People on this list know little about me.  I have worked on research about AIDS (HIV) epidemiology and prevention for almost 30 years.  I am in the NY/NJ area, as is Mitch (I believe).  This has been massively visible in our part of the world as well.

I have friends who also doubt that it is HIV at the biological root of the epidemic of AIDS.  (Many other things help explain exposure to HIV and access to and use of treatment, heavily economic and social, of course.)  They are mostly people who are into fads and conspiracy-thinking (beyond those conspiracies we all know exist, like the US government), but are often nonetheless good people.  But their scientific thinking is not of the best in this or other areas.  (NONE of this is meant as a personal comment about Mitchel. I do not know him well enough to have any strong opinions.  It is about other people I know.)

best
sam friedman



-----Original Message-----
From: Mandi Smallhorne <[log in to unmask]>
To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sat, Jan 12, 2013 3:48 am
Subject: Re: HIV & AIDS: INTERVIEW ELLIS MEDAVOY - "We had to discredit Peter Duesberg" By Jon Rappoport

Ellis Medavoy” ( for whom google only gives about 1000 results linked to Jon Rappoport) is the ONLY person to make these claims. 30 years on, you would think that an operation of this significance would have been corroborated by someone else. I doubt you would keep the journalists he relied on quiet about how he disinformed them.
Sam mentions the easiest way to understand that HIV causes AIDS, a miracle I have personally seens happen many times: a person with all the symptoms of AIDS, living in the worst of circumstances here in Africa – poor water supply, a shanty town where rubbish is dumpped on the corner of his ‘street’, rats running right through the corrugated iron and cardboard shack, food supply intermittent and largely reliant on mielie meal (ground maize), gets found by an NGO and taken to a hospital or clinic where he is diagnosed as having full-blown AIDS. He is given medication that is designed to treat HIV. A month later, the NGO returns. The formerly bedbound man is now walking around; he’s up several kilos from his starting weight; his diarrhoea has stopped. Two or three months later, you can’t tell the difference between him and his HIV-negative neighbour. What changed? Nothing. Nothing but the administration of the drugs.
The ‘Lazarus effect’ has happened literally hundreds of thousands of times in Africa – in my own country and in the hard-hit countries around us, such as Mozambique, Botswana and Zambia. Last year I interviewed people from Medecin sans Frontieres working on highly effective projects throughout Africa, projects designed to make the drugs more accessible and more available and better used. I heard so many stories like this and seen it with my own eyes.
This is the commonplace of our lives here in South Africa. Maybe it’s easier to believe in such stuff where you are not so exposed to it.
Mandi
 
From: Science for the People Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sam Friedman
Sent: 12 January 2013 07:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: HIV & AIDS: INTERVIEW ELLIS MEDAVOY - "We had to discredit Peter Duesberg" By Jon Rappoport
 
At best, this is a report by some journalist about a report by some anonymous source concerning events long long ago that might or might not be being remembered correctly and/or reported honestly and accurately.  To call this a first hand report seems to be stretching it.

It is framed by a perspective about HIV that has been scientifically unsupportable for decades.

It is equally likely that the report is part of a disinformation campaign as an accurate report.  Unless I missed it (I did have trouble paying attention after the first page or two), there is little corroboration.

I also see your saying that this is the "chronological reality from which emerged the HIV = AIDS position" ignores hundreds of thousand, maybe millions, of work by skilled researchers who debated this question, and went on to show it to be true.

And that the author accepts the argument that HIV is not causal.

So it is mildly interesting as the kind of argument people put forward who do not see that their past beliefs have been discredited by the continuing lives of millions of people who are receiving medicines that target HIV. 

But as history or social science, it lacks corroboration and comes within a frame that is non-credible.

As a researcher, I would say that if you want this hypothesis to receive any form of reception other than doubt and disbelief, it is your job to find some evidence that supports it.  The evidence in this artice is weak, and I say that as someone who is fully willing to consider that the US government is capable of many disinformation operations. (Possible including the article you are circulating.)
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Fri, Jan 11, 2013 8:32 pm
Subject: Re: HIV & AIDS: INTERVIEW ELLIS MEDAVOY - "We had to discredit Peter Duesberg" By Jon Rappoport


At 05:26 PM 1/11/2013, Sam Friedman wrote:

The 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 significant role.

Mitchel






-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[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.

Mitchel

At 04:09 PM 1/11/2013, Sam Friedman wrote:

For whom or what is it devastating?
Are you really contending that HIV is not a cause of AIDS?



-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchel Cohen < [log in to unmask]>
To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE < [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 devastating.

- Mitchel



INTERVIEW ELLIS MEDAVOY

"We had to discredit Peter Duesberg" By Jon Rappoport

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://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









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










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






 
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7883 (20130111) __________
 
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
 
 
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7885 (20130111) __________
 
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
 


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7885 (20130111) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com