At 05:26 PM 1/11/2013, Sam Friedman wrote:
problem is that the report is based on the fallacy of the view that HIV
is causal in AIDS. Take that away and the rest collapses in terms
of being interesting or not.
No it's not. It's based on the first-hand report by Ellis Medavoy on what
he was instructed to do by agents of the U.S. government. Are you saying
he was not instructed to do the things he's stipulating, here?
You're thinking backwards, in my view.
Whatever you think of HIV and AIDS, here's a chronological reality, from
which emerged the HIV = AIDS position. Medavoy is writing what occurred
BEFORE that became cemented in place, and in which he himself played a
From: Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
<[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Fri, Jan 11, 2013 5:00 pm
Subject: Re: HIV & AIDS: INTERVIEW ELLIS MEDAVOY - "We had to
discredit Peter Duesberg" By Jon Rappoport
I've posted a report, here, with lots of very specific claims in it. I
will not answer what I am contending or not, as I am not contending
anything in this post. I refused to get sucked into an argument that
responds to the many references herein with, "Are you really
contending this ... or that ...." and that refuse to seriously
address the items in the report itself.
I contend nothing.
I present a very interesting report.
Please address the claims therein.
At 04:09 PM 1/11/2013, Sam Friedman wrote:
For whom or what is it
Are you really contending that HIV is not a cause of AIDS?
From: Mitchel Cohen
[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Fri, Jan 11, 2013 7:21 am
Subject: HIV & AIDS: INTERVIEW ELLIS MEDAVOY - "We had to
discredit Peter Duesberg" By Jon Rappoport
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
INTERVIEW ELLIS MEDAVOY
"We had to discredit Peter Duesberg" By Jon Rappoport
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
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
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
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.
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
He laughed. "Of course I did. I had to know. I needed that
information so I could develop the necessary propaganda to counter
"And what was your understanding of what AIDS is?"
"You should know," he said. "You've been writing about
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
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
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
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
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
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."
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
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
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
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
Q: What's called the New World Order.
A: Right. Only that phrase has been somewhat discredited. I try not to
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
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
A: Yeah. For several years, I was in bad shape.
Q: Because you regretted what you'd been involved with as a professional
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
A: Doesn't matter. Do you know why I contacted you the very first time we
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
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?
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
A: That was the only thing that stood between me and a bullet in the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
the bells that still can ring, Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack, a crack in everything, That's how the light gets
~ Leonard Cohen
the bells that still can ring, Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack, a crack in everything, That's how the light gets
~ Leonard Cohen
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
~ Leonard Cohen