will be okay. You don’t need to own a gun. It’s all good. Just keep your eyes straight ahead and march into the future.”

Who would have thought rebels of bygone days would be staging their own version of neocon glory?

Anyone with a grain of sense.

Jon Rappoport runs No More Fake News. The author of an explosive collection, The Matrix Revealed, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.

The Best of Jon Rappoport

One thing is certain. He’ll say, “I thought I was in a movie.”

Either the judge will dismiss that excuse with a snort and huff, or he’ll create yet a new class of victims: the people who are brainwashed into believing the Real is merely a consequence-free artifact designed for them by Glass.

“Murder? It was merely virtual. Glass made me think so, Your Honor.”

A friend and I cooked up a Glass ad: “You’ll see exactly what you’re seeing now, only you’ll think you’re in a movie. And electromagnetic radiation will envelope your head and the NSA will see everything you’re seeing in real time.”

Entitled yuppie boomer spies for the national security State. Just what we need.

Then, up the road, we’ll have this. Suits filed by people whose lawyers insist their clients had a reasonable expectation of receiving information from Glass that didn’t, in fact, arrive:

• when to take the next pill;
• a quicker way to get to the airport to make their flight to a career-enhancing meeting in Macao (they missed the plane and the meeting);
• a more accurate assessment of what the beautiful stranger sitting at a table in a restaurant is looking for in a prospective husband;
• more convincing talking points transmitted before a conversation with a political adversary…

“My disappointment with Glass was so profound I spiraled down into a depression that ruined my life. After all, my Glass and I are One. When an intimate friend lets you down, it’s traumatic.”

Taking it further, the ontology of Glass and such future devices is: everything in the universe is connected. The way we say it is.

It’s the job of Glass to elucidate and demonstrate that by virtually hooking the wearer up to all of it. You’ll get the sizzle and dazzle. The life-path of giant redwoods, people shoveling snow in Mongolia, fish swimming around the Great Reef, pygmies dancing in Central Africa, new (fake) Arab Spring outbursts, moving stock prices, drug recalls, ice caps expanding and diminishing at the North Pole, sun spots, geothermal boil at the core of Earth, estimated germ-content in subsets of bodies walking around in Paris.

Now. In real time. Sequentially or all at once. In an ongoing Spiritual event of the highest order. (Sure it is.)

And this imparts to the Glass wearer a sense that he is a first-class citizen in the new Technocratic Paradise, as if he were part-human, part-machine.

“It’s amazing. When I put on Glass, I’m in satori. I’m plugged into the online bio-astro-neuro-meta-quantum orchestra called Universe. At least, that’s what they tell me.”

A human without Glass? Unthinkable.

Will the Pope wear Glass? Who will be the first president of the United States to wear it? You can be sure the police will. They’ll have access to the history of any citizen as if he were a Potential Suspect, and animated previews of any building or home as an assault target.

IRS agents in cars, on foot, sitting in restaurants will merely glance at another human, and immediately a complete tax history of that person will spring up before his eyes.

Staff psychiatrists will walk through office buildings and pick up instant psych evals on every worker.

And the military? “EVERYTHING is a battlefield. I finally figured that out when I started wearing Glass.”

Glass will inform any agriculture inspector anywhere on the globe that the GMO plant he is looking at is perfectly safe and equivalent in every way to conventionally-grown.

Doctors, relying on Glass-supplied medical images and data (all cooked and distorted, of course, by Big Pharma), will perform millions of unnecessary surgeries and dispense billions of useless and highly toxic pills to patients. Just like now, only worse.

But Glass is wonderful. How could we have lived without it?

You’ll meet somebody in a park and start a conversation. Suddenly, before your eyes, you’ll see: “His Twitter account temporarily suspended for providing questionable links; frequently employs terms like ‘freedom,’ ‘liberty.’ Belongs to no approved groups. Warning – you should consider this person dangerous.”

Or you’ll be shopping in a market and, as you pass down the aisle, a red light will go on in space in front of your face when you encounter a person whose approved vaccine status has lapsed. “Warning: herd immunity endangered.”

Two friends at a picnic:

“Hey, I just upgraded to the Glass C-16 program.”

“What’s that?”

“You don’t know?”

“No.”

“It contains Homeland Security profiles on four million Americans. Invaluable.”

“Where did you get it?”

“Through our office. We have a contract with the DOJ. So we have special access.”

“How can I get it?”

“Heh-heh. You can’t, unless you go through a special clearance exam. It’s expensive.”

Any Glass wearer who eats at a restaurant in New York will immediately be plugged into a Bloomberg app that displays, before his eyes, along with a sub-vocal whisper: “The next bite of steak will elevate your cholesterol level above allowed limits. Put down the fork. Don’t order coffee. Move the dish of sugar envelopes away from you. I see you’re a registered gun owner in Utah. You have three hours to leave the City.”

The state of mind, in which Glass wearers view reality as virtual, is the big one. People aren’t already disconnected enough from life? We need more illusion?

From ancient times, and especially since Plato, the faculty of vision, beyond the other four physical senses, has been elevated to the highest position of in-sight. The metaphors have been about “seeing the higher reality.”

So now, Google goes to eyeGlass, which is all about giving wearers a sense of being in charge, by placing a grid over the real world, and enhancing Vision.

Glass is the cocaine of computing.

And superiority? Is it any different from the status owners experience when they slide down Main Street in a Ferrari? They’re automatically Somebody because of their car.

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, has famously said: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place…and it’s important, for example, that we are subject in the Unite States to the Patriot Act.”

As the NSA captures everything Glass wearers are seeing in real time, Schmidt’s statement will take on added meaning, won’t it? Glass is the Brave New World snitch of snitches.

Hidden behind all of this is the position and place of the individual. His creative power will be defined as the mere ability to receive “elite” information. That’s a passive formulation; precisely the opposite of what the creative life is.

The number-one guru of utopian technocracy, Ray Kurzweil, thinks human creativity, as a concept, is largely based on a misunderstanding about what computers can do. That’s all.

Because a computer beat a world champion chess player, because a computer can analyze the work of a poet and then spit out its own poems in that author’s style, because a computer can defeat two very good Jeopardy players on television, we know that human creativity is an illusion. Computers, machines can work the same “tricks” by simply accessing and collating information.

If you want an intellectual recipe for taking away the essence of what a human being is, you’ve just found it.

And Glass will help lead the way.

“I have so much information jumping in front of my eyes now, it’s amazing. What else do I need? I’m there.”

For centuries, artists and inventors proved that reality was only one (temporary) work of art. They proved it by creating something new and powerful, again and again and again. They committed body, mind, and soul to their work. They dynamically moved the human race ahead.

Now, the “new paradigm” is Instant Information. Tap in, and reality is yours.

Yes, but what reality?

The answer is: the one designed, not by you, but for you.

And by people who deserve your trust the way a wildebeest should trust a pack of lions.

One thing is certain. He’ll say, “I thought I was in a movie.”

Either the judge will dismiss that excuse with a snort and huff, or he’ll create yet a new class of victims: the people who are brainwashed into believing the Real is merely a consequence-free artifact designed for them by Glass.

“Murder? It was merely virtual. Glass made me think so, Your Honor.”

A friend and I cooked up a Glass ad: “You’ll see exactly what you’re seeing now, only you’ll think you’re in a movie. And electromagnetic radiation will envelope your head and the NSA will see everything you’re seeing in real time.”

Entitled yuppie boomer spies for the national security State. Just what we need.

Then, up the road, we’ll have this. Suits filed by people whose lawyers insist their clients had a reasonable expectation of receiving information from Glass that didn’t, in fact, arrive:

• when to take the next pill;
• a quicker way to get to the airport to make their flight to a career-enhancing meeting in Macao (they missed the plane and the meeting);
• a more accurate assessment of what the beautiful stranger sitting at a table in a restaurant is looking for in a prospective husband;
• more convincing talking points transmitted before a conversation with a political adversary…

“My disappointment with Glass was so profound I spiraled down into a depression that ruined my life. After all, my Glass and I are One. When an intimate friend lets you down, it’s traumatic.”

Taking it further, the ontology of Glass and such future devices is: everything in the universe is connected. The way we say it is.

It’s the job of Glass to elucidate and demonstrate that by virtually hooking the wearer up to all of it. You’ll get the sizzle and dazzle. The life-path of giant redwoods, people shoveling snow in Mongolia, fish swimming around the Great Reef, pygmies dancing in Central Africa, new (fake) Arab Spring outbursts, moving stock prices, drug recalls, ice caps expanding and diminishing at the North Pole, sun spots, geothermal boil at the core of Earth, estimated germ-content in subsets of bodies walking around in Paris.

Now. In real time. Sequentially or all at once. In an ongoing Spiritual event of the highest order. (Sure it is.)

And this imparts to the Glass wearer a sense that he is a first-class citizen in the new Technocratic Paradise, as if he were part-human, part-machine.

“It’s amazing. When I put on Glass, I’m in satori. I’m plugged into the online bio-astro-neuro-meta-quantum orchestra called Universe. At least, that’s what they tell me.”

A human without Glass? Unthinkable.

Will the Pope wear Glass? Who will be the first president of the United States to wear it? You can be sure the police will. They’ll have access to the history of any citizen as if he were a Potential Suspect, and animated previews of any building or home as an assault target.

IRS agents in cars, on foot, sitting in restaurants will merely glance at another human, and immediately a complete tax history of that person will spring up before his eyes.

Staff psychiatrists will walk through office buildings and pick up instant psych evals on every worker.

And the military? “EVERYTHING is a battlefield. I finally figured that out when I started wearing Glass.”

Glass will inform any agriculture inspector anywhere on the globe that the GMO plant he is looking at is perfectly safe and equivalent in every way to conventionally-grown.

Doctors, relying on Glass-supplied medical images and data (all cooked and distorted, of course, by Big Pharma), will perform millions of unnecessary surgeries and dispense billions of useless and highly toxic pills to patients. Just like now, only worse.

But Glass is wonderful. How could we have lived without it?

You’ll meet somebody in a park and start a conversation. Suddenly, before your eyes, you’ll see: “His Twitter account temporarily suspended for providing questionable links; frequently employs terms like ‘freedom,’ ‘liberty.’ Belongs to no approved groups. Warning – you should consider this person dangerous.”

Or you’ll be shopping in a market and, as you pass down the aisle, a red light will go on in space in front of your face when you encounter a person whose approved vaccine status has lapsed. “Warning: herd immunity endangered.”

Two friends at a picnic:

“Hey, I just upgraded to the Glass C-16 program.”

“What’s that?”

“You don’t know?”

“No.”

“It contains Homeland Security profiles on four million Americans. Invaluable.”

“Where did you get it?”

“Through our office. We have a contract with the DOJ. So we have special access.”

“How can I get it?”

“Heh-heh. You can’t, unless you go through a special clearance exam. It’s expensive.”

Any Glass wearer who eats at a restaurant in New York will immediately be plugged into a Bloomberg app that displays, before his eyes, along with a sub-vocal whisper: “The next bite of steak will elevate your cholesterol level above allowed limits. Put down the fork. Don’t order coffee. Move the dish of sugar envelopes away from you. I see you’re a registered gun owner in Utah. You have three hours to leave the City.”

The state of mind, in which Glass wearers view reality as virtual, is the big one. People aren’t already disconnected enough from life? We need more illusion?

From ancient times, and especially since Plato, the faculty of vision, beyond the other four physical senses, has been elevated to the highest position of in-sight. The metaphors have been about “seeing the higher reality.”

So now, Google goes to eyeGlass, which is all about giving wearers a sense of being in charge, by placing a grid over the real world, and enhancing Vision.

Glass is the cocaine of computing.

And superiority? Is it any different from the status owners experience when they slide down Main Street in a Ferrari? They’re automatically Somebody because of their car.

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, has famously said: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place…and it’s important, for example, that we are subject in the Unite States to the Patriot Act.”

As the NSA captures everything Glass wearers are seeing in real time, Schmidt’s statement will take on added meaning, won’t it? Glass is the Brave New World snitch of snitches.

Hidden behind all of this is the position and place of the individual. His creative power will be defined as the mere ability to receive “elite” information. That’s a passive formulation; precisely the opposite of what the creative life is.

The number-one guru of utopian technocracy, Ray Kurzweil, thinks human creativity, as a concept, is largely based on a misunderstanding about what computers can do. That’s all.

Because a computer beat a world champion chess player, because a computer can analyze the work of a poet and then spit out its own poems in that author’s style, because a computer can defeat two very good Jeopardy players on television, we know that human creativity is an illusion. Computers, machines can work the same “tricks” by simply accessing and collating information.

If you want an intellectual recipe for taking away the essence of what a human being is, you’ve just found it.

And Glass will help lead the way.

“I have so much information jumping in front of my eyes now, it’s amazing. What else do I need? I’m there.”

For centuries, artists and inventors proved that reality was only one (temporary) work of art. They proved it by creating something new and powerful, again and again and again. They committed body, mind, and soul to their work. They dynamically moved the human race ahead.

Now, the “new paradigm” is Instant Information. Tap in, and reality is yours.

Yes, but what reality?

The answer is: the one designed, not by you, but for you.

And by people who deserve your trust the way a wildebeest should trust a pack of lions.

Jon Rappoport runs No More Fake News. The author of an explosive collection, The Matrix Revealed, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.

The Best of Jon Rappoport

In 2002, author Martin Lee wrote an article for Common Dreams: “Truth Serum and Torture.”

It could have been written yesterday, because now a Colorado judge has stated that, if James Holmes pleads not guilty by reason of insanity to the Aurora murders, state psychiatrists can subject him to drugs that will “help him remember his state of mind” at the time of the shootings. The drugging will reveal whether he really was insane that night last summer at the Aurora theater.

Well, when it comes to so-called truth drugs like sodium pentothal, sodium amatyl, scopolamine, mescaline, LSD, and hypnotic benzodiazepines, where are the pros with real experience?

At run-of-the-mill psychiatric wards? No. Those hacks in the Colorado state hospital system have rarely if ever tried out the drugs for the purpose of getting at the truth.

But the CIA has up-to-date interrogators around, and thousands of pages of MKULTRA (mind control) literature, that constitute the best experience in this dark art.

Therefore, it’s highly probable the CIA or their independent contractors will be sitting in on James Holmes’ drug-induced sessions, supervising them, giving advice. It’s the Ghostbusters motto: “Who ya gonna call?”

Martin Lee points out that, even before the CIA was created, its forerunner, the OSS, tried out a cannabis extract as a truth serum. This was back in the 1940s. Lee goes on to trace US intelligence-agency and military “leadership” in truth-drug testing.

In 1947, the US Navy Project Chatter, borrowing from Nazi studies, moved on to experiments with mescaline as a truth drug.

Shortly after its inception, in the late 1940s, the CIA used drugging with sedatives, plus hypnosis, to extract secrets from agents. This method, and barbiturates alternated with amphetamines, were soon rolled up into the infamous and overarching MKULTRA mind-control program, with its hundreds of sub-projects. MKULTRA was all about developing chemical means of eliciting truth from prisoners, along with creating unconscious assassins.

In the 1950s, the CIA employed LSD in Operation Artichoke. People don’t know or forget that, while LSD failed to qualify as a reliable truth serum, its use in very high doses produced extreme terror in people being interrogated. It was this effect, as straight-out torture, the CIA capitalized on. The idea was simple. Demand the truth and threaten with extreme-dose LSD as the alternative.

We shouldn’t discount the possibility that James Holmes, once he enters an insanity plea, and is sent away to a secure hospital for psychiatric eval, will be given drugs that produce the kind of mad panic that will convince him to say, in court, exactly what his handlers want him to say.

Back in 2002, Martin Lee wrote that William Webster, former head of the CIA and FBI, was recommending the use of truth drugs on terrorism suspects under US detention. This statement spurred a significant amount of media coverage at the time.

But in the ensuing years, very few people have bothered to ask the key question: Why should we assume that waterboarding and isolation tanks and sleep deprivation are the only torture methods the CIA/military are employing on these prisoners? What about the drugs?

In particular – because no drug has ever been found to reliably elicit the truth – what about the use of drugs to produce panic and wild terror, as a way to force people to tell what they know, or confess to what they’re told to.

It’s obvious, given the history, that US interrogators have, in fact, been using these drugs on detained terrorism suspects.

Lee ends his prescient article with a chilling quote from former CIA chief of counterterrorism, Vince Cannistraro, that reflects directly the James Holmes situation in 2013:

“Once you’ve used [truth drugs] for national security cases, then it becomes a standard. Sodium pentathol is not that effective, and so you have to use something stronger, It’s a short skip and a hop to LSD, or something worse.”

These drugs are certainly being used in national security cases. Therefore, as Cannistraro predicts, they are now entering the mainstream as the standard. The astonishing statement from the court judge in the James Holmes case, ordering his truth-drug interrogation, couldn’t be a clearer signal:

full-speed ahead in chemically inducing a suspect to give up his right not to incriminate himself;

forget the fact that such truth-drug interrogations are notoriously unreliable;

forget the damage suspects can incur from the effects of the drugs;

and most of all, forget the fact that, although truth drugs don’t work reliably, they can be used to create such terror that the suspect will do or say anything to escape more dosing.

Many people have observed that James Holmes already looks like a man who has been heavily drugged, while in custody.

Whatever Holmes knows about what happened last summer at the Aurora theater; whatever he doesn’t know; whatever role he played or didn’t play; whether he was in the theater doing the shooting or was the patsy set up by professionals to take the fall for the murders…

All of this can be twisted, on strong enough drugs, to cause him to say anything his handlers want him to say in court.

The psychiatrists who are working on Holmes will need advice on methods. They’ll go to, or be approached by, the people who have the track record, the history, the experience: the CIA.

And once that move is made, it will be very much like saying the Holmes case has national-security implications.

In so far as the Aurora murders have been used to try to snuff out the 2nd Amendment, the case is definitely the gun-grabbers’ version of national security. They want no mistakes in Holmes’ performance.

They want him to enter a plea of non-guilty by reason of insanity. Then they want him, after his stay in a mental hospital for”testing and observation,” to come back to court, and state that is now aware he killed and wounded many people. Then the State will dispose of him one way or another and he will never again see the light of day.

Naïve people place false barriers between the practice of psychiatry, institutional confinement, coerced admissions of guilt, torture, brain-twisting drugs, and the CIA’s MKULTRA. They swim together in the same stream far more often than Americans want to admit, or want to know about.

This horrendous stream flows through the James Holmes case.

Other than using drugs to force him to follow orders, what possible value can this “narcoanalytic review” have in a court of law? Think about it. If Holmes enters an insanity plea, thus triggering the ensuing truth-drug interrogation, he’ll already be stating he is crazy. So the drugs will be administered to a crazy man, on the premise that can he recall correctly, or reveal correctly, his state of mind at the time he committed murders.

Is there any defense lawyer in the country who couldn’t cast doubt on the reliability of such evidence?

No, the Holmes case is now being used to put straight-out drug-torture of defendants, in order to gain confessions, into the mainstream of American legal practice.

There is one more long-shot factor here. It’s nearly unthinkable, but it should be mentioned. Many people have found evidence that the Aurora murders were staged. Without recounting the details, suppose there is one more piece of stagework left: the truth drugs used on Holmes are shown to have created brain damage.

If Holmes’ lawyers claim that the prosecution irreparably destroyed their client, they can move for a mistrial.

Can you imagine the uproar, chaos, and destabilization that would result from a declaration of a mistrial, a no-verdict in the case, and Holmes walking out of prison? Or his remand to a psychiatric facility as a permanently damaged person – but without a guilty verdict?

In 2002, author Martin Lee wrote an article for Common Dreams: "Truth Serum and Torture."

It could have been written yesterday, because now a Colorado judge has stated that, if James Holmes pleads not guilty by reason of insanity to the Aurora murders, state psychiatrists can subject him to drugs that will "help him remember his state of mind" at the time of the shootings. The drugging will reveal whether he really was insane that night last summer at the Aurora theater.

Well, when it comes to so-called truth drugs like sodium pentothal, sodium amatyl, scopolamine, mescaline, LSD, and hypnotic benzodiazepines, where are the pros with real experience?

At run-of-the-mill psychiatric wards? No. Those hacks in the Colorado state hospital system have rarely if ever tried out the drugs for the purpose of getting at the truth.

But the CIA has up-to-date interrogators around, and thousands of pages of MKULTRA (mind control) literature, that constitute the best experience in this dark art.

Therefore, it’s highly probable the CIA or their independent contractors will be sitting in on James Holmes’ drug-induced sessions, supervising them, giving advice. It’s the Ghostbusters motto: "Who ya gonna call?"

Martin Lee points out that, even before the CIA was created, its forerunner, the OSS, tried out a cannabis extract as a truth serum. This was back in the 1940s. Lee goes on to trace US intelligence-agency and military "leadership" in truth-drug testing.

In 1947, the US Navy Project Chatter, borrowing from Nazi studies, moved on to experiments with mescaline as a truth drug.

Shortly after its inception, in the late 1940s, the CIA used drugging with sedatives, plus hypnosis, to extract secrets from agents. This method, and barbiturates alternated with amphetamines, were soon rolled up into the infamous and overarching MKULTRA mind-control program, with its hundreds of sub-projects. MKULTRA was all about developing chemical means of eliciting truth from prisoners, along with creating unconscious assassins.

In the 1950s, the CIA employed LSD in Operation Artichoke. People don’t know or forget that, while LSD failed to qualify as a reliable truth serum, its use in very high doses produced extreme terror in people being interrogated. It was this effect, as straight-out torture, the CIA capitalized on. The idea was simple. Demand the truth and threaten with extreme-dose LSD as the alternative.

We shouldn’t discount the possibility that James Holmes, once he enters an insanity plea, and is sent away to a secure hospital for psychiatric eval, will be given drugs that produce the kind of mad panic that will convince him to say, in court, exactly what his handlers want him to say.

Back in 2002, Martin Lee wrote that William Webster, former head of the CIA and FBI, was recommending the use of truth drugs on terrorism suspects under US detention. This statement spurred a significant amount of media coverage at the time.

But in the ensuing years, very few people have bothered to ask the key question: Why should we assume that waterboarding and isolation tanks and sleep deprivation are the only torture methods the CIA/military are employing on these prisoners? What about the drugs?

In particular – because no drug has ever been found to reliably elicit the truth – what about the use of drugs to produce panic and wild terror, as a way to force people to tell what they know, or confess to what they’re told to.

It’s obvious, given the history, that US interrogators have, in fact, been using these drugs on detained terrorism suspects.

Lee ends his prescient article with a chilling quote from former CIA chief of counterterrorism, Vince Cannistraro, that reflects directly the James Holmes situation in 2013:

"Once you’ve used [truth drugs] for national security cases, then it becomes a standard. Sodium pentathol is not that effective, and so you have to use something stronger, It’s a short skip and a hop to LSD, or something worse."

These drugs are certainly being used in national security cases. Therefore, as Cannistraro predicts, they are now entering the mainstream as the standard. The astonishing statement from the court judge in the James Holmes case, ordering his truth-drug interrogation, couldn’t be a clearer signal:

full-speed ahead in chemically inducing a suspect to give up his right not to incriminate himself;

forget the fact that such truth-drug interrogations are notoriously unreliable;

forget the damage suspects can incur from the effects of the drugs;

and most of all, forget the fact that, although truth drugs don’t work reliably, they can be used to create such terror that the suspect will do or say anything to escape more dosing.

Many people have observed that James Holmes already looks like a man who has been heavily drugged, while in custody.

Whatever Holmes knows about what happened last summer at the Aurora theater; whatever he doesn’t know; whatever role he played or didn’t play; whether he was in the theater doing the shooting or was the patsy set up by professionals to take the fall for the murders…

All of this can be twisted, on strong enough drugs, to cause him to say anything his handlers want him to say in court.

The psychiatrists who are working on Holmes will need advice on methods. They’ll go to, or be approached by, the people who have the track record, the history, the experience: the CIA.

And once that move is made, it will be very much like saying the Holmes case has national-security implications.

In so far as the Aurora murders have been used to try to snuff out the 2nd Amendment, the case is definitely the gun-grabbers’ version of national security. They want no mistakes in Holmes’ performance.

They want him to enter a plea of non-guilty by reason of insanity. Then they want him, after his stay in a mental hospital for"testing and observation," to come back to court, and state that is now aware he killed and wounded many people. Then the State will dispose of him one way or another and he will never again see the light of day.

Naïve people place false barriers between the practice of psychiatry, institutional confinement, coerced admissions of guilt, torture, brain-twisting drugs, and the CIA’s MKULTRA. They swim together in the same stream far more often than Americans want to admit, or want to know about.

This horrendous stream flows through the James Holmes case.

Other than using drugs to force him to follow orders, what possible value can this "narcoanalytic review" have in a court of law? Think about it. If Holmes enters an insanity plea, thus triggering the ensuing truth-drug interrogation, he’ll already be stating he is crazy. So the drugs will be administered to a crazy man, on the premise that can he recall correctly, or reveal correctly, his state of mind at the time he committed murders.

Is there any defense lawyer in the country who couldn’t cast doubt on the reliability of such evidence?

No, the Holmes case is now being used to put straight-out drug-torture of defendants, in order to gain confessions, into the mainstream of American legal practice.

There is one more long-shot factor here. It’s nearly unthinkable, but it should be mentioned. Many people have found evidence that the Aurora murders were staged. Without recounting the details, suppose there is one more piece of stagework left: the truth drugs used on Holmes are shown to have created brain damage.

If Holmes’ lawyers claim that the prosecution irreparably destroyed their client, they can move for a mistrial.

Can you imagine the uproar, chaos, and destabilization that would result from a declaration of a mistrial, a no-verdict in the case, and Holmes walking out of prison? Or his remand to a psychiatric facility as a permanently damaged person – but without a guilty verdict?

Jon Rappoport runs No More Fake News. The author of an explosive collection, The Matrix Revealed, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.

The Best of Jon Rappoport

I’ve been forcing myself to read gushing statements about the march of artificial intelligence (AI) and how, in the near future, we will have “the source code of the brain,” and computers will be able to do whatever the brain can do, except much, much faster.

I’ve been reading about the day when we humans will somehow merge with the machines.

I think the technocrats who promote these notions were raised on comic books, and they haven’t really moved on from that phase.

What ever happened to the old phrase, “garbage in equals garbage out?” Was it too telling and real?

Take the idea that some day, tiny nanobots will patrol the body making adjustments and normalizing errant functions. Forget for the moment all the damage these little scouts could cause. Just focus on the quality of the information by which they would make moment-to-moment decisions.

Currently, by the most conservative mainstream estimate, the medical system in America kills 225,000 people a year. (See B. Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”).

Of these deaths, 106,000 per year are directly caused by FDA-approved medical drugs. Each one of these drugs was studied, and the results of the studies were published in mainstream journals. This fact alone indicates massive fraud in the clinical trials of the drugs.

Then consider that for all 297 officially certified mental disorders, there exist absolutely no physical diagnostic tests. No blood tests, no saliva tests, no urine tests, no genetic tests, no brain scans. The very definitions of these so-called disorders are adjudicated by sitting committees of psychiatrists, who consult menus of behaviors.

Then consider that the major infectious diseases in the West were already on the decline before vaccines or antibiotics had been introduced, and yet vaccines were hailed as the overriding reason for that decline.

These are just several general categories of fraud, misinformation, disinformation. So the question becomes: who exactly is going to program those wonderful little nanobots before they enter the human bloodstream in the near-future, and what medical information are they going to have access to?

And what kind of moron would assume that, just because artificial intelligence will have the ability to process enormous amounts of data about the body, it will process the right and correct and truthful data?

By extension, when it comes to AI solving political or economic or social problems on a massive scale, why should we assume the information AI is deploying will be correct and right and true, and why should we assume that these problems are stated and formulated, in the first place, according to underlying ethical values that we agree to or share?

Just because a computer can be built that works faster than the brain, and on more platforms, why on earth should we then infer that it is operating from a storehouse of information that is relevant or useful?

And as far as human brains “merging with machines,” why don’t we leave that mishmash idea to the Borg and the Star Trek crew?

The famous Watson test proved that a computer could handle Jeopardy questions on television better than two humans dedicated to trivia.

Deep Blue beat the world’s best chess player.

A computer can analyze the poetry of an author and then generate its own poems in that style. Rather poorly.

Do these feats imply something so significant that we want to put our future in the cores of computers? For that matter, if there is some holy-grail source code for the brain, why should we believe possessing it and using it, or even improving it, would qualitatively improve the solutions to our biggest problems as a species?

There are simple and basic laws of logic involved here. You can compute from now until the end of time, but your deductions are always going to proceed from premises, and those premises are going to predetermine direction and ethical values that color the end results. Computers don’t do Right and Wrong in any absolute sense. Never have, never will.

Even more important is the system or mechanism for allowing AI to dominate our decisions. Who is in charge? Who rules? Which humans hold the off-on switches on the machines? Who programs the machines’ premises? Who can, if necessary, use force to make the global population comply with what AI decides? And what are these humans’ motives?

None of such matters are mitigated by “more intelligent machines.”

The technocrats are actually playing a shell game with us. They’re showing us a vast array of quantitative and qualitative improvements in what computers can do, and they’re substituting that for wisdom. They’re redefining wisdom. They’re omitting the whole argument and debate about what kind of society we want to live in. They’re hucksters and hustlers and con men.

When faced, for example, with the problem of how to feed the world, computers would already be biased in favor of certain outcomes, and they would also be biased toward the basic notion of universal distribution of resources. Who made that choice? The humans deploying the machines from behind the scenes.

Is feeding the world an issue that should be solved top-down? Computers don’t answer that question. Humans do. And humans – specifically the ones in charge – make spectacularly wrong choices, according to the wishes and judgments of many people – many people who already know that placing a decision of that magnitude in the hands of a few oligarchs is a recipe for disaster.

Who will decide how to program the basic assumptions of super-brain computers on the issue of climate change? With what “science” will these computers be initially infected? Who decides what the valid and the invalid science is?

Any beginning student in a logic course quickly learns to distinguish between ethical values and data. Neither computers nor brains determine values based on information alone, no matter how quickly they think, no matter how much data they can access.

A person or a machine with an IQ of 7000 can’t be trusted to install values for others. That’s why we have this troublesome thing called freedom. That’s why we have a fundamental principle that you are free to do anything you want to, as long as you don’t interfere with another person’s freedom. Any system that countermands this basic principle, simply because “it can think better,” is a tyrant, whether it is composed of flesh or metal or some synthetic.

NBC news recently did a glowing feature on advanced cell phones that, in the hands of doctors, can carry out a huge array of medical tests on patients. The doctor was enthusiastic. The patient was enthusiastic. The reporter was enthusiastic. It was a virtual love fest.

No one bothered to ask about the meaning, utility, or dangers of the tests themselves. That issue was swept off the table.

Who cares? It’s technology. It has to be good. If the patient’s test results indicate he should be treated with a highly toxic drug, so what? That’s a minor blip on the screen. We should all celebrate the technological breakthrough. Pour the champagne. Forget about the patient.

Some day, up the road, a human will be sleeping in his bed at night. The tiny bots circulating in his body will suddenly decide he needs a drug. They will either release the substance without his knowledge, or a robot sitting next to the bed will lean over and give him a quick shot. Done.

What? He ended up in the hospital next afternoon? Well, whatever the reason, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the little bots or their programming or their method for accessing the vast clouds of data in virtual space. No, those functions are all brilliant and boggling and wondrous. It must have been something else.

A person walking down the street will be picked up by a hundred cameras and other surveillance devices. It will be adjudicated, in a matter of a few seconds, that he’s missed his latest series of a dozen vaccine boosters. At the next corner, a mini-drone, barely visible to the naked eye, will descend on him and give him a quick jab. Or his next meal will magically contain food engineered specifically to deliver the mandated vaccines.

Greatest good for the greatest number. Already decided and programmed.

Is it better to have separate nations with their own armies, or should we have one giant planetary force? Let the AI decide. How? On what basis? There are always value judgments that underlie these questions, and computers don’t suddenly create values unless they’re told to do so. Only in comic books or pulp science fiction novels do advanced races with very high foreheads come down and demonstrate wisdom based on IQ.

There is no evidence that, if you took a general like Julius Caesar and somehow shoved his IQ up off the charts, he would suddenly change his value judgments. Henry Kissinger hasn’t.

If you built a machine that could access every single datum acquired in 100,000 years of human history and store them all on the head of a pin; and if that machine could rearrange all these data in a trillion different patterns in a few minutes; and if that machine could then generate decisions that answer any question put to it, what would you really have? You would have, at best, sheer opinion on the most important matters facing the human race.

Technocracy is selling a myth of intelligence, a fairy tale. In this fairy tale, the smartest brains (coincidentally resembling those of the technocrats) would cross a threshold, beyond which intelligence would become something else, something very different: machines that have “higher access” to “the best moral values.”

Perhaps the most avid and famous proponent of a technocratic future is Ray Kurzweil, acclaimed inventor, author, businessman. He describes the event he calls the Singularity:

“Within a quarter century, nonbiological intelligence will match the range and subtlety of human intelligence. It will then soar past it because of the continuing acceleration of information-based technologies, as well as the ability of machines to instantly share their knowledge. Intelligent nanorobots will be deeply integrated…”

Among the effects of this unprecedented development?

“…the exponential rate of technical progress will create within 40 years an Internet that is a trillion times faster than today’s, a global media, a global education system, a global language, and a globally homogenized culture, thus establishing the prerequisites for the creation of a global democratic state, “Globa,” and ridding the world of war, the arms trade, ignorance, and poverty…Billions of people will be influenced by the ‘best’ ideas that the planet has to offer. People’s minds will be influenced powerfully, so that today’s nationalist mentalities will be gradually transformed into tomorrow’s globist mentalities…”

And just what are these “best ideas” that billions of people will voluntarily accept? The ideas expressed in, say, Plato’s Republic? Or instantaneous 3-D holographic “you are there” porn? Small decentralized organic farms or some Monsanto plan to disseminate GMOs from the sky all over the planet? A three-branched government with rigorous checks and balances, or taking the points on the Jets vs. the Rams? A healthy clean diet or a hundred vaccines by the age of three?

And the “global democratic state?” I’d like to see how the elections of a president and legislators work for the whole of Earth (including the recount after a charge of fraud is leveled by one citizen in southern Argentina).

If presidential debates in the US, targeting the lowest possible common denominators among the voting public, are filled with vapid generalities, I can only imagine the global debates: a few smiles, a few grunts, a few assurances that “we’re all in this together.”

One language for all the world? Sure, why not? Let’s wipe out the memory of what a few thousand years of hundreds of languages have produced.

And don’t worry. All over the planet, “the people,” newly brilliant, will rise up and overthrow their dictators, just as they did during the vaunted Arab Spring, where the crucial presence of cell phones and Facebook was touted as the lever that forced democratic breakthroughs. You remember that Spring: a promoted hoax designed to hide yet one more elite power play.

Greater insight into ethical values based purely on speed and range of information processing is really a quasi-religion. It uses the notion of IQ as the Prophet. It promises that, as the people have access to more and more data, they will naturally and inevitably choose the right values and the right data, because that’s what IQ does, once it passes through a certain upward level.

You can forget about elite power players exerting control over the population of Earth from above because, as in the Marxist formulation, these Rockefellers and Warburgs of the past will simply wither away, no longer needed.

I’m happy to learn that. I can relax now. We can all relax. The great day is coming. It will be brought to us by a multi-platformed brain, using its neuronal substrate to reach out and connect with nonbiological libraries of truth.

What were we worried about?

I’m sitting here talking to you and you’re talking to me, and you’re in Bombay and I’m in San Diego, and we’re seeing each other in high-res 3-D holographic brilliance, as if we’re in the same room. And as we talk and access skies full of clouds of relevant data in mere instants, we’re both coming to accept the best ideas and the best values and the best language and the best government, and we’re kicking the ass of the old world and rushing into the New, and life will be different forever, and I know it and you know it, so what else do we need?

My molecularly enhanced IQ is 7000 and so is yours, so we’re on the same precise page. That’s all the human race was waiting for all this time.

Jon Rappoport runs No More Fake News. The author of an explosive collection, The Matrix Revealed, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.

The Best of Jon Rappoport

I became aware of the block and censorship a few days ago, soon after I wrote and published the article: “Ruthless State of the Union: current crime boss speaks.”

That article was about Obama, and it was also about every president as far back as Nixon. It mainly described the absurdities implied by Obama’s vague notion that “we all have to work together.”

Readers began letting me know they couldn’t Facebook-share my articles. This became: no one could share any article that included: “jonrappoport.wordpress.com.”

As a reporter for 30 years, I know a little about the 1st Amendment. Criticizing the president, or the medical cartel, or any number of other institutions I’ve taken on is par for the course. If some Facebook readers are marking these articles spam or abusive, they should think again.

Lots of people these days believe it’s part of the game to try to censor their perceived opponents. “Why debate or even allow a different voice? Let’s just block it out.”

Blocking the FB posting of my article links could also be part of the Facebook management purge of political activists, particularly those who defend the 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership. This happened to a number of people at infowars.com last December, and it also happened at Natural News.

At the moment, I have a workaround in place, and my site and blog are working just fine, but the basic wider issue of blocking dissident opinion isn’t going away.

Some people have pointed out that Facebook is a private company, and therefore it has the right to define acceptable speech any way it wants to. This may be true, but blocking and censoring political viewpoints is a very bad policy. Claiming, for example, that Facebook is only for making and communicating with friends is a cop-out. If friends can’t share information about political realities, it’s a hollow situation.

Many reporters, including myself, came to the Internet because we were sick and tired of trying to convince editors at newspapers and magazines that our work should see the light of day. Editors routinely shot down (and still do) article ideas that wandered too far off the mainstream reservation.

That was the censorship we were leaving in the dust. Now, here it is again.

Every day, I read articles I don’t like. The idea of somehow censoring them would be absurd.

In this country (and other countries), we have people who believe in and support free speech. Then we have True Believers, whose cause in their minds outdistances any considerations about liberty. They would trample liberty at the drop of a hat to make the world over in their image. Finally, we have organizations who enter into covert political alliances to advance their own interests. These organizations also care nothing about the 1st Amendment.

Where is Facebook in all of this? Are they just a front for gathering personal information on a billion people? Are they just another wing of the vast surveillance apparatus that is operating from a playbook that wants androids instead of thinking citizens?

It’s time for the bosses at Facebook to step out into the light and explain, in detail, exactly how they block information and on what grounds. How are reports of spam and “abusive content” processed by their algorithms? What is their position on the 1st Amendment?

Failure to make this clear is evidence of purposeful concealment.

Perhaps an article I wrote and published last August, “Facebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the tanking IPO,” will help put this situation into perspective:

The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.

Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.

Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”

That’s not the only connection between Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.

With these CIA/Darpa connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who could fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?

But now the Facebook stock has tanked. On Friday, August 17, it weighed in at half its initial IPO price. For the first time since the IPO, venture-capital backers were legally permitted to sell off their shares, and some did, at a loss.

Articles have begun appearing that question Zuckerberg’s ability to manage his company. “Experts” are saying he should import a professional team to run the business side of things and step away.

All this, despite the fact that Facebook’s first posted revenue as a public company has exceeded analysts’ predictions, according to the LA Times.

This has the earmarks of classic shakeout and squeeze play. It’s how heavy hitters gain control of a company. First, they drive down the price of the stock, then they trade it at low levels that discourage and demoralize the public and even semi-insiders. As the stock continues to tank, they quietly buy up as much of it as they can. Finally, when the price hits a designated rock bottom, they shoot it up all the way to new highs and win big.

And they hold enough shares to exert more control over the company itself.

That is how Facebook will survive. Zuckerberg’s grip on Facebook will loosen.

The company is too important as a data-mining asset of the intelligence community to let it fall into disrepair and chaos. The CIA and its cutouts will save it and gain more power over it. It’s what they’ve wanted all along.

From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.

CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a standard operation for agencies like the CIA.

When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.

Now it’s time for Zuckerberg to pass the baton to his handlers, so they can maximize the economics of Facebook and utilize it to spy even more extensively.

The media will play along, pretending the eventual upswing-recovery of Facebook stock happens for fundamental reasons connected to the company’s “better level of performance.” The media take this approach to every stock and every company, to avoid letting the public know how massive manipulation actually runs these trading markets.

End of the August 2012 article.

People might ask, “Then why, Rappoport, do you use Facebook at all?”

That’s a legitimate question. My answer is simple. Since I began working as a reporter in 1982, I’ve used every possible opportunity and venue to put my information out there.

There’s a big difference between that and overtly supporting all those venues.

When I admire a writer, broadcaster, or organization, I say so, and I have. Even then, that doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything they say or stand for.

That’s a distinction with a meaning. It’s exactly the distinction I’m asking Facebook to clarify: what will they allow, whether they agree with it or not?

Do I expect them to spell it out in sufficient detail? No. But then that means something, too.

None of this will change one iota of what I write or say.

Jon Rappoport runs No More Fake News. The author of an explosive collection, The Matrix Revealed, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.

The Best of Jon Rappoport