The individual vs. the staged collective

The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

by Jon Rappoport

December 26, 2016

Trumpets blare. In the night sky, spotlights roam. A great confusion of smoke and dust and fog, and emerging banners, carrying the single message:


The great meltdown of all consciousness into a glob of utopian simplicity…

There are denizens among us.

They present themselves as the Normals.

And once again, I find it necessary to return to the subject of The Individual.

This time, I’m prompted by the madness swirling around the film, Vaxxed (trailer). I’ve written about the film and the controversy from several angles, but here I want to point out another factor. The CDC whistleblower at the heart of the story is one man going up against The Group.

I don’t call William Thompson an unsullied hero. Far from it. He lied, he committed fraud, he hid the fraud for 10 years, he buried evidence that the MMR vaccine increased the risk of autism in children, and finally, perhaps because he was caught in his own web, he confessed.

But the group, his employer, the grotesque CDC, his fellow scientists—and especially the hideous rotting press, a dumping ground for professional agents, front men, con artists, shysters, wormy night crawlers (and I’m speaking more kindly of them than I should)—have attacked Thompson and the film mercilessly.

Beyond all political objectives in this attack, there is a simple fact: those group-mind liars who have given up their souls will rage against the faintest appearance of one who tries to keep his. And in this rage, the soulless ones will try to pull the other down to where they live.

And somehow, it all looks normal and proper and rational.

In the 1950s, before television had numbed minds and turned them into jelly, there was a growing sense of: the Individual versus the Corporate State.

Something needed to be done. People were fitting into slots. They were surrendering their lives in increasing numbers. They were carving away their own idiosyncrasies and their independent ideas.

But television, under the control of psyops experts, became, as the 1950s droned on, the facile barrel of a weapon:

“What’s important is the group. Conform. Give in. Bathe in the great belonging…”

Recognize that every message television imparts is a proxy, a fabrication, a simulacrum, an imitation of life one step removed.

When this medium also broadcasts words and images of belonging and the need to belong, it’s engaged in revolutionary social engineering.

Whether it’s the happy-happy suburban-lawn family in an ad for the wonders of a toxic pesticide, or the mob family going to the mattresses to fend off a rival, it’s fantasy time in the land of mind control.

Television has carried its mission forward. The consciousness of the Individual versus the State has turned into: love the State. Love the State as family.

In the only study I have been able to find, Wictionary partially surveys the scripts of all television shows from the year 2006, to analyze the words most frequently broadcast to viewers in America.

Out of 29,713,800 words, including the massively used “a,” “an,” “the,” “you,” “me,” and the like, the word “home” ranks 179 from the top. “Mom” is 218. “Together” is 222. “Family” is 250.

This usage reflects an unending psyop.

Are you with the family or not? Are you with the group, the collective, or not? Those are the blunt parameters.

“When you get right down to it, all you have is family.” “Our team is really a family.” “You’re deserting the family.” “You fight for the guy next to you.” “Our department is like a family.” “Here at Corporation X, we’re a family.”

The committee, the group, the company, the sector, the planet.

The goal? Submerge the individual.

Individual achievement, imagination, creative power? Not on the agenda. Something for the dustbin of history.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World: “‘Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines’! The voice was almost tremulous with enthusiasm. ‘You really know where you are. For the first time in history.’”

George Orwell, 1984: “The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.”

The soap opera is the apotheosis of television. The long-running characters in Anytown are irreversibly enmeshed in one another’s lives. There’s no escape. There is only mind-numbing meddling.

“I’m just trying to help you realize we all love you (in chains).”

“Your father, rest his soul, would never have wanted you to do this to yourself…”

“How dare you set yourself apart from us. Who do you think you are?”

For some people, the collective “WE” has a fragrant scent—until they get down in the trenches with it. There they discover odd odors and postures and mutations. There they discover self-distorted creatures scurrying around celebrating their twistedness.

The night becomes long. The ideals melt. The level of intelligence required to inhabit this cave-like realm is lower than expected, much lower.

Hypnotic perceptions, which are the glue that holds the territory together, begin to crack and fall apart, and all that is left is a grim determination to see things through.

As the night moves into its latter stages, some participants come to know that all their activity is taking place in a chimerical universe.

It is as if reality has been constructed to yield up gibberish.

Whose idea was it to become deaf, dumb, and blind in the first place?

And then perhaps one person in the cave suddenly says: I EXIST.

That starts a cacophony of howling.

In the aftermath of the 1963 assassination of JFK and the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the covert theme was the same: a lone individual did this.

A lone individual, detached from the group, did this. “Lone individuals are people who left the fold. They wandered from the communal hearth. Therefore, they inevitably became killers.”

In 1995, after the Oklahoma City Bombing, President Bill Clinton made a speech to the nation. He rescued his presidency by essentially saying, “Come home to the government. We will protect you and save you.”

He framed the crime in those terms. The individual versus the collective.

Exit From the Matrix

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

The history of human struggle on this planet is about the individual emerging FROM the group, from the tribe, from the clan. The history of struggle is not about the individual surrendering and going back INTO group identity.

Going back is the psyop.

The intended psyop.

As the trumpets blare in the night sky, as the fog-ridden spotlights roam, as the banners emerge carrying the single message, WE, as people below are magnetically drawn to this show, a unpredicted thing happens:

Someone shouts: WHAT IS WE?

Others pick up the shout.

And the banners begin to catch fire and melt. They drip steel and wax and the false grinding of hypnotic dreams breaks its rhythm.

The whole sky-scene stutters like a great weapon losing its capacity to contain heat. The sky itself drips and caves inward and collapses, and the trumpets tail off and there is a new fresh silence.

The delusion, in pieces, is drifting away…

The cover: gone.

Behind it is The Individual.

What will he do now?

Will he seek to find his inherent power, the power he cast aside in his eagerness to join the collective?

Will he?

Or will he search for another staged melodrama designed to absorb him in an all-embracing WE?

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 or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Natural health is a silver bullet to medical vampires

Natural health is a silver bullet to medical vampires

The medical vampires’ vaccine vision is unnatural and perverse

by Jon Rappoport

October 4, 2016

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

It turns out that unvaccinated children aren’t little time bombs walking around ready to blow and spread devastating disease in their wake.

That’s a myth. It’s told by the medical cartel, for their own obvious reasons.

And it turns out that children raised in a healthy way are strong, and have strong immune systems.

This was once viscerally known and understood and accepted as a truism.

Those who insist on 50 or 60 shots of germs and toxic chemicals for every child, like it or not, are participating in an ongoing criminal enterprise.

Their vision is unnatural and perverse.

It turns out that stimulating the production of antibodies—which is the purpose of vaccines—is not the be-all and end-all of existence. It isn’t the road to health. It isn’t an automatic lease on life.

Every aspect of a child’s life contributes to, or detracts from, his immune-system health and strength. This is traditional knowledge. This basic tree of knowledge has been shaken and hacked at by decades of remorseless propaganda from official medical/government/corporate mob bosses.

The vaccine establishment has become a protection racket. Take your shots or pay the social and political consequences.

Natural health is a reality. It isn’t a stunt.

When smallpox ravaged England, it wasn’t the lone work of a virus. It was sewage in the city streets, horrendous overcrowding, lack of basic nutrition, grinding poverty. It was also the smallpox vaccine:

“Smallpox, like typhus, has been dying out (in England) since 1780. Vaccination in this country has largely fallen into disuse since people began to realize how its value was discredited by the great smallpox epidemic of 1871-2 (which occurred after extensive vaccination).” (W. Scott Webb, A Century of Vaccination, Swan Sonnenschein, 1898.)

And then there is this: “The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977

Improve environmental conditions and the standard of living, and you pave the way for natural health. It’s not a mystery. It never was.

—The basic purpose of promoting these dud “epidemics” that come down the pipeline every few years is: to convince the population that they can’t live in a state of natural health; there is no such thing as natural health; everyone must live their lives under the constant supervision of doctors.

This is becoming the central myth of our times.

It is becoming the primary form of surrender.

Natural health is a silver bullet to medical vampires.

Exit From the Matrix

How many studies can you find that investigate the factors of health in children who do quite well without overriding medical attention? How many studies in peer reviewed journals examine large groups of healthy unvaccinated children? None.

Health is basically a non-medical condition.

The primary medical psyop is the effort to erase that understanding.

Every healthy unvaccinated child is a refutation of the medical cartel.

If your business is sickness, and you’re unscrupulous, it stands to reason you’ll try to find more and more sickness, even, and especially, where it doesn’t exist.

You’ll never study health, because it would put you out of business.

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 or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Part 2: The secret political issue: Health freedom

Part 2: The secret political issue: Health Freedom

A call from the wilderness

by Jon Rappoport

October 3, 2016

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

For Part 1, and, for the backstory regarding the re-posting of this two part series, click here.

(NOVEMBER 10, 2010) Millions of advocates of health freedom see that no major political candidate, with one or two exceptions, voices their concerns or stands up for their right to improve their health by any and all self-chosen methods.

To understand the landscape in which this deafening silence continues, we need to realize that the one industry which could and should make a difference—the nutritional supplement sector—is dominated by ostriches.

Once a powerful voice for health freedom, the industry has stepped back into the shadows. It nurtures the illusion that it is safe from government intervention. It even supposes it has sufficient allies within the government to stave off attacks by the FDA.

Since 1993, I have been calling for the creation of a powerful “PR wing” funded by nutritional companies. This group would dedicate itself to obtaining ongoing media coverage, showing that nutrition scores many victories in preserving and expanding health, that nutrition is a brilliant success.

At first glance, this may not seem very important. But, in fact, it is THE vital way to turn public, media, and political opinion to the side of nutrition.

The FDA and other government bodies see no reason to curtail their attacks on nutritional supplements if the media aren’t even covering the issue.

Every PR campaign works toward a tipping point, where the very idea of opposing its goals is politically suicidal.

If you don’t understand that, you know nothing about PR.

And what is a campaign? Is it a one-time promotion? Is it a vaguely flailing effort to marshal support? Is it a token outreach? For amateurs, perhaps. For dreamers.

But the reality is far different. A campaign is a well-funded, sustained, and highly organized operation, aimed at gradually creating a shift in widespread perception.

In this case, the campaign TELLS THE TRUTH. That is its weapon. That is its intrinsic strength.


Media outlets, editors, reporters are always looking for interesting stories. The brutal fact of life is, they need copy to fill space and time. They must have it.

What about a boy in Arkansas who was ill for three years, unable to learn or play with his friends, who was brought back from the brink by supplements?

Is that a story?

You bet it is.

What about a husband who had to quit his job and go on the dole, because he no longer had the strength to put in eight hours in a factory? And then he regained his strength with nutrients. Is that a story? It sure is.

Does a fledgling PR campaign start from the top of the media chain? Does a story suddenly appear on the front page of The New York Times? In a fantasy world, perhaps.

No, you build up your book of clippings. You gradually move up the ladder.

You establish a foothold. You lay a firm foundation.

You find experts who will give you favorable and truthful quotes.

You shove in your chips for the long haul, and you don’t back out because you wish paradise would come tomorrow.

On the other side of this PR campaign, you tell the truth about your target, your opponent, your nemesis, your threat. The FDA.

You build up an accurate dossier documenting the widespread damage this agency had done over the years. And it’s there, believe me. For the past 20 years, I’ve been finding it and reporting it.

FDA-certified drugs have been killing American citizens at the rate of 100,000 a year. That’s a good place to start. (Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000; “Is US health really the best in the world?”)

You put your opponent, your threat back on its heels. You force it to play defense. Instead of trying to limit people’s access to supplements, the agency is busy warding off truthful, pointed attacks.

You obtain the right, correct, and honest coverage of the FDA in the press. On an ongoing basis.

This is the double-pronged PR campaign. There is much more to say about it, but you get the idea.

You want politicians to aggressively support health freedom? You have to show them they would have public opinion on their side. And how do you do that? You obtain TRUTHFUL media coverage.

Coverage isn’t accomplished by waving a magical wand. It’s done through PR.

Over the years, since I ran, in 1994, for a Congressional seat in Los Angeles on the issue of health freedom, I’ve seen the most haphazard, amateurish, wasteful, silly, and delusional PR launched out there, in the stratosphere, on behalf of health freedom. Drunken men with no tools would have a better chance of building a mansion than this kind of demented PR would have in congealing public opinion.

This must change. The nutritional industry must come into the 20th, and then the 21st century.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the basic ideal of individual freedom is under assault from many quarters. Health freedom will not escape this net.

Something EFFECTIVE needs to be done.

Read my long interview with brilliant constitutional attorney, Jonathan Emord of Emord and Associates. He spells out what the FDA is doing and planning to do to nutritional supplements in this country.

Jonathan explains the situation in detail.

Naysayers out there will give you a litany of reasons why the media will never cover health freedom or the massive success of nutritional supplements. “Media ad space is dominated by drug companies.” “Media are controlled by the government.” “Medical power is too great.”

I’ve heard all the excuses. Mostly, they are offered by people who refuse to believe any good change can happen in any sphere. But the fundamental flaw in their arguments lies in a complete misunderstanding about the way PR works.

Here is the secret. Most PR DOES work. If the people behind it are smart, if they have money, if they put in the time and the effort, if they aren’t scared away by a few failures, they will come out on top.

Every PR campaign knocks its head on the ceiling many times. “We can’t break through!” “They won’t listen to us!”

You complain, and then you roll up your sleeves and keep going. Because the goal is worth it. Because you truly want the desired end result. And because PR works.

The Matrix Revealed

When I began writing as a reporter almost 30 years ago, I knew nothing about the business. I quickly learned that media need copy. That was the basic reality. Media need stories. They will respond.

PR works the same way. You dig in for the long haul, and you gain success.

Of course, the other advantage of an excellent PR campaign is, no one person has to stick his neck out and take the heat. Instead a whole industry is involved. “You want a battle? Then come after all of us.”

Then can you imagine how the millions of people who buy those supplements would appear in full view, ready to stake their claim for freedom?

In the early 1990s, this is exactly what happened. A few nutritional executives bankrolled a massive outreach program, enlisting American citizens, who wrote millions of letters to Congress demanding a new law protecting supplements.

Congressional sponsors were lined up. They felt confident because the outcry from citizens was huge. The law was passed. It didn’t offer us the guarantees we really needed, but it was better than nothing.

Now we need more. Better laws, and also a PR campaign that doesn’t fold up its tent just because the Congress moved in a somewhat positive direction.

This time, we may need all those citizens to write to supplement companies demanding their action. I have sketched out that action in this article.

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 or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The individual and the covert op

The individual and the covert op

Nine notes that clarify freedom

by Jon Rappoport

May 2, 2016

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

“The mind has no obligation to be a container.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

ONE: The elite men who manipulate the masses do stand outside The Collective, but they’re not free. Their only power comes from diminishing the power of others.

They don’t know any other kind of power.

The idea that, within themselves, as individuals, they have creative fire is completely and utterly foreign to them.

TWO: Every major covert op has the same concealed objective: “defeat the enemy and thereby gain more control.”

But control over what?

Beyond the usual answers, the root answer is: “control over the mind.”

Why? Because if perception and thought can be channeled, directed, reduced, and weakened, then it doesn’t matter what humans do to resist other types of control. They will always go down the wrong path. They will always operate within limited and bounded territory. They will always ignore their own authentic power.

I’m talking about power that exceeds the “normal” and “average” ability to influence the stream of cause and effect.

The “prison” of cause and effect is a concept that is floated as part of the basic covert op to convince people they are small, diminished, and at the mercy of larger forces.

But underneath it all, humans have the capacity to “jump the chain” and become, as it were, “first causes.”

And not in some minor way.

Unfortunately, the popular view of how this can be accomplished is often rooted in New Age notions: the instantaneous fix; the Disneyesque manifestation; the “surrender to the universe.”

These are psy-op versions of the real thing, floated as part of the overall covert op to engage the gullible among us.

“Jumping the chain” is actually a matter of reversing the op. In other words, instead of accepting the mural of reality that has been created for us, each person creates his own.

Without compromise.

Beyond the covert op, every human has the capacity to act in ways that change the flow of time, the architecture of space, and the sources of energy.

The degree to which an individual believes this is impossible mirrors his acceptance of the basic covert op on planet Earth.

THREE: When people speak about “hope for all of us,” they rarely refer to the power of the individual.

That’s because they are blinded by the Group. They have no other option.

They’re looking through the lens of the collective.

They judge their work solely by the effect it has on others, and they judge themselves solely by the effect others have on them.

FOUR: When the individual sets a goal that is outside the consensus and the status quo, he himself is outside the consensus.

The degree of organization he creates, in order to achieve the goal, doesn’t have to be traditional, symmetrical, balanced. Organization should be a function of the actions that will achieve the goal. The actions should dictate the organization.

FIVE: Freedom means the individual can change his mind at any moment. It also means that, if he doesn’t change his mind, and instead follows a straight path, he is going to have to keep referring back to the original vision that gave birth to the enterprise he’s engaged in. He’s going to have to keep inspiring himself in that way. Otherwise, his energy will stagnate. He will become less important than the pattern.

exit from the matrix

SIX: Storyline, when applied to a person’s life, makes no sense unless he is inventing it. Otherwise, it’s random, and the only forward motion is like something a machine would produce as it grinds ahead.

SEVEN: Many people are slaves of pattern. They believe if they do A, they should then do B, and then C. They see no other options. It makes sense to them to follow pattern. But the pattern doesn’t lead to a desired outcome. It just circles around and puts a person back where he started from.

EIGHT: If “things as they are” has any life at all, it comes from anticipating that imagination is going to transform it.

NINE: So-called Enlightenment isn’t a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. It’s the result of the individual freely creating new realities.

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 or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The shock of the American Revolution

The shock of the American Revolution

by Jon Rappoport

January 1, 2011

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

It was one thing to separate from England; it was another thing entirely to produce the idea of individual freedom as a natural fact and a political goal.

The first act did not necessarily lead to the second.

Indeed, the exile of the King from American affairs and the cancellation of the taxes laid on by the monarchy could have been the prelude to a new state of tyranny on these shores.

In several respects, this turned out to be the case, but not before the idea of freedom was enunciated for all time.

With the ringing of that bell, definite principles and consequences flowed with great surety.

One person living in freedom could not legally limit the freedom of another.

Freedom meant a condition of self-sufficiency. It meant independence from any invasive and crowding authority.

It meant responsibility for one’s actions, rather than excuses to escape consequences.

It meant that decisions on how to live one’s life were unique to each individual—and if this principle was followed, society would reflect an astonishing diversity.

It meant that social conformity was no longer a desirable goal.

It meant that wide consensus was not a necessary requirement for individual actions.

With these ideas in tow, one would expect a nation in which ideas, innovations, modes of living, and communities were extraordinarily various—each difference and distinction backed up by energetic passion.

Creativity and imagination would play out to the fullest extent on a wide field.

Is that what happened?

In many respects, the answer is no.

But time does not destroy ideas.

Everything stated and implied by the shocking establishment of freedom is as true today as it was 200-plus years ago.

In that sense, philosophy always trumps life.

Anyone, at any time, can pick up the torch.

Implicit in the idea of freedom is the question: what is freedom for?

That question arises, because freedom is not an action. It is a feeling, a state of mind, a potential.

It is the setting for whatever is to come, whatever will be done by the individual.

Freedom, obviously, is for making choices. If those choices are spooled out by some sort of inner necessity and compelling impulse, then the whole idea of freedom is negated in the cradle.

Therefore, the very notion of freedom implies that the choices made are, or can be, freely taken.

Freely made choices open the door to an understanding of what “choice” really means.

It means “created.”

A person does not merely choose. He creates those choices.

He is essentially and deeply creative.

And this changes everything.

No longer are we envisioning an individual who is bound and irresistibly driven forward by inner forces, or by a past whose events predetermine his future.

None of this speculative “psychcologizing” is relevant.

Free is free.

There is latitude. There is space.

Imagination and creativity overlap.

All of this is implied and derived from the declaration of individual freedom that is at the heart of the formation of the American Republic.

Then why do we see a surprisingly uniform landscape in this country?

Why haven’t the unique creations of millions of individuals caused a stunningly wide diversity of outcomes that are quite visible?

Why are we caught up in a spreading sameness?

Ultimately, the answer is simple: people have chosen to be like one another.

Adducing reasons for this are really beside the point. If the individual does have the freedom to make his own unique creation of his future, then he can change his decision to be like his neighbor.

He can change that.

That change is also part of what freedom means.

An unconscionable tonnage of literature and verbiage have been spent describing all the ways in which the individual is limited and hemmed in and shaped by forces over which he has no control. Indeed, in some quarters, this notion of determinism is applauded and elevated to a high perch.

It is all, in the end, wasted, because the individual can be free.

The expanse of that freedom has no psychological boundaries.

This idea strikes fear in the hearts of people who want to pile complexity on complexity in deciphering the so-called human condition. Inevitably, such “investigations” consign the individual to an unfree status.

exit from the matrix

But two centuries ago, a small group of men announced to the world that a different destiny awaited us.

They made political separation from a monarchy into a far more profound declaration.

We hold that legacy today, not only as an historical connection, but also as a depiction of what we really are.

What we do with it is up to each one of us.

No potential anywhere has the power of individual freedom.

When we consult our desires in deciding what we want to create in this world, we would do well to consider the enormous breadth and depth of the freedom on which all creation is based—so that our choices and actions do more than scratch the surface of our imaginations.

We are not small; we are, when all is said and done, infinite.

Jon Rappoport

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

Why is it called freedom?

Why is it called freedom?

An essay on America

For unhurried minds

by Jon Rappoport

October 27, 2010

The free, powerful, intensely creative, and moral individual is the ideal that flows from the meaning of the American Republic.

When that ideal is abandoned, what replaces it is the individual who has the LICENSE to do anything—to diminish, manipulate, and control the freedom of another.

The difference between freedom and license is the difference between living blood in the veins, versus a synthetic plastic approximation. The android thus created always yearns for the real thing, and in its absence, he drives himself into a state of anarchic frustration, violence, and the desire to enact revenge.

The “man of license,” not freedom, forms a character that is at once servile and self-assertive, meek and bloated, guilt-ridden and criminally aggressive.

And what flows from that? The entirely artificial, enterprising, cheating, skulking, compromising, self-flagellating, miserable, brutal, aggrandizing, masochistic citizen—often found in, among many other places, positions of leadership. In government, business, law, academia.

Do you need a better formula for creating criminals?

A society packed with such persons is going to carry out the vision of a self-sufficient nation and individual at about the same rate of success as a colony of primates is going to give birth to Thomas Paine.

From “the man of license” came a parade of crimes:

The rise of the robber barons, the slave-wage conditions in factories; the continuation of black slavery; Indian conquests; the monopolistic practices that led to secret control over entire industries; the capture of the US financial system; the yellow/tabloid American press; criminal corporate adventurism in foreign lands; the support of foreign dictatorships; so-called nation-building; false-flag operations aimed at casting blame on the wrong parties; endless wars; covert intelligence operations targeting both foreign opponents and American citizens; support of death squads to forward US corporate goals abroad; the surrender of our borders; the rise of massive entitlements; the enshrinement of victimhood; rigged elections; the bankrupting of the nation; the manipulation of markets; engineered recessions and depressions; misplaced tolerance shown toward aggressive religious fundamentalisms; the descent into state corporatism and socialism; shadow governments…

These and other acts all stem from one basic cause: the flight from the notion and reality of the free, powerful, moral, and intensely creative individual. And the substitution of the man of license.

The doors were opened to manipulation on every level. The crimes and the conspiracies to commit crimes have not ended and will never end, so long as the truly free individual is a dead issue in the eyes of walking dead men.

Few historians have grasped the import of George Washington’s final warning, to the American people, to avoid entangling foreign alliances. The ignorance on this point is staggering.

It is clear that America could have found a way to remove itself from foreign affairs to such a degree that it would have constructed, at home, a society the likes of which has never been seen on the face of the Earth:

A moral and ethical society, devoted to the inculcation of as many free and powerful individuals as possible, none of whom would be tempted to cheat, lie, and steal his way “to the top.” Which is to say, a SELF-SUFFICIENT country, in all conceivable ways. Raw materials, manufacturing, industry, agriculture, technology.

And in this society, there would have been swift and strong punishment for any person, company, or corporation that decided to circumvent the law and commit criminal acts by hindering or fraudulently repressing any individual.

A free and powerful and creative individual, contrary to popular myths, has an ethical stature which legislates against perverse actions undertaken at the expense of others.

Let me present a theoretical, fictional example of what George Washington called foreign entanglement—except I’ll cast it in the form of US corporate action. We have a nation, X. In X, for a thousand years, land ownership has been a matter of tribal squabbles, bloody conflicts, and periodic land takeovers by strong-armed government administrations, many of which have fallen as a result of revolutions. We also have a few powerful families who have owned the bulk of the nation’s arable land for several centuries and employ private armies and death squads to maintain control of the land and the virtual slaves who work it. Into this situation steps US corporation Y. It is seeking to purchase and lease land for the production of grain. It has to deal with the present dictator, who is more than happy to make an arrangement, for the right price (bribe). He will also help defend these corporate lands with his sadistic police and repel protestors by killing them. Corporation Y also pays off several tribal leaders to stay away from these leased lands. The tribal leaders will, of course, need better weapons. These are forthcoming. The tribes will kill each other with them, on the side. Then the corporation hires a security group which supplies mercenaries. Then the dictator, who is basically a bloodthirsty lunatic, decides he wants bigger bribe money, and a new highway built from the central airport right to his palace. Eventually, corporation Y, which is receiving intelligence from a local CIA bureau, decides the dictator is too large a headache, so discussions begin about a military coup. However, the new leader would have close ties to a group that wants to nationalize oil fields. In this, he is supported by several terrorist regimes who have already paid him large sums of money…


There was no way to avoid these realities once corporation Y entered the scene, if they wanted to make a handsome profit on their investment. They had come into a society that was brutal and criminal on many levels.

Are we really to believe that Washington, Jefferson, Paine, and Madison would have sanctioned and applauded this kind of dealing as “the expression of free enterprise?”

Through the propaganda mills, we are fed a constant stream of persuasion masked as fact, which assures us that, without each other, globally, we will all go down. The whole world. We are one planet with one need—each other. The idea that one people in one country could achieve an overall self-sufficiency is considered dangerous insanity.

Instead, we must somehow merge with peoples and nations who have a long history of oppression, violence, murder, and a grossly limited or absent concept of individual freedom.

Behind this propaganda operation sits the aim of melting us down into one mass of humanity. No one stands out. We all are reduced down to lowest common denominators. No one has power. No one is truly free, because freedom is ALWAYS taken at the expense of someone else. Freedom means criminality.

This is the myth.

Against all this, let me juxtapose another fictional illustration, an entry written in a journal by an educated American citizen in the year 1880—living in a nation that had rejected ANY business or government dealing with any foreign country, that had remained, yes, completely isolated, and had dedicated itself to the free, powerful, moral, and intensely creative individual, as the ideal of the Republic. In this alternative America, the “man of license” had been squashed and sidelined.

“It was apparent to us, from the beginning of the Republic, that, in order to carry out the mandate of freedom, difficult choices would have to be made.

“Tom Paine eventually carried the banner of George Washington by convincing us that engaging in foreign trade, any foreign trade, would be a mistake that would compound into further, more serious errors. Not through government, but through business, we would inevitably be drawn back into the circle of corruption and old enmities among groups and nations. How could we walk into a decadent swamp without incurring infection?

“The debates on this point were heated. In the end, Paine and Madison gave us a picture of an alternative: We would turn inward and utilize our burgeoning productive capacity to do business within our own borders, thus enriching the lives of our own citizens. It would be a step, Paine said, toward the establishment of the first wholly self-sufficient nation in human history—and this example would shine brightly for the rest of the world.

“An equally difficult problem was the so-called Indian Proposition, because it involved negotiating and signing land and border treaties with a number of tribes. The expansion westward had provoked armed conflicts with several of these tribes. In the aftermath, a group of us was able to influence Congress to declare a cessation of warfare, on the notion that no ethical people should countenance bloodshed when diplomacy might carry the day. In the end, it did, and I firmly believe we are the better for it. Does the new free man on this continent wish to carry on the warring tradition of his European ancestors? Is that what we stand for?

“The abolition of slavery in 1807, again led by Paine, who had spoken out against it years earlier, during the Constitutional debates, provoked a radical alteration in the economy of the South. Cotton plantations were converted into farms, fruit orchards, and cattle ranches, and the South, accepting workers from the North as long-term leaseholders and part-owners of their own acreage, became the Food Basket of the nation, wealthy beyond all expectation.

“Now, we have a new enterprise, and it may bring us all into an unimaginable future. Following experiments conducted by several companies off the Northeast Coast, it has been announced that the flow of powerful currents in ocean narrows can be harnessed to produce immense quantities of electricity, and there is the prospect that this electricity can be transmitted considerable distances over land. Nearly a hundred promising locations on the East Coast and along our Southern shores are candidates for the innovation. There is the vision of thus developing enough energy for the entire Republic.

“I recall some words written by Mr. Paine shortly before his death: ‘There will come a day when we Americans, through our ingenuity, make scientific discoveries that stagger the soul and delight the mind. Our first tendency will be to profit from these inventions by peddling them abroad, in violation of our promise to resist foreign trade of any kind. Instead, this is what I suggest, and I believe it will make a point. Offer the theoretical innovations, the blueprints, in pure unrealized form, to the rest of the world, as our gift, and let them make of it what they will. My calculation is they will further their intentions to benefit the few at the expense of the many, because that is their way, the old way. Let them. To withhold our advances and try to protect them against all outside discovery will only raise the enmity of others toward us, and it will tempt some of us to deliver this knowledge in secrecy—a thing to be avoided at all cost.’

“Mr. Paine concluded: ‘We are a nation of builders and creators, and we have inherited this ability from our own joy in discovering what true freedom is, and enshrining it in the highest ramparts of our imaginations. We are close on the time when the entire territory of these United States will be blooming with abundance of every type. Then, however, we will not stop. We will go on, and in doing so we will continue to give shape to the freedom we earned. The greatness of this present campaign, I note, has come with never a sacrifice of the individual to the mob. In fact, it was and is individual genius that has sustained us all along, and will continue to reflect our devotion to that very principle, against which we may judge the propriety, reason, and common sense of any action. Our nation is alive at the very core, and may it always remain so.’

“In certain respects, Mr. Paine’s prediction was correct. As we have made our brilliant scientific inventions available to foreign nations, in blueprint form, those nations have utilized them to the ends tyrannies always do. But gradually, there has arisen, abroad, a notion that America needs to be understood at a more profound level. It is not so much that the fruits from our tree of liberty should be plucked at random; instead, these foreign peoples are learning that they must undergo a revolution of mind. They must dedicate themselves to the free individual, just as we did. They must engage in a new philosophy, whereby Free, Powerful, Moral, Creative, Individual are all the joining fires of their own liberty. They are heartened. They realize this philosophy is more than mere dreaming and useless speculation, because for the first time in human history, a nation has brought those ideas to life and sustained them, on its own soil. Our isolation was never bound in hatred of the human being, but only constituted an aversion to the age-old practices that brought pain, suffering, and destruction, as men considered they had License to commit any crimes and call those crimes just and proper. This is what we built walls against. And now we are the example, the living proof of a different way.

“We are strong. Our defenses against invasion and subterfuge are unshakable. We entertain no illusions that our very example to the rest of the world is alone sufficient to protect us.

“We go about our lives and our work, knowing how great our freedom is, and we look forward to the day when other peoples and nations will show us that they, too, have crossed their own chasms of despair. On that day, there will be no need for treaties or alliances. Firm friendship will suffice.

“To the rest of the world we say: This is who we are. This is what we have done. Our hopes go out to you. There is no sacrifice we can make to bring you into a new state of mind. That is your own prospect. Your attainments must be your own. There is no other path, because freedom, by its very nature, cannot be a gift. Build your own compass and navigate by it. If we are your North Star, our happiness is thereby increased…”

Exit From the Matrix

Could such an America have existed? I believe the answer revolves around the distinction between the free individual and the “individual of license.” That is the philosophical and psychological crux of the American Republic, and it was a debate that never took place in serious terms.

America, indeed, entangled itself in foreign adventures and alliances in many ways. It succumbed to a self-defeating version of free enterprise, and it paid the price.

Dare we even think about trying to restore what American could have been, at this late date? For such a massive and seeming impossible task, we first need to envision and comprehend the Ideal, the North Star, and in this article I have presented a preliminary sketch of it.

Jon Rappoport

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




By Jon Rappoport

October 25, 2010. 

As a medical investigative reporter for 28 years, I’ve seen public interest in health freedom come and go.  Right now, in 2010, it is at a low point. 

In the early 1990s, there was a tremendous fervor in America.  Millions of people, perceiving a threat from the federal government, realized they could be cut off from the right to improve their health according to their own wishes, judgments, and decisions.

In practical terms, health freedom has come to mean: the right to have access to the widest possible range of nutritional supplements, health practitioners, and treatments—with no government obstruction.   

Back in 1993, millions of Americans believed in that principle, and sent letters to Congress.  Rallies were held.  Celebrities appeared and supported traditional American liberty.

The final blow was struck with the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health Act of 1994 (DSHEA).  It appeared to promise the results citizens were looking for.  The FDA would not be permitted to limit access to the full range of nutritional supplements.    

Then the furor died down and people went back to their lives.  The internet grew into a giant.  Millions of pages discussing health issues appeared.  More freedom.  More access. 

But there has been an overall dampening of that spirit of the early 90s.  Many people believe the major battle has been won.

To examine whether this is the case, and whether the DSHEA Law is actually keeping Americans safe, I interviewed a widely revered lawyer, Jonathan Emord.

Emord is one of the nation’s leading free speech attorneys. He has defeated the Food and Drug Administration a remarkable seven times in federal court, more times than any other attorney in American history, earning him the title, “FDA Dragon Slayer.”

He is the 2007 recipient of the Cancer Control Society’s Humanitarian Award for “winning and preserving our great civil rights to life, to liberty, and to health freedoms.” 

Mr. Emord has practiced constitutional and administrative law in Washington, D.C. for the past twenty-five years. He is routinely consulted by industry, Congress, and the media on regulatory issues that affect health freedom. He is the author of four critically acclaimed books: Freedom, Technology and the First Amendment (1991); The Ultimate Price (2007); The Rise of Tyranny (2008); and Global Censorship of Health Information (2010).

I hoped Mr. Emord would give us real and detailed information on substantive issues facing Americans today.  He responded in kind, and went the extra mile.  He cleared up a number of popular confusions, and offered several predictions based on his long experience as an attorney in the field of health freedom.

One of the most critical points Mr. Emord makes:  The laws Congress passes can be twisted by the federal agencies responsible for overseeing those laws.  For example, the FDA has reinterpreted health law to suit its own slanted purposes.  This is an extreme violation of the Constitution, and it endangers the American Republic.  Federal agencies can, in effect, illegally become legislators and enforcers.

This is not a brush-off interview.  Mr. Emord provides a compelling and extensive case that should be read, studied, and acted on by other attorneys, health-freedom advocates, nutritional-company executives, and all citizens who value their freedom.

JON RAPPOPORT:  DSHEA is a federal law that was passed in 1994 to protect the public’s right to buy and take a wide range of nutritional supplements.  It’s considered our best bulwark against invasive actions by the FDA.  Did DSHEA really give us reliable protection?  Where do things stand today? 

Has the FDA eroded that law over the last 16 years?

Are we in trouble?

JONATHAN EMORD:  DSHEA has not given reliable protection against FDA censorship or FDA restrictions on access to products.  In certain respects the law itself is to blame because of flaws in its design; in other respects FDA has purposefully misconstrued the law to defeat its plain and intended meaning.   Congress has been derelict in counteracting the agency’s abuses—in no small measure because the drug industry benefits from those abuses and has such influence over the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Health Committee that no meaningful reforms ever occur. 

I was invited to comment on the bill when it was in draft form.  I said then that certain provisions in the bill would enable the FDA to censor health information and restrict access to supplements.  I opposed inclusion of those provisions to no avail. 

In particular, DSHEA requires supplement companies to file, with the government, notice of use of structure/function claims [statements about the positive effects of a nutrient on the structure or function of the body].  At the time the bill was being debated, I explained that since structure/function claims were protected speech under the First Amendment, there was no sound justification for requiring any company to submit them to the FDA for review, and that forcing companies to do so would invite FDA mischief.  I explained that inevitably FDA would use structure/function claim review to redefine claims from the category of structure/function to the category of prohibited drug claims, thus reducing the quantity of free speech available for expression.  That has happened.

The DSHEA permits the HHS Secretary to adopt good manufacturing practice guidelines [GMP] for supplements [how supplements should be made in the lab-factory].  I warned at the time the bill was being debated that this provision would invite considerable agency mischief, that FDA would use GMP regulation to put the industry under its thumb and stop the marketing of supplements on technicalities, thereby ridding the market of any product it did not like.  That is now happening.

We hired Steve Hanke, the Senior Economist on President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors, to evaluate the impact of the GMP rule.  He determined that the cost of compliance per year [to supplement companies] would exceed the finances of roughly one-third of all dietary supplement manufacturers, resulting in their elimination from the market.  In the GMP rule, FDA put the estimate more conservatively, but admitted that it would eliminate about one-quarter of the market.   The evaluation we were provided also concluded that there would be less variety of product available to consumers and that the cost of product would increase.  The FDA also admitted these effects in its GMP Final Rule.  FDA is vigorously pursuing its inspection agenda.  Within the next several years we should see the fall-out.  FDA has increased its reliance on direct court action instead of negotiated settlements of disputes with the industry.  That too will result in a loss of companies and a reduction in consumer offerings.

The DSHEA adulteration provision included language limiting FDA action to ban supplements to instances where the agency could prove that they presented a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury.  Congress intended for this to be a meaningful barrier to FDA, compelling the agency to prove supplements capable of causing harm before removing them from the market.  FDA has construed this language to give it virtually unbridled discretion.  In its ephedra ban, for example, FDA in effect rejected the Paracelsian model for assessing dietary supplement adulteration (i.e., dose determines toxicity) in favor of the precautionary principle.  Under that [precautionary] principle, if a nutrient causes harm at some dose level (a universal fact because everything, including, water, causes injury at some dose level), it would be presumed adulterated until the industry proved it safe beyond doubt at another dose level.  That shifted the burden of proof from FDA (where Congress placed it) to the industry (where FDA prefers that it be), enabling FDA to ban any nutrient it wishes on evidence readily available that at some dose level [at preposterously high doses] it causes harm.

The DSHEA included a provision to permit dietary supplement companies to distribute scientific literature on nutrient-disease associations [a nutrient can help alleviate a disease] to the public, including to their customers.  At the time, I warned that the provision included ambiguous requirements that FDA could construe to emasculate the speech-protective intent of Congress.  FDA has in fact gone farther than I had anticipated.  FDA completely eviscerated this provision by taking the position that any scientific publication that associates a nutrient with a [positive effect on a] disease…can still be forbidden by FDA because company provision of the literature to customers would constitute “evidence of an intent to sell the product as an unapproved new drug.”    

I also opposed the provision that required submission of a new dietary-ingredient notice to FDA for every nutrient first sold after the date of passage of the DSHEA.  Under that provision, if FDA does not object to the notice, the product is legally marketable.  I thought that if a product met the definition of a dietary supplement, FDA should have no power to prevent its marketing.  I warned that FDA could use its discretion to require a degree of proof for safety that was so high as to make it impossible for any new dietary ingredient to enter the American market.  While FDA has not construed it to be absolutely prohibited, it has made it very difficult to market lawfully any nutrient first introduced to the American market after the date of passage of DSHEA.

The dietary supplement industry is in trouble because the FDA harbors an unscientific bias against supplements, principally arising from its desire to protect the agency’s foremost regulatee, the drug industry.  I remember when folks were arguing that the GMPs were a good idea because industry leaders had connections with FDA and could assure that the agency would not abuse its power.  The dietary supplement industry has never had a very effective lobby and is a Lilliputian compared to the Leviathan drug industry.  I have often used the following metaphor to describe the power triangle at work.  The drug industry is like an enormous elephant, and the FDA is like a blind jockey atop the elephant incapable of altering the elephant’s course.  The dietary supplement industry is like a flea on the elephant.  So long as the flea does not irritate the elephant, everything proceeds smoothly, but as soon as the flea causes irritation, the elephant signals its displeasure and the blind jockey whacks about the surface of the elephant with his riding crop until he nails the flea.  Some in the trades and in the dietary supplement industry have an inflated view of their influence over FDA.  The drug industry they are not, and to the drug industry they are entirely beholden for any regulatory crumb that falls off that industry’s table.

RAPPOPORT:  Many commentaries about Codex have circulated on the Web over the past decade. 

What is Codex and what is its goal, vis-à-vis nutritional supplements?

Are the American people going to be forced to accept the provisions of Codex?  Is this a looming reality?

EMORD:  The Codex Alimentarius Commission is an organization of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization.  It is a standard setting body.  The standards it adopts each member state is expected to implement or, if not, to explain why it has chosen not to do so.  If the failure to adopt a standard caused a member state to discriminate against imports, that state could be challenged for its failure before the World Trade Organization.  More commonly, however, the Codex Commission serves as a forum for member states to exercise influence over one another in the adoption of domestic standards governing the availability of dietary supplements and the dose levels in the market.  By adopting a standard, as Codex has done, recommending that member states determine whether vitamins and minerals are safe at particular dose levels and ban them at dose levels not determined safe, the Commission places the onus on members to implement regulatory regimes based on dose and, implicitly, on the government-preferred precautionary principle.  That has encouraged the development of extensive EU prior restraints on the availability of dietary supplements in the market and has advanced the European attachment to and advocacy for the precautionary principle as the best means to assess toxicity.  In short, Codex has become a coercive force in favor of restrictions on dietary supplements and what can be said [what health claims can be made] about them.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration admires the European system of controls and can alter its interpretative construction of existing regulations to “harmonize” the American model more closely with the European model of regulation.   U.S. delegates to Codex should be opposing the movement toward greater restrictions on supplements and claims.  Instead, they quietly acquiesce in those restrictions and work toward effecting similar restrictions within the United States through reinterpretation of existing agency rules.

RAPPOPORT:  What can you tell us about the legal status of nutritional supplements in Europe?  Is the EU really destroying the public’s right to buy a wide range of nutrients?  What’s the situation?  Are there serious implications for America?

EMORD:  Under the European Union Directive governing dietary supplements, no dietary supplement is legal to market without first being found safe and bioavailable by the European Food Safety Authority [EFSA].  Moreover, no claim—not even structure/function claims—concerning health effects of a dietary supplement may appear on labels, in labeling, or in advertising of a dietary supplement in Europe without first being approved by EFSA.  This massive system of prior restraint has imposed a nutrition Dark Age on Europe.  As the EFSA determinations continue to be enforced by the EU member states, hundreds of products that had been safely consumed for decades will be removed from the market.  Also, claims will disappear, leaving Europeans in the dark as to the potential of nutrients to affect health and disease.

This system is a form of Lysenkoism or state created orthodoxy over science.  It is dumbing down the European market and removing from it health enhancing substances.  In the end, there will be a rise in age-related diseases for which risk is diminished by supplementation, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease.  EFSA will be responsible for creating a very unhealthy environment all in the guise of protected European consumers from anything less than certain science. 

In truth almost nothing in science is certain; nearly everything is inconclusive, yet we make decisions every day based on the inconclusive science—based on personal bets on the extent to which we think evidence of association [is] correctly indicative of ultimate outcome.  Remove from us that evidence of association by force of law and we become incapable of making informed bets. 

EU censorship of all information in the market not proven conclusively true necessarily censors information on nutrient-disease relationships that will in time be proven true.  That present censorship will cause those who would bet on the ultimate truths to be denied the opportunity of guessing right and, thus, they will lose out in potentially fatal ways. 

That is precisely what happened to the FDA.  We sued the FDA when it refused to authorize a claim associating folic acid with a reduction in the risk of neural tube defects [NTD].  FDA took the position that the association had not been proven that folic acid containing supplements could reduce NTD risk.  FDA censored the information for some six years, contributing to over 2,500 preventable NTDs each year and to countless NTD related abortions.  We ultimately defeated FDA’s censorship in Pearson v. Shalala.  That then led in time to FDA allowance of the claims when we beat the agency a second time for refusing to permit the claims.  The result has been a steady reduction in the incidence of NTDs in the United States as more and more women of child bearing age learn of the need to take folic acid supplements containing 400 (and preferably 800) mcgs each day before they become pregnant. 

What will the scientists within EFSA think of themselves if five, ten, twenty, or more years from now proof positive arises that certain nutrients they have condemned are associated with significant reductions in the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease such that tens of thousands of Europeans could have lived had they been given market access to information concerning the association years prior?

The EU ban on supplements and supplement claims (unless pre-approved by EFSA) is now in place.  EU depends on its member states for enforcement.  Each state is variously engaged in enforcement with some using more aggressive methods than others.  Over the next several years, however, we can expect to see crack downs in each of the member states with products being removed from the market following each crack down.

The present FDA admires the European example of broad censorship and restrictions on supplement access and is aggressively ridding from the American market claims and products.  We need to replace that administration and put into law new constraints on the exercise of government power.  I have written for Congressman Ron Paul a bill that would strip FDA of its prior restraint on claims, leaving the federal government limited to acting against claims it can prove with clear and convincing evidence to be false.  That bill, the Health Freedom Act, needs public support and would, if passed, usher in a new era of speech freedom for claims in the United States.

RAPPOPORT:  During the debate and run-up to the passage of ObamaCare, the national health insurance plan, I heard very little concern expressed in the health freedom community about the future implications of this bill.  It’s obvious to me that, with control being vested in the Department of Health and Human Services, we could eventually see the day when alternative health care and nutrition are edged out further and further from permitted treatments.  And citizens would be required to accept conventional medical treatments, whether they want them or not. 

Along a similar line, I see very little evidence, these days, of action being taken by health freedom groups and nutritional companies to keep health freedom alive.  Certainly, we see nothing like the enormous campaign launched in the early 1990s, when Congress received millions of letters protesting the actions of the FDA to limit our access to supplements, and celebrities came out of the woodwork to support health freedom.

What am I missing?  Is some back-door deal in place now?  Have nutritional companies been given assurances that, if they keep their heads down and their mouths shut, they’ll be allowed to do business as usual?

I’m at a loss to explain the eerie silence from groups that should be continuing to fight VERY VISIBLY for our freedom in this area.  I sense a soft attitude.

I was very active in the health freedom movement of the early 90s.  My approach was to go after the FDA for their ongoing crimes, to attack.  At the time, some people told me to dial it back, we were going to get a good bill passed in Congress, and aggressive actions could injure our cause.  Is that the prevailing mood now?  Is something on the table we don’t know about?  A new bill?

EMORD:  There has been a recurrent pattern by supplement trade groups and certain leading companies in the industry (epitomized by the industry move to draft and advocate FDA adoption of GMP rules giving FDA broad discretion) to engage in self-flagellation.   In its nascent, more competitive years, the industry more stridently opposed FDA regulation.  The movement of consumers away from specialty supplement brands towards less costly generic varieties combined with bad economic times contributed to consolidation of the supplement market, and certain industry leaders have for the last several years moved away from robust contest with FDA to compromise with the agency.  There is an economic motive for this, to be sure.  Large [supplement] industry players believe they benefit from greater FDA regulation because it creates costly barriers to entry that keep out smaller competitors. 

There is also a mistaken view promoted by certain industry trade associations that if the industry confesses fault to FDA and Congress, even when no fault exists, and professes a keen interest in ridding itself of bad practices, even when those practices are unrepresentative of the industry, it will curry favor with the powers that be.  Instead, it has provided those powers with more ammunition to use against the industry, compounding the industry’s problems and creating a major public relations problem. 

The fact is dietary supplements with few exceptions are the safest ingestible products, far safer than foods and far safer than drugs.  That is a remarkable fact that one would think the industry would recite at every turn.  Instead, certain trade associations and industry leaders voice grave concerns about supplement safety and agree to greater federal regulation on the notion that greater regulation is either inevitable or will favor the market position of the leading companies.  To listen to what Congressmen Waxman or Dingell have to say, you would swear that supplements were fissile materials.  It is the rare exception rather than the rule that a dietary supplement causes harm.

By buying into the self-flagellation argument (the argument of supplement opponents that there is something inherently wrong with the market that necessitates extraordinary new regulation lest we all succumb), the industry is inviting its own demise.

Industry leaders who buy into this on the notion that it will reduce competition and shore up their market shares are in fact deluded, however, because, in the end, the FDA is the drug industry’s, not the supplement industry’s, to control.  In other words, FDA will be pleased to expand its regulatory power over the supplement industry but not for the benefit of the supplement industry’s leaders.  Rather, FDA will invariably use greater regulatory power over the supplement industry to aid its favored regulatee, the drug industry, not to shore up the market share of large supplement companies.  The drug industry, not the supplement industry, holds almost all the cards at FDA and in Congress.  The supplement industry has relatively little clout by comparison.

Instead of engaging in self-flagellation, the industry ought to refute false representations against supplement safety and efficacy and promote public awareness of the many benefits supplements bring to consumers.  Supplements are rarely the cause of human injury.  The science concerning their health enhancing effects abounds and grows weekly.  The potential for nutrients to reduce the risk of, prevent, and even treat disease is profound.  Science is unraveling truths about human biochemistry that support the conclusion that our lifestyle choices very much affect our disease risks and that healthful living in reliance on organic foods, above levels of certain key nutrients, reduction in stress, and faith and hope have a profound impact on our health, our quality of life, and our longevity.

Rather than engage in self-flagellation, the industry should celebrate its strengths, advertise them continually to the public and the government, and act to defend on grounds of principle the freedom to market and sell safe and potentially life-saving and health enhancing supplements. 

RAPPOPORT:  I have searched the most popular conservative radio and television shows and websites and blogs—in other words, the places where one would expect to find a defense of our freedom to choose whatever means we want to, to maintain and improve our health—and I come up with a big fat zero.  Why do you think the silence there on this issue is deafening?

EMORD:  There may be some truth to the notion that because the media are financed in no small measure from drug ads, there is a natural economic interest in avoiding communication that attacks drug safety and efficacy.   The FDA and the FTC have not been shy about informing media of regulatory risks associated with supplement advertising, thus creating a general chilling effect on the interest of media to present supplement advertising and discuss supplement health effects.  Finally, as with many areas of emerging science, there is still widespread ignorance in the media on the association between nutrients and disease.  That ignorance is forged into prejudice when negative press on supplement-disease associations is widely disseminated, but positive press on those associations is more often than not ignored or given short shrift.

RAPPOPORT:  This past summer, Congress took up a food safety bill (S.510).  What’s its present status?  Does its wording really suggest we may be subject to Codex regulations vis-à-vis the sale of nutritional supplements?  What are the shortcomings of the bill?

EMORD:  This bill is a significant threat to the supplement industry.  It contains a provision that permits FDA to charge the hourly cost of its inspections of [nutritional-supplement] establishments if the agency finds a violation warranting a re-inspection.  That creates an incentive for FDA to find fault on first inspections and to do re-inspections as a revenue raiser.  The bill also includes a provision that encourages FDA to evaluate harmonization between domestic and foreign regulation.  That invites the agency to construe its regulations to effect a change in them favoring the EU model.  At a time when the FDA is in great disrepute for abusing its powers (approving unsafe drugs, failing to force the withdrawal of unsafe drugs form the market, and censoring health information concerning supplements), the Congress is about to entrust the agency with yet more vast new regulatory powers.  That is a big mistake.  Congress should be moving rapidly in the other direction, taking away power from this corrupt agency.  The problem is that Congress, too, is quite corrupt.  Senator Harry Reid said that he would not move the bill forward in the Senate until after the election.  The election is likely to result in Republican control of the House and either Republican control of the Senate or a loss of Democratic dominance in the Senate.  If that happens, S. 510 could become a casualty of an angry electorate desirous of stopping the regulatory train before it leaves the station.

RAPPOPORT:  In a radio interview we did some months ago, you made a number of points that need much wider dissemination.  I’d like you to expand on two of those points.  First, you said we have a federal government that, actually and disastrously, is run by and through its regulatory agencies, whose employees stay on during one administration after another.  And two, despite your string of unprecedented victories in court against the FDA, you have the sense that the Agency is quite prepared to ignore the court rulings limiting its illegal intrusions into our affairs—in fact, the Agency fully intends to carry on without paying one iota of attention to those court rulings…making it, in my eyes, a rogue Agency.

EMORD:  In my book, The Rise of Tyranny, I explain how our federal government has been transformed from a limited federal republic into a bureaucratic oligarchy since the 1930s.  Under our Constitution, Congress is vested with the power to make laws.  We have a separation of powers that prevents any one branch from exercising combined legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and we have a non-delegation doctrine, that forbids those branches vested with those powers from delegating them to other entities.  In the 1930’s, the Supreme Court at first held efforts by President Roosevelt to delegate governing power to bureaucratic agencies unconstitutional.  In response, President Roosevelt advocated the passage of legislation that would have packed the court, adding a justice for every one sitting who had reached 70 and one-half years, thus altering the composition of the Court to receive jurists who would favor the New Deal agencies.  The bill was not passed but caused what the media of the day referred to as “the switch in time that saved nine.”  In 5 to 4 majority decisions, the Court switched from defending the separation of powers and the non-delegation doctrines to abandoning them.  Since that time, despite the creation of over 183 federal agencies, many with these combined powers, there has not been a single instance in which the Supreme Court has held the delegation of governing power outside the [three basic] constitutional branches to be a violation of the non-delegation doctrine.  As a result, today over ninety percent of all federal law is not the product of our elected representatives but regulation promulgated by unelected heads of the bureaucratic agencies.  We founded this country on the notion that no American should be taxed without being represented, and yet today we are taxed and those who create almost all laws governing us are unelected.  James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington each stated that if ever our country were to reach a point where legislative, executive, and judicial powers were combined in single hands that would be the end of liberty and the birth of tyranny.  Sadly, I believe we are there.  A bill I wrote for Ron Paul would restore constitutional governance by preventing any regulation from having the force of law until it was passed into law by Congress in the way the Constitution requires.  That bill, the Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act, is pending in Congress.

RAPPOPORT:  A more general question: From your experience and training as a constitutional lawyer, what is your view on what the Constitution put in place, through word and intent, regarding individual freedom?  Constitutionally, what is the meaning and range of freedom?

EMORD:  Ours is designedly a Constitution of liberty.  It is remarkably unique.  The Declaration of Independence perhaps best sums up the legal creed that underlies the Constitution.  Just governments are instituted among men to protect the rights of the governed.  Just governments are derived from the consent of the governed. When governments become destructive of those rights, it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish them so as to restore governance in protection of, rather than derogation of, those rights. 

The Constitution is an extraordinary document precisely because it is a written limit on the power of the state.  Before it, no government on earth had such written limits.  Under it, no power rightfully exists in the state except that which is expressly given to it by the instrument.  It enumerates the powers of Congress; it separates legislative, executive, and judicial powers; it makes law-making the province of an elected branch but only for enumerated purposes; it makes war declaration the province of that same branch, albeit war prosecution the province of the executive.  It makes treaty negotiation the province of the executive, but reserves consent to the Senate for treaties negotiated.  It makes the individual sovereign by limiting federal powers, preserving state powers as a check on the federal ones, and forbids in the Bill of Rights government from acting beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution against the reserved rights of the states and the people.  Those reserved rights create for us a universe of freedom that is meant to be extremely broad.  Its scope is perhaps best conveyed in Thomas Jefferson’s definition of liberty: 

“Of liberty I would say that in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will.  But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.  I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

That ideal, that scope of freedom, we do not presently have because the plain and intended meaning of the Constitution is now largely dishonored.

RAPPOPORT:  What is your view of the so-called “living, evolving Constitution” promoted by many, many judges?

I have given much thought to this.  My thinking is reflected in my books Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment and Global Censorship of Health Information. 

In brief, the Constitution’s words spring from underlying principles.  Those principles are static.  Yet, as we progress in science, technology, and knowledge, we are confronted with new facts.  That environment, the life of the Republic, is dynamic.  The Constitution permits amendment through a precise process prescribed in Article V.  Its meaning, i.e., the principles designedly protected by its words, may not be reasoned out of the document or altered, except by amendment in the way the document designates.  Consequently, those principles must be preserved in the face of the evolution of our Republic, but that is not to say facts arising from that evolution, because not previously known, justify departure from first principles.  To the contrary, the aim must be to ensure that first principles are upheld despite the evolution.  So, for example, while the electronic media was not known to the Founders, it is nevertheless media and therefore should be entitled to the same full First Amendment protections afforded the print media.  We thus preserve freedom for the message (the aim of the First Amendment) regardless of the medium.

RAPPOPORT:  When a pharmaceutical company is found guilty of pushing a drug on the public it knew was dangerous; and when the drug has been shown to have caused considerable injury and death; when law suits for grievous harm result in huge money judgments; why aren’t persons in that company prosecuted criminally and thrown in prison for long sentences?  What keeps that from happening?

EMORD:  You raise an excellent question.  I believe those who knowingly introduce into the market substances that are likely to cause mortal injury, not just those in industry but also those in government, should be prosecuted criminally for homicide or, at a minimum, criminal negligence.

RAPPOPORT:  On what Constitutional basis does the federal government pour billons of dollars into the National Institutes of Health, a federal agency, for ongoing medical research? 

EMORD:  None.   Ideally, the federal government should be limited to Justice, State, Treasury and Defense.  The health and safety power was meant to be a state power, and I think we in this and many other respects have exceeded the intended bounds of the federal government.

RAPPOPORT:  Could you comment on the legality/illegality of ways in which the government partners with conventional medicine, making it the preferred method of health treatment in all areas.   

EMORD:  On the state level, medical boards engage in anti-competitive regulation, largely designed to deem it a failure of the standard of care for a physician to innovate in medicine and create a market for the innovation that would harm the economic interests of those who practice conventionally.  On the federal level, Medicare establishes treatment orthodoxies through its coverage determinations that bleed into all areas of care and invite charges of abuse for those physicians who would provide a different degree, nature, or quality of treatment than is accepted by Medicare.  That condition is destined to worsen as the Health Reform law causes care for all Americans to be federally scrutinized and subject to a Medicare-type system of second-guessing of physician services.  The FDA contributes to this regime because nothing can be used for treatment of disease in the United States unless it has been approved by the FDA as a drug.  Because it costs on average about $600 million to get a drug approved in the United States, tens of thousands of potential therapeutic agents are never legally available to treat patients and, thus, secure a monopoly for drug companies in the treatment of Americans.  FDA is an example of industry capture.  The drug industry controls the agency.  The drug industry also largely dictates the content of medical education and the prescription practices of physicians.  Its influence is pervasive and reinforces allopathic medicine at every turn.

RAPPOPORT:  What do you think our best strategy is, here in America, to head off what the FDA is going to do?

EMORD:  In my book The Rise of Tyranny I provide a detailed explanation of the changes needed to restore the Framer’s Republic.  In short, I urge people to vote out of office those who have not supported deregulation and to press members of Congress to support two of the bills I have written for Congressman Ron Paul—the Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act and the Health Freedom Act.  The former would prevent any regulatory agency from enforcing any regulation it promulgated until that regulation is passed into law by Congress in the way in which the Constitution designates.  This would prevent the agencies from exercising unchecked power and would restore the law-making function to Congress, preventing a lot of abusive regulation from ever being enforced.   The latter bill would disarm FDA of any power to require advance review of claims for supplements.  That system of prior restraint violates the First Amendment and should be dismantled.  Those who would defraud the public by falsely advertising their products should be prosecuted after the fact but those who wish to tell the truth should not be required to convince the FDA before they are allowed to speak.   There are many other reforms we need to institute, including removing from FDA the drug approval power and vesting in universities, through a blinded system, drug reviews so that science, rather than politics and favoritism, determines the outcome of drug evaluations.