CREATING REALITY

FEBRUARY 28, 2011. Creating reality presupposes that the status quo isn’t permanent. This sounds obvious, but when you expand the meaning and territory of status quo and let it cover all aspects of life and even the universe itself, you have something worth considering and chewing on.

You have magic.

You have whatever qualities a human being possesses that would allow him to alter the status quo.

When a person steps out into this journey, one of the first mistakes he can make is to assume that whatever reality he creates must resemble, in all respects, physical reality. It must mirror physical reality.

In painting, this would be saying the artist has to paint a bowl that looks like a bowl and behaves like a bowl, and he has to put apples in it that look like apples—his success DEPENDS on his ability to paint apples that look like they could be picked right off a tree.

It would be like saying a slave, newly released, has to imitate his former master down to the last detail of form, habit, style, thought, and action.

It would be saying the son has to emulate the father.

There used to be a word that was quite popular. You don’t hear it very much anymore. The word is REBEL. Not protester, rioter. Rebel. At one time, the word carried a sense, in some quarters, that the person had intelligence. He had some inkling of what he was doing and why. He had a spirit of struggle and determination. He wasn’t just saying no to something, he had something better in mind to replace what he was rebelling against.

I bring this up, because, in order to create reality and cast aside some aspect of the status quo, a person needs to have the spirit of a rebel. He can’t be a slave in his mind. He can’t be a know-nothing. He can’t be a fool.

The spirit of the rebel permits a new perspective about reality—how reality seeps in and puts people into a state of sleep. The rebel doesn’t want to go to sleep.

But these days, there is a culture of spiritual change in which the person is essentially passive. He looks to the rainbow to come down out of the sky and embrace him, without effort—and he believes that the Great Change will just descend on him like a pleasant and forever dream.

That person doesn’t create new realities.

That person certainly doesn’t see that this space-time continuum is merely one work of art among many. That person doesn’t entertain such an idea.

As the years pass, I see fewer and fewer genuine rebels. As disconcerting as this may be, it really doesn’t matter—because it only takes a few.

To get a little background on the depth of creating reality, let’s revisit the old idea of the labyrinth, a prominent piece of myth in the ancient world. I want to expand the meaning of it. The labyrinth, the maze is really all about THE FASCINATION WITH DISCOVERING THE MYSTERIES OF REALITY. That’s why it’s a labyrinth. It draws you in. You become increasingly attracted to solving mysteries and ironing out details.

Does this idea remind you of anything?

This is physics. Modern physics, and allied sciences. You go deeper and deeper into the universe and you try to figure out answers to all the questions.

You end up in the center of the universe and you realize you have no idea what’s going on at the most profound level.

To illustrate, here is a statement that has been attributed to Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, 1937 Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine:

“In my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am now retracing my steps…”

Perfect. Reality, as it presents itself, becomes such an intriguing labyrinth that you journey further and further into the heart of it, seeking its answers, its ultimate answers, and finally you discover that the mysteries you were solving were not the mysteries you wanted to solve.

From this perspective, does it really matter whether, for example, the people who built the Egyptian and Mayan pyramids lined them up with astronomical events in the distant skies? Does it matter whether the Ark of Noah is buried somewhere in a mountain in Asia? Does it matter whether light is composed of particles or waves or both? The question is: what reality are you going to CREATE?

At one time, I seriously considered trying to raise funds for a creative center that would function, day to day, as a residence for students. Someday, I may pick up that project again. But meanwhile, this, this site and these emails have been my center.

The work continues. To my former students, clients, and to those who have attended any of my seminars—let me hear from you. I’d like to know what you’re doing, and what future seminars and courses you’d like to see come into being.

As always, the universe is waiting for imagination to revolutionize it down to its core.

JON RAPPOPORT

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

www.nomorefakenews.com

SCICN FREE CLINIC

From Jon Rappoport: to my readers.

I’m working closely with my wife, Laura Thompson, these days. Laura, as many of you know, owns and operates the Southern California Institute of Clinical Nutrition (SCICN). I’m sending you this notice, in case you live in the San Diego area. If you don’t, perhaps you know people who do, and you can forward this to them. The free clinic is a very good thing, and the benefits are substantial, as an introduction to greater health.

Here at SCICN, we’re proud that we have the only FREE natural health clinic in San Diego. Every Thursday, from 1-6 PM, you can drop in and get started on your path to greater well-being.

Call and let us know you’re coming. 760-448-2722.

If you don’t live in the area but have friends who do, let them know.

What happens at the free clinic? Lots of things. Donna Loftin, our brilliant naturopath, will conduct a brief wellness assessment, which locates problem areas that need help.

For example, some people have accumulated hidden toxic overload. Over time, these toxins have been stored in fat tissue, where they contribute to metabolic imbalances. And did you know that such toxins can make losing weight very difficult? Fatigue is another consequence.

When toxins are gently removed from the system, the person feels more alive and alert. Energy is restored.

Come in and talk to Donna.

Linda Ochwat, another of our skilled SCICN practitioners, offers cold-laser sessions for pain at the free clinic. We’ll be describing her work in more detail in a future newsletter.

We look forward to seeing you at SCICN, on a Thursday, soon!

-The SCICN staff-

THE FOLLY AND THE MADNESS

by Jon Rappoport

These days, we argue about equally insane foreign policy choices. It’s as if we’re walking through a cave wired to explode, and there are dragons hanging from the ceiling and the ground is melting around our feet—and we’re supposed to come up with a triumphant escape route.

No one wonders how we got into the cave in the first place, or what would happen if we simply retraced our steps and forgot about the whole expedition.

No. We’re saviors of the whole world. It’s our duty as a nation to rescue and reform every group and government on the planet. We must democratize people whose idea of democracy is tribal war and sadism.

And with every step we take along this perilous path, the alternatives become narrower and more wretched.

When will it occur to people that US foreign policy, for a very long time, has been engineered to ruin us?

Those who design operations from a high perch know full well that, to destroy a country, you entangle it in foreign problems. You put it in that meat grinder.

The misplaced goal of messianic aid gets you the booby prize, no matter how noble your intentions seem. And what is the corollary to this manic desire to save everyone everywhere? “We are responsible for every bad thing that happens, for every injustice, for every molecule of pain suffered on the face of Earth.”

Imagine you live in a town where the executives of the bank have been committing theft for a long time. They have been skimming money, making loans off the books, cutting back-door deals with cronies, and blackmailing each other. Finally, the slimy details emerge. The years of outrageous behavior are exposed.

Now, as if in a dream, someone walks up to you on the street and says, “You know, you’re to blame for this whole mess.”

That’s foreign policy.

Except the US government and various corporate cronies are not simply long-distance observers. No, they’ve been stirring the pot, they’ve been interfering, in numerous ways, with corrupt governments in foreign lands. They’ve been sending billions in aid and high-tech military weapons to lunatics.

And now (talking about Egypt), they (our leaders) don’t know what to do. They complain about the lack of accurate intelligence that could have predicted the brewing revolution. They try to find someone to blame. They babble about having patience, about the need for an orderly transition, about opposing violence, about democracy and reforms, about including the input of a wide number of groups in the new emerging government.

It’s the kind of conversation a criminal with a very long rap sheet of felonies would be having with his lawyer, in a little room, before his latest trial on a new charge—they engage in earnest discussion about how he should comb his hair and what kind of tie he should wear, to make a good impression on the jury.

Well, how about this for a guiding principle? Whenever it appears the United States needs something from a foreign country, turn around and run. Flee. Instead, do whatever it takes to supply that need at home. How about that as an overarching policy directive? How about that as a strategy of dis-entanglement?

Or: You could say, “The whole world is a web of need, and we are in that web forever, and whatever happens, we are in the business of satisfying needs and having our own needs fulfilled. We are all, on this planet, in one sea of goo and need, and this is our present and future. And given this state of affairs, our job is to elevate the lowest among us, wherever they may be, while preserving freedom.”

I think that’s a fairly good operating definition of insanity.

I also think that those who have designed US foreign policy at the highest levels have had a quite different motive all along. Destruction.

Again, imagine it on a local level. Let’s say you live in a town where you are the only prosperous person. You’ve worked hard to attain your position. And someone approaches you and says, “Look around at what we have. Neighborhoods where crime is rampant. Murder, theft, corruption. We also have businesses where the people in charge are stealing from their own employees. We have families who believe in killing their own when certain arcane rules are broken. And they want us to behave in the same way. There are riots in the streets. Property is being destroyed. From now on, you are in charge. You have to stop all this. You have to change the behavior and the attitudes of these people. It’s your responsibility. In fact, it’s your fault to begin with. They wouldn’t be the way they are if it weren’t for you. You drove them to it. You defaulted on your duty. So now you must dive into the swamp and save everyone else.”

And if you bought that sales job, how long would it take until you destroyed everything you had?

And suppose this person who convinced you of your solemn duty knew exactly what would befall you—and wanted it to happen?

And suppose that is the essence of US foreign policy—and has been, for a long, long time?

Realize, finally, that when enough foreign entanglement has occurred, perception is altered. That’s the real trap. Perception then tells us that things cannot be any other way. It would be absurd to consider it. Our need and our dependence are forever.

Isn’t that exactly what those in control want to invoke? Isn’t that exactly the spirit which breeds ironclad tyranny? Look around you. Aren’t there many people who, indeed, want to take that plunge—and who somehow have convinced themselves that, through this route, they will arrive in paradise?

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

EGYPT AND THE PYRAMID OF POWER

JANUARY 30, 2011. It’s a grim party. People in the streets, riots, police, soldiers, and nobody seems exactly sure what it’s for.

Take your choice: kick out the dictators; new democracy; Islamic theocracy; lower food prices; CIA op.

Those are just a few of the possibilities.

Spontaneous mobs of more than 15,000 people are rarely spontaneous. Somebody is backing it. A guy in a mosque, a guy in a suit, a guy in a Rolls with a chauffeur. Or all three.

The odds that Egypt will emerge with a brand new Constitutional republic or anything resembling it are a million to one against, in Vegas.

However, if you start thinking about the Suez Canal and big ships loaded with oil having a hard time getting through—and you reflect on what that will do to oil prices…now you may be on to something, because in order to make the dream of alternative energy come true in the way these things do come true (with lots of conditions attached), gas at the pump has to go up to around eight dollars a gallon. It’s a rig-job. Nothing to do with the free market. Globalists are devoted, of course, to alternative energies like solar, wind, geothermal—not because they’re affordable, but because they level the playing field for nations, and put US industry under the gun.

Real globalists don’t want more energy, they want less.

The game isn’t a tough one to play. Stop offshore drilling in the US, put oil and gas producing US lands into federal ownership, where they will sit there and produce nothing, raise hell in the Middle East, providing a pretext for higher oil prices, and you’ve got yourself a self-fulfilling prophecy. Poof—“affordable” alternative energy.

US presidents are globalists. Bush, Obama, Clinton, the other Bush—you don’t get in the door unless you’re on board with that agenda.

The trick, if you’re a big-time globalist, is to manipulate the price of oil without letting it get completely out of hand. You want it to go up, come back down—but not quite as much—then send it up again…so that over the long term, the trend is definitely a rising one.

In the same way, regime changes in the oil-producing nations are okay, as long as they don’t result in somebody turning off the oil spigot. Globalists and Islamic fundamentalists are not, per se, mutual enemies, if the big economic players can control the scene. There is give and take, because everybody concerned wants to make money selling oil, and no one wants to kill off the market.

On another level, the crisis in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Lebanon is designed to expand the fear of Islamic terrorism.

Terrorism is a useful tool for globalists. It encourages grand intervention that limits individual freedom—all, of course, to “provide security.”

Look at several factors as one overall strategy: a president in the White House who is very sympathetic toward Islam; a sudden sea-change in the media attitude toward Israel and the Palestinians, despite the fact that Jewish men occupy significant positions of power and leadership in media; expanding notions of political correctness concerning what speech and words are permissible.

Note that this political correctness has been paving the way for “greater appreciation” of Islam and a hands-off approach toward its practices and laws.

Now we are faced with the possibility of a more unified Middle East under the banner of Islam.

And what would this mean, from the point of view of the globalists?

It would mean—if they can pull it off—a relationship with Islamists in which deals are cut from the top down. In other words, while oil continues to flow, the Rockefellers and Bilderbergers of this world would be able to use Islam more powerfully to scare the rest of the planet into a global management system (de facto world government).

Helping to make your enemies larger means gaining the ability to enact more pervasive and widespread solutions to the threat posed by those enemies.

A good example is World War 2. In its aftermath, along a 50-year path, globalists were able to construct a semblance of a United Europe, the European Union—which, of course, is a globalist organization run by globalists.

And now—a United Islamic Middle East? Suppose this political operation is, under the surface, a globalist move whose key strategy is controlling that Islamic Front from above?

Then, Islam, in a sense, becomes a globalist enforcement arm, and under that banner freedom is eroded.

Now you have the kind of perpetual war described by Orwell in 1984. An endless enemy, and continual war-time conditions, in which freedoms are carved up, “because it’s necessary if we’re going to defeat the enemy.”

From a globalist perspective, the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were seeds sown to increase Islam opposition to the West—a prelude to what is happening now in the Middle East.

The immediate triggers for these current riots? Rising food prices.

It’s not hard to engineer such things.

You have to keep in mind that, on the planetary chessboard, grand strategies make use of lesser players’ natural motives. You don’t construct an operation that demands turning people against their own instincts. You use those instincts and weave them together to produce a desired outcome.

Jihad? Oil? Making money? Instilling fear? Political correctness? Empathy for Islam? Hope for an escape from cruel dictators? These and other desires are compiled and sorted and collated and integrated into a higher plan for control.

Globalists can envision making Islamic terrorism into one side of a perpetual war that will make freedom a distant memory.

Jihadists certainly favor that kind of slavery. They want complete submission. And so globalists toy with that motive and try to use it.

The trouble is, sometimes the honchos and chiefs behind the curtain unleash forces they can’t control. They suffer from hubris and an exaggerated sense of their own power.

Extreme fundamentalists of any stripe long for destruction and the end of everything. They’ll use any means to get there.

Globalists may look down their noses at them, but disdain doesn’t do much good when an express train is heading down the track toward you.

Time and time again, when opportunities have arisen to become an energy-independent US, monkey wrenches have been thrown into the spikes of the wheel. For instance, the technology exists to utilize many sea inlets along the American coastline, for turbine-powered electricity. Each time it was proposed, it was canceled.

And massive globalist propaganda has been launched to label the notion of American self-sufficiency “isolationism.” Instead, we hear the countless pounding of “the global village” and “interdependence.”

And now we face real threats to the flow of oil from the Middle East.

And a squeeze play from the globalists. And a crusade from fundamentalists who want to eliminate the American nation for good.

Where did freedom go haywire? It’s not hard to see. It lost key battles when American involvement in the affairs of other nations became exercises in meddling, help, war, profit-making. The new “shining city on the hill” faded as unscrupulous people rejected American self-sufficiency in favor of a brand of global entanglement—with predictable results. George Washington, of course, warned against this. Specifically, he saw the old European conflicts as the irremediable actions of lunatics, and stated that their fate would be ours if we stepped into that arena.

When America ignored his words, it got its first taste of globalism and all that it implies. And it’s been getting worse ever since.

If America had taken the path of self-sufficiency (AKA isolation), it would have created an example for the rest of the world. By now, we would have seen a number of countries follow suit—and the overall result would have been much more humane by any measuring standard.

In fact, we would be ready for the next revolution waiting in the wings—the takeover of automation, in which millions, perhaps billions of jobs are done by machines—and those workers displaced would not suffer, but instead would be able to pursue more profound goals and desires of their own, since the cost of maintaining the essentials of survival would be incredibly low.

War would be a thing of the past, too ridiculous to think about, with all of us living in a sea of prosperity and abundance.

It is this universal abundance that those bent on control fear. They can’t deal with it.

Promises of abundance dealt from the top of governments down to the people are myths. The way it could have been accomplished was through each country building it from the bottom up.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

HOW TO WIN A MODERN WAR

GET THEM “ON EVERYTHING”

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PENTAGON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A month of heavenly candy.

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

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

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

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

The fabric of Afghan society comes apart at the seams.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boom!

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

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

Victory.

Absolute conquest.

And not a shot fired.

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

It’s a party.

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

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

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

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

LOUGHNER AND THE ARIZONA SHOOTING

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

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

But no evidence offered.

Hillary labels him an “extremist.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police tend to avoid that area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the medicalization of society.

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

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

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

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

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

Never let a crisis go to waste.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

Nullification of Federal Power

by Jon Rappoport

December 18, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

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

RAPPOPORT ON RADIO X

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

www.ProgressiveRadioNetwork.com

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

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

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

WHEN HEALING MEETS MARKETING

THE PERFECT STORM

By Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cradle to grave.

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

That’s where the victim industry is heading.

Against it, we have, what?

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

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

They couldn’t be more wrong.

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

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

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

JON RAPPOPORT

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

PART TWO, SERIOUS CONSULTING

WHAT IS “CHANNELING?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And why is this so?

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

This is the prospect for adventurous minds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the goal of my consulting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JON RAPPOPORT

for inquiries: qjrconsulting@gmail.com

www.nomorefakenews.com