Though this was written 10 years ago, I found it very interesting 
.... Of course, it is always possible that Jon Rappoport could have 
invented this person (Ellis Medavoy is a pseudonym), just like Carlos 
Castaneda did inventing his "Don Juan" spiritual teacher. I don't 
know. But if this person is real, as Rappoport claims he is, this 
info is devastating.

- Mitchel



INTERVIEW ELLIS MEDAVOY

"We had to discredit Peter Duesberg" By Jon Rappoport

<http://www.stratiawire.com>www.stratiawire.com 20/21 Feb. 2003


In 1987, I became re-acquainted with a man who calls himself Ellis 
Medavoy. He has since retired from his contract work as a propaganda 
consultant.

Medavoy supplied me with several contact numbers and a small pile of 
documents. Using these, I convinced myself that he was entirely 
legitimate. That he in fact was working on AIDS, and in a very curious way.

His job was to influence the press in the direction of completely 
accepting mainstream research on the subject of HIV. By 1987, this 
was not what you would call hard work. But he had been at it since 
1982---when all sorts of theories about AIDS abounded in the press 
and in the specialized medical literature.

Medavoy had been retained by "individuals who were part of the 
Council on Foreign Relations and the British Roundtable but were not 
acting as official representatives of those groups."

In 1983, a year before HIV (aka HTLV-III) was announced to the world 
as the official cause of AIDS, Medavoy knew that Robert Gallo would 
be the messenger for "some kind of retrovirus that would be said to 
be the driving force behind a global plague."

Medavoy had several tasks before him. The first one was to soften up 
reporters so they would be receptive to the idea that a virus was the 
cause of AIDS. Essentially, Medavoy had access to certain key sources 
that these reporters often used for medical stories.

His job was to convince these sources that "the inside word was" a 
retrovirus. A retrovirus was causing AIDS. Then these sources would 
pass that word along to reporters.

Medavoy, of course, already knew these reporters' "reliable sources." 
He had been cultivating them for years, in a variety of contexts. 
They trusted him.

And why not? He seemed to be right on the money time and time again. 
What he told these sources would happen did happen. And when the 
sources passed down Medavoy's advance wisdom to their reporter 
friends, the reporters were all too happy to get this prized info.

That was how Medavoy worked. He was not alone, of course. There were 
others like him, and others working on the AIDS issue. Medavoy's 
bosses considered AIDS a very big deal. It had to be positioned 
correctly. It had to be thought of in a certain way, so that it could 
be used as a smokescreen, a lie, to conceal the depopulation agenda 
that had been underway for a long time in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

"When I got this assignment," Medavoy told me, "I knew I was in some 
very important territory. The world was going to be told a lie, and 
they were supposed to believe that lie. Civilians, doctors, 
researchers, politicians---they all had to swallow the propaganda."

And what was the central piece of propaganda? That HIV was the cause of AIDS.

Medavoy continued, "There were things that the public had to be 
shielded from, too. Under no circumstances could they get the notion 
that AIDS was really many different conditions. That was a supreme 
no-no. The medical journals, as well, had to refrain from picking up 
that tune. AIDS had to be thought of as ONE disease condition---the 
destruction of the immune system---which was happening solely because 
a germ, HIV, was attacking cells of the immune system."

Medavoy understood all of this at least a year before Robert Gallo 
would tell the world on television that HIV (HTLV-III) was the cause of AIDS.

So Medavoy began to plant the seed.

He began to meet with people (some of them doctors and researchers), 
and he told them that they could count on the fact that a virus would 
be found, a virus which was causing AIDS. He told them he had the 
word from deep inside the major research institutes around the world 
that were working on the problem. He told them they would be "in no 
trouble" if they started telling reporters who relied on them that it 
would be a virus--- and a particular kind of virus, a retrovirus.

Medavoy told these people---who were in turn reliable sources for 
reporters---that Robert Gallo was surely the man who would win the 
race to find the cause of AIDS. Gallo was the one to keep their eyes on.

Medavoy told me, "Gallo himself was not in on this gigantic hoax. He 
would steal the germ from Montagnier and call it his own, but that 
was just theft. Gallo was just a pawn. He was a man who wanted 
desperately to find a retrovirus as the cause of AIDS, just as he had 
been a man who desperately wanted to find a retrovirus as the cause 
of cancer. He had learned this new field of 
exploration---retroviruses---and it was his only real ticket to fame. 
He was riding that pony for all it was worth, and the federal money, 
such as it was in those days, was mainly coming to him and his 
colleagues at the National Cancer Institute."

Gallo had been selected to be the "HIV messenger" because it was 
clear he would do whatever it took to finally say, "I found it!" Even 
if he had not found it. Even if the evidence was missing. (As I've 
written before---and you should keyword-search my archive for many 
past articles on AIDS and HIV---at the time, in the spring of 1984, 
when Gallo told the world he had found the cause of AIDS, he had not 
published a single paper that even purported to seriously prove that 
HIV was the cause of AIDS.)

Gallo wouldn't disappoint the planners of this scam. He would deliver 
the goods. And he did.

And then Medavoy was riding high. All his predictions had come true. 
What he told these "reliable sources," who in turn passed that 
information along to reporters, had been exact. AIDS was announced to 
be a condition caused by a single retrovirus.

Job of lying well done. Lie accepted. Universally.
Well, almost.

There were a few disgruntled scientists who fully realized that Gallo 
had never offered proof that HIV caused AIDS, but they were keeping 
their mouths shut. They could see the weather shift overnight in the 
spring of 1984. There was no more federal money for looking into the 
cause of AIDS, or for confirming or disproving Gallo. It had 
evaporated in hours. Suddenly, all federal funds were earmarked for 
discovering HOW HIV caused AIDS, what it actually did inside the body.

I once asked Medavoy, "Did you yourself know what AIDS really was?"

He laughed. "Of course I did. I had to know. I needed that 
information so I could develop the necessary propaganda to counter it."

"And what was your understanding of what AIDS is?"
"You should know," he said. "You've been writing about it."

Here is what he meant, and what I confirmed with him point by point: 
AIDS is a label given to a whole variety of disease conditions THAT 
ARE CAUSED BY DIFFERENT THINGS. Not HIV. Not HIV in any way, direct 
or indirect. What is called AIDS is immune suppression. This immune 
suppression can result from different causes in different groups and, 
ultimately, in different individuals. Some of the many causes? 
Contaminated heroin, medical drugs (such as corticosteroids), 
starvation, contaminated water supplies, toxic pesticides, intestinal 
parasites grossly overtreated with massive doses of antibiotics, 
syphilis, massive drug taking, say, in the form of MDA -- combined 
with months of bathhouse sex with many partners, vaccines given to 
people whose immune systems are already dangerously compromised. 
There are other causes.

Medavoy's propaganda work was aimed, in particular, at masking the 
continuing causes of death on the African continent---starvation, 
contaminated water supplies, theft of agricultural lands, and so on. 
Gradually, these obvious factors would be replaced in the public 
consciousness with a new buzz-term, HIV. As the real causes of death 
were allowed to flourish, depopulation would begin to overtake the 
population growth.

Medavoy worked on the entirely bogus green-monkey theory of AIDS.

"The green monkey," Medavoy told me, "was a myth invented to 
attribute the origin of HIV to Africa. It was understood that if HIV 
could be said to have come from Africa, then people would believe the 
outrageous estimates and projections for future AIDS deaths IN 
Africa. You know, darkest Africa, where strange and bad things lurk. 
We played that nonsense like a harp. The green monkey never even 
carried HIV---of course who cares because HIV causes nothing anyway. 
But the whole deal about those monkeys was really about lab monkeys 
in Boston who were found to have a virus 'similar' to HIV---and lab 
contamination was where that 'similar' virus actually came from. We 
knew way ahead of time---as we propounded the early green-monkey 
story---that it was monkeys in labs we were really talking about. We 
were talking about stupid and careless research in labs, and we were 
transferring that whole business into a ridiculous myth about Africa. 
The story was about as real as the moon being made of cheese."

In the spring of 1987, propaganda consultant Ellis Medavoy became 
aware that his objectives were being threatened by a University of 
Berkeley virologist named Peter Duesberg.

Duesberg had just published a long paper in the journal Cancer 
Research. That paper made a case against HIV as the cause of AIDS.

Duesberg was far from being a nobody. He was a star in his field. He 
had grant monies to do research. He had a lab at Berkeley and 
graduate students lining up to be part of his team. Duesberg was, in 
addition, a recognized expert in the emerging field of retrovriruses.

He was, in his own way, the equal, in terms of prestige, of Robert 
Gallo. In fact, Duesberg had worked with Gallo and Montagnier and 
others in the doomed Viral Cancer Project, an effort to show that 
cancers were caused by retroviruses.

Duesberg had bailed out of that project. "I could see that we weren't 
getting anywhere," he told me. "These viruses were interesting, but I 
discovered that they weren't very important as far as cancer research 
was concerned. But Gallo and others stayed on. They had their 
reasons. I was glad to leave. Disappointed, to a degree, but 
satisfied. I had seen what there was to see."

Medavoy told me, "Duesberg was a wild card. We knew we could come 
across one, and he was it. He saw through the propaganda we were 
spreading in the guise of science. He attacked HIV from a 
researcher's point of view and he said all the right things. That is, 
he didn't know there was an intense propaganda campaign coordinated 
at high levels to 'protect' HIV as the cause of AIDS. But he knew the 
science. He knew the difference between real research and badly done 
or fake research. And HIV was, make no mistake about it, a fake from day one."

In his Cancer Research paper, Duesberg had said several things. Among 
the most important was, HIV was, at best, infecting only a tiny 
percentage of (immune-system) T-cells. This made no sense. If HIV was 
killing immune systems, it had to be doing much more than that.

Duesberg also began to comment on the wild contradiction implicit in 
HIV testing. He noticed that the blood test was looking for 
antibodies which had formed as part of the body's defense against 
HIV. The presence of such antibodies was taken as a sign that a 
person was going to develop full-blown AIDS and die. But, on the 
other hand, a vaccine against AIDS would produce the exact same 
antibodies, in which case people would be said to be immune from AIDS.

Medavoy told me, "Duesberg got that one right too. He saw that the 
HIV test was completely insane. He was telling the research community 
they had been roped in by a bunch of fakers---and so we had to do 
some heavy damage control."

Duesberg was not the only problem. At Berkeley, a few other people 
were waking up. Harry Rubin, one of the grand old men of virology, 
was willing to go public and say he thought HIV research needed a 
"second opinion." Richard Strohman, a cell biologist at the school, 
was also dissatisfied with the glib crowning of Gallo as the 
discoverer of the cause of AIDS. And then, there was a maverick 
professor of law at Berkeley, Phillip Johnson, who was more than 
willing to join in the fray. He not only agreed with Duesberg, he was 
able to organize the arguments against HIV in a more structured way 
than Duesberg, in speaking forums, usually bothered to. (Eventually, 
this burgeoning little group would expand to include more than 300 
scientists and journalists who signed on to a short letter asserting 
that HIV science was deficient and needed a complete review by 
impartial people. One signer was Kary Mullis, a Nobel laureate who 
had discovered the PCR test for DNA. Mullis was like the grim reaper 
when it came to HIV. He was willing to take on anyone anywhere.)

But in 1987, it was mainly Duesberg who was carrying the banner 
against false science. Duesberg's principal ally at the time was 
Harvey Bialy, the research editor of Bio/Technology, a sister 
publication of Nature, the revered medical journal. Bialy was 
completely disgusted with the rush to judgement that had accompanied 
Gallo's unsubstantiated claims for HIV as the cause of AIDS.

Bialy was definitely not a man to tangle with in print. He was quite 
willing to do the one thing most career- minded researchers were 
loathe to engage in. Bialy would read a key paper on the subject of 
HIV all the way through and in detail, and then blast the arguments 
to smithereens. Point by point. Like Duesberg, he read the fine print 
and the methods sections, and he was brutal in his criticism. Bialy 
saw that, in a field (virology) that once rippled with extensive 
debate, AIDS was taking over as mush-science. Press-conference 
science. Bubble-head science. Science on behalf of gaining money 
grants to spout the favored line.

In 1987, Ellis Medavoy, whose job it was to protect HIV against all 
detractors, told me he was getting fed up with his own profession. He 
wanted out. He was ready to end his long career as one of the bad 
guys---mostly because he saw where things were headed---into a vast 
depopulation effort that would take decades and decades. This was a 
bit more than he had bargained for. Medavoy was somewhat unstable, 
you could say. Depending on what day you talked with him, he could be 
ready to throw in the towel---or he might display a completely 
arrogant attitude toward the rest of the human race. At any rate, 
before he did actually drop out

and quit, he began to tell me about what he was doing---and in some 
cases, how he was doing it.

Ellis Medavoy and his colleagues had, besides Peter Duesberg, another 
problem on their hands. Through the efforts of certain "subversive 
reporters"---and guess who was in that crowd?---connections were 
being forged with the alternative health community. Some of these 
activists had never been much for blaming human disease on germs, and 
the revelations about fake HIV science were quite exciting to them. 
Furthermore, there were people who had been diagnosed as HIV positive 
or "full-blown AIDS" who were surviving quite well because they were 
taking care of their health. They were rejecting the whole HIV 
premise and they were exercising and changing their diets and not 
taking any more drugs and taking nutrients and so on. And staying 
away from AZT. These people were living testimonials to a sensational 
kind of healing---and if THAT got out far and wide, the whole sordid 
game could be blown off its hinges.

Medavoy said, "A lot of what we did at this point was stop things 
from getting into print. That's often more important than planting 
lies. As far as Duesberg was concerned, I can tell you there were 
many newspapers and magazines who were ready to give his views some 
space. You know, maverick scientist rejects HIV as cause of AIDS. So 
we began a coordinated effort to keep that from happening. We let the 
scientists at NIH [National Institutes of Health], who had the most 
to lose if Duesberg could establish a credible beachhead, handle the 
PR on rejecting Duesberg's science. They engaged in some character 
assassination as well, which was fine. We, on the other side, got 
'reliable sources' to go to those newspapers and magazines and tell 
them that to print anything good about Duesberg was DANGEROUS and 
IRRESPONSIBLE. That was our tack. We had our people say that 
thousands of people could die if they stopped believing that HIV was 
the cause of AIDS. Promiscuous sex would become more rampant than 
ever, people would get infected, get sick, and spread the virus even 
further. We hammered on all this, and we cowed most of those media 
outlets. It worked, for the most part.

"As far as the very embarrassing and growing list of AIDS survivors 
was concerned---the people who had rejected the idea of HIV and were 
rebuilding their health successfully without medical drugs---we tried 
to keep track of pending stories on these people, and we went to 
those media outlets and told them these people were 'vegetarian 
kooks' and 'anecdotal examples who had not been studied by real 
scientists' and 'publicity seekers' and so on. We said some of them 
had never really been HIV positive to begin with. It was like 
shooting pigeons. We did pretty well. Some stories did appear on 
these survivors, but the general tone was, 'so and so is a strange 
curiosity and scientists are studying why he has managed to live for 
so long without getting sick, and this may hold promise for future 
research.' You know, all that crap."

Here is another choice quote from Medavoy on the AIDS scam. He told 
me this in 1996:

"Some other operatives I was aware of played a role in getting 
mainstream researchers to lobby for, and win, a new standard for HIV 
illness, based purely on numbers of T-cells. [Note: this 'innovation' 
came later, long after 1987.] Tests would determine if a person was 
'getting sick,' or if he was 'getting better' after taking his 
AZT---all measured by how many T-cells [part of the immune system 
defense] showed up on the tests. These operatives knew, and had been 
briefed on this, that T-cells could actually vary all over the place, 
up and down, depending on factors like the time of day a person was 
given the test. It was another area of shoddy science, and they took 
advantage of it. I'll give you an example. You've got some guy who 
has been told he's HIV positive, and so, even though he's not sick at 
all, he gets tested every few months for numbers of T-cells. Sooner 
or later, those numbers will go down on a test. If the doctor isn't 
really attentive, he'll tell the patient he is now officially 
diagnosed with full-blown AIDS, because those numbers are too low. If 
the patient hasn't been taking AZT yet, he will go for it now."

By the mid-1990s, Peter Duesberg no longer got grant money from the 
government. His major lab at Berkeley was gone. Graduate students 
were told they'd be risking their futures if they associated their 
names with him.

Years before, Robert Gallo had told me, "The thing about Peter is, 
he's different. He's very bright, and he goes his own way. Sometimes 
that way turns out to be unusual, strange. He can be difficult on 
purpose, you know. As if he's trying to adopt a position that 
challenges everybody else. He's a different kind of man."

Ironic, coming from the tyrannical and arbitrary Gallo, the man who 
had laid claim to the virus that doesn't cause anything.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Rappoport has worked as a free-lance investigative reporter for 
20 years. He has written articles on politics, health, media, culture 
and art for LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, Village Voice, Nexus, 
CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and 
Europe. Rappoport is the author of "AIDS Inc."

<http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/jrmedavoy.htm>http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/jrmedavoy.htm 



************************************
http://statusquoterules.blogspot.com/2006/02/explosive-interview-with-ellis-medavoy.html


Tuesday, February 14, 2006

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






http://www.MitchelCohen.com


Ring the bells that still can ring,  Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack, a crack in everything, That's how the light gets in.
~ Leonard Cohen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-vSfwIJkjY