Foundation of Mass Mind Control

Foundation of mass mind control

by Jon Rappoport

July 25, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

My newest collection, Power Outside The Matrix, contains a lengthy writer’s tutorial. Aside from practical advice, I stress what freedom means to a writer, what it really means in terms of available energy.

And one thing it means: symbols, as they are received and understood by the culture, are a way of shaping, channeling, and ultimately draining away energy.

Let’s start here: symbols have meanings because someone assigns those meanings.

Despite common belief, symbols aren’t tagged with meanings in some cosmic way that precedes humans’ presence on the scene.

Of course, various groups would like to believe otherwise. They want you to react to symbols as if they were permanent, eternal, unavoidable, engraved in stone.

This is the objective of all cosmology: “It’s the way things are, get used to it, accept it, the universe is built in this fashion, there’s nothing you can do about it, remain passive, don’t rebel, comprehend what is given to you.”

It’s how priest classes have always operated. They paint a mural and try to get everyone to prostrate themselves before it.

They say, “This symbol is evil, avoid it and reject it. This symbol is good, praise it.”

Humans will take it to the bank. They’ll go so far as to presume God decided which symbols stand for evil and which stand for good. Naturally, they have an inside line on God’s motives and intents.

Then we have those who argue that certain symbols have meaning created by a collaboration of “collective consciousness.” And this, they claim (“woo-woo”), is very, very powerful.

Yes, it’s powerful if you don’t reject it. It’s powerful if you believe that collective consciousness contains some sort of magic. It doesn’t. It’s just another version of consensus reality.

Some people cling to the idea of the boogie man. They swim in it. They derive their moral stance from it. They depend on it. Without it, they wouldn’t know what to do. And that’s exactly why they claim symbols of evil are inherent and forever and horrible: they wouldn’t know what to do if they abandoned the notion. They’d be lost. Utterly lost.

Therefore, they grotesquely pump up the concept that some symbols are dangerous and can only be dispelled by other symbols.

The truth is, for the individual, symbols are whatever he wants to make of them. He’s free to turn them upside down, inside out, drain them of all meaning, add new meaning, slather them with mayo and mustard, grill them with cheese, pave the driveway with them, hang them from the rafters, step on them, toss them in the garbage, hurl them out of apartment windows, snort them up his nose.

What other people might think about all this is supremely irrelevant.

Society always wants to parade an ever-increasing column of symbols past the populace and define them.

Mass mind control focuses on two elements: image and feeling.

By linking the two primary elements (this is a form of symbol-making), it is possible to short-circuit thought and “cut to the chase,” when it comes to enlisting the allegiance of huge populations.


Two seemingly unrelated events spurred my interest in mass mind control.

On the evening of April 12, 1945, I listened to a radio report on the death of Franklin D Roosevelt. I was seven years old.

I became upset. I didn’t know why. I was angry at my own reaction.

Forty years later, I pulled into a gas station near my apartment in West Los Angeles. I got out of my car and took the cap off my gas tank. I looked to my right and saw Tony Curtis sitting in his car. I was shocked.

A few days later, I began making notes under the heading of “image-emotion cues.” At the time, I had just started working as a reporter, writing articles for LA Weekly. I knew next to nothing about mind control, MKULTRA, Soviet psychiatric gulags, Chinese re-education programs, or US psychological warfare operations.

But because I had been painting for 25 years, I knew something about the power of images.

I remembered my first exhibition of paintings in LA, at my friend Hadidjah Lamas’ house. We had hung my work in her large living room and dining room. Hadidjah had enlisted the services of a friend who had videotaped me painting in my studio, and at the exhibition she set up a television set out on her patio and continuously played the videocassette.

People came through her front door, almost automatically walked through the house to the patio, as if guided by an unseen hand, and watched the video; then they came back inside and looked at the paintings.

They would stop at a painting and say: “That picture was in the video!” “ You see that one? It was in his studio!”

My first note on “image-emotion cues” was, “Investing an image with importance. Projecting emotion into an image.”

Projecting emotion into a newspaper image of the president, FDR. Projecting emotion into the screen image of Tony Curtis. Projecting emotion into a video of a painter working in his studio.

When people encounter an image, when they invest it with importance, they project feeling into the image—and this all happens in a private sphere, a private space.

If this didn’t happen, there would be no way to control populations through images. It wouldn’t work. It all starts with a person setting up his own personal feedback loop that travels from him to an image and back again.

Coming out of World War 2, US psychological warfare operatives knew they could turn their skills to political purposes. They had just succeeded in making Americans believe that all Japanese and German people were horribly evil. They had been able to manipulate imagery successfully in that area. Why couldn’t they shape America’s view of a whole planet that lay beyond personal experience?

They could and they did. But the power to do that emanated from the fact that every person invests images with feeling. That’s where it really starts.

I had seen the 1957 film, Sweet Smell of Success, a number of times. I admired it. Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis gave tremendous performances. When, decades later, I saw Curtis sitting in his car at that gas station, I was “working from” the emotion I had invested in his onscreen image. It produced a sense of shock and paralysis for a few seconds.

Other people might have rushed up to Curtis and asked for his autograph. With me, it was shock, cognitive dissonance. Ditto for the death of FDR. I was working off newspaper pictures I’d seen of him, and the feeling I’d invested in those presidential images. Other people, when FDR died, went out into the street and hugged their neighbors and wept openly. For me, it was upset and shock and anger.

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with investing emotion in images. It can be exhilarating. It can be uplifting. As a painter, I know this in spades. Putting emotion into images can, in fact, vault you into a different perception of reality.

But on the downside, it can also take you into lockstep with what media operatives want you to experience, second-hand.

We focus to such a degree on how we are being manipulated that we don’t stop to consider how we are participating in the operation. And our own role is clear and stark: we invest images with feeling.

So how does one individual’s projection of feeling into an image become a uniform projection of the same feeling into one image, by millions of people? How does what one person invests privately become mass mind control?

Through external instruction or cues.

Why does this work? Why do millions of people fall into line?

Because they don’t realize they started the whole ball rolling themselves. All they know is: images are connected to feelings.

If they knew they were the real power in the whole operation, if they knew they were investing feelings into images all day long, if they could actually slow down enough to see how they do this….then they would be far less prone to taking instruction about what feelings they “ought to” invest in second-hand images.

Hypnotherapist Jack True unceremoniously put it to me this way: “If a dog could analyze how he got from eating meat to drooling at the sound of a bell that came at feeding time, he could stop drooling.”

I would add: If Chris Matthews could analyze how his own voluntary investment of feeling in the image of Barack Obama sends a tingle up his leg, he could stop tingling.

We see images of people rioting all over the Middle East. We see burning flags and crowds outside embassies. We’re supposed to invest our own anger into those images. Outrage. Or joy, depending on the narrative the television networks are selling.

We see an image of miles of flat farmland and wheat waving in the breeze. We’re supposed to invest that image with feelings of happiness and pride.

Nowhere are we told we can back up a step and realize that we are the ones who begin the whole process, by projecting feelings into images. Any images.

Imagine a thought-experiment. You’re watching your computer screen. It holds an image of a tall blue vase. With purpose, you project the feeling of joy into the vase. Then you project the feeling of disgust. Then, fear. Then, worry. Then, pleasure…on purpose.

The objective is to gain some measure of consciousness about an unconscious process.

When I was 19, I was sent to a trained expert in New York to take a Rorschach (ink-blot) Test. I was displaying signs of what would now be called Oppositional Defiance Disorder.

The expert said he wanted me to tell him everything I saw in each ink-blot. I took him at his word.

An hour later, I was still working on the first blot. I was describing everything from bats and owls and chickens to space ships and buckets of hidden treasure in caves.

Well, I was cheating a little. I wasn’t really describing what I saw. I was imagining. I was taking off from what was on the page and improvising. This was outside the bounds of the Test.

The expert was seething. He was sweating, because he had many other blots to show me, and it was late in the afternoon, and he was looking at spending the entire evening with me. Finally, he held up his hand and put an end to the Test.

I wasn’t playing his game. Among other sins, I wasn’t investing dumbed-down feelings in the images. Therefore, my choices of “what to see” in the blots expanded greatly.

When I go to a museum, I like to watch people stand in front of abstract paintings. Many of them are stumped. They’re trying to figure out what feelings they “are supposed to” project into the painting. They’re looking for “instruction,” and there isn’t any. They’re asking for mind control, and they’re not getting it.

Fanaticism of any kind begins with individuals projecting feelings into images. This is harnessed by leaders, who then choose the images and direct which feelings are permitted. The tempting prospect for the follower is: participation in a drama that goes beyond what he would ordinarily experience in life. This is bolstered by the idea that what he is doing is moral.

In the 2012 election season, people on the left were urged to project messianic feelings into images of Barack Obama. People on the right were cued to invest feelings of pride, hope, and “tradition” into images of Mitt Romney. On both sides, it was principally images that were presented. The real candidates weren’t actually experienced.

Since Vietnam, shooting wars have been more difficult to sustain among soldiers. “In the old days,” feelings of hatred could be projected into images of enemies that included civilians, so overtly killing everybody on foreign soil was easier to accept. Now, soldiers are taught “enemy combatant” and “civilian” are two different images that require the injection of two different feelings.

Here at home, police and military are taught, more and more, to invest feelings of suspicion into images of American civilians. This is an acceleration of mass mind control for law enforcement.

The astonishing number of civilians who participate in government and corporate surveillance of the public, through technological means, learn to invest “dead empty feelings” into images of citizens, as if these targets are nothing more than ciphers, units.

The recent bizarre instances of police detaining and questioning parents who allow their children to play unsupervised reveal another accelerating trend. These confrontations start with neighbors snitching on the parents. The neighbors have learned to invest feelings of panic, suspicion, and anger in images of “free children.”

In all these cases, there is no real experience. It’s all second-hand. It’s all feeling-projected-into-image.

In the medical arena, countless advertisements and news stories are geared to convince people to invest feelings of trust in images of doctors. The suggestion, “Ask your doctor if X is right for you,” is framed as the solution to a little problem. The problem is set this way: Drug X is wonderful; drug X has serious adverse effects; what to do? Solution: ask your doctor; trust him; he knows.

As the class of victims in society has grown by leaps and bounds, including any group that can organize and promote itself as needing help or justice—going miles beyond the people who really do need assistance—citizens have been trained to invest feelings of sympathy and concern for all images of victims everywhere, real or imagined. This, too, is mass mind control.

Pick an image; invest feelings in it. Facts don’t matter. Evidence doesn’t matter.

We shouldn’t leave out a peculiar twist on the feeling-image op. The very people who are portrayed, image-wise, as objects for us to invest feelings into, take their cues from this game as well: doctors act like the doctors on television; gangsters acts like gangsters on television; FBI agents and cops act like law-enforcement officers on television. They’re roped in, just like everyone else.

You’ve heard people say, So-and-so celebrity has become a caricature of himself. Well, that’s what it means. The person has projected massive feelings of approval into an image of himself—often an image shown on television.

As a society, we can go on this way until we become a horrific cartoon of ourselves (we’re already there), or we can step back and discover how we invest emotion into images, and then use that process to pour feeling into visions of our own choosing and invent better futures.

Since the dawn of time, leaders have portrayed themselves as gods. They’ve assembled teams to promote that image, so their followers could project powerful emotion into the image and thereby cement the leaders’ control and power.

The game isn’t new. Understanding the roots of it within each individual could, however, break the trance of mass mind control.

During the first West Nile “outbreak” of 1999, I spoke with a student who had just dropped out of medical school. He told me he’d been looking at electron-microscope photos of the West Nile Virus, and he suddenly realized he was “supposed to” invest feelings of fear in those images.

Somehow, he broke free from the image-feeling link. He was rather stunned at the experience. His entire conditioning as a medical student evaporated.

Parents all over the world are having the same experience vis-a-vis vaccines. They realize they’re supposed to invest fear in images of germs and disease, and they’re also supposed to invest feelings of hope and confidence in images of needles and vaccines. They see the game. They’re supposed to ignore evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. They’re supposed to remain victims of mass mind control.

But they’ve awakened.

We’ve all been taught that what we feel is always and everywhere out of our control. These feelings are simply part of us, and we have to act on them. The alternative would be to sit on them and repress them and turn into androids, robots.

This is simply not true. There are an infinite number of feelings, and as strange as it may sound, we can literally invent them.

This, it is said, is inhuman. It’s a bad idea. It’s wrong. It would lead us to “deserting the human community.”

Nonsense. That’s part of the propaganda of mind control. If the controllers can convince us that we’re working from a limited map of emotions and we have to stay within that territory, they can manipulate that limited set of feelings and trap us.

(The power of art is that it shows us there are so many more emotions than we had previously imagined. We can be much freer than we supposed.)

The synthetic world of mind control and the handful of feelings that are linked to images is what keeps us in thrall.

The natural world—the world of what we can be—is so much wider and more thrilling and revealing.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Film, consciousness, and mystery

Film, consciousness, and mystery

by Jon Rappoport

July 25, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

There is more mystery in two minutes of David Lynch’s Inland Empire (trailer here) than in all American films produced in the last 50 years.

The first films ever made registered like dreams with audiences, and they were made with that idea in mind. (Watch Un Chien andalou (1928), Spanish director Luis Buñuel and artist Salvador Dalí, here.)

Mystery. A priceless commodity which has no market.

I’m not talking traditional suspense, which depends on beginning, middle, and end, and clues sprinkled on the way to a satisfying resolution. That is organized mystery, a contradiction in terms.

The opposite of organization isn’t chaos, although many people believe it is. In the hands of filmmakers like Orson Welles (The Trial, Touch of Evil), Jean Cocteau (The Blood of a Poet, Beauty and the Beast), Luis Bunuel (Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie), and David Lynch (Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire), the opposite of organization is mystery; an atmosphere.

Word, image, character, motion, rhythm, tempo—somewhere in the films another previously unknown reality takes over. There are no labels for it.

Society is not attuned to it. People dedicated to living ordinary lives hate it.

“Well, he should have started the story with the theft. Then we would have known what he was talking about. And if he’d given the wife a few extra scenes, her relationship with her son would have been obvious, and the climax would have made sense…”

Organization.

Cut things down to their essentials. Sharpen the focus. Make the audience track with the storyline. Unequivocally deliver the punchline. Sell it.

In other words, eliminate any shred of mystery.

Perhaps someday, Hollywood will be able to make a film that transmits itself in two seconds, like an injection. The sequence of imparted emotions will substitute for content. Sensation A, followed by sensations B. C, D, E, and F. Done.

“I thought it was tremendous. How about you?”

Consciousness, freed from the web of social consensus, is hungry for mystery, a fluid in which gesture, language, and motion explore and invent the impossible; what could never be lived before.

To achieve a simulacrum, a vapid imitation, audiences will sit in a theater and watch “dream-buildings” collapse (Christopher Nolan, Inception), or some kind of assembly-line time-slipping “tour de force” (Cloud Atlas, Tom Twyker, the Wachowskis).

A person committed to an ordinary life will take an occasional leap and look at Possibility in the form of popcorn surrealism.

Film was supposed to be about something else, but it became chopped steak and cars and toasters and invading machines. In the early days, a few yutzes moved out to LA from New York and became moguls of schlock. Which their PR machines sold as culture.

The improvised Citizen Kane, Touch of Evil, and The Trial aren’t even stories. No need. They’re a walking talking series of low-angle black-and-white photographs of astral locales the usual kind of film noir can merely hint at.

By the time David Lynch reaches Inland Empire in his career, he’s doing a ballet of gesture, each movement advancing, with gills, through a bone-muscle-flesh undersea city of corruption only he could have come upon.

Cocteau used living paintings and papier mache as his medium; human characters were driven by impulses in dreams, from which they never awakened.

For all of Stanley Kubrick’s films, it was in Barry Lyndon where, for a minute here and a minute there, the audience was finally and ecstatically delivered whole to another time; the sensuous rooms of the 18th- century Lyndon estate in England. Mystery realized.

“A film is – or should be – more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what’s behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.” (Stanley Kubrick)

“A film is a ribbon of dreams. The camera is much more than a recording apparatus; it is a medium via which messages reach us from another world that is not ours and that brings us to the heart of a great secret. Here magic begins.” (Orson Welles)

“The image it [cinema] once held for us all, that of a dream we dreamt with our eyes open, has disappeared. Is it still possible that one thousand people might group together in the dark and experience the dream that a single individual has directed?” (Federico Fellini)

“Fortunately, somewhere between chance and mystery lies imagination, the only thing that protects our freedom, despite the fact that people keep trying to reduce it or kill it off altogether.” (Luis Bunuel)

In the journey into fertile mystery, you go knowing you’ll dispense with your navigational instruments. You’ll find new stars. You’ll follow and at the same time spontaneously draw another map. This is what consciousness wants, not the tired archetypes and cartoons of other minds. And when you come back, you’ll be refreshed, whole, and able to watch, with some degree of interest, people sculpt themselves into units of a highly organized cosmos.

The true power of film has just begun to be tapped.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

“We lost contact with the plane.” Really?

“We lost contact with the plane.” Really?

by Jon Rappoport

July 24, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Today—Air Algerie Flight 5017, from Burkina Faso to Algiers crashed, according to “officials.”

Some of these officials state contact with the plane was lost an hour after takeoff.

You can probably remember similar statements about other doomed flights: lost contact. Wasn’t that the case on 9/11?

“Lost contact” appears to cover all available means of communication. Nothing on radar screens. Radio inoperative. No transponder signals picked up.

In this day and age, with a blizzard of technology available to track and surveil, what is going on?

Commercial jets have only one transponder? Isn’t it possible to embed dozens of GPS-type devices at various points in the craft? And wouldn’t those devices report a plane’s location, no matter how far it strayed off course?

Even underwater? Isn’t the US Navy able to keep tabs on its own submerged submarines?

So either we are looking at an international scandal, in which modern tracking technology is not being fully applied to commercial planes…or officials are lying when they say: lost contact.


The Matrix Revealed


Assuming cutting-edge tracking tech is, without public knowledge, being used on modern commercial jets, do hijackers have the ability to jam all signals emanating from the planes? If so, passengers would like to know.

“Attention, passengers. Before boarding this flight, you should realize only one transponder is being deployed. Although the device, plus radar, plus radio will help track your location, there are dozens of other devices we could use to make sure we know where you are. Unfortunately, the manufacturer has not yet installed them. Consult the 800 number on your ticket. Feel free to contact the manufacturer and make inquiries.”

If the NSA can simultaneously tap every phone in America, somehow I think they can track a giant jet, if they want to. Unless perhaps, these planes are still using a primitive communication apparatus from the 1950s.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Dateline 2072: the new pope of NSA-Google-Facebook

In the year 2072: the new Pope of NSA-Google-Facebook

by Jon Rappoport

July 23, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

It was a time of great celebration.

The President was about to appoint a new Pope of NSA-Google-Facebook. Aside from 12 Western states, where gangs ruled the population, America was united as never before.

What many writers were calling The Greater System had taken hold in consciousness. People were aware they were living inside a bubble of super-surveillance, and they loved it.

Therefore, the appointment of a new Pope was a momentous event.

The man of the hour, the saint-in-waiting, was Jonas Hoover, formerly a professor at MIT. Famously, at the age of nine, Hoover had written this Facebook post:

“Below, you’ll see a complete inventory of every product I own, with footnotes on method of purchase in each case. My parents’ voting record for the past twelve years is also included, along with their job history, college transcripts, tax returns—and a link to audio recordings of 2000 phone conversations I’ve had over the past two years. See the link to our family’s complete medical records. My diary entries are included. As you’ll discover, I’ve profiled myself 236 times, each time attempting to identify more relevant markers that predict my behavior in a variety of situations. Feel free to contact me for more information, if you are a profiling agency. I’m seeking employment in the surveillance field…”

As a high school senior, at the age of 15, Hoover had published an essay in Metadata, the NSA-Google journal. Academics across America had praised it, particularly this trenchant passage:


“The Constitution was a noble attempt to explicitly limit systems by eroding the power of centralized authority. That document was mainly about enforcing less structure.

“However, the hunger to develop structure is what humans possess in abundance. They impose structure and live off it, like junk food. And why shouldn’t they?

“The overall template of the Surveillance State used to be grounded in the premise that everyone is a potential threat and danger to the herd. Therefore, spy on everybody.

“Now, however, we are well past that point. We recognize that living inside the space of universal surveillance, as a voluntary act, is its own reward, its own joy. No reasons necessary.

“A whole life can be lived by detailing that life and publishing it for all to see—hundreds of thousands of pages, hundreds of thousands of hours of video. A grand confession, if you will, but without guilt, without remorse.

“We’re talking about a bubble, inside which the narratives of our lives are floated and used to sell a product. Who buys? Who doesn’t? Well, each one of us is a product, and we offer ourselves to the world. No need to be anxious about succeeding. Someone somewhere will buy us.

“We’re audience, and as Marshall McLuhan once put it, ‘Audience is actor.’ We’re actors and we reveal our character in immense detail. The burden of ethical, political, or psychological considerations is gone. We’ve evolved past the need of carrying it. This is happiness.

“We’re looking at a kind of Mobius Strip or Escher drawing that feeds back into itself.

“In this state of mind, we tend to perceive reality on the basis of what we think other people are perceiving. Through universal self-surveillance, we move closer and closer to the far shore, where we are all, in fact, perceiving the same thing. And what is that thing? It’s a mere reflection passed through billions of mirrors, around and around, evanescent, sparkling, devoid of content.

“This is the day toward which we all strive.

“Critics have claimed this is voluntary self-induced mind control; people digging themselves a deeper hole in consensus reality. I view it as liberation. Don’t you?”


power outside the matrix


In the Oval Office, in front of television cameras broadcasting to the world, the President, a minor functionary in the federal bureaucracy, bowed before Jonas Hoover and took his hand. He raised it and kissed the ring. He stepped back.

Hoover smiled and nodded.

“My fellow citizens, I’m honored by this appointment. It signals a new era for us all. From the shores of the old Silicon Valley, to the bunkers of Colorado, to the city of Detroit rebuilt as a single networked data storage facility, one idea has traveled through this great nation for a hundred years: tracking. Yes. We have now tracked ourselves to a degree never before thought possible. Remember Socrates’ ancient advice: know thyself. Well, now we do.

“Conscience, hope, anxiety, desperation; all gone. Outmoded. With gladness in our hearts, we give ourselves over to What Is. Every detail of it. We can record it, transmit it, save it, collate it.

“And with my ascension, we can inscribe it in the book of life. Open your church doors. Flood into their chapels. Give thanks. I am here to wipe away the last shred of doubt. We have arrived.

“This message has been brought to you by NSA-Google-Facebook, your window on the universe, and universe’s window on you.”

Jon Rappoport

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

The significance of a forgotten CIA document: MKULTRA

The significance of a forgotten CIA document: MKULTRA

by Jon Rappoport

July 23, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

This June 27, 1994, document is stored at the National Security Archive at The George Washington University.

It was written by a CIA advisory committee, and forwarded to the Presidential Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, which was preparing public hearings at the time.

The document has many interesting implications. In this article, I want to focus on two. The first point concerns the CIA mind control program, MKULTRA.

Here is a key quote:

“In the 1950s and 60s, the CIA engaged in an extensive program of human experimentation [MKULTRA], using drugs, psychological, and other means, in search of techniques to control human behavior for counterintelligence and covert action purposes… Most of the MKULTRA records were deliberately destroyed in 1973 by the order of then DCI Richard Helms, who waived the internal CIA regulation (CSI-7O-l0) governing retirement of inactive records… Helms testified that he agreed to destroy the records because ‘there had been relationships with outsiders in government agencies and other organizations and that these would be sensitive in this kind of a thing but that since the program was over and finished and done with, we thought we would just get rid of files as well, so that anybody who assisted us in the past would not be subject to follow-up questions, embarrassment, if you will.’”

Helms was not only admitting he destroyed the records, he was stating that the MKULTRA program deployed, through contracts, “outsiders” to carry out mind control experiments. He was determined to protect them, to keep their identity and work secret. He was also dedicated to prevent these people from exposing the nature of their mind-control work. And finally, Helms knew that some of these outside researchers had no idea they were involved in MKULTRA—in other words, the CIA had tricked them into thinking their work was designed for other purposes.

Subsequently, some of these “outsiders” have been revealed. But no one really knows how deep, far, and wide the CIA penetrated into academic and research communities to enable MKULTRA.


The second point I want to cover is made clear by this quote from the 1994 CIA document: “The Church Committee [investigating the CIA] reports that one of the three principal functions of the Special Operations Division (SOD) of the U.S. Army Biological Center at Camp Detrick, Maryland was to conduct ‘biological research for the CIA.’ Church Committee, Book I, at 395. In early 1952, SOD agreed ‘to assist CIA in developing, testing, and maintaining biological agents and delivery systems. By this agreement, CIA acquired the knowledge, skill, and facilities of the Army to develop biological weapons suited for CIA use.’”

In other words, biowarfare research wasn’t limited to the Army and the Pentagon. The CIA actually became a second center for developing biological agents they could use for covert actions.


The Matrix Revealed


It’s important to note that the assumed termination point of MKULTRA, 1962, is false. In or around that year, the CIA shifted its entire mind control operation to its Office of Research and Development.

John Marks, who wrote the breakthrough book on MKULTRA, “The Search for the Manchurian Candidate,” told me that his access to CIA documents was abruptly cut off after the publication of his book. A CIA employee told him he’d never see another document, from a cache of 100 boxes, that described MKULTRA projects when they went super-dark after 1962.

The 1994 document I’m quoting in this article was part of preparation for 1995 Presidential hearings on secret human radiation experiments. The CIA stated that, after extensive searching of its files, it found no evidence that radiation was used in MKULTRA projects.

However, at the 1995 hearings, two women, Claudia Mullin and Chris De Nicola, testified that, indeed radiation had been used on them (as torture), in a wide-ranging program of mind control to which they were subjected, starting when they were young children.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Monsanto/FDA: 2 crime families, trillion-dollar hustle

Monsanto/FDA: 2 crime families, trillion-dollar hustle

by Jon Rappoport

July 22, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

“The propagandists who actually decide the content of mainstream news have done a bang-up job on Monsanto. They’ve made it seem that the science for and against GMO crops is a swamp of uncertainty no one can decipher. Therefore, leave it alone. Don’t step into it. This omits one stunning circumstance: exactly how GMO crops were permitted into the US food supply in the first place.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Perhaps you remember the Just-Label-It campaign. A number of activist groups petitioned the FDA for a federal regulation that would make labeling GMO food mandatory all across America.

The petition amassed over a million signatures. But the FDA decided only 394 of these were legitimate, because all the others were electronically submitted in one document.

Infuriating? Of course. But that was nothing.

Imagine this. A killer is put on trial, and the jury, in a surprise verdict, finds him not guilty. Afterwards, reporters interview this killer. He says, “The jury freed me. It’s up to them. They decide. That’s what justice is all about.”

Then the press moves along to members of the jury, who say: Well, we had to take the defendant’s word. He said he was innocent, so that’s what we ruled.

That’s an exact description of the FDA and Monsanto partnership.

When you cut through the verbiage that surrounded the introduction of GMO food into America, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.

Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998, “Playing God in the Garden”), Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, famously stated: “Monsanto shouldn’t have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, “Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” here is what the FDA had to say on this matter: “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”

The direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements is no accident. It’s not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It’s a clear signal that the fix was in.

No real science. No deep investigation. No convincing evidence of safety. Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora’s Box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.

In order for this titanic scam to work, the media had to cooperate. Reporters had to be a) idiots and b) sell-outs.

With few exceptions, reporters and their editors let the story rest there, as a “he said-he said” issue. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait at that point, but who said mainstream reporters are sane or principled?

Underneath the Monsanto-FDA buck-passing act, there was a conscious deal to give a free pass to GMO crops. This had nothing to do with science or health or “feeding the world.” It was about profits. It was also about establishing a new monopoly on food.

Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet’s food supply as never before, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were technologically engineered.

It’s very much like saying, “A cob of corn is not a plant, it’s a machine, and we own the rights to every one of those yellow machines.”

How was Monsanto able to gather so much clout?

There was one reason and one reason only. Putting the world’s food supply into fewer hands was, and is, a major item on the Globalist agenda. If it weren’t, the FDA-Monsanto scam would have been exposed in a matter of weeks or months.

Major newspapers and television networks would have attacked the obvious con job like packs of wild dogs and torn it to pieces.

But once the scam had been given a free pass, the primary corporate-government tactic was to accomplish a fait accompli, a series of events that was irreversible.

In this case, it was about gene drift. From the beginning, it was well known that GMO plants release genes that blow in the wind and spread from plant to plant, crop to crop, and field to field. There is no stopping it.

Along with convincing enough farmers to lock themselves into GMO-seed contracts, Monsanto bought up food-seed companies in order to engineer the seeds…and the gene-drift factor was the ace in the hole.

Sell enough GMO seeds, plant enough GMO crops, and you flood the world’s food crops with Monsanto genes.

Back in the 1990s, the prince of darkness, Michael Taylor, who has moved through the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto several times, and is now the czar of food safety at the FDA—Taylor said, with great conviction, that the GMO revolution was unstoppable; within a decade or two, an overwhelming percentage of food grown on planet Earth would be GMO.

Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew that ownership of the world’s food, by a few companies, was a prime focus for Globalist kings who intended to feed the population through Central Planning and Distribution.

–“We feed these people; we hold back food from those people; we send food there; we don’t send food here.”–

Control food and water, and you hold the world in your hand.

Here is evidence that, even in earlier days, Monsanto knew about and pushed for the Globalist agenda. Quoted by J. Flint, in his 1998 “Agricultural Giants Moving Towards Genetic Monopolism,” Robert Fraley, head of Monsanto’s agri-division, stated: “What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of [Monsanto-purchased] seed companies. It’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain.”

And as for the power of the propaganda in that time period, I can think of no better statement than the one made on January 25th, 2001, by the outgoing US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Glickman said:

“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech [GMO] side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department [USDA]. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of these issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”

Glickman reveals several things in these remarks: he was spineless; people at the Dept. of Agriculture were madly buying into the Monsanto cover story about feeding the world; and there had to be a significant degree of infiltration at his Agency.

The last point is key. This wasn’t left to chance. You don’t get a vocal majority of Dept. of Agriculture personnel spouting the Monsanto propaganda merely because the fairy tale about feeding the world sounds so good. No, there are people working on the inside to promote the “social cause” and make pariahs out of dissenters.

You need special background and training to pull that off. It isn’t an automatic walk in the park. This is professional psyop and intelligence work.

I’ve done some investigation of various groups on both the left and the right, and I’ve seen some pros in action. They’re good. They know how to leverage ideas and slogans and ideals. They know how to defame opponents and find the right words to sink them. They know how to turn high-flying but vague words about “humanity” into moral imperatives.

This isn’t rinky-dink stuff. To tune up bureaucrats and scientists, you have to have a background in manipulation. You have to know what you’re doing. You have to be able to build and sustain support, without giving your game away.

Truth be told, governments are full of these pros, who will take any number of causes and turn them into what falsely sounds like good science, good government, good morality, all the while knowing that, on the far shore, sits the real prize: control.

These psyop specialists are hired to help make overarching and planet-wide agendas come true, as populations are brought under sophisticated and pathological elites who care, for example, about feeding the world as much as a collector cares about paralyzing and pinning butterflies on a panel in a glass case.

Here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:

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

The Globalists play for keeps.

Owning the food of the world is part of their strike-force action plan, and Monsanto is the technocratic arm of that plan.

Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto/FDA story with its time-honored policy of “he said-he said.” This policy dictates that stories merely present both sides of a conflict without drawing conclusions.

It applies across the board—except when it doesn’t. For example, for reasons too complex to go into here, the Washington Post decided to suspend its policy in the Watergate case. Woodward and Bernstein were assigned to investigate what was going on behind White House denials and obfuscations.

The same thing could be done with Monsanto, and it would be far easier. The lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.

The NY Times and the Washington Post could sell millions more papers on the back of the Monsanto story alone. It would be a bonanza for them. But no. They don’t care. They’d rather keep declining and losing readers. They’d rather die.

Normally, a business doesn’t commit suicide, especially when it sees exactly how to resuscitate itself. But here we are dealing with an agenda which can’t be disturbed. Globalism, and its agri-techno partner, Monsanto, are creating a planetary future. Major media are part and parcel of that op. They are selling it.

Even as their bottom lines erode, these newspapers and television networks have to stay on their present course. By pretending they’re reporting the real news, they’re giving the impression that Monsanto and the FDA are home free.

Again, we aren’t talking about sloppy reporting or accidental omissions of fact or boggling incompetence or ignorance about science. We are talking about conscious intent to deceive.

Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto. But placement and frequency are everything. How often do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page 7? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal more and more crimes? Does the basic story gather steam over the course of weeks and months?

These are the decisions that make or break a story. In the case of Monsanto and the FDA, the decisions were made a long time ago.

Part of every reporter’s training in how the real world works, if he has any ideals at all, is marching into his editor’s office with his hair on fire demanding to be given an assignment to expose a crime. The editor, knowing the true agenda of his newspaper or television network, tells the reporter:

“We’ve already covered that.”

“It’s old news.”

“People aren’t interested in it.”

“It’s too complicated.”

“The evidence you’re showing me is thin.”

“You’ll never get to the bottom of it.”

“The people involved won’t talk to you.”

And if none of those lies work, the editor might say, “If you keep pushing this, it would be bad for your career. You’ll lose access for other stories. You’ll be thought of as weird…”

This is how the game works at ground level. But make no mistake about it, the hidden agenda is about protecting an elite’s op from exposure.

If NBC, for example, gave its golden boy, Brian Williams, the green light, he would become an expert on Monsanto in three days. He’d become a tiger. He’d affect a whole set of morally outraged poses and send Monsanto down into Hell.

Don’t misunderstand. Brian hasn’t been waiting to move in for the kill. But wind him up and point to a target and he’ll go there.

However, no one at NBC in the executive offices will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.

All the major reporters at news outlets and all the elite television anchors are really psyop specialists. It’s just that most of them don’t know it.

One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put it to me this way: When he was in the game, he looked at the news as a big public restroom. His one guiding principle was: Don’t piss on your shoes. Pissing on your shoes was covering a story that was considered out of bounds. If you walked into the boss’s office, he’d look you up and down and see the telltale sign. He’d say, “Hey, you pissed on your shoes. Get out of here. You’re fired.”

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

The Monsanto nightmare is a flower of poison

The Monsanto nightmare is a flower of poison

~a short story~

by Jon Rappoport

July 22, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

One spring day, in a secret basement conference room, at the St. Louis headquarters of Monsanto, the Committee of Three met.

They were the men, nameless, who really pulled the strings when strings needed to be pulled.

They approved the very biggest bribes to politicians. They vetted Presidential candidates and made sure both parties were nominating friends of the corporation.

They liaised with the NSA when blackmailing opponents was the order of the day, when surveillance data made that blackmail possible.

They gave the orders that initiated full-bore campaigns to turn recalcitrant nations into Monsanto allies.

They oversaw the operation called Gene Drift, whose objective was to make genetically engineered food a fait accompli, a universal reality for Planet Earth, no matter what laws were passed, no matter what restrictions were placed on the growing of GM crops.

Gene Drift—the contamination of all plants in the world. As the winds blow, so travel the genes.

They tracked the spread of their poisonous herbicide, Roundup. The goal was to circle the Earth in a mantle of this noxious compound.

But today, the Committee of Three had a different agenda. An employee of the company had somehow placed, on all Monsanto work computers, a story. A horrible story. No one could identify the traitor or calculate how he had wormed his way past corporate security systems.

Committee Member 1: “The man is obviously deranged. He’s mentally ill. He’s dangerous. But clever.”

Committee Member #2: “It’s a science fiction story. That’s what he’s written. It barely makes sense. It’s a story told by a psycho. Are we really going to turn this company upside down looking for him?”

Committee Member #3: “Damn right we are. If he were challenging our science and exposing it as fraud, we would know what to do. We’d discredit him and publish a dozen new fake studies that prove he’s wrong. We’re experts when it comes to that. But you see, what he’s done is more devious. His story is vague and suggestive. It’s metaphorical, allegorical. It covertly leaks ideas into the brain. It plants its own seeds.”

Committee Member #1: “I agree. This is a new kind of threat. And coming from the inside, it’s all the more ominous. It could take hold like a contagious germ, a slow germ that infects the brain cell by cell.”

Committee Member #2: “I see your point. Yes. But how do we find out who this marauder is, so we can deal with him? So far, he’s managed to hide.”


On the conference table lay a typed copy of the story that had suddenly appeared on every Monsanto computer in the world:

—-Lf was the oldest man among them. He wrestled with fear. He tried to invent a new plan but he failed time and time again. He was in thrall. Psychologically trapped.

He knew he had to kill the enemy, but he couldn’t. A force held him back. At night, he wept against the sleeping body of his wife.

One thought occurred to him in his twilight hours. If enough of his own people were on his side, they might give him the strength to carry out the act. If they stopped fearing and venerating the dragon, they might spring the lock on his own mind and, then, he would be able to carry out the deed.

Why was the fate of the dragon in his hands alone? Why couldn’t others free themselves and commit the act?

Another thought came to him. What about…a law? In his society, there were few of them. Wasn’t a law supposed to be a congealing of public will and determination? Wasn’t it a principle everyone saw as true? Wasn’t it a protection against evil? Suppose his people gave voice to a principle? Wouldn’t that lead to the conviction of the dragon? In this way, couldn’t they all act together? Wouldn’t their combined force be enough?

The war went on.

The women gathered around the flame, while the men took the city.

The rain makers looked down. They let the forests remain dry; therefore they burned down.

(“Hey, baby, I’m the dragon. My name’s Mons. Have a piece of fruit. It’s delicious. Quite up to date with the latest inserted genes. Come on. Try it.”)

The weapons keepers opened their storehouses, and the weak and feeble of the huge tribe took the devices to the soldiers on the front lines and retrieved the hot and broken ones and lugged them to makers for repair and rebuilding.

The children worked in the fields, capturing the harvest, transporting it to the sheds, where they cooked the meals and carried the immense pots to the soldiers in the rear of the lines.

(“Baby, you’re beautiful. And you’re married to that old bozo? What’s wrong with you? He’s ancient. Have some fruit and you’ll stay young forever. It has a special chemical on it. It protects you and keeps you healthy.”)

There were no doctors. The men fought and lived or fought and died. Later, much later, the wounds would heal, or not.

No one counted numbers. No one wrote history. The war was enveloping.

The few priests had long ago been captured. In their pens, they were permitted to make animal sacrifices and conduct ceremonies for victory. They had no books, no tablets, and the gods whose appeasement was marked through calendars of blood had no official names.

A few soldiers remembered an old line of kings, but the lineage had been destroyed in the distant past.

There were families. They were without names or titles.

Farmers, a distant breed apart, kept the animals and slaughtered them and sent their parts to the food makers.

(“Listen, sweetheart, I know you’re old doddering husband wants to kill me, but he’s just jealous. Look at my rippling muscles. Look at his wrinkled skin. I have my tree. It bears gorgeous fruit. Eat a piece and you’ll know who I am. You’ll leave that senile fool and live with me. We’ll have children who’ll be invincible.”)

Through the use of giant lenses, whose history was lost, fires were set, and with columns of the weak and infirm dragging corpses, dolls, and statues from old sackings, shadows of chimera troops were created and cast to confuse and distract. The shadow makers were revered.

They possessed secret knowledge. They planned attacks designed to use up resources of the enemy.

The death of a shadow maker was mourned in moments when battles waned. They were wrapped in skins glued together with marrow and clay, weighted with stones, and dropped into the river where their memories would flow into the great machine docks and keep the motors running, for the ships that came from the stars.

Those long-distance travelers executed their secret business in undersea caverns, stayed as long as they stayed, and then returned to their unknown worlds.

The war itself was fought to accumulate memories in every man, woman, and child, and were then harvested by the travelers from sleeping dreams. Everyone knew and accepted this state of affairs. War was, therefore, a high calling.

Memories could be translated into scrolls of silk that went on endlessly. Scrolls had been glimpsed now and then on the mountains. They were the traditional evidence of purpose.

Everyone remembered his or her own life in great detail. It was a point of pride. The discipline enhanced dreams.

Lf, who had been alive far longer than any of the people of the war, remembered days of rain, flood, the washing away of hills, the collapsing of canyons, the drowning of whole clans, the first arrival of the ships from space, the contract for dream harvest.

He lived deep in the forest with a wife. Her name endured: Chromogene. She kept a walking dragon in a tree. He ate the silk fruit and exuded spores that filled the whole territory. The spores infiltrated all plants and animals and changed them.

Eating the plants and animals, the people wanted to make war and they wanted to dream. That was the effect of their food.

Lf remembered when this was not so. The star travelers had brought the dragon to their lands.

Lf dreamed that with great effort, incurring wounds, he killed the dragon with an ax. He threw the bloody parts in the river.

A great voice came to him in the dream. It told him he had committed a heinous crime and would be exiled to the deserts with his wife.

The shadow makers came to him. They ordered him to stay. They would concoct a play of shapes and figures that would make it appear he and his wife had departed.

In the days to come, the whole tribe would gather and determine one dream. When they slept, they would spool out the same story of destruction of stars. They would bring down the heavens and make it impossible for the travelers to come back to the undersea caverns.

They would divert the river directly into the space docks and flood them.

They would enact revenge for the exile of their oldest man, Lf, and his wife.

As the war receded in memory, and became a story, they would realize, in fits and starts, that there had been no enemy. All the death and destruction had been incurred in fighting and killing among themselves.

With the star travelers gone, and their dragon killed, the growing fields and the food would return to their former state.

The people would no longer want to make war. They would no longer dream for the sake of their masters.

Lf woke from this dream. He wondered how he could assemble all his people and make them believe one central idea that would take them to victory.

(“My lovely, your husband is crazy. He’s been crazy for a long time. He lives in his own world. I’m exciting. I have power. I can change life. I can make life over into any shape I desire. I can help you. I can make you happy again. Eat this fruit.”)


power outside the matrix


Committee Member #2: “That’s it? That’s the story?”

Committee Member #3: “Obviously, it’s unfinished. Our people think the traitor was afraid he might be discovered, so he stopped loading it in mid-stream.”

Committee Member #2: “It’s crazy. It makes no sense. This tribe, or whatever they are? They just keep making war? Who are they?”

Committee Member #1: “Maybe they represent us, the corporation. Maybe they represent the people, the whole population of the planet.”

Committee Member #3: “No, we’re the dragon. We’re the snake in the Garden of Eden.”

“Committee Member #2: “What? What garden? There’s no garden in the story.”

Committee Member #1: “Metaphor. Allegory. NSA people tried to figure out how one of our employees could have evaded security protection. So far, they’ve come up with nothing.”

Committee Member #2: “Forget the whole thing. Let’s just move on. It’s a piece of nonsense. We’ve got bigger fish to fry. Africa, South America. We’re running into stiff opposition.”

Committee Member #3: “We have to step up our timetable. Operation Gene Drift has to accelerate. Once every plant on the planet contains our genes, what can anyone do? We creating a new world. Let’s not dilly-dally. We want to supersede the natural world and make a synthetic world, right? The way to overcome our enemies, all of them, is to win decisively. Let’s not forget, we’re part of a larger plan. Ultimately, we can control the food supply and decide who eats and who doesn’t. Not only that, but because our genes get into humans, and because brain research is leading to ways of making over brain function, we’re well on the way to inventing a new species of human. This is what we’re shooting for. The human as a technological artifact. A programmed artifact. We and our allies are the body snatchers.”

Committee Member #1: “Agreed. But you know, last night I had a brief dream. I was in that diabolical story myself. It was a very unpleasant feeling. The whole population was waking up. They were seeing us as dragons. They were distracting us with shadows. They were cutting off our business connections and communication channels. It stirred up memories I didn’t even know I had. Memories of some earlier time when events were played out on a mythic level, when there was good and evil. When forces were alive that could destroy evil.”

Committee Member #2: “Fortunately, that time has passed. There is no more good or evil. There’s just business. And we have every right to gain an edge, because if we don’t, someone else will. Keep the focus, gentlemen. We live in the age of selling and buying. There are no rules for how you sell or buy. You do whatever it takes. There are still myths, but they’re scientific. Our myth is genes. We tell our own tales about them. We give them extraordinary healing power. Whether that healing is real or imaginary is immaterial. We tell a story so we can sell. The consequences are other people’s concerns. This is our model. It works. Business IS a god. Without it, the world would collapse. Therefore, we have a duty to make our company bloom. Maybe we’re the shadow makers, staging a shadow play, pretending to a science that doesn’t exist. If so, it makes no difference. All speed ahead!”

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 www.nomorefakenews.com