After mass shootings: they’re not just coming for guns, they’re coming for brains

After mass shootings: they’re not just coming for guns, they’re coming for brains

By Jon Rappoport

“Planners intent on deploying mind control follow a pattern. They claim they’re curing brain disorders. They’re doing valuable work. They’re only focusing on a tiny percentage of the population. But then, as you dig deeper, you discover they’re really talking about all human beings, who are, unfortunately, wired in the wrong way and can’t ascend to the next level of societal evolution. Therefore, ‘brain science’ has to engage in a wholesale program to retrofit the human species.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

A January 2018 National Geographic article runs a bold headline: THE SCIENCE OF GOOD AND EVIL.

The lead sentence carries considerable freight: “Researchers have found that the way our brains are wired can affect how much empathy we feel toward others—a key measuring stick of good and evil.”

Good and evil—suddenly transferred to the realm of science.

In the aftermath of mass shootings, it’s about guns. But hidden in the background is the notion that the bigger target is the brain.

Read this carefully from the National Geographic piece: “…in recent decades researchers have made significant advances toward understanding THE SCIENCE OF WHAT DRIVES GOOD AND EVIL. Both seem to be linked to a key emotional trait: empathy, which is AN INTRINSIC ABILITY OF THE BRAIN to experience how another person is feeling. Researchers have found that empathy is the kindling that fires compassion in our hearts, impelling us to help others in distress. Studies also have traced violent, psychopathic, and antisocial behaviors to a lack of empathy, which appears to stem from IMPAIRED NEURAL CIRCUITS…” (Emphasis is mine).

An unproven hypothesis emerges: brain deficits account for the majority of EVIL.

Fixing the brain is the answer, of course. How much do you trust medical authorities and societal planners to carry out that task? I’m not only talking about massive incompetence—I’m talking about their desire to go overboard and opt for a wide-ranging reconstruction of human beings.

In order to make humans good.

In order to make them empathetic.

In order to make them endless altruists.

In order to eradicate the notion that Self is a prime value.

We’re looking at an overreaching overhaul of the human personality.

“Don’t think about yourself. Think only about what others need.”

Infamous Yale mind-control researcher, Jose Delgado, spelled out the position in a 1965 interview with the New York Times: “The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective. Man does not have the right to develop his own mind…We must electronically control the brain…”

This radical refit is justified on the basis of “science”; and of course, the public has been tuned up to believe you mustn’t doubt science.

The National Geographic article quotes a 2011 published journal paper: “…the psychopath must think about right and wrong while the rest of us feel it.”

What? Really? Thinking is bad? The myriad philosophers over the ages who have written about good and evil instead needed to just FEEL? The men who framed the Constitution, instead of contemplating arbitrary power and limiting it, because it is evil, should merely have written a brief exhortation to FEEL empathy for others and then walked away from their work?

Hopefully, you see where this is going. Organized globalists are selling altruism like hotcakes, and they’re using brain research to justify it.

And they’re intent on rewiring brains to force it.

They’re not only focused on violent psychopaths. They’re focused on the human race.

They pretend that the independent individual is too close to the edge of psychopathy. Therefore—experiment on the brain until he is radically diminished and weakened, and becomes a card-carrying member of the share-and-care “human community.”

On that day, all will be well.

Amen.

In his 1962 novel, A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Burgess wrote about this transformation: “Padre, these are subtleties. We’re not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime—and…with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He [the violent psychopath] will [after “adjustment”] be your true Christian: ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the very heart at the thought even of killing a fly! Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it [a brainwashing technique] works…The common people will let it go. Oh yes, they’ll sell liberty for a quieter life. That is why they must be led, sir, driven, pushed!”

Unfortunately, many people can’t distinguish between a person choosing to be good and being forced to be “good” through repellent methods of mind control. Only the appearance of an effect is important: “He is behaving. That’s fine. He’s acceptable.”

“Well, we had to rewire his brain in order to achieve this result.”

“What difference does it make? If that’s what you had to do, that’s what he needed.”

And then, one day in the future, that smug and comfortable person is told he, too, has a problem which must be fixed. For the greater good.

Suddenly, as a doctor hovers over him, he changes his mind about a wholesale program to cure civilization.

I’ll leave you with this quote from Andrew W. Saul, a nutritionist who has had much experience working in prisons. The Chicago Tribune published his op-ed piece on December 21, 2017.

“Fifteen years ago, the BBC reported that a double-blind, placebo-controlled study found that adding vitamins [and essential fatty acids] to the diets of inmates at a maximum-security institution cut offenses by 25 percent. The greatest reduction was for serious offenses, including violence, which fell by 40 percent. There was no such reduction for those on placebos. The study’s researchers claim that improving diets could be a cost-effective way of reducing crime in communities and also reducing the prison population. To quote lead study author Bernard Gesch, ‘The improvement was huge’.” [See (2002) British Journal of Psychiatry 181 22-8. The study reports a 35.1 percent “reduction of offences,” compared with baseline numbers, after prisoners took supplements for just two weeks.]

Somehow, those vitamins worked around the claim that the prisoners had defective brains, which predisposed them to EVIL, and impaired neural circuits, which blocked their empathetic responses.

But mainstream researchers aren’t interested in the slightest. They want to force brains into new shapes.

That’s their job.

On behalf of planners of a new world.

Exit From The Matrix: ancient Tibet

Exit From The Matrix: ancient Tibet

by Jon Rappoport

April 20, 2018

In my search for a different approach to individual consciousness, I came upon the history of early Tibet, before the society hardened into a theocracy.

Creative power was the intense focus of the early Tibetans.

Several of their key exercises and techniques were all about having students mentally create, and sustain, complex images in voluminous and meticulous detail. That was difficult enough, to be sure. Far more difficult was the next aspect of their practice: get rid of these creations.

Put them there; take them away.

The Tibetans were committed to living life on the level of imagination, with all that implied.

And what does it imply?

A new psychology. A psychology of unlimited possibility:

A person’s past, his history, his problems, his relationships are all framed against the wider context of what he can imagine and then invent, create, in the world.

Living through and by imagination long enough, the individual discovers that his prior relationships are transformed. They no longer set themselves up as questions or problems.

He is operating from a platform that affords an utterly different, original, and unexpected outcome.

Primarily from the Tibetans, I developed a great many easily doable exercises for the modern individual, living in this time; exercises that would expand the scope and range of his imagination and creative power.

I included sets of these techniques in my collection, Exit From The Matrix. Here are the contents of that collection. I hope you will consider ordering it:


exit from the matrix


Here are the contents of my collection Exit From The Matrix:

First, my audio presentations:

* INTRODUCTION: HOW TO USE THE MATERIALS IN EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* 50 IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* FURTHER IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* ANESTHESIA, BOREDOM, EXCITEMENT, ECSTASY

* ANCIENT TIBET AND THE UNIVERSE AS A PRODUCT OF MIND

* YOU THE INVENTOR, MINDSET, AND FREEDOM FROM “THE EXISTENCE PROGRAM”

* PARANORMAL EXPERIMENTS AND EXERCISES

* CHILDREN AND IMAGINATION

* THE CREATIVE LIFE AND THE MATRIX/IMAGINATION

* PICTURES OF REALITY AND ESCAPE VELOCITY FROM THE MATRIX

* THIS WOULD BE A VERY DIFFERENT FUTURE

* MODERN ZEN

* THE GREAT PASSIONS AND THE GREAT ANDROIDS

Then you will receive the following audio seminars I have previously done:

* Mind Control, Mind Freedom

* The Transformations

* Desire, Manifestation and Fulfillment

* Altered States, Consciousness, and Magic

* Beyond Structures

* The Mystery and Magic of Dialogue

* The Voyage of Merlin

* Modern Alchemy and Imagination

* Imagination and Spiritual Enlightenment

* Dissolving Stress

* The Paranormal Project

* Zen Painting for Everyone Now

* Past Lives, Archetypes, and Hidden Sources of Human Energy

* Expression of Self

* Imagination Exercises for a Lifetime

* Old Planet, New Planet, New Mind

* The Era of Magic Returns

* Your Power Revealed

* Universes Without End

* Relationships

* Building a Business for Success

I have included an additional bonus section:

* My book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies (pdf document)

* My book, The Ownership of All Life (pdf document)

* A long excerpt from my briefly published book, Full Power (pdf document)

* My 24 articles in the series, “Coaching the Coaches” (pdf document)

And these audio seminars:

* The Role of Medical Drugs in Human Illness

* Longevity One: The Mind-Body Connection

* Longevity Two: The Nutritional Factors

(All the audio presentations are mp3 files and the documents and books are pdf files. You download the files upon purchase. There is no physical ship.)

What has been called The Matrix is a series of layers. These layers compose what we call Reality. Reality is not merely the consensus people accept in their daily lives. It is also a personal and individual conception of limits. It is a perception that these limits are somehow built into existence. But this is not true.

What I’ve done here is remove the lid on those perceived limits. This isn’t an intellectual undertaking. It’s a way to open up space and step on to a new road, with new power.

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.

Huge drug (pharma) money changes hands in high-level financial deals—why?

Huge drug (pharma) money changes hands in high-level financial deals—why?

By Jon Rappoport

These are notes on money-musical-chairs among drug companies. Big-time money.

Clues as to why there is such a tidal wave of cash:

One: Consolidation, of course. Fewer giant companies, who have greater control over the market, are too big to fail, and have more lobbying power with governments.

Two: The companies are making deals left and right to temporarily give stockholders and prospective investors the impression that “something good” is happening, while concealing the fact that numerous new drugs in the testing pipeline are failing to produce beneficial results, and are unsafe. Sleight of hand.

Three: The companies are making very favorable loan deals with banks, enabling them to buy out other drug firms. Before the loan repayments are completed, the companies will have sold themselves (and the debt) to bigger fish.

Four: A drug company knows its development of a new drug is fraudulent, and is riddled with illegal practices, such as lack of informed consent in recruiting volunteers for clinical trials. So it sells the research unit for that drug to another company, making it their problem.

Here are $$ details. Follow the astonishing money trails.

From: https://www.fiercepharma.com/m-a/sanofi-advent-international-nearing-eu2b-deal-for-european-generics-business-report:

“Other bidders may have dropped out of an auction for Sanofi’s European generics unit, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t found a buyer. The drugmaker is nearing an agreement and could announce a sale in the next several days, Bloomberg reports.

“Sanofi’s board could meet as soon as Monday to vote on a deal worth about €2 billion ($2.48 billion), according to the news service’s sources. Of course, the sources note that the deal isn’t final and that it could ultimately fail to materialize.

“The news follows previous decisions by private equity firm Nordic Capital and Indian drugmaker Torrent Pharma to bow out of negotiations, worried that the unit is too pricey, according to press reports. PE firm Carlyle Group and Brazil’s EMS remained in deal talks through final bidding, according to Bloomberg.

“And that’s not the only deal Sanofi has had in the works. The company has been toiling to reshape itself for several years, and as part of that effort on Monday sold 12 “noncore” pharma brands to Cooper-Vemedia for €158 million, a spokesperson confirmed.

“The drugmaker talked about selling the business in 2015, but CEO Olivier Brandicourt made other M&A moves after coming on board instead. In 2016, Brandicourt offloaded Sanofi’s animal health unit Merial in an asset swap with Boehringer Ingelheim, getting BI’s consumer health business in return.

“The drugmaker hasn’t only slimmed down, though. Sanofi purchased nanobody biotech Ablynx for $4.8 billion and hemophilia-focused Bioverativ for $11.6 billion in sizable deals early this year. Afterward, Brandicourt said the acquisitions “dramatically reshape our portfolio in specialty care” and boost the company’s R&D presence.”

Here is more: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/takeda-still-eyeing-a-buy-shire-casts-off-oncology-for-2-4b:

“With suitor Takeda circling Shire, the Dublin-based target has pulled off a deal of its own.

“On Monday, Shire announced it had agreed to hand its oncology business to France’s Servier for $2.4 billion, a move it said would sharpen its focus on rare diseases. And more streamlining deals are likely on the way.

“While the oncology business has delivered high growth and profitability, we have concluded that it is not core to Shire’s longer-term strategy,” CEO Flemming Ornskov said in a statement, adding that “we will continue to evaluate our portfolio for opportunities to unlock further value … with selective disposals of nonstrategic assets.”

“Meanwhile, Servier will land an “immediate presence” in the U.S. with products such as Oncaspar, which Shire nabbed in its Baxalta buyout. Baxter had bought the med to diversify its pharmaceutical portfolio before spinning it off into Baxalta, which Shire later picked up after a monthslong pursuit.

“The oncology move makes things interesting for Japanese drugmaker Takeda, which late last month made its buyout interest in Shire public.

“The deal should … boost Shire’s negotiating position on asking price in the current offer period with Takeda, in our view,” Jefferies analyst Peter Welford wrote in a note to clients.”

And more: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/mylan-s-advanced-talks-for-merck-kgaa-s-4b-plus-otc-unit-report:

“Pfizer may have run into snags trying to sell its consumer health business, but Merck KGaA may be in advanced discussions with a player over its own for-sale unit. And that player is Mylan, according to reports.

“The two companies are negotiating a price between $4.3 billion and $4.9 billion, Reuters says, although there’s no certainty they’ll lock down a deal. The German drugmaker has also reportedly chit-chatted with private equity groups about a sale, according to the news service.

“Mylan, for its part, denies the report. “Although it’s Mylan’s policy to not comment on rumors or speculation, given the egregious inaccuracy of reports issued this morning, the company is compelled to confirm that the Reuters article is untrue,” the company said in a statement.

“It’s not the first time Mylan has gone after a deal in the consumer biz. It spent the better part of 2015 in hostile pursuit of store-brand specialist Perrigo, whose shareholders ultimately rejected Mylan’s offer. And in the wake of that offer, it snapped up Sweden’s Meda.

“It’s also not the first time Mylan and Merck KGaA have talked transaction, Reuters noted. Back in 2007, Mylan took Merck’s generics unit off its hands in a $6.7 billion deal that also sent severe allergy blockbuster EpiPen over to the copycat.

“Meanwhile, Pfizer, which boasts a larger OTC business than Merck’s, has been watching its own sale options dwindle as retail kings such as Amazon threaten OTC drugmakers’ sales. Late last month, both Reckitt and GlaxoSmithKline withdrew from the bidding process, though rumor has it there’s a small chance the New York drugmaker could still unload the asset to Procter & Gamble.”

And now, here is a list of top pharma mergers and acquisitions in the past several years: https://blog.proclinical.com/top-mergers-and-acquisitions-pharmaceutical-industry:

10. Abbott-Alere, $5.8bn, 2016
“At the start of February American pharmaceutical giant Abbot agreed to buy Alere Inc. for $5.8bn or $56 a share to become the lead holder in the market for medical tests and diagnostics. Alere which has annual sales of about $2.5bn makes tests for infections such as malaria, HIV, dengue fever and tuberculosis. Abbott stated that at the end of 2015 its diagnostic sales were $4.6bn, a figure which would now exceed the $7bn-a-year mark. Abbott currently has more than 73,000 employees and revenues in 2015 reached $20.405bn.”

9. Mylan-Meda, $7.2bn, 2016
“February, 2016 saw Mylan agree a takeover of Swedish drug maker Meda for $7.2bn. The new company is expected to have 2015 sales of $11.8bn, and the deal also boosts Mylan’s range of branded and generic medications and gives it an additional leg-up in the area of over-the-counter medications that will now achieve sales of around $1bn a year. Mylan had been in pursuit of Meda for a while before the deal closed, having two offers rejected in 2014 that were valued at $6.7bn. Mylan is a global generic and specialty pharmaceutical company registered in the Netherlands with headquarters in the UK. It currently provides more than 30,000 pharmaceutical jobs.”

8. Celgene-Receptos, $7.2bn, 2015
“In August, 2015, American biotechnology company Celgene acquired Receptos for $7.2bn and its phase III autoimmune treatment for ulcerative colitis and multiple sclerosis. If all goes to plan the drug could end up bringing in peak sales as high as $6bn. Celgene was founded in 1986 and currently has more than 4,100 employees. In 2015 the company achieved a 21% year-on-year growth in product sales reaching $9.2bn.”

7. Endo International-Par Pharmaceutical, $8.1bn, 2015
“Endo International, headquartered in Ireland and the USA, is a global specialty pharmaceutical company employing more than 6,200 people. In September last year, it completed its buyout of Par Pharmaceutical in a deal worth $8.1bn. The acquisition firmly establishes Endo as one of the world’s fastest growing and notable generics businesses and will help the company to position itself for strong growth in the years to come.”

6.Alexion Pharmaceuticals-Synageva BioPharma, $8.4bn, 2015
“In June, 2015 Connecticut-based Alexion Pharmaceuticals successfully completed its acquisition of Synageva BioPharma for $8.4bn. The acquisition strengthened Alexion’s global leadership in devastating and rare diseases, and created one of the strongest rare disease portfolios in the biotech industry. Alexion was founded in 1992 and employs more than 3,000 people serving 50 countries worldwide.”

5. Valeant-Salix Pharmaceuticals, $15.8bn, 2015
“March, 2015, saw Canadian-based Valeant acquire Salix Pharmaceuticals for $15.8bn, adding to its portfolio of gastroenterology drugs. The $158-per-share deal came after reports that Valeant had been competing with Shire for a takeover of Salix. In addition to the $15.8bn price tag, Valeant would absorb $5bn in debt and the merger would provide $500m a year in cost-saving opportunities and cut the tax paid on Salix revenues which stood at 35%. Valeant currently employs around 17,000 individuals and achieved revenues of $10.5bn in 2015.”

4. Pfizer-Hospira, $17bn, 2015
“US-based pharmaceutical giant Pfizer agreed to buy Hospira in a $17bn takeover that would expand its portfolio of drugs and add Hospira’s portfolio of sterile injectable treatments and biosimilar drugs to Pfizer’s broad offerings. At the time Hospira had 11 biosimilar molecules in its pipeline, with the market value for biosimilars and sterile injectables set to reach around $90bn by 2020. The deal was expected to provide around $800m a year in cost-savings by 2018. Pfizer achieved revenues of $49bn last year and currently provides more than 78,000 pharmaceutical jobs.”

3. AbbVie-Pharmacyclics, $21bn, 2015
“In May, 2015, AbbVie closed a deal to buy California-based Pharmacyclics for $21bn. The massive deal would boost AbbVie’s cancer portfolio substantially. AbbVie currently relies heavily on its ageing $10bn-a-year auto inflammatory drug Humira, and 2 years earlier split from its partner Abbott in the hopes of finding large merger deals to fill its sparse drugs pipeline. One of the driving factors for the merger was Pharmacyclics blood cancer drug, Imbruvica, which is expected to achieve worldwide sales of $5.8bn by 2020. AbbVie achieved revenues of $22bn in 2015 and currently employs more than 28,000 people.”

2.Shire-Baxalta, $32bn, 2016
“In January 2016 Shire finally closed a deal to acquire Baxalta for $32bn after 6 months of negotiations. Shire stated that the new firm would be able to achieve double-digit sales growth to over $20bn by 2020, with about two-thirds of this revenue coming from immunology, neuroscience, haematology, lysosomal storage disorders, gastrointestinal diseases and heredity angioedema. Both companies are predicting around $500m in annual cost-savings within the first 3 years, with the combined tax rate down 7% to 16%.”

1.Teva-Allergan Generics, $40.5bn, 2015
“July, 2015, saw Israeli firm Teva buy Allergan’s generics unit for a massive $40.5bn in cash and stock. The deal meant that Allergan received $33.75bn in cash and Teva shares valued at $6.75bn, giving it a 10% stake in Teva. Investors had been pressuring Teva to make a major deal as generics erosion meant that the firm could face severe losses from its $4.2bn a year multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone. Teva hopes that the deal with Allergan generics will establish a foundation for long-term sustainable growth and assist in building a strong portfolio of products in both generics and specialty areas. Teva achieved revenues of around $20bn in 2014, and currently employs more than 40,000 individuals.”

The meaning of my work

The meaning of my work

By Jon Rappoport

My work as a researcher and writer goes back 50 years. My work as a reporter goes back 35 years.

Basically, I investigate and uncover scandals involving deep crimes, because those crimes illuminate ways in which controlling entities are creating reality for the planetary population.

The crimes are bad enough in and of themselves, but in the long run, using them to invent a wrap-around hypnotic reality for Earth is a massive trap. It traps the mind, it traps perception, it traps the individual creative impulse…

…Unless and until the individual understands what is going on—AND UNDERSTANDS IT FROM A VIEWPOINT OF CREATIVITY.

What do I mean by that?

This is what I mean: “Well, this is how they are inventing reality for me. Therefore, it is possible to invent reality. Therefore, it is possible for me to invent my own superior reality…AS A MANIFESTATION OF MY DEEPEST DESIRES.”

Now we are talking about true independence. And only now.

And what is the starting point for the individual to invent his own reality? If you want to go back in time to ancient Hermetic philosophy, to the practices of early Tibetan schools, to certain Western alchemists, you come up with the same answer:

Imagination.

This is the apex of mind, this is power, this is the resolution of inner conflict.

This supersedes prevailing cultures, this supersedes propaganda, and most important, this supersedes the individual forming the belief that he is a victim (and must therefore attack the free and independent and intensely creative person).

If there is a problem, you are the solver. You are the one who imagines a way to solve it. You are the dynamic force. You are the initiator. You are the one who asks a question and answers it. You are the one who surmounts the notion of problems and, by inventing reality, gets out ahead of chronic problems.

As I said in a talk I gave several years ago, I’m selling you to you.

Most people, if they have any interest beyond the details of daily life, are looking for a metaphysical structure they can they hang their hats on. They hope they can find a metaphysic “out there” that explains life and existence, and by attaching their thoughts to it they will find greater illumination and consciousness. However, this solution brings diminishing returns over time.

Why?

Because what they are seeking is obscuring an avoidable fact: they themselves are the answer. Beyond any map of existence.

The individual is his own answer.

And his answer rests in what he decides to create.

He wanders through a cosmological museum of paintings of realities, each painting different, until decides to pick up the brush and paint on his own.

A person can tap dance around this central fact and ignore it. He can ignore it for a year, a decade, a century, a thousand or a million incarnations, wherever and however he incarnates or exists, in whatever spaces or places or realms…but he will keep coming back to it.

To be or not to be, that is the question. Well, not exactly. To attach one’s self to another’s reality or invent one’s reality, that is the question.

And no one, except for the person who is asking, can deliver the answer. And act on it.

Beyond the study of psychology

Beyond the study of psychology

by Jon Rappoport

April 17, 2018

These are notes I made in preparation for my second collection, Exit From The Matrix:

“Psychology is essentially a reflection of the culture: it focuses on the family unit and what can happen to fracture it. It focuses on society and how an individual can adapt to it. It focuses on re-establishing norms of behavior. It focuses on a person’s past as the key to his problems. It stumbles and stutters and retreats when it comes up against the individual’s creative impulse. This impulse travels far beyond family, society, and the past.”

“Let us consider what are called ‘contents’ of the mind. Many efforts have been made to describe various items: persistent thoughts and images; so-called archetypes; symbols; memories; and so on. These and other items can be viewed as ‘helpers’ in solving problems. They can be viewed as ‘influences’. They can be viewed as irrelevant debris. They can be analyzed from different perspectives. But one thing is clear. For the creative individual, they are all fuel for the fire. They can be reworked, recombined, and, above all, transformed in the invention of some new reality. Therefore, there is nothing final or ultimate about these ‘contents’. Unless a person is merely a passive spectator who has no creative urge at all.”

“When consciousness is directed to find something in particular, it will. This is not a cause for celebration, any more than a dog finding a bone in a garden is shocking. Directed consciousness gives answers that depend on prior assumptions. Consciousness will find the kind of content it is looking for. But these answers ultimate prove unsatisfying. They exist in a bubble that has been laid out beforehand. Imagination, however, is a completely different story.”

“Imagination has the capacity to be spontaneous. Science can’t touch or analyze spontaneity. At bottom, mind control, whether imposed externally or self-induced, exists to prevent spontaneous action.”

“On the surface, it may appear that society does not reward spontaneity because it doesn’t acknowledge it. But every great work contains inexplicable leaps, when the inventor vaults beyond anything that was done and cataloged before. He spontaneously lights on something that never existed. He brings it into being. In retrospect, going back to discover ‘how it happened’ results in plausible but completely false conclusions.”

“People will do everything they possibly can to explain how a spontaneous invention or creation happened. They will say an individual ‘tapped into’ something beyond him. A field, a library, a data mine. This is an attempt to make sense out of what stands on its own: imagination. Imagination invents. It doesn’t need a field or a cosmic library.”

“Just because the overwhelming majority of humans back away from imagination and invention of reality doesn’t mean you have to.”

And here is a backgrounder:

Elon Musk and several other unnamed billionaires believe we all live in a computer generated reality—they’re convinced the universe is a simulation. Therefore, they’re funding research aimed at helping us escape.

The story, as reported in The Independent (10/5), gets even more interesting when we hear from Sam Altman, who owns Y Combinator, a company that helps create tech start-ups:

“Mr Altman…told the New Yorker that he was concerned about the way that the devices that surround us might lead to the extinction of all consciousness in the universe. He spoke about how the best scenario for dealing with that is a ‘merge’ – when our brains and computers become one, perhaps by having our brains uploaded into the cloud…’The full-on-crazy version of the merge is we get our brains uploaded into the cloud. I’d love that. We need to level up humans, because our descendants will either conquer the galaxy or extinguish consciousness in the universe forever. What a time to be alive!’”

If you’re confused and spinning, you should be. How do we get from “we’re all living in a simulation” to “we should get our brains uploaded to the cloud”?

“The devices that surround us might lead to the extinction of all consciousness in the universe,” and therefore we should merge our brains with another such device; the cloud. Our brains and some super-computer should become One, and that will solve the problem.

What??

The machines are taking over. Therefore, let’s all merge with the machines.

If you believe this is logic, I have golf club memberships for sale on Jupiter.

The underlying message here is: say anything that leads to hooking up brains to computers, even if it makes no sense at all. Just do it.

Fast-food burgers are unhealthy. Therefore, let’s all merge our brains with the cloud.

There’s a big hurricane coming. Hook your brain up to a computer.

Perhaps Mr. Altman thinks that a brain-computer interface will preserve consciousness against our own tendency to destroy ourselves. Who knows? If that’s what he thinks, I have news: connecting brains to computers doesn’t produce “more consciousness.” It just brings about a condition of slavery, in which we accept all answers and data generated by a computer.

Which is exactly where technocrats want to go. “You’re not allowed to make mistakes. Computers are flawless. Follow their instructions.”

Technocrats, to the degree their motives can possibly be construed as genuine, are always looking in the wrong places for magic. They think computers embody it. Fill a processing device with enough complexity and it comes alive. Not so. It just becomes a more complicated machine.

There is a premise these geniuses are overlooking: a brain-computer hookup actually works. Who says so? Who says that wiring connections between a brain and a machine is going to produce information, for a human being, that’s more than static and gibberish?

A whole host of assumptions are being made here. On extremely tenuous grounds. It’s slovenly thinking: a brain is like a machine and a computer is like a brain, so the two of them will get along just fine. Really?

The technocrats have seen far too many bad sci-fi movies.

Their basic problem stems from their adoration and worship of machines and systems. This leads to treating human beings as systems and nothing more. If it isn’t a system, they’re afraid of it. They want to predict and control. That’s the world they see.

Systems are, when taken too far, labyrinths. You can enter but you can’t exit. Humans generally don’t know when that line has been crossed. They eat systems. They want to think and behave like systems. This obsession spans the spectrum all the way from schools with zero-tolerance policies to metaphysical maps of the cosmos.

When elites reach the point where the population can’t even imagine what non-system thinking might be, they will have won. They won’t need a supercomputer to instruct brains. They will have created a collective brain.

Many humans just want to know what ‘everyone else’ is thinking…and after they find out, they sign up and join. The joke is, everyone else is thinking they want to be part of the collective, too. That’s the basic and bottom-line thought, and it’s passed around like an empty shell, from person to person. It’s meaningless.

“All right, Mr. Jones, we’re going to link your brain up to our supercomputer. We think this is going to work. Ha-ha, we’ll see. We hope it doesn’t fry any brain synapses. Once we make the connection, you should be receiving a whole new set of information from your brain. We hope it comes through clearly. Your job is to obey what your brain is telling you. When I use the word ‘you’, I’m not sure what I mean. That’s a mystery. There’s a lot of mystery here. We expect you to become a super version of yourself. Super-smart, within the parameters set by the supercomputer. The computer will make sure you’re a good person from now on. Ready? Take a deep breath. Here we go…oh wait a second. I see we need one more signature from you on the informed consent waiver. In case there IS a YOU separate from your brain, that YOU is not permitted to sue us for damages. Just sign on the dotted line…”


Exit From the Matrix

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


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.

Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda

Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda

Cure disease or alter humans?

by Jon Rappoport

April 17, 2018

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.


The Matrix Revealed

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


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.