Stand Up For Personal Health Freedom

Hydroxychloroquine, COVID, FDA; and Pharma and all its whores around the world

by Jon Rappoport

July 29, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

“We are talking about private contracts outside the scope of government. We’re talking about local barter, and the issuing of local currencies, the building of private money systems. During the Great Depression, many citizens looked around and said, ‘We still have land and food, we still have commodities. Nothing has changed here. We just have to invent a way to conduct commerce among ourselves.’ One estimate states that, during the Depression of the 1930s, there were 1500 private money systems across America.” (My notes for “The Underground”)

I have made my case concerning the fake pandemic. Many times now.

From the beginning—the failure to isolate, purify, or actually discover a novel coronavirus by correct procedures. The meaningless diagnostic tests and the meaningless case numbers. The propaganda. The use of “the virus” as a cover story obscuring high-level corporate and government crimes.

Of course, many people believe in the COVID-19 virus. And of these, some have been seeking treatments outside the bounds of government certification.

This is their right. They are exercising freedom in managing their own health. And so some of them are taking hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).

The FDA, which certifies all medical drugs as safe and effective, before they are released for public use, has not recommended HCQ for COVID treatment. It has banned the drug for that purpose, outside of hospitals and clinical trials.

The FDA‘s track record—which I’ve been documenting for the past 25 years—is a horror show. The first key review I became aware of was authored in 2000, by Dr. Barbara Starfield, and published on July 26th of that year, in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Starfield stated that, annually, FDA-approved medicines kill 106,000 Americans. That’s over a million Americans per decade. So relying on the FDA to decide whether HCQ is a useful drug is not a concession some Americans are willing to make.

Pharma and all its allies and minions and whores are focusing on a jackpot bonanza for COVID treatment: vaccines and new antiviral drugs. Pharma does not want competition. It definitely does not want to see a landscape in which all sorts of alternative treatments for COVID (or any purported disease) are rampant and free-wheeling.

We are seeing multiple censorship actions across platforms, when people, including doctors, speak positively about HCQ.

Fauci is very much in the pro-Pharma camp, of course. He and Gates want an RNA vaccine to come to market, by any means necessary. They also want antiviral drugs to dominate COVID treatment.

A very sharp reader spelled out the Pharma-anticipated future for these new (toxic) antiviral medicines. And not just for COVID. Up to now, there has been very little mainstream progress in getting drugs specifically designed to treat viruses into the marketplace. This is Pharma’s big opportunity. They envision a trillion-dollar operation that will elevate antivirals (for treating any viruses) to the level of, say, antibiotics, which are used against bacteria. COVID would simply be the first major “breakthrough.”

So we have a war going on. HCQ and other alternative modalities vs. vaccines and antivirals. Pharma does not want to lose this one. It would be disastrous.

I am not touting HCQ. I am putting it this way: if many people are convinced, or become convinced, that HCQ is a drug of choice, and if they believe it is helping them, then a major rebellion against Pharma and the FDA and its counterparts around the world takes off. It soars. And it spurs the use of other alternatives on which Pharma makes zero profits.

So-called natural health and alternative medicine have been booming since the 1980s. A new escalation would send very serious shock waves through the pharmaceutical industry.

Fauci is well aware of this. He is fronting for the industry in every possible way. Trump, with his statements favoring HCQ, has become a major threat in that regard.

When you see new reports of soaring COVID case numbers—a con which I’ve documented six ways from Sunday—you’re not only witnessing a planned strategy to maintain the war against the economy and therefore against billions of people whose lives are at stake; you’re also watching a justification for pushing antivirals and vaccines. For the benefit of Pharma.

The last thing the pharmaceutical industry wants to see is their own case-number con giving birth to wildcat outbreaks of health freedom. People leaving the nest. People going elsewhere for treatment.

Individuals making decisions about their own treatments—this is very serious business. People should look deeply before making choices. In the case of various HCQ protocols, they should consider: dosage levels; when in the course of illness the drug would be given (early or late); whether there is illness requiring treatment to begin with; whether people may have a heredity condition which could make HCQ perilous or even lethal—these are some of the relevant considerations.

The FDA and Pharma want to be the first and last word.

Life and Liberty say they are not the first and last word.

In that regard, there is another issue: licenses vs. contracts. The medical cartel, backed by governments, has established medical boards which grant licenses to practice medicine. These special persons, doctors, are handed the right to treat and cure diseases. This is an attempt to create a monopoly.

There is another avenue: private contracts. Here is the analogy I’ve used to describe this situation. Two adults, Joe and Fred, enter into an agreement. Joe says he has a health condition. He will be the patient. Fred will be the practitioner. Fred has a well on his property. Fred believes the water has a special healing quality. He will give some of it (or sell it) to Joe, who will drink it over the course of two weeks.

Both men, in their contract, agree that no legal liability will be attached to the outcome. They are both responsible. They are of sound mind. They don’t require government permission to sign or fulfill their contract.

That’s it in a nutshell.

Joe and Fred are operating on their own. They have that natural right. They also have the right to be wrong—in case the water treatment doesn’t work, or is harmful.

Of course, all sorts of meddlers will claim this arrangement is illegal and absurd. Meddlers always try to curb freedom. That’s their crusade in life. They can’t stand the idea of people making their own choices and decisions and then accepting the consequences.

I’m not saying governments will honor such contracts. Governments are prime meddlers. I’m saying these contracts (and not just in the arena of healing) stand outside governments. They are citizen-to-citizen. They are prior to government. They are intrinsically more real than government.

from:    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/07/30/hcq-covid-fda-and-pharma-and-all-its-whores/

Mask On – Germs In

Does wearing a mask cause diagnostic tests to read false-positive for COVID?

by Jon Rappoport

July 23, 2020

Suppose one of the most intense “safety practices”—wearing a mask—actually inflates the number of COVID diagnoses?

Needless to say, it would be a bombshell. Suppose PCR and antibody tests turn out false positive results because people are wearing masks every day?

How is that possible?

Actually, it’s quite simple. A person wearing a mask is breathing in his own germs all day long. He breathes them out, as he should, but then he breathes them back in.

It seems evident that this unnatural process would increase the number and variety of germs circulating and replicating in his body; even creating active infection.

Along with this, a decrease in oxygen intake, which occurs when a mask is worn, would allow certain germs to multiply in the body—germs which would otherwise be routinely wiped out or diminished in the presence of an oxygen-rich environment.

Here’s the key: Both the PCR and antibody tests are known for registering false-positive results, since they cross-react with germs which have nothing to do with the reason for the test.

If wearing a mask increases the number and variety of germs replicating in the body, and also increases the chance of developing an active infection…then the likelihood of a false-positive PCR or antibody test is increased.

In other words, masks would promote the number of so-called COVID cases. This would, of course, have alarming consequences.

People labeled “COVID” face all sorts of negative consequences. I don’t have to spell them out.

In past articles, I’ve shown that both PCR and antibody tests DO register false-positives because they react with irrelevant germs.

For example, let’s consider the PCR: From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans”:

“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”

Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit”:

“…non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”

Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.

Now let’s consider the antibody test—

Business Insider, April 3, 202: “Some tests have demonstrated false positives, detecting antibodies to much more common coronaviruses.”

Science News, March 27: “Science News spoke with…Charles Cairns, dean of the Drexel University College of Medicine, about how antibody tests work and what are some of the challenges of developing the tests.”

“Cairns: ‘The big question is: Does a positive response for the antibodies mean that person is actively infected, or that they have been infected in the past? The tests need to be accurate, and avoid both false positives and false negatives. That’s the challenge’.”

That’s just a sprinkling of sources on both the PCR and antibody tests—revealing that both of these tests DO spit out false-positive results. Many of those false-positives are the result of cross reactions with irrelevant germs.

And as I stated at the top of this article, if wearing masks increases the number and variety of germs circulating and replicating in the body, then it’s quite likely that masks will, in fact, contribute to false diagnoses of COVID.

Now, we come to a different angle on this story. Everyone is aware that governors and other politicians are ramping up orders to wear masks to new insane levels. If indeed this order will result in more diagnosed COVID cases…

How can we avoid looking at the financial incentives?

It turns out that the states are receiving federal money for EVERY COVID case.

The reference here is Becker’s CFO Hospital Report, April 14, 2020, “State-by-state breakdown of federal aid per COVID-19 case”:

“HHS recently began distributing the first $30 billion of emergency funding designated for hospitals in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act…”

“Below is a breakdown of how much funding per COVID-19 case each state will receive from the first $30 billion in aid. Kaiser Health News used a state breakdown provided to the House Ways and Means Committee by HHS along with COVID-19 cases tabulated by The New York Times for its analysis.”

“Alabama
$158,000 per COVID-19 case

Alaska
$306,000

Arizona
$23,000

Arkansas
$285,000

California
$145,000

Colorado
$58,000

Connecticut
$38,000

Delaware
$127,000…”

The article goes on to list every state and the money it will receive for EACH DIAGNOSED COVID CASE.

If mask wearing increases the likelihood of a COVID diagnosis, then: those states forcing new widespread mask dictates will be multiplying their federal $$$.

And if you really want to cover the bases, every method of fake case-counting will have the same ballooning $$$ effect for the states.

ALL the so-called containment measures—masks, quarantine, isolation, distancing, lockdowns, economic destruction—bring on fear, stress, loneliness…lowering immune-system function…leading to more infections…which means more germs replicating in the body…which means more false-positive COVID diagnostic tests…and more human destruction…and more $$$ for the states.

SOURCE:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/state-by-state-breakdown-of-federal-aid-per-covid-19-case.html

from:   https://blog.nomorefakenews.com

THE Virus – Some Considerations

My investigation of COVID-19

This is one of those investigations in which you ask yourself, IS THE PHENOMENON, AS DESCRIBED, REAL? That’s where I started. At this point, I’ve written well over 150 articles about COVID-19.

And of course, the phenomenon is not real.

Most people wouldn’t be able to grasp that. They’re stuck at the gate, saying, PEOPLE ARE DYING, IT MUST BE THE VIRUS.

Well, people are always dying. It’s very easy to repackage their deaths under a new label. And those that are dying for new reasons…you can track down those reasons, too. In a few places, it’s pollution, in another place it could well be a previous vaccine campaign, and so on. In New York, a lot of people are dying premature deaths because they’re put on breathing ventilators and heavily sedated.

As I laid out in several key articles, proper procedures of viral discovery were never carried out in China or anywhere else. There is no convincing proof researchers ever found a new virus.

Therefore, every piece of so-called information coming from “new virus” has no foundation whatsoever. For example, the diagnostic tests. Tests for what? And then, the case numbers would be meaningless as well.

But again, these facts are hard for people to swallow. They want to believe. They believe they must believe. It’s a theocracy.

In the set-up, there are two positions you can take. You can stand outside the whole illusion and expose it; or you can enter the illusion and then show internal contradictions and lies and false pictures, within the fraud.

For instance, the case numbers. I’ve explained ways the CDC and other agencies are fiddling them, inflating them. I’ve also stood outside the whole case number game and pointed out it’s without meaning, because, again, the existence of a new virus hasn’t been proven. The tests, all of them, are supposed to be evidence of the presence of the virus.

You can be OUTSIDE or INSIDE. Or both.

Let’s say someone publishes a photo of 510th Street in New York during rush hour. You can simply say there is no 510th Street in New York. Or you can look at the details of the photo. You can say, “You see that man wearing a fleecy winter coat and a long scarf? Now look behind him. There are three girls wearing bikinis waiting for a bus. Doesn’t that seem odd?”

You can also make a circumstantial case. That’s a third aspect of an investigation. “Look, this man accused of check forgery has been convicted three times in other states for the same crime. He worked for his uncle, who went to prison for forgery in France. Right now, he lives above a store where a check forger is turning out fake checks.”

I’ve done that with the virus—showing that, back through history, the so-called discovery of a new virus, and its promotion, have been used to obscure, and stand in for, other forms of killing. Industrial pollution, forced starvation, purposeful contamination of water supplies, treatment with highly toxic medical drugs and vaccines. The story about a virus protects the killers.

As you can see, I’m explaining all this in a very straightforward way. Now. But in 1987, when the issue was AIDS and HIV, and I was writing a book on the subject, I waded through a mass of confusion for months. The confusion was caused by me being inside the picture and not knowing there was an outside. When I finally realized what was going on, a large number of seemingly disparate pieces of information clicked into place. I saw the landscape. I saw what was in it, and I could stand away from it and look at it as a whole.

As a fourth consideration, you could examine the history of the teachings that train and predispose people to believe in a phenomenon that is not real. In this case, teachings about germs. Teachings that indicate germs are as dangerous as nitroglycerin. Teachings that claim disease comes directly from germs—ignoring, for example, the fact that people have intrinsic immune defenses. Mind control through germ theory is a long story that I’m just briefly mentioning. But it’s very useful to see how indoctrination works in the background; when the next big epidemic is announced, most people immediately fall in line. They’re confirming what they’ve been taught to believe. It’s another church.

There was the church of HIV, the church of West Nile, the church of SARS, Swine Flu, Zika, Bird Flu, and so on.

Speaking of teachings—one of the most important predispositions that people cling to like life rafts is: one effect, one cause. The effect would be COVID-19, and the cause would be the coronavirus. But the effect is not One Thing. As I stated above, people are actually dying as a result of different conditions…which have different causes. Grasping this produces a very beneficial explosion that scatters much mind control.

Another predisposition is the illogical notion that the effect proves the cause. “Well, look at the all the lockdowns (effect); therefore, the cause, the justification must be the dangerous virus.” Nonsense. Aristotle exposed that fallacy a long time ago.

“But…but I don’t care. People are dying, it must be the virus. I believe.”

Yes, people believe. When has that not been the case?

And when they believe, they ask a few typical questions. “But what about the people dying in Italy?” They are the BUT WHAT ABOUT people. They always have another WHAT ABOUT. Or they’ll say, “There was a boy who suddenly died in Montana, how do you explain that?” The HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN people.

I explain what I can, based on evidence I’ve put together. I don’t know what happened to the boy in Montana or the girl in India or the mother in Mongolia. But I do know there is no particular reason to assume the virus was the cause of death.

True believers tend to put things together this way: the news reports an unusual death; it’s impossible to understand what happened from the account; unusual effect must equal an unusual cause; the COVID virus would be unusual; therefore, the virus caused the unusual death. Preposterous, but there it is. You can take a sledgehammer to that pillar of dull thought, and you won’t knock it down in a hundred years.

Then we come to the question of conspiracy. This can also be called: who benefits? People mistakenly assume that a conspiracy is like a bank robbery. A small number of people walk into a bank and take the money. They benefit. But in a conspiracy, there are compartmentalized beneficiaries, and they aren’t all plotting together. Most beneficiaries see an opportunity and they take it.

Drug companies make money on the vaccine and the drugs used to treat COVID-19 patients. State governments receive federal money to “fight the virus.” Researchers win promotions. Public health agencies obtain more funding, and more power. Financiers buy up devalued properties at bargain prices. At the top of the ladder, key plotters contrive selling the story of a new killer virus, because they intend to use it to lock down the planet. Why? Because they want to torpedo economies and move in on the wreckage and build a new economic, social, and political world order. It doesn’t take thousands or millions of people—all in the know—to foist a conspiracy. Far from it.

An investigation of a story makes the story fall apart. You see it in a different light. You no longer believe the central narrative. You keep asking deeper questions about basic assertions contained in the story, and your answers produce more collapses of the cement that holds the story together.

Finally, for now, there is the matter of individual choice and responsibility. Individuals can believe or not believe. There is always that option. People are not doomed to accept an oppressive narrative imposed on them. If that were the case, there would be no point to human thought or action. We would forever be victims. This is not the case. It never was. Some people are dedicated to the notion that there is no way out of the dungeon of external control. Their dedication to this proposition has great tonnage. For them. They purposely ignore the fact that, down through history, there has been an enormous struggle to establish individual freedom, and this war has been astonishingly successful—relative to older despotisms and tyrannies. In fact, their choice, now, to walk around spraying doom of whatever brand they want to sell is evidence of that freedom. I’m not impressed by doom. I’m impressed by freedom. We are in yet another fight for it now. I’m impressed by individuals who use their freedom to make their best vision into fact in the world. My investigations are aimed at exposing the power players who plot and fight against freedom.

Jon Rappoport

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

from:    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/07/07/my-investigation-of-covid-19/

Follow the Money

My conversation with State Senator and doctor who exposes Medicare payouts for COVID-19 patients

As you’ll see by end of this article, the specific decisions about money mentioned here affect life and death outcomes for patients.

A state senator has suddenly come out of nowhere and made big news.

My conversation with Minnesota State Senator, Dr. Scott Jensen, took place after I read the explosive statement he made to FOX News, on April 9th. So let’s start with his earlier FOX statement [1]:

“Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you’ll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much. Nobody can tell me, after 35 years in the world of medicine, that sometimes those kinds of things [don’t] [have] impact on what we do…”

I reached out to Senator Jensen, and obtained clarification. Jensen told me his remark pertained to patients with Medicare coverage. And the 2 payouts he mentioned are standard insurance payments from Medicare which would go to the hospital.

Of course, he explained, some hospitals have a pay-share plan with their staff doctors. Therefore, a windfall for the hospital is passed along to those doctors.

Jensen told me: Take a Medicare patient who is diagnosed with simple non-COVID pneumonia. The hospital would receive a one-time Medicare lump-sum payout of $4600.

However, if that Medicare patient is diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia, the Medicare coverage is a one-time $13,000 payment. And if the hospital puts that COVID-19 pneumonia patient on a ventilator, the one-time payment is $39,000. NOTE: It doesn’t matter how long these patients stay in hospital—there is only going to be one lump-sum insurance payment.

So, I infer, there are several types of financial incentives for hospitals—

ONE: Diagnose as many people as possible with COVID-19.

TWO: Diagnose as many people as possible with COVID-19 who have light symptoms—making it easy to move them out of the hospital quickly.

THREE: Put as many COVID patients as possible on ventilators for as short a time as possible.

Under the heading of “diagnose as many patients as possible with COVID-19,” there is also the key question of what constitutes “a COVID-19 patient”—and how the use of that label can be multiplied and manipulated. Senator Jensen made a few choice comments to FOX on this subject as well.

From FOX News: “Dr. Scott Jensen, a Minnesota family physician who is also a Republican state senator, told ‘The Ingraham Angle’ Wednesday that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) guidelines for doctors to certify whether a patient has died of coronavirus are ‘ridiculous’ and could be misleading the public.”

“Host Laura Ingraham read Jensen the [CDC] guidelines, which say: ‘In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID cannot be made but is suspected or likely (e.g. the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty) it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.’”

“In response, Jensen told Ingraham the CDC’s death certificate manual tells physicians to focus on ‘precision and specificity,’ but the coronavirus death certification guidance runs completely counter to that axiom.”

“’The idea that we are going to allow people to massage and sort of game the numbers is a real issue because we are going to undermine the [public] trust,’ he said. ‘And right now as we see politicians doing things that aren’t necessarily motivated on fact and science, their trust in politicians is already wearing thin’.”

“…Jensen then told Ingraham that under the CDC guidelines, a patient who died after being hit by a bus and tested positive for coronavirus would be listed as having presumed to have died from the virus regardless of whatever damage was caused by the bus.”

“…Jensen also reacted to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s response to a question about the potential for the number of coronavirus deaths being ‘padded,’ in which the NIAID director described the prevalence of ‘conspiracy theories’ during ‘challenging’ times in public health.”

“’I would remind him that anytime health care intersects with dollars it gets awkward,’ Jensen said.”

Here is where everything Scott Jensen is saying can turn very grim—

As I’ve reported [2], New York ER doctor, Cameron Kyle-Sidell [3], has made public statements about the misuse of ventilators with supposed COVID-19 patients. He’s stated that some of these patients actually have functioning lungs. Their immediate and dire life-threatening situation is straight oxygen deficit, as if they have high-altitude sickness. But pressure on the lungs, applied by the use of ventilators via standard rigid protocols, he says, can cause damage, and even death.

Imagine what would happen if another way—NOT ventilators—was found to usefully and safely deliver oxygen to these patients.

The hospitals wouldn’t get their huge $39,000 payout for each Medicare patient put on a ventilator.

What do you think a hospital would say…what decision would the hospital make…would the hospital allow a better and safer and necessary delivery system for oxygen? For every labeled “COVID-19 patient” whose desperate emergency is a straight deficit of oxygen?

Would the hospital forego all those huge Medicare coverage payouts?

SOURCES:
[1]: Minnesota doctor blasts ‘ridiculous’ CDC coronavirus death count guidelines
[2]: COVID and a 5G connection?
[3]: Dr Cameron Kyle Sidell. E R & Critical Care Dr From NYC

from:    https://nomorefakenews.com/

The Power of Creativity & Individual Freedom

Breakout from the controlled ordinary mind

by Jon Rappoport

July 16, 2018

When I was about to release my collection, Exit From The Matrix, I wrote several introductions. Here is one I didn’t publish. It shows how seriously I take what others consider a merely “quirky tendency” of humans to imagine a better and different future for themselves and this piece of space called Earth:

Suppose everything that is happening in the human world is taking place in a synthetic space, a grossly reduced arena; and suppose you could stand outside that space and look in. You would be seeing a great deal more than ‘what is going on’. You would be seeing how it is playing out, shot through with delusions at every turn; and of course the main delusion would be the space itself, as if nothing could be happening anywhere else but there, in that place. This is what the mind, all the minds, are telling themselves, as they fight over scraps. Humans have defined themselves as social constructs in small-time stage play.

The controlled mind thinks in the same patterns, over and over. It reworks familiar territory, and when that becomes insufferably boring, it lowers its energy output and initiates shutdowns.

Then it looks for outside stimulation that will replace thinking. The type of stimulation hardly matters, as long as it moves adrenaline through the system.

The decline of a society or civilization can be viewed in the same step-down fashion.

Occasionally, in passing, a writer makes reference to the creative impulse as a missing social factor, which could be remedied, for example, by restoring funding for arts programs in schools, as if that would repair a bureaucratic failing and thus restore balance to education and “the culture.”

Which is like saying Titans, who have developed profound amnesia about themselves, could recover their consciousness and power by shampooing their hair more frequently.

The individual human being, apart from the welter of his social relationships, is sitting on a volcano-range of creative energy, about which he knows almost nothing. This ignorance is purposeful. It enables him to fit into a small life defined by habits and shrunken subjects of interest and routine interactions. Within that space, he forms opinions and preferences and aversions. He says yes to this and no to that. He cultivates a passive tolerance for differences, as if he were auditioning for sainthood.

But whoever he is and wherever he is, underneath it all, something is waiting for him. A part of himself is waiting.

It is the part that can conceive of everything that isn’t, that never was. It is the part that dreams beyond the ordinary facades of time and space.

It is the part that refuses to believe habit and repetition and routine and systems are the core of life.

It is the part that knows something new and unprecedented and stunning can be invented at the drop of a hat, and that this is the unlimited territory of the individual.

It is the part off-handedly referred to as imagination, which over time has been sold away into oblivion. But which never dies.

The elites who try to control and define the common space of humanity would like to render imagination to the junk heap of history, never to be recalled. They would like to do this by replacing the individual with the group, which has no creative impulse, but is merely, with few exceptions, the lowest-common-denominator expression of any idea.

In Huxley’s Brave New World (1932), the overarching government slogan was: “Every one belongs to every one else.” One group, indivisible, with non-liberty and injustice for all.

Huxley’s slogan is now also the number-one elite propaganda message on Earth. It can be made to mean almost anything that derides and minimizes the individual and his repressed creative power.

In his 1954 short story, The Adjustment Team, Philip K Dick approaches the transformation of the individual into the group as an instantaneous, blanketing, mass-programming operation. Salesman Ed Fletcher, through an error, isn’t included in the “great change.” Instead, he witnesses it. Therefore, he is transported into the sky to meet the Old Man, the Chief, for a judgment:

Ed: “I get the picture…I was supposed to be changed like the others. But I guess something went wrong.”

Old Man: “Something went wrong. An error occurred. And now a serious problem exists. You have seen these things. You know a great deal. And you are not coordinated with the new configuration.”

The new configuration, at a deep level, is not new at all. It has existed since the dawn of history. It’s the self-fulfilling prophecy that, except for a few gifted ones, humans have no creative power, no wide-ranging imagination. Thus, they must surrender to the “shape of things as they are.”

Here is a statement about reality-creation that is crucial. —Philip K Dick, his 1978 speech, How To Build A Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later:

“…today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups…So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms…And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.”

Philip Dick was talking about the elite invention of a synthetic common space for human activity. And on the other hand, he was talking about an individual’s invention, through imagination, of other spaces.

These other spaces aren’t mere fantasies. They’re as real as real can be—and they can be injected into the world, into the common space, to change it, and to wake people up from their group-think trance.

The bottom-line goal of all mind control is the removal of the individual’s knowledge that he has great creative power, that this capacity gives him enormous untapped energy, that it solves problems by rendering them irrelevant and defunct.

Suppose he brings back what he has lost? Suppose, finally, he takes a stand and refuses to see himself as a victim of circumstance?

Suppose he remembers that he holds the sword of his own imagination, and can invent reality?

Suppose he exercises that capacity and thus proves to himself how far-reaching his power is?

In his 1920 novel, A Voyage to Arcturus, which spawned generations of science fiction, David Lindsay writes: “To be a free man, one must have a universe of one’s own.”

This is no flippant observation. This is psychology light years beyond what Freud and his offspring concocted. This is the power of imagination, linked as it should be, to individual freedom. Nor was Lindsay recommending some closed-off fantasy existence. He was realizing that, with “a universe of one’s own,” the individual can then comprehend and participate in the common space we call the world—at a new level of unlocked and untangled power.

I dedicate my work to explaining these factors, and more importantly, providing many exercises that, when practiced, can reawaken and restore imagination as the unlimited dynamo it actually is. These exercise are contained in my mega-collections, Exit From The Matrix and Power Outside The Matrix.


Exit From the Matrix

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

from:    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/07/16/breakout-from-the-controlled-ordinary-mind-2/

What’s Going on?

As Always – Do your research, The Decide for yourself:

Mark Zuckerberg is running the Bucky Fuller agenda

 

“Every time somebody comes up with a universal plan to improve the world, you have to ask yourself this burning question: who will impose the plan? And then you have ask: what are the imposers’ true motives? And you have to remember what a Trojan Horse is.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Over a period of 50 years, Buckminster Fuller explained his plan for making a better world. He talked about the coming wave of automation that would throw gigantic numbers of people out of work. He talked about the need for a universal system of support, whereby everyone on the planet would be guaranteed, from birth, the essentials of survival: food, clothing, shelter, and limitless free education.

Read this statement by Fuller:

“We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”

Obviously, Fuller’s plan carries great appeal for many young people, for whom the idea of earning a living is a full-bore horror movie.

Fuller also believed that freeing up the young to “think about new solutions” for humanity and come up with new technology would justify his plan.

Compare Fuller’s agenda with Mark Zuckerberg’s. The Facebook founder recently gave a commencement address at Harvard. Read his words carefully:

“…today, technology and automation are eliminating many jobs…Our generation will have to deal with tens of millions of jobs replaced by automation like self-driving cars and trucks. But we have the potential to do so much more together.”

“Every generation expands its definition of equality. Previous generations fought for the vote and civil rights. They had the New Deal and Great Society. Now it’s our time to define a new social contract for our generation.”

“We should have a society that measures progress not just by economic metrics like GDP, but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things… And as technology keeps changing, we need to focus more on continuous education throughout our lives.”

By direct statement and implication, Zuckerberg is echoing Bucky Fuller. The threat of automation. Massive unemployment. Guarantee the means of survival for every person. Free education for life. Come up with new ideas that contribute to the progress of the human species.

But as with Fuller, the thorny question about who is going to put this new universal plan into action is sidestepped. It appears the answer is: “the government.”

The most incompetent, bloated, corrupt, conniving force on the planet is in charge.

Doesn’t that fill you with confidence?

There is more. Who, behind the scenes, influences and controls government decisions and policies? A few groups come to mind: Bilderberg; Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission; United Nations. Fill in others yourself.

These are people we can trust?

And then there is this: what is the overall effect of gifting everyone on the planet with the basics of survival? On balance, does it produce visionaries and determined entrepreneurs? Or does it produce massive numbers of Welfare dependents, who drift in a sluggish space and want, at most, periodic stimulations of adrenaline to relieve their interminable boredom? Do they seek out endless free education, or do they ingest various drugs and sit glued to screens—and occasionally take to the streets to demand MORE?

Are fervent Globalist, Leftist, technocratic academics prepared to offer an honest assessment of the effects of a few billion people living on universal Welfare?

It’s quite convenient that “utopian” thinkers like Bucky Fuller and Mark Zuckerberg avoid these questions.

It’s not a stretch to infer that Zuckerberg views his brainchild, Facebook, as a means to expand the Surveillance State to new dimensions, because a few billion people living on Welfare are a potentially volatile demographic and “need to be watched.”

Is this liberation? It’s about population-pacification, passivity, endless “entertainment,” lowest common denominator, mind control, creating “voting blocs”; and yes, elimination of all borders, and a global superstructure of management for planet Earth. It’s about smaller living spaces, assigned from above, overcrowding in cities, and governments taking over more and more public lands…

This is the reality behind the utopia.

As usual, the devil is in the details. It’s easy to envision whole generations of empowered visionaries finding new solutions for the planet. But on even a cursory examination, the whole plan sinks into a morass of grotesque consequences.

If you’re up for it, try researching this question: How many government programs, and how much funding, is devoted, in all countries of the world, to authentically stimulating the freedom and power and creativity and independence of The Individual?

A related question: How many college courses around the world teach The Freedom and Power and Creativity and Independence of The Individual?

Answering these questions will give you some idea of governments’ “genuine caring” for individual innovation.

Good hunting.

Zuckerberg is Bucky Fuller 2.0. Unlike Fuller, he has billions in the bank. He has allies in the Deep State. He has the means to push the Fuller agenda.

From the top down.

And as usual, that’s where all the trouble starts. “Here, all you people, this is what you want. This plan will make life easier for you. Don’t you want things to be easier? We will make it happen. It’s our gift.”

The gift sounds appealing. It looks appealing.

Roughly 3200 years ago, after Greek forces failed to penetrate the gated city of Troy during a decade of war, they abandoned the field in apparent defeat. They left behind a giant wooden horse. The Trojans took the beautiful and appealing statue as a trophy and brought it into the city. At night, under cover, a door opened in the horse, Greek soldiers slipped out, opened the gates of Troy, and the rest of the Greek force, which hadn’t really retreated, flooded in.

The gift that wasn’t a gift.

“Oh look, that’s a wonderful idea to make a better future. I’ll take it in. I’ll believe in it…”

The gates of a city; the gates of a mind.

from:    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/mark-zuckerberg-is-running-the-bucky-fuller-agenda/

Triggering, Mind Control, Personal Power & Responsibility

Syed Farook and the new world of emotional “triggers”

mindcontrol2By Jon Rappoport

Warning: this article is an emotional trigger about emotional triggers…

“Conceive of it this way. Far up in the sky you have people, individuals, who are inventing the fulfillment of their most profound desires, making them fact in the world, no matter what—and way down below, miles under the earth, you have other individuals who could be doing what the sky dwellers are, but they’ve bamboozled themselves into thinking they can’t. Instead, they think they’re trapped in every little response they might have to any old stimulus that comes along. Both groups of people are creative, but they’ve channeled their imaginations and creativity in vastly different ways. Waking up may be hard to do, but you either do or you don’t.” (Notes for Exit From The Matrix, Jon Rappoport)

Some brilliant media pundits are now suggesting that the accused San Bernardino shooter, Syed Farook, may have been “triggered” by the Xmas party at the building he later attacked.

You know, the existence of Xmas contributed to setting him off because his religious faith was of a different type. Xmas was a grave insult.

There will be people, believe it or not, who think this “analysis” has merit.

“Well, sure, I can see that. Given the nature of his faith, it’s understandable that he would have left the party in a disturbed state, gone home, put on military gear, picked up a few auto weapons, a ton of ammo, and pipe bombs, waited for his wife to do the same, and then, on the spur of the moment, returned to the building…he was triggered.”

“Triggered” is the new reality. It’s mainly for the young and naïve, especially those who are looking for a way to become known at colleges. “Wow, I can get a few minutes of attention if I say I was triggered. I’ll go for it. It’s easy. I don’t have to do anything. I don’t have to achieve anything. This is all about not achieving anything. It’s a perfect excuse. I’m paralyzed. And the reason is, let’s see, I wasn’t warned by my professor that he was going to discuss a subject that had triggers in it. Yeah, I like it.”

Apparently, there is no bottom for idiocy. You think you’ve seen the worst, but no.

Yesterday, I included this quote from a New Yorker article. It’s worth re-reading:

Individual [Harvard law] students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress. (Jeannie Suk, The New Yorker, 12/15/14)

There are several underlying principles at work here. One is: If you give people an out, an excuse for not doing anything, a way to become a victim, a significant number who aren’t genuinely disabled in any way will reach for it and grab it.

And they’ll invent a back-story full of grievances. And traumas. And whatever it takes.

This is a form of art. Theater. It may be bad art and bad theater, but there it is.

“I wish I could write a play, a novel. Mostly, I wish I could create the future I really want. But it doesn’t look like I can. So I’ll do something different. I’ll cast myself in a play that’s already gaining steam. I’ll take on the role of victim. I’ll be the person who is in danger of being triggered every time I get out of bed in the morning. If I put everything I have into that role, I might garner a few good reviews.”

There is a larger point here. The whole business of promoting “triggering” is a propaganda operation. Its goal is to convince people that they live in a stimulus-response world—and that means a locked-up world. Stimuli appear…and inevitable responses follow. Period. End of story.

Freedom? A myth. Individual choice? Impossible. The human being? Merely a biological machine programmed to deliver x, y, or z, depending on the external provocations of the moment.

Individual power? No such thing.

This is the Pavlovian wet dream.

Since the dawn of time, leaders and the men behind and above the leaders have tried to install stimulus-response as the only form of human activity, and for obvious reasons.

Stimulus-response is the essence of mind control.

The perversely clever thing about promoting “triggering” as a valid and universal concern is: you will get people to program themselves. They’ll reach out for, and invent, any excuse to pretend they’re being negatively stimulated—and they’ll demand protection, which in the long run amounts to a fantasy about “safe spaces” they can inhabit—vacuums where no adverse content can set off little emotional time-bombs.

Another underlying principle at work: never consider raising up people so they can express and fulfill their deepest desires; no, instead take everyone to the bottom, where the incurably injured live. That’s the goal.

And if you can’t see the consequences of that program, you need a stirring wake-up call.

The Individual is endlessly creative. If, for whatever reason, he decides and believes he can’t consciously express that power in a way that meshes with his deep desires, he’ll invent his reality in a different direction—and that is his problem, it’s not someone else’s. The proof of the pudding? No one else can invent his desired reality for him. It’s his job. And it’s also, if he would see it, his joy.

This is not a matter of what’s fair or unfair, just or unjust. It’s a matter of fact.

The individual has freedom and power. The range of these capacities is endless.

What I’m writing about here is in no way a prescription for allowing public corruption to flourish and then blaming the individual for the circumstances in which he finds himself. Quite the contrary. All those students who are currently programming themselves to be “triggered”? They could be creating an entirely different atmosphere at their colleges.

They could be investigating, for example, where all the grant monies come from. I’m talking about grants for research on highly toxic medical drugs. I’m talking about pharma influencing the content of science courses and medical training. I’m talking about government money for research on toxic pesticides and genetic meddling. I’m talking about money for research on “brain mapping,” which is really a prelude to efforts to re-program brains and thus control them. I’m talking about money for research on better methods of mass surveillance. And so forth and so on.

Create that drama. Create the drama of discovering the truth about what colleges are really doing, and expose it, and put the sold-out researchers in the glare of the spotlight for the right reasons.

Or, dilly dally about “triggering” and have that party instead.

There certain incontrovertible facts. They have nothing to with what already exists or what did exist or what will exist. They have to do with the individual and his power to imagine and create reality. He can fathom and access this power and consciously use it to achieve his own purposes, or he can subvert those purposes and instead invent himself into a dead-end, where the substance of his life appears to be entirely under the control of external forces, with no hope available.

Those are the immortal cards and that is the immortal hand dealt on the table. Play them as you will.

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

from:    http://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/syed-farook-and-the-new-world-of-emotional-triggers.html

The Vatican’s Agenda?

As always, do your research:

The Pope Appeareth

by Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport
Contributor, ZenGardner.com

“Religions and, yes, even certain ‘economic systems’ have preached poverty as the way to salvation, or at least a ‘more honest’ life. Poverty is promoted as a kind of test of faith. But the promoters always had cash in the bank. The catch is this: in order to reap the spiritual rewards, a poor person has to remain poor. Otherwise, how can he continue to know true glory? The modern version of this is: a victim is a victim forever. Otherwise, he might eliminate the need for ‘social justice’ and the con artists who peddle it. Don’t spend a few dollars cleaning up the contaminated water systems in Third World countries. Don’t give back good growing land that was stolen. Poverty and starvation are glamorous. They give rise to humanitarian ideologies that front for theft and destruction on a grand scale.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

He’s here. The Pope. And his covert Jesuit message is: let’s get rid of separate nations, eliminate private profit for the middle class, and return to those glorious days of the Middle Ages; my Church flourishes under those conditions; we know how to deal with wall-to-wall misery; oh, and here’s the collection plate.

He’s part of the international gang that throws around the word “capitalism” as if it’s a mortal sin.

Making distinctions isn’t the Pope’s forte.

He ignores the differences between mega-corporations who align with governments (and his Church) to create a Globalist Order…and the untold numbers of small businesses owned by people who want to work for a living and earn a profit.

For the Pope, it’s all “capitalism.” Everything should be free—which, translated, means: almost everyone should be poor.

Migration of populations? No problem. It’s a good thing. After all, it helps, in the long run, to erase borders and nations and turn back the clock to more troubled times.

That’s the op, and the Pope is on board with it. He and Obama will get along well. Obama is in charge of making sure the inner-city communities he champions will stay poor and have ample targets to blame.

Obama never intended to create jobs in those inner cities and transform them. That was never on his agenda. He never intended to speak about how the jobs and the companies were lost there, as one Globalist trade deal after another sent work and factories overseas. Obama is touting new trade deals.

He and the Pope will give each other a nudge and a wink.

If these two have their way, the “settled science” on manmade warming will trigger global cuts in energy production (except for favored companies), thus creating even more horrific poverty among the Third World countries which are supposed to “benefit from the rational distribution of energy”).

These two men know how to use “humanitarian” utterances to front for their real goals. They know how to play that tune up and down the scale, instilling the proper amount of guilt along the way.

The Pope and the President will be popping champagne corks. It’ll be a party.

Obama: Your Holiness, I’m a rank amateur when it comes to psyops. You folks have been running cons for a couple of thousand years give or take. So any tips you can offer me…

Pope: Don’t kid a kidder, Barack. You’re doing a bang-up job. You started off with that messianic salvation utopia thing, and then you put it on the shelf and went for social justice, which is a biggie, because it diverts attention from the fact that most people just want jobs and enough money to survive—and of course that is never going to happen…

In his first comments to the press after election as Pope, Francis said: “This is what I want, a poor church for the poor.”

1.2 billion members, a separate nation (the Vatican), an estimated $170 billion in annual spending…sure, a poor church.

The “for the poor” part of the Pope’s quote is accurate. As in: a return to greater poverty. In such a world, the feudal lords will fill the collection plate.

There’s just one problem with the Vatican’s Globalist agenda. It doesn’t quite mesh with the mega-corporate view of Globalism. As fewer and fewer people around the world can afford to buy what the corporations are selling, a crack-up will occur. But for the Pope, those are petty details. He’s with the mega-corporations on the surface; but at a deeper level, the Vatican wants what it’s always wanted: chaos, poverty, and top-down control.

Jon Rappoport

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

from:    http://www.zengardner.com/the-pope-appeareth/

School Grades for “Grit” & “Gratitude”?

As always, do your research:

California-school mind control: grades for ”Gratitude”

Jon Rappoport
Activist Post

The Sacramento Bee has the story. 1/27/15, “Grit and gratitude join reading, writing and arithmetic on report cards,” by Loretta Kalb:

“Across the state, report cards are undergoing a sea change in how students are measured for academic performance. Where teachers once graded students [only] on traditional math or English skills, they now judge attributes such as grit, gratitude or being sensitive to others… Districts are changing their report cards to reflect the new Common Core State Standards…”

“…when it comes to attributes such as grit or being sensitive to others, they [teachers] give [third-grade] students one of four marks: A for almost always, O for often, S for sometimes and R for rarely.”

Report cards for young children. Grit, gratitude, and sensitivity to others. Welcome to the madhouse.

Where are the massive parent protests? Apparently, nowhere. So they’re brainwashed as well.

In case I need to point this out: a child of eight isn’t naturally gushing gratitude and sensitivity toward others. In schools, these are taught values, and they are now attached to report-card grades. The child is being conditioned to behave in prescribed ways, in order to earn a “gold star.”

It’s all synthetic, artificial. It’s operant conditioning. The baffled clueless child learns to take cues. He learns to speak certain “grateful sensitive” words. He becomes a waddling little duck who’s taught how to quack. They all quack in concert.

As far as the schools are concerned, the child mustn’t think of himself as independent. There are no positive grades for that. Early on, he’s led into the goo-pond with the other kids.

The parents, clueless as well, can make no distinction between what a child learns on his own and what he is taught and how he is taught (conditioned). If the child appears appropriately “grateful and sensitive,” then he actually is.

The mothers and fathers are in for quite a surprise, later on, when their kid rebels against all this mind-control and turns into a hostile force. Or knuckles under, and acts like a perfect android.

This method of programming comes from the school of psychological behaviorism. Its foundation is the idea that personality develops from conditioning—because there is nothing else.

“No one is home” until someone else teaches him “how to be.” And that’s life, that’s experience, that’s perception. Case closed.

This is all true for a computer or a car or a toaster, but it doesn’t happen to be true for a child.

Let’s stop calling them schools. Let’s call them conditioning centers.

“Yes, my little Jimmy is doing quite well at the conditioning center. He says ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ forty times a day. His sensitivity responses are in the ninetieth percentile, and his gratitude quotient is eighty, up from seventy-two a year ago. We’re thrilled. Last night, when we went for ice cream, he told us he appreciated our sensitivity to his preference for a cone over a dish…”

Flash forward a few years: “We don’t understand. Jimmy burned down the garage last night. When we asked him why, he stared at us in a challenging kind of way and said he was expressing his gratitude for fire. The psychiatrist told us over the phone that Jimmy has a dissociative disorder. He needs medication to calm him down. He has a chemical imbalance…”

Or how about this: “Last week in school our Bobby learned more about sexual parts of the body. He was also instructed about gender-reassignment surgery. He told us he was sensitive to people’s choices in life…”

Good for you, Bobby.

It’s wonderful. Who are these crazy terrorists who want to home-school their kids?

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

from:    http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/california-school-mind-control-grades.html

On Neural Plasticity & Mind Control

as always – do your research

Mind control: the Pentagon mission to program the brain

Mind control: the Pentagon mission to program the brain

By Jon Rappoport
January 6, 2014
http://www.nomorefakenews.com

“Since the dawn of time, the most powerful groups in every society have practiced forms of mind control on populations. They determined it was necessary. Eventually, they decided it was their most important job. Convincing the masses that a fabricated reality is Reality…that task requires formidable mind control.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

DARPA, the technical-research arm of the Pentagon, is leading the way in a mission to program the human brain.

What could go wrong?

In a word, everything.

Here is a DARPA release (5/27/14) on the upcoming “brain-mapping” plan, in accordance with Obama’s initiative aimed at “preventing violence through improved mental health”—otherwise known as Clockwork Orange:

“…developing closed-loop therapies that incorporate recording and analysis of brain activity with near-real-time neural stimulation.”

Translation: Reading myriad brain activities as they occur, and influencing that activity with various inputs/interferences. Drugs, electrical currents, nano-entities, etc.

Here’s another DARPA quote. This one lays out the foundation for the mission:

“…The program also aims to take advantage of neural plasticity, a feature of the brain by which the organ’s anatomy and physiology can alter over time to support normal brain function. Plasticity runs counter to previously held ideas that the adult brain is a ‘finished’ entity that can be statically mapped. Because of plasticity, researchers are optimistic that the brain can be trained or treated to restore normal functionality following injury or the onset of neuropsychological illness.”

Neural plasticity: the idea that brain activity is always changing and, therefore, can be externally molded by operators to fit a conception of “normalcy,” whatever that is, whatever “authorities” decide it is.

Chilling? Of course.

In the long run, this has nothing to do with “recovery from brain injuries.” That’s the cover story. The real goal is programming the brain to fit certain parameters of functioning.

Those parameters will certainly exclude: rebellion, independence.

Here is a quote from a journal article, “The Plastic Human Brain Cortex.” (Annual Review of Neuroscience, Vol. 28: 377-401, July 2005)

“Plasticity is an intrinsic property of the human brain…The challenge we face is to learn enough about the mechanisms of plasticity to modulate them to achieve the best behavioral outcome for a given subject.”

“Modulate them.” “Achieve the best behavioral outcome.” Who defines that? Obviously, not the individual.

Notice the point of view: intervention is a given.

The brain will not be allowed to function on its own.

Behind all brain research lies that premise.

It’s no surprise that, in this technological age, the preferred method of mind control would involve an invasion by “experts.”

There are many, many brain-research professionals, and millions of laypeople, who believe that “intervention” is justified because it “corrects a chemical imbalance” in the brain. This is a myth.

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

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

No, intervention is all about brain control, not brain health.

And “neural plasticity,” contrary to the official propaganda, is no great discovery. Any human can change his own brain readout patterns by the simple act of thinking.

Of course, researchers make no real distinction between random ideation and consciously chosen mental actions. If they did, they would immediately see that human beings can voluntarily make changes to their own brain activity. No laboratory experiments, no chemical or bio inputs, no externally applied electrical “insertions.”

There is a much bigger problem here. A problem that must remain a secret.

If a human being, through conscious and voluntary thought, can change his own brain activity…who is doing the changing?

Who is outside the brain influencing it?

Who is “human being?”

Who is…you?

That is no part of what DARPA is doing. That is no part of what any mind-control organization group is doing. That is strictly off-limits.

“Oh no, no one is doing the thinking. The brain is doing all the thinking. The brain is operating on its own. Thought A, then thought B, then C, D,E,F. On and on. The brain is a bio-machine, spooling out pre-determined and pre-packaged thoughts. And we, the brain-controllers, just want to change the sequence. We’ll insert B,D,E,A,B,F in that order instead. And then we’ll delete C altogether because we find that counter-productive and disruptive. No problem.”

The fact is, the individual non-material being (you) changes brain activity all the time. The brain is eminently built to allow this to happen across a very wide range of possibility.

What DARPA’s program entails is altering that fundamental relationship between you and your brain. That’s the bottom line.

The alteration will throw up roadblocks. It will shrink the sum of what your brain can do.

The ongoing DARPA brain-programming mission isn’t merely a two-year program or a five-year program. It’s permanent.

It’s the gateway to a controlled society.

And it’s perfectly understandable that this project would come from DARPA, which is an arm of the Pentagon, which is the foremost proponent of “military thought” in the world.

The military is interested in, and devoted to, the issuing of commands and obedience to those commands. Stimulus, response.

The military vision of society is: define the functions of each citizen, coordinate those functions to produce overall “harmony through obedience.”

Since this is the true definition of insanity, and since it is impossible to secure, over the long-term, enough voluntary cooperation to build such a civilization, the target is the brain.

Train the brain, train the collective.

Consider this analogy for you, a non-material being, and your brain, and what the objective of programming is:

The rider and the horse. Previously, the rider took his horse far and wide. The rider went where he wanted to go. The horse was willing. But then something happened. The horse was altered, rebuilt. Now he could only move a mile in any direction from his starting point. At the boundary, he stopped. He turned around and returned home. That was the rule. The rider of course wanted to go farther. But the horse was no longer capable.

The “plasticity” of the horse was reduced.

The horse was now normal.

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

from:    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/