* Amendment III-- it's my house, not yours. You're not allowed to live here unless I say so. Even if there's a war on, you better have a good list of the whys and wherefores before showing up with your luggage.
* Amendment IV-- if you don't have some awfully good proof that I'm up to no good, you've got no business showing up at my house to snoop around. My privacy trumps your curiosity.
* Amendment V-- whether you've got a good case that I did something wrong or don't have one, my right to privacy trumps your interest in compelling me to tell you what I'm up to. Fuck you, if you can't prove it without my say so. My counsel is my own to keep.
* Amendment X-- If we didn't give you (the government) the express authority to violate our privacy, we retain that right. So piss off.

On the other hand, I'm not of the "life is a life is a life" crowd either. I value the life of a squirrel less than I value the life of a human. I put less value on a 80 year-old sick person than I do on a healthy 10 year-old child.

So my question on the issue is how much to value that new life against the emotional trauma and physical hardship of carrying the child to term and then giving it up for adoption. When the fetus is the size of a silkworm, and has about the same mental capacity, should it be worth more because it has the potential of being an adult human? I wouldn't hesitate to squish a silkworm if it made my life inconvenient. So I'd probably go ahead and kill the fetus up to about 3 months or so if it was a bother. After that I'd probably need a more compelling reason and would feel bad (probably about as bad as I would feel about running over someone's cat), until about 6-7 months. At that point, since medical technology could keep the creature alive on the outside, I'd probably feel pretty bad about killing it.

(Spontaneous miscarriages in the first two months are well over 50%).

AN EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW WITH ELLIS MEDAVOY: MIND CONTROL, MIND FREEDOM

FEBRUARY 13, 2006. I have been interviewing Ellis Medavoy for the past five years, and posting those conversations in the newsletter section of PREMIUM CONTENT.

Ellis (pseudonym) is a retired propaganda operative, who worked for various groups spreading lies about medical subjects such as AIDS and vaccines. He also was involved in operations that promoted the need for a "unified Europe."

Media mind control was his speciality.

Eventually, when he realized the extent of depopulation agendas in the Third World, he quit the scene.

Over the years, he has changed his outlook on ethics.

More than anyone I've ever encountered, he knows the nuts and bolts of influencing the media, and he also knows the big picture, when it comes to floating false cover stories.

When I told him about my upcoming tele-workshop, MIND CONTROL, MIND FREEDOM, he said he wanted to do a background interview. However, I wasn't prepared for the direction this conversation would take. In his usual frank and no-holds-barred fashion, he reveals a number of things about himself, mind control, creativity, imagination, and the psychology of destruction. You may need to buckle up for this one.

Here it is.

Q: First of all, as you've told me before, you were involved in spreading the lie that AIDS is basically one condition caused by HIV.

A: That's right. There was a group that knew this was all a lie, and they wanted "traction" in the press. They wanted the world to accept HIV as the cause of AIDS. They wanted plenty of stories planted in the media. So I accepted that assignment. I was, of course, not the only person doing this. This was a very big operation.

Q: What was the purpose of the lie?

A: As with any major op, there were several purposes. I've explained most of it to you before. But, as you can see, the world has seen, in recent years, an explosion in PR and propaganda about so-called epidemics. West Nile, SARS, bird flu. Besides scaring people and getting them to accept any and all medical and political edicts, the idea is to bring nations of the world into a tighter connection---because when you have an international agency like the World Health Organization at the helm, telling governments what they have to do and can't do, the "community of nations" draws closer and closer together.

Q: Basically, you're talking about the move toward globalism, the rule of the many by the few.

A: Yes, I'm talking about the eventual erasure of all significant national borders.

Q: What's called the New World Order.

A: Right. Only that phrase has been somewhat discredited. I try not to use it.

Q: What do you mean, discredited?

A: It's been interpreted to mean: "a bunch of right-wing wackos are spinning a conspiracy theory about evil men who want to take over the planet." That is how you do propaganda. You see? When some people become aware that globalism is on the march and they call it a New World Order, the phrase itself is attacked and made to seem bizarre.

Q: Yeah. I want to establish for my readers that you've been retired for some years.

A: That's right.

Q: What happened after you retired and gave up lying for money?

A: I would use two words to describe my state of mind: DEMORALIZED and DESPONDENT.

Q: Really.

A: Yeah. For several years, I was in bad shape.

Q: Because you regretted what you'd been involved with as a professional propaganda man?

A: That was part of it. But there was something else, too. Doing propaganda is creative. I was, you could say, an artist. And then I stopped. When you stop creating, after you've been doing it, you get very down. That's what happened.

Q: But your creative bent had been directed in the area of mind control.

A: Doesn't matter. Do you know why I contacted you the very first time we met?

Q: Well, I thought I did, but apparently you have something else to say on the subject.

A: I found out you were an artist, and I also found out you had a great deal to say about the healing power of imagination. That sparked my interest. Because I was very down. I was a "painter who no longer had a canvas." And I'd say the last few years of my work in PR and propaganda, I realized I was going into a very negative mental direction, in terms of having no more interest in doing my "art." I was lost.

Q: I see. So you---

A: I wanted to hear more of what you had to say about imagination. I had a feeling it held a key for me.

Q: And did it?

A: Yes.

Q: I didn't know that.

A: That's why I'm telling you.

Q: So a shrink might have---

A: Diagnosed me as manic-depressive. But it was really all about creating and then not creating. The up and then the down. Rise and fall.

Q: You were getting what you deserved.

A: True. But regardless of that, there were other factors at work. You see, when a person is going in a very creative direction, no matter how he's doing it, he doesn't want to stop. Because he's doing art. It may be destructive art, as in my case, but that doesn't matter. He doesn't want to stop creating. Most evil people who create and know they're doing it don't want to stop because they like being an artist. They don't see any other outlet for their creativity. And they think about not creating as a form of of personal suicide. I have to say, though, this whole process for them is pretty much happening on a subconscious level.

Q: Were you suicidal?

A: After I retired, I strongly considered ending my life.

Q: What made you not kill yourself?

A: The possibility that I could harness my imagination in new directions.

Q: Really.

A: That was the only thing that stood between me and a bullet in the brain.

Q: To clarify this for my readers---

A: Look, let me boil it down. Suppose there is a guy who has spent his whole life working for a company. He's some sort of midlevel executive. He doesn't really have a very interesting job. But he has one. He shows up every day at the office, year after year. And then, all of a sudden, he hears a rumor that his job and other similar jobs are going to be cut. Now, everybody assumes that the only thing at stake is the money, the way to support himself and his family. But even in that situation, this guy is creating a little bit. Every day, on the job, he's a creating in a minor way. He may not know it, but it's happening. And when the threat of getting fired looms up, on an unconscious level he's in a panic. How is he going to keep creating his "art?" Where is he going to do it? It doesn't matter how small the creating has been. He's upset. He's feeling that incoming cloud of demoralization and despondence. He's going down.

Q: He's---

A: He's getting closer to being nothing more than a robot. That little edge of creativity---that's his ace in the hole. That's what really keeps him afloat.

Q: So you're saying creativity is everywhere.

A: Well, you know that. We're all floating in a sea of our creativity. We may not know it, we may not admit it, but that's the basic situation. If we get cut off from that, we go down. Here is a principle of propaganda I don't think I've ever articulated in quite this way before: TO THE DEGREE THAT A PERSON IS CREATING LESS AND LESS, HE BECOMES A MORE RIPE SUBJECT FOR PROPAGANDA AND EXTERNALLY IMPOSED MIND CONTROL.

Q: And the converse would apply as well.

A: You bet. The more a person is creating, the less likely it is that he'll be ripe for mind control.

Q: When did you see this?

A: About three years after I retired. It blew me away. It's a simple idea. But it hit me like a ton of bricks.

Q: Did this come to you all on your own?

A: No. It came in part from you, and from a few talks I had with your friend, the hypnotherapist, Jack True.

Q: I see.

A: So, in terms of the propaganda effect, the media mind control effect, I want your readers to know all this. What you're doing in your work is pointing the way to far less mind control. If people take the clue. If they begin to consciously use their imaginations more and more.

Q: In your work as a propaganda specialist---

A: I was creating a world, an island of false information. I was creating it and selling it. And now, looking back on that time, I can see that people were buying what I was selling to the degree that, in their own lives, they were creating not very much. It was a very strong and very precise equation. At the time I wasn't aware of that. But now I am.

Q: Which means that there must be, in our culture, a whole lot of ops aimed at reducing people's creative power, in order to make them more ripe for informational mind control.

A: Absolutely. But as you've pointed out, when you get to that profound a level, you are mostly talking about ops that are launched and run without much consciousness. The people who, for example, sell tons of toxic medical drugs---drugs that tend to make creativity harder to do---aren't really thinking on this level. They don't consciously know much about imagination and creativity, when it comes to the core of life itself. They knew a few things, but they don't see the biggest picture. In the same way, when you see all the budget cuts in education for the arts, that's being done more or less as a reflex. The people that run societies have what you could call an instinctive fear of individual creativity---but they haven't added the whole thing up. They can't.

Q: Why not?

A: Because, when a person really begins to see what creativity is all about, he doesn't want to push people down and grind their noses in the mud anymore.

Q: Is that what happened to you?

A: By degrees, yes. It was like coming out of a fog. The full force of it didn't hit me until after I retired. But in those last few years of work, I was beginning to break through. I was beginning to get some very strong glimpses of the biggest picture.

Q: And then you didn't want to sell lies anymore.

A: I wasn't so keen on it, no.

Q: That's important.

A: Yes it is. I want people to know something. I'm sort of repeating myself, but so what? When you realize, consciously, that you are creating more and more in your life, in your work, in your "art," whatever it is---as you see this more and more and more---and you can't deny it because it's so obvious---you also see that using that creativity for destructive purposes is a very bad and stupid thing. That's the ethical force kicking in. That's when the destructive artist hits the wall. Take a person like Hitler, who was a painter in his early days. When he became the big guy in power in Germany, he put all that conscious painting---and his ambition to BE a painter---aside. Notice this. It's very important. He began to rely on a whole bunch of bullshit ideas about the "true origin" of the German race. The Aryan business. The gods from their secret caves. All that nonsense. He began to sacrifice his own straight-out creativity on the chopping block of this "external" metaphysical baloney. Do you see? He "appealed to a higher power." That's where he put all the eggs in his basket. And that's why he was able to continue his destructive and inhuman course of action. If he had stayed a painter, he might have come out of the fog. With enough straight-out imagination and creativity---

Q: You don't need to appeal to a higher power. You'll eventually get everything you want, in the highest possible sense. In every sense.

A: That's right. Look at the Roman Church. They did the same thing. Those leaders, early on, did the same thing. They cooked up some very creative myths, but then they used them to appeal to a higher power, and with that pretended higher power in their hands, they pushed people right into the mud. There is nothing very creative happening in that organization now. There hasn't been for a long time. They abandoned the creative spark and they went into the business of selling lies. Their creativity dwindled and dwindled. Now they're just like robots selling the same lies they sold hundreds of years ago, but with a "softer" touch. You can find the same formula in Satanic groups. They invoke this "higher power" and hitch their creative wagon up to that, and then the creativity dwindles and becomes a very sick and painful joke for a lot of people. It's all about coercion and delusion.

Q: Coerced mind control.

A: Which is exactly---

Q: The opposite of conscious creative power exercised by the individual.

A: Right.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com

In this day and age, I think a homogenous society is a shortcut to obsolesence, but hey, knock yourself out if you want to live surrounded by your particular tribe. It works great for plenty of Amazonian and African tribes, except for the war parties and slaughter.

I've noticed that a lot of modern leftie types believe that white people can DEFINITELY inherit collective guilt but not collective pride. It tends to work inversely when they're dealing with nonwhites—no black should feel bad about Idi Amin's crimes, but they're all STILL suffering from slavery and all of them can take pride in James Brown's music.

Consistency, folks. That's all I ask for.

MIND CONTROL, IMAGINATION, AND RIGHT AND WRONG

FEBRUARY 11, 2006. Here is a backgrounder that applies both to my upcoming workshop, MIND CONTROL, MIND FREEDOM, and to several of the products on this page, including, IMAGINATION EXERCISES FOR A LIFETIME and THE PARANORMAL PROJECT.
**********************************************

Every society lays down principles of right and wrong. These are embedded in the culture and in the law.

It's not my intent to argue against the IDEA of right and wrong, but only to point out that, from a very early age, we learn about these twin concepts. We learn about them at home and in school. We get a very strong dose in school, because every lesson we carry out comes with the insistence that there is a right and wrong answer.

When we leave school and get a job, we are shown the right and the wrong way to do things as well.

It's everywhere.

Of course, here and there we find punishments for doing things the wrong way.

So we're buttoned up to the chin with right and wrong.

Internalizing all this gives us a very nice chunk of mind control.

At the bottom of it is the precept that ANYTHING has a right and a wrong attached to it. That generalization.

All sorts of people (such as "the authorities") can play tunes on our minds once this chunk is in place.

No wonder we have the word REBEL in our language.

It takes some effort to break out of this Venus fly trap.

To boot, there are vague New Agey "philosophies" floating around that have also landed in the middle of the culture. Embodying, for example, the idea that anger is never a good thing. Never.

That seals the deal for many people. Be nice, be polite, do the good and right thing, and don't get angry and rebel. In case you hadn't noticed, you do get angry when you rebel. That's part of the deal.

Anger is energy. If you can't feel it and can't express it when someone is trying to sit on your chest, you're either a saint (of which there are very few) or you're a fuzzy bunny in a forest of wolves.

The American Revolution was not carried out without anger.

Of course, once the rebellion succeeds and you stake out your position, you don't have to be angry at whatever brand of authority you unseated. To be more precise---and here I'm talking on a personal level and not a political level---you don't have to keep fighting the battle you already won. You only have to do something with the piece of freedom you just gained.

Which is where imagination comes in, because freedom is the freedom TO CREATE. It isn't really the freedom to malinger.

Funny thing. Imagination has no intrinsic right or wrong. Whether you create a business selling clocks or paint a picture with circles or squiggles or triangles or faces or fly to Kenya or Brazil or climb Mt. Ranier or Everest is entirely up to you.

But I run into people who want to use their imaginations and do use their imaginations and keep running into that old operant conditioning that tells them there is a right and wrong way to do this, and if they "make a mistake," someone somewhere will give them a low grade or flunk them altogether.

Innovators in any field get past that. They ignore it. They leap ahead.

And real innovators in any field are willing to consider very far-out ideas.

(You'll ocasionally run into people who are buttoned up real tight and don't want to think about their situation or change it, and they'll say, "You mean you're allowed to use your imagination to figure out better ways to kill people, and there is no right or wrong about that?" My response to them is to walk away, or if I'm in a really good mood, I'll say, "I already know what's right and wrong, but I suggest you start using your imagination, because if you don't, one day YOU might be the person who decides he has to kill someone. You're as tight as a drum, buddy.")

How do innovators consider very far-out ideas that everyone else thinks are crazy? By imagining them. It's that simple.

And then later, everyone else says, "Why didn't I think of that?"

There are many places in the arena of work and projects where obvious right and wrong situations apply. But beyond that level, there are the people who strike out on their own and come up with something new. And the choice is, you can live your whole life following a path someone else has laid down, or you can make your own path.

Making means inventing. Imagining.

As the years roll by, it's pretty easy to take that personal inventory. Are you walking someone else's road, or are you inventing your own?

In case you missed it, the game of rising higher in a structure not of your own making is just that, a game. You get praise and pats on the head from superiors, but you're still walking the path invented by someone else.

It's my experience that, down deep, everyone wants to invent his own path.

Everyone wants to IMAGINE, INVENT, CREATE, IMPROVISE, INNOVATE.

There is one really fabulous diversion that people come up with that sidetracks them. They decide that there is AN ILLUMINATED END TO EVERYTHING, A PLACE THEY CAN GET TO WHERE EVERYTHING IS SOLVED AND SETTLED AND WORKED OUT FOR ALL TIME, AND THE PATS ON THE HEAD KEEP COMING. And since that's the case, they just have to find out how to do the right navigation and arrive and never look back.

This might be the biggest principle of Earth culture, the "final frontier" built by the jokers.

Imagination and creation are endless roads. Along the way, you get EVERYTHING you want and much, much more, and you just keep on going, and there is no feeling that you wish you could just stop and forget the whole thing.

Along that endless road, you do reach a place where you realize that you don't need to turn into a couch potato or a robot or a servant or an agent of someone else's concocted reality, whatever it is.

And you also realize that you don't have to keep pushing one agenda and one agenda only, even if you invented it, and even if you think it's right. That means you can imagine and create without limit. WITHOUT LIMIT. You can do it in a billion directions, and each direction becomes a kind of universe of its own.

Again, I resort to the analogy of the painter. Every canvas becomes a new universe.

It's called freedom. Empty of all the slogans that nudge people around the corner into guess what? Slavery.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com




MONET, KANDINSKY, AND THE CREATION OF NEW REALITY

FEBRUARY 10, 2006. Here is another backgrounder for my upcoming telephone workshop, MIND CONTROL, MIND FREEDOM. For details on the worskhop, just click on the link on banner above.
*******************************************

Claude Monet, by the 1860s, was well on the way to dissolving ordinary reality. His paintings focused on the effects of light in nature. Some people have taken this as a sign that he was not so attentive to color in nature. That, of course, is false.

There is a well-known story about Monet hiking in the forest with friends, one of whom discovered he had lost his black jacket far below the hill they were treading. Monet looked back down the long hill and pointed to a speck of black. "There's your jacket," he said.

The man said, "That could be a rock or a branch, couldn't it?"

To which Monet replied, "Sir, that black does not exist in nature."

When they walked down the hill, the black speck turned out to be the lost jacket.

Monet eventually took light to the far reaches. Objects were so bathed in it that they seemed to lose their solidity. The whole purpose of painting---to render nature as we (think) we see it---shifted over into a different road. Monet and the other impressionists were providing a whole new way of seeing. Perception and exhilaration blended into a startling and convincing whole.

Near the end of the 19th century, the young painter Kandinsky was baffled and repelled when he saw a Monet painting of a haystack. Kandinsky felt that objects on a canvas should imitate (the consensus view of) nature.

Yet, a scant 15 years later, Kandinsky announced to the world that he had just painted (1910) the first entirely abstract work. He would soon go on to say that an acute angle touching the edge of a circle was as spiritual as the finger of God reaching toward the finger of Adam in Michelangelo's famous ceiling.

Painters were leading the way to a completely different conception of the universe, of the space-time continuum. For them, imagination was the leading edge.

In 1933, the Nazi regime announced that all abstract art was forbidden and was to be considered degenerate.

It's no accident that overtly fascist regimes were hostile toward the opening up of universes beyond the normal range. Their oppressive actions mirrored the idea of the SINGLE space-time continuum. Slavery in politics; slavery in perception.

A multiplicity of universes is the natural outcome of imagination.

And when imagination takes hold, power for the individual follows.

However, in Earth culture, the separation of the arts from individual power is a precept that runs deep. Art is thought of, more or less, as a plaything, an entertainment. Or it is considered an instrument of state (or religious) propaganda. Or it is praised as a reflection of the triumphs of a few geniuses, toward which we should humbly bow, from our low station.

With this precept in tow, people feel that art can teach them nothing about their own power.

The truth is, art has everything to teach about power.

Our creations are spirals of change. They take place in our own spaces and then we put them into the continuum.

If we fail to see this, we paradoxically create---and then fall back into being victims of consensus collective creation. As if we had done nothing.

In which case, we are targets of our own self-imposed mind control.

How else did we wind up believing that we live entirely inside the tin can called consensus space-time?

My goal is to dissolve that conception. To put it on the shelf with other strange ideas from the dustbin of history.

When I was 24, I decided to start painting. On the basis of no training and no recognizable skill and no academic background, I turned my small studio apartment in New York into a work space.

Six months later, with no intention of doing so, I reversed my long-standing unpleasant and unhappy relationship with my parents. Simply because I was creating a dozen or so new worlds every day on canvas or paper, I escaped from the one habitual space I had lived in with my mother and father. I was now operating from a position of power. And, much to my surprise, I discovered that power included an amount of generosity I had never conceived was possible.

And that was just the beginning...

Mind control takes many forms. The exit from it has a thousand doors. And ultimately, they are all marked IMAGINATION, CREATIVE POWER.

I hope you'll be in the workshop with me.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com

I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that a large part of the country is waiting for this. Everywhere, in the innermost reaches of America, you can meet men and women who hope for great voices capable of echoing their impatience in a momentous way. If I were an American writer, I would try to ponder the lessons of the totalitarian century and those of democracy, Tocqueville-style, all at once, in the same breath, and with the same rigor.

The far right is evil, restrictive and scares the shit out of me while the far left makes me laugh from the lack of connection to reality.

So Ill take humor over fear any day of the week.

Everything that has taken place in the past five years is a result of Democratic enabling. Republicans, repugnant as they are, are just being true to their instincts. They're like a bunch of drunks who insist on driving home from the bar, while the Democrats hem and haw and make pussified suggestions like "Are you sure you don't want to call a cab?" instead of yanking the keys out of their hands and kicking them in the goddamn nuts.

If anything, the one way the column has changed me over the years is, I feel so sorry for straight guys. Because their sex lives are a terror, and are really circumscribed by straight guys policing the behavior of other straight guys—"Hey, you're a fag"—and by gay guys policing their behavior, and straight women. Paradoxically, straight guys run the world, but sexually, they're so imprisoned and it's not just a prison of their own creation. A girl goes to college and eats a little pussy and gets over it, and nobody thinks she has to be a lesbian because she did that disgusting pussy-eating thing once or twice. A straight guy goes to college and once or twice gets drunk and goes down on another guy, and if it gets out there, nobody's ever going to think he's straight, ever. It doesn't matter how much pussy he eats after that, or how many kids he fathers by a woman, he's secretly a fag. There's a problem with straight-male sexual identity where it's just a mass of negatives. It's not defined really by anything positive. Being a straight guy is not being a fag, not being a woman, and not doing anything that fags or women do, like have feelings or sit-ups or anything.

Half my mail sometimes is just straight guys going, "She put a finger in my butt. I liked it. Am I gay?" because he was penetrated. Or from women going, "I put my finger in his butt. He liked it. Is he gay?" And it's very sad. You wonder why straight guys are all so endlessly perverse. Like I said earlier, all the poo-eaters are guys. And it's just because there's so much more pressure laid on men about male sexuality that just squeezes out in weird, perverse ways. It's kind of tragic. It's also tragic that straight guys have so little access to sex. And it's always their fault. This just happened with Savage Love, with FS and WILLIE. WILLIE was the guy whose wife wouldn't have sex with him, and FS was the woman whose husband wouldn't have sex with her. And all the letters that I got in response to my column treated them both in a very similar way. In WILLIE's situation, it was his fault, and here's why, and in FS' situation, it was her husband's fault, and here's why. And it just put complete responsibility for sex on the men in those relationships. And men do sort of bear all responsibility—whatever's going wrong is completely their fault, women are always the victims. I just think there's no respect for male sexuality in this empathy culture that's shaped by and defined by a female perspective on relationships and emotions. I believe that if you marry somebody and you're gonna make the commitment to be faithful, you should be faithful. If your wife doesn't have sex with you for five years, I think you should fuck somebody else. [Laughs.] And it's not your fault if you're cheating at that point. You get a pass. Women are told that being in love means you don't want to fuck anybody else, so I get all this mail from all these women who are freaked out 'cause their boyfriend or lover or husband looked at some Internet porn. "Oh, he's got me, why would he look at Internet porn?" 'Cause he may have you, but he wants more. The measure of a man's devotion isn't that he doesn't want to fuck other people. It's that he doesn't fuck other people.

I think it's better to have limits. My limits are different from other people's limits. I'm all for freedom, I'm all for people doing what they want. I'm also all for people shouldering the consequences of their behaviors, and not being assholes, and not lying unless they need to, and being honest except when you shouldn't, and being faithful except when it's okay to cheat. [Laughs.] I guess I'm just a mass of contradictions.

AVC: You use your column to advocate freedom, but that often seems to scare people. Historically, it seems like there's a real terror that other people might somehow get the freedom to do the things we ourselves don't want to do. Why do you think that is?

DS: Because Canada got the French and Australia got the convicts and we got the fuckin' batshit crazy Christians. And that matters. We're all lied to in high school—"The Pilgrims came here seeking religious freedom." No they didn't. They were the Puritans kicked out of England. They went to Holland, Holland was like "Fuck you people," and they kicked them out too, so they came here. They came here seeking the ability to persecute everybody else—and each other—for their religious beliefs. And we are living with the descendants of those nutjobs, and we have to fight them.

As for your dream, I suspect it's a case of wishful thinking. What woman wouldn't prefer to think that her ex-boyfriend dumped her for hot, sweaty cock and not for some fuckwitted religion?

What it all meant, Huxley thought, was that Bergson and the English philosopher C. D. Broad had been correct when they suggested that the brain operated as a vast reducing valve, "shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful." Like the Freudian ego, this reducing valve was constantly beset by the raging tides of Mind-At-Large, which was what Huxley called Jung's archetypal unconscious plus Freud's pathological unconscious plus Myer's treasure house plus all the other unconsciousnesses yet to be named. And like Freud's ego, this reducing valve was not watertight: its seal was susceptible to pressure.

MIND CONTROL, MIND FREEDOM

FEBRUARY 7, 2006. This is a backgrounder for my upcoming tele-workshop, MIND CONTROL, MIND FREEDOM.

The workshop is, in a way, an answer to many questions I've received over the last two years about mind control (MK).

In 1995, through a series of events---including a lecture at the old Deep River bookstore in Santa Monica, California---I began meeting people who claimed to have been subjected to CIA, military, and even corporate MK.

Their stories, of course, varied, but there was a common theme. They had been put under duress. They had been coerced. They had been held captive. They had been "treated" with pain.

I have long held that force/pain is the primary instrument of this kind of MK. Why? Because it makes a person into a slave. It gets him/her to agree to things.

You can also view this in the context of certain family situations, where the parent is the controller who uses force. Without any sophisticated knowledge of MK technique, control can be achieved.

When pain is used to produce fear, people will agree to many things.

In our wider society, when THE POSSIBILITY OF fear is feared, before anything concrete has happened, people will tend to knuckle under. "Oh, I might experience fear. Therefore, I'll do what I'm told to do."

Actually, we are talking about a whole range of so-called negative emotions which can make a person submit to a narrow view of reality which has been "chosen for him."

These emotions are not natural. That is to say, they are not an inevitable part of what a soul is.

You have to understand something about mind controllers. They actually revel in experiments which bring these negative emotions to the fore in other people. They see these experiments as confirmations that humans are really only animals, are really only stimulus-response machines that can be manipulated for any end.

That is what these controllers are trying to prove over and over again.

They want to believe that the human race (everyone not part of the "elite") is of a vastly lesser stature. What better way to show this than to provoke fear and the other negative emotions?

Sometimes these fears are a prelude to inducing other emotions. When you have a whole population stung by fear, you can get them to, for example, go to war. You can say, essentially, "We can take away your fear. We can point you in the direction of the people who made you afraid. We can then send you to kill those people and their allies. Then you will be free again. You will be free from fear."

Notice that the controllers are doing all this, and they are pointing at the instigators of fear as part of a big lie. The controllers, of course, provoked the initial fear. Those named "instigators" are the patsies, the dupes, the invented enemy.

It's a trick as old as planet Earth.

And it's a form of mind control.

It works.

The whole process of mind control, in its various forms, is a world within a world. It's a world of narrow provocations and knee-jerk responses. It's a world of the daily news, the latest events, the issues chosen for the masses to think about and react to.

The news does need some kind of reality to sink its teeth into. Often this reality is composed of staged events concealed to look like natural happenings.

Here is a formula you can watch unfolding---

Stage an event.

Issue an official response to the event.

Have the news comment on the event and shape its perception, thereby causing certain troubling emotions to spring forth in large numbers of people.

Arrange for controlled debates about the staged event and about the official response to it. Make sure the debate doesn't wander outside the pre-set boundaries. Create the illusion of disagreement about "important factors."

Issue more official responses to the event, declarations which are basically repetitions of the first response. This has a hypnotic effect on the masses.

Launch an official action to deal with the event.

This may be a war, for example.

From this point on, the future is written in stone. The war will be reported in a narrow way, and although there will arise much opposition to the war as it continues, the goal will be achieved.

And what is the goal? Victory?

Not quite.

Although victory may be declared many times and in many ways, the objective was always to bring about a DEMORALIZATION among the people.

Actually, it's demoralization mixed with the illusion of complete triumph.

Why demoralization? Because it reduces the life force in many people. It weakens the nation and the status quo and takes it to a lower level, where it looks like what has gone before but is actually more soft and more easy to shape and sculpt and fill with new lies.

It's a downward process. It's part of mind control.

The gradual weakening. The provocation of more negative emotions.

This whole process mirrors the trauma-based CIA MK I alluded to earlier, only it is carried out over the whole range of a population.

One war follows another.

More demoralization, more weakening.

Why do this?

Just look at the people coming home from the war. Look at their mental states and their physical condition. Look at the families of the dead soldiers. Look at the whole scene.

AFTER THE DELIVERY OF SUCH A SHOCK, THERE IS A GREATER TENDENCY TO WANT TO FIT INTO THE SYSTEM, THE OFFICIAL SYSTEM, THE OFFICIAL "CONSENSUS LIFE" ADVERTISED AND PROMOTED BY THE ELITES WHO SECRETLY PROVOKED THE WAR.

Gradually, generation by generation, war by war, there emerges a favored form of life and society, a kind of Collective that requires its citizens to knuckle under to a method of living and desiring and working and agreeing and hoping----ALL WITHIN CERTAIN PARAMETERS.

This is how you shape a whole society by degrees.

Eventually the elites say that the society cannot continue to survive by itself. It must become part of a wider "alliance of nations dedicated to peace and security." In other words, each society is hooked up to every other society, and the result is, as always, the rule over the many by the few.

Now, within each society, there are individuals who are not buying into this controlled state of mind. They are casting about, looking for an escape route. They want out of the Collective. At some level, they can feel that their individuality is not the favored point of view.

But because they have lived inside so many systems over the years, they tend to believe that the answer is a new system, a better format.

They have neglected to realize that what is at stake is the life force within them, and that this life force is sustained and increased, at the deepest level, by the very opposite of mind control: mind freedom.

Well, what is mind freedom? Is it a neutral condition in which wider choices are possible? Is that all it is?

No. If that were the whole story, there would be no way to increase life force and extend it over a fantastic range.

Mind freedom is an OPPORTUNITY. It's a chance to imagine and create the future.

At the deepest level, the entire program of mind control, in all its aspects and forms, has the effect of spraying a hypnotic mist over the creative impulse---to a point where most people don't even know what the creative impulse is or how to connect with it.

That's REAL mind control.

There are ways out of this. Part of the workshop involves describing these ways out of the dilemma.

You can have all the specific strategies in the world, but if you aren't finding ways to increase and feel the LIFE FORCE that is part and parcel of what you are, you will wander back into the overall operation called MK, mind control.

This backgrounder is just a small slice of what I'll be covering in the workshop.

This site, for the last five years, has been dedicated to elucidating the LIFE FORCE and the CREATIVE IMPULSE. These two factors make answers and solutions and great adventures and futures and satisfactions and joys and exhilarations spring up all over the place.

I hope you'll be there for the workshop.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com


STRAVINSKY, THE RITE OF SPRING, THE REVOLUTION, AND THE MEANING OF IMAGINATION

FEBRUARY 7, 2006. On May 29, 1913, in the Theatre des Champs-Elysees in Paris, a riot broke out.

After the curtain went up on the premiere of The Rite of Spring, it took only a few minutes for the tumult to begin.

Boos, hisses, catcalls, people throwing objects at the stage... The roar of the crowd quickly became so loud, the dancers lost their cues.

And the music. It was a whisper, a pounding scream, sheets of brass sound, harsh relentless rhythms breaking against one another, shifting cliffs suddenly colliding and collapsing in the air.

The police arrived and shut the program down.

Stravinsky, at 28, had arrived on the world scene.

Forget that never again would he compose music so challenging, or that later in his life, after he had taken up a position as a champion of new classicism, he would conduct a recording of the Rite that was modulated to a bare shadow of its former self.

The revolution had happened.

Much has been written about the premiere and the Rite. A great deal of programmatic explanation has been offered to "make sense" out of the piece of music: after all, it was a ballet with a plot, and the themes had to do with primitive ritual sacrifices in a fanciful pagan world.

This is called watering down the effect. It has been done by linking the music to a tale/myth. The tale, when told is, of course, much more sober and distant.

You can also find scholarly work on the structure of the Rite, indicating a possible borrowed background of several Eastern European folk melodies.

I bring this up because creations of imagination are often diluted by referring the audience to other works and periods of time and influences---to explain the incomprehensible.

But the fact is, to absorb a work of imagination, one has to use his own imagination.

Since this is considered unlikely, pundits earnestly help us with step-down contexts, so that we can understand the work in pedestrian terms. In other words, so we can reduce it to nothing.

However, the work itself resists such translations. Fundamentally, every outcome of great imagination is its own world. It immediately and finally presents itself as a universe apart from easy references and tie-ins and links.

So when you listen to the Rite, you are, gratefully, alone with the music. In this regard, I recommend one recording. The 1958 Leonard Bernstein-New York Philharmonic, available as Sony SMK 47629. It's the 1992 Bernstein Royal Edition. Le Sacre Du Printemps.

Bernstein, one of the geniuses of the 20th century, was no stranger to encountering imagination with imagination. And yet, as the conductor, he had no need to distort the score. If anything, he was more faithful to it and the composer's great intent than any other conductor, past or present.

In 1912 and 1913, Stravinsky had composed the Rite in a reckless frame of mind. This did not mean he abandoned all he knew; it meant he wanted to show everyone how dim the perception of music had become. "To hell with all of them."

He took the large orchestra and shredded the conventional relationships between its various sections. Instead, he made it an ocean in a storm. He crossed all lines. He crashed together old sounds and new sounds. He destroyed pleasant mesmerizing rhythms.

But there was nothing primitive about his undertaking. He made something new, something no one could have predicted.

As you listen to it, you may find one part of your mind repeating, this is not music, this is not music. It doesn't matter. Just keep listening. Five times, 50 times, 100 times.

There are artists like Stravinsky, like the Spanish architect Gaudi, like Edgar Varese (I wrote briefly about him the other day), like the often-reviled American writer Henry Miller, like Walt Whitman (although Whitman has been grotesquely co-opted into a Norman Rockwell-like prefect), like the several great Mexican muralists---all of whom transmit an oceanic quality.

As in, The Flood.

There is a fear that, if such artists were unleashed to produce their work on a grand scale---and if the societal chains of perception were removed---they would take over the world.

This is the real reason there was a riot at the Theatre des Champs Elysees on May 29, 1913. Even though Stravinsky was presenting a universe of his own making, people instinctively felt that the music could spill over into the streets of Paris...and after that, where would it go? What would stop it?

Their fear was justified.

Although you won't find a reference in the thousands and thousands of books written about art, when the artist creates a separate and new world, a crossover occurs.

A most natural crossover.

Our world, contrary to all consensus, is meant to be revolutionized by art, by imagination, right down to its core.

That this has not happened for the best is no sign that the process is irrelevant. It is only a testament to the collective resistance.

Who knows how many such revolutions have been shunted aside and rejected, in favor of the shape we now think of as central and eternal?

We are living in a default structure, the one that has been left over after all the prior revolutions have been put to sleep.

And still, it takes imagination and creating to give us what we have now. But mostly, it is a harnessed imagination that accedes to a stolid esthetic that replaces daring and vast improvisation with classical forms and formats, long after their time.

We peek between the fluted columns to see what the future might hold. We speculate, for example, that information itself might be alive and might flow in from our own DNA to bring about a new cyber-brain step in evolution. Information? What further evidence do we need that our society is heading down a slope to the swamp?

If Rite of Spring and other works of that magnitude are information, a wooden duck on a doily is Shakespeare.

Mere information is the wood scrapings and the stone chips Brancusi swept up in his studio and put out in the alley. Information is the dried flattened tubes of paint Matisse disposed of with the old newspapers. Information is the heap of wires Tesla tossed in the garbage.

Information is the neutral boil-down left over after the artist has made his mark.

Creation is not neutral.

It flows out into the atmosphere with all its subjective force.

That is what happened on May 29, 1913.

And that is what evoked the mass fear.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com

We are living in a default structure, the one that has been left over after all the prior revolutions have been put to sleep.

But the fact is, to absorb a work of imagination, one has to use his own imagination.

Since this is considered unlikely, pundits earnestly help us with step-down contexts, so that we can understand the work in pedestrian terms. In other words, so we can reduce it to nothing.

However, the work itself resists such translations. Fundamentally, every outcome of great imagination is its own world. It immediately and finally presents itself as a universe apart from easy references and tie-ins and links.

I bring this up because creations of imagination are often diluted by referring the audience to other works and periods of time and influences---to explain the incomprehensible.

"The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something. That's the only thing that never fails. You may grow old and trembling in your anatomies, you may lie awake at night listening to the disorder of your veins, you may miss your only love, you may see the world about you devastated by evil lunatics, or know your honour trampled in the sewers of baser minds. There is only one thing for it then — to learn. Learn why the world wags and what wags it. That is the only thing which the mind can never exhaust, never alienate, never be tortured by, never fear or distrust, and never dream of regretting. Learning is the only thing for you. Look what a lot of things there are to learn."

"The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something. That's the only thing that never fails. You may grow old and trembling in your anatomies, you may lie awake at night listening to the disorder of your veins, you may miss your only love, you may see the world about you devastated by evil lunatics, or know your honour trampled in the sewers of baser minds. There is only one thing for it then — to learn. Learn why the world wags and what wags it. That is the only thing which the mind can never exhaust, never alienate, never be tortured by, never fear or distrust, and never dream of regretting. Learning is the only thing for you. Look what a lot of things there are to learn."