‘Why Did the FBI Execute My Boy?’ Father of Boston Bomber’s Friend Displays Gruesome Photos of His Son’s Cor pse Showing Unarmed Man Was Shot SEVEN Times During Questioning – Including Once in the Back of the Head


‘Why Did the FBI Execute My Boy?’ Father of Boston Bomber’s Friend Displays Gruesome Photos of His Son’s Corpse Showing Unarmed Man Was Shot SEVEN Times During Questioning – Including Once in the Back of the Head

by Hayley Peterson
Daily Mail

<img src=”http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif” width=”125″ height=”16″ border=”0″ alt=”” />

The father of Ibragim Todashev, who was shot by an FBI agent a week ago while being quizzed over his links to the Boston bombers, revealed the extent of his son’s injuries in gruesome photographs of his dead body today.

Outspoken Abdul-Baki Todashev called for an investigation and possible legal action against the agent involved at a press conference in Moscow where he showed the images of his son’s body lying in a morgue with up to seven gunshot wounds, including one to the back of the head.

His angry calls for justice came as a report claimed the 27-year-old native Chechen was unarmed in the clash with a federal agent in Florida on May 22.

Previous reports claimed the US citizen went for the agent with a knife while being interrogated in his home.

However, a report by the Washington Post yesterday cited law enforcement officials saying he had no weapon.

He allegedly did become violent when police quizzed him over links to Tamerlan Tsarnaev and an unsolved 2011 triple homicide but he did not have a knife as previously claimed.

‘Today I want justice. I want an investigation, so that these people (the FBI) are sued under US laws,’ he said.

‘These are not FBI agents. These are bandits and they must appear in court.’

He said he received the 16 images of his son’s body from a friend in the US.

Todashev is pictured lying in a Florida morgue. His father claims they show brutal injuries from up to seven bullets including one to the back of the head.

‘This is not a shot that you fire when you come under attack. This is a shot you fire to execute someone,’ he said.

‘Couldn’t they just handcuff him? At the very least, they could have wounded him in the foot or shoulder. And here he was – killed execution style.’

He added that his son must have had information they didn’t want him to reveal.

‘They silenced him’, he added.

He now plans to journey to the US to pick up his son’s body and said he had been to the US embassy in Moscow to apply for a visa to do so.

Authorities were pressuring the younger Todashev to make a full confession to the murders of three men found in an apartment in Waltham, Mass. on the tenth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001.

Authorities were pressuring the younger Todashev to make a full confession to the murders of three men found in an apartment in Waltham, Mass. on the tenth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001.

It is known Tamerlan Tsarnaev was close friends with one of the victims and the FBI have been looking into whether he was involved.

Read the rest of the article

May 31, 2013

Copyright © 2013 Daily Mail


The attempt to destroy the individual | Jon Rappoport’s Blog


The attempt to destroy the individual

The attempt to destroy the individual

by Jon Rappoport

May 27, 2013


“What is finished is the idea that this great country is dedicated to the freedom and flourishing of every individual in it. It’s the individual that’s finished. It’s the single, solitary human being that’s finished. It’s every single one of you out there that’s finished. Because this is no longer a nation of independent individuals. It’s a nation of some two hundred odd million transistorized, deodorized, whiter-than-white, steel-belted bodies, totally unnecessary as human beings and as replaceable as piston rods.” — Howard Beale, in Paddy Chayefsky’s 1976 film, Network

But that was only a movie. Who cares about that? You go into a theater, sit there in the dark for a couple of hours, walk out, and think about something else.

For several years now, I’ve been writing about the decline of the individual. The wipeout.

Every time I write an article on this subject, I receive suggestions. I should go back and re-read Marx. I need to understand the difference between “communal, communitarian, community, communist.” I should research worker-owned businesses. What about trans-substantial transpersonal sub-brain algorithmic psychology? How about the pygmies? Ego? Superego? Id?

I appreciate these and other remarks, but I’m talking about the individual, about Self, beyond any construct, beyond citizenship, beyond membership, beyond sociology or anthropology or archeology.

The individual is enshrined in various political documents, but his rights don’t originate there. Neither does courage nor imagination.

I’ve laid out the enormous psyop designed to submerge the individual in unconscious goo. This psyop depends on the repetition of words like: unity, love, caring, community, family. And phrases like “we’re all in this together.”

The individual is characterized as: lone, outsider, selfish,greedy, inhumane, petty. Turn him into an exile, excommunicated from the great body of humanity.

Here, in the usual prose, is a familiar formulation of the grand psyop: “We can no longer afford the luxury of thinking of ourselves as individuals. The stakes are too high. Finally, we must all come together and realize our presence on this planet is a shared experience. The decimation of our resources, through hatred and divisive behavior, the denial of love and community, the cold greed and excessive profit-making, the whole range of social and political injustices—all this can ultimately be laid at the door of the individual who refuses to join the rest of humanity…”

Is this manifesto valid? It’s a deception, BECAUSE it’s aimed at making the individual extinct.

And once that happens, the collective, managed by Globalist princes, will have a clear path to the control of Earth, at the expense of the rest of us. And the cruelties we now witness will pale in comparison to what is in store for us.

“When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets, it is well for the timid to lock doors, shutter windows and lie low until the wrath has passed. For there is often a monstrous incongruity between the hopes, however noble and tender, and the action which follows them. It is as if ivied maidens and garlanded youths were to herald the four horsemen of the apocalypse…The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race, or his holy cause…Collective unity is not the result of the brotherly love of the faithful for each other. The loyalty of the true believer [who surrenders Self] is to the whole — the church, party, nation — and not to his fellow true believer. True loyalty between individuals is possible only in a loose and relatively free society.” — Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, 1951

Wait. Isn’t that a bit harsh? Isn’t that too “critical and negative?” Where is the cosmic share-and-care we need to spread like butter over the whole universe? I mean, Eric Hoffer was a wonderful writer, and he was a working man, a longshoreman for his whole life, so we should admire him, but today’s prophets are wired directly into the Unity that will save us all automatically—like a toaster popping up with toast every time…right?


Corporate Media Blackout of Anti-Monsanto Protests Exposed | The Daily Sheeple


Corporate Media Blackout of Anti-Monsanto Protests Exposed

Daniel Jackson
The Daily Sheeple

May 28th, 2013
Reader Views: 2,666

Over the weekend thousands of anti-Monsanto activists marched down the streets of major cities throughout the country. Dozens of websites covered the protests and posted video online yet the corporate controlled media apparently didn’t feel like it was important enough as they essentially conducted a massive blackout of a news event that should be, at the very least, a top story throughout the weekend.

Anthony Gucciardi of Natural Society exposed the corporate media blackout in a report shot on scene from a March Against Monsanto event in Philadelphia.

In the report and subsequent article he noted that the mainstream medias decision to blackout anti-Monsanto protests actually doesn’t really mean all that much in terms of reaching people on a massive level because, despite attempts by the corporate media, the internet is ablaze with reports from numerous different protests throughout the country and the movement truly has gone viral.

The decision by the mainstream media to ignore the thousands of individuals marching down the busiest streets of major cities worldwide may be appalling, but in reality it matters very little at this point.

Not only is the movement against Monsanto adding to its number each day thanks to the real alternative media and intelligent activism, but the movement as a whole is driven by an inexorable desire to push the GMO ‘food bully’ out of our food supply.

And in addition to the rapid success, growth, and determination of the movement, we have key players in the alternative media that have decided they’re fed up with the hindered focus of mainstream news agencies.

I am extremely glad that we decided to run live coverage on the March Against Monsanto in Philadelphia for its first year, as otherwise the event would not have been properly documented and shared. Couple that with the fact that the mainstream media is on its last breathe of life, and you realize that the alternative news media can actually succeed without the support of the multi-billion dollar news agencies whose ratings are plunging.

What’s truly amazing is that I saw hundreds of pedestrians not taking part in the march use their smart phones to take a few minutes of video. Video that they will likely post on Facebook, Youtube, or Twitter and incite social media activity. Whether it’s asking what is going on via their hundreds of friends on Facebook, or showing support for the march. This is how ideas and movements spread in the modern age, and this is how things like the March Against Monsanto go viral — no television required.

In fact, it really just comes down to strong ideas and topics. We have so much support from so many different groups coming out and standing up against Monsanto that it just goes to show there is a ‘sleeping giant’ of awake individuals who thoroughly understand the challenges we face as a nation. One only needs to tap into that powerful energy of resistance to ignite a movement, like a match to a gasoline-drenched fire pit.

I was extremely impressed and inspired by the support at March Against Monsanto, including the number of readers who came up to voice their support. At the end of the day, even corrupt Monsanto executives and paid-off politicians cannot stand up against a movement like this.

Update: The relatively new CNN Show, “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” aired a seven minute segment during today’s show that covered the anti Monsanto protests.

Although the report did not mention key concerns such as seed patenting and suing farmers, it did get out a major chunk of information on March Against Monsanto and the fact that millions are fighting back against GMO foods.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple


World Bank Insider Blows Whistle on Corruption, Federal Reserve


World Bank Insider Blows Whistle on Corruption, Federal Reserve

A former insider at the World Bank, ex-Senior Counsel Karen Hudes, says the global financial system is dominated by a small group of corrupt, power-hungry figures centered around the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve. The network has seized control of the media to cover up its crimes, too, she explained. In an interview with The New American, Hudes said that when she tried to blow the whistle on multiple problems at the World Bank, she was fired for her efforts. Now, along with a network of fellow whistleblowers, Hudes is determined to expose and end the corruption. And she is confident of success.

Citing an explosive 2011 Swiss study published in the PLOS ONE journal on the “network of global corporate control,” Hudes pointed out that a small group of entities — mostly financial institutions and especially central banks — exert a massive amount of influence over the international economy from behind the scenes. “What is really going on is that the world’s resources are being dominated by this group,” she explained, adding that the “corrupt power grabbers” have managed to dominate the media as well. “They’re being allowed to do it.”

According to the peer-reviewed paper, which presented the first global investigation of ownership architecture in the international economy, transnational corporations form a “giant bow-tie structure.” A large portion of control, meanwhile, “flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions.” The researchers described the core as an “economic ‘super-entity’” that raises important issues for policymakers and researchers. Of course, the implications are enormous for citizens as well.

Hudes, an attorney who spent some two decades working in the World Bank’s legal department, has observed the machinations of the network up close. “I realized we were now dealing with something known as state capture, which is where the institutions of government are co-opted by the group that’s corrupt,” she told The New American in a phone interview. “The pillars of the U.S. government — some of them — are dysfunctional because of state capture; this is a big story, this is a big cover up.”

At the heart of the network, Hudes said, are 147 financial institutions and central banks — especially the Federal Reserve, which was created by Congress but is owned by essentially a cartel of private banks. “This is a story about how the international financial system was secretly gamed, mostly by central banks — they’re the ones we are talking about,” she explained. “The central bankers have been gaming the system. I would say that this is a power grab.”

The Fed in particular is at the very center of the network and the coverup, Hudes continued, citing a policy and oversight body that includes top government and Fed officials. Central bankers have also been manipulating gold prices, she added, echoing widespread concerns that The New American has documented extensively. Indeed, even the inaccurate World Bank financial statements that Hudes has been trying to expose are linked to the U.S. central bank, she said.

“The group that we’re talking about from the Zurich study — that’s the Federal Reserve; it has some other pieces to it, but that’s the Federal Reserve,” Hudes explained. “So the Federal Reserve secretly dominated the world economy using secret, interlocking corporate directorates, and terrorizing anybody who managed to figure out that they were having any kind of role, and putting people in very important positions so that they could get a free pass.”

The shadowy but immensely powerful Bank for International Settlements serves as “the club of these private central bankers,” Hudes continued. “Now, are people going to want interest on their country’s debts to continue to be paid to that group when they find out the secret tricks that that group has been doing? Don’t forget how they’ve enriched themselves extraordinarily and how they’ve taken taxpayer money for the bailout.”

As far as intervening in the gold price, Hudes said it was an effort by the powerful network and its central banks to “hold onto its paper currency” — a suspicion shared by many analysts and even senior government officials. The World Bank whistleblower also said that contrary to official claims, she did not believe there was any gold being held in Fort Knox. Even congressmen and foreign governments have tried to find out if the precious metals were still there, but they met with little success. Hudes, however, believes the scam will eventually come undone.

“This is like crooks trying to figure out where they can go hide. It’s a mafia,” she said. “These culprits that have grabbed all this economic power have succeeded in infiltrating both sides of the issue, so you will find people who are supposedly trying to fight corruption who are just there to spread disinformation and as a placeholder to trip up anybody who manages to get their act together.… Those thugs think that if they can keep the world ignorant, they can bleed it longer.”

Of course, the major corruption at the highest levels of government and business is not a new phenomenon. Georgetown University historian and Professor Carroll Quigley, who served as President Bill Clinton’s mentor, for example, wrote about the scheme in his 1966 book Tragedy And Hope: A History Of The World In Our Time. The heavyweight academic, who was allowed to review documents belonging to the top echelons of the global establishment, even explained how the corrupt system would work — remarkably similar to what Hudes describes.

“The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole,” wrote Prof. Quigley, who agreed with the goals but not the secrecy. “This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”

But it is not going to happen, Hudes said — at least not if she has something do to with it. While the media are dominated by the “power grabber” network, Hudes has been working with foreign governments, reporters, U.S. officials, state governments, and a broad coalition of fellow whistleblowers to blow the entire scam wide open. There has been quite a bit of interest, too, particularly among foreign governments and state officials in the United States.

Citing the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers in creating a federal system of government with multiple layers of checks and balances, Hudes said she was confident that the network would eventually be exposed and subjected to the rule of law, stopping the secret corruption. If and when that happens — even if it may be disorderly — Hudes says precious metals will once again play a role in imposing discipline on the monetary system. The rule of law would also be restored, she said, and the public will demand a proper press to stay informed.

“We’re going to have a cleaned-up financial system, that’s where it is going, but in the meantime, people who didn’t know how the system was gamed are going to find out,” she said. “We’re going to have a different kind of international financial system…. It’ll be a new kind of world where people know what’s going on — no more backroom deals; that’s not going to keep happening. We’re going to have a different kind of media if people don’t want to be dominated and controlled, which I don’t think they do.”

While Hudes sounded upbeat, she recognizes that the world is facing serious danger right now — there are even plans in place to impose martial law in the United States, she said. The next steps will be critical for humanity. As such, Hudes argues, it is crucial that the people of the world find out about the lawlessness, corruption, and thievery that are going on at the highest levels — and put a stop to it once and for all. The consequences of inaction would be disastrous.


Tyranny Around the Corner by Andrew P. Napolitano


Tyranny Around the Corner by Andrew P. Napolitano

Tyranny Around the Corner

by Andrew P. Napolitano

Recently by Andrew P. Napolitano: Storm Clouds Gathering

<img src=”http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif” width=”125″ height=”16″ border=”0″ alt=”” />

A few weeks ago, President Obama advised graduates at Ohio State University that they need not listen to voices warning about tyranny around the corner, because we have self-government in America. He argued that self-government is in and of itself an adequate safeguard against tyranny, because voters can be counted upon to elect democrats (lowercase “d”) not tyrants. His argument defies logic and 20th-century history. It reveals an ignorance of the tyranny of the majority, which believes it can write any law, regulate any behavior, alter any procedure and tax any event so long as it can get away with it.

History has shown that the majority will not permit any higher law or logic or value – like fidelity to the natural law, a belief in the primacy of the individual or an acceptance of the supremacy of the Constitution – that prevents it from doing as it wishes.

Under Obama’s watch, the majority has, by active vote or refusal to interfere, killed hundreds of innocents – including three Americans – by drone, permitted federal agents to write their own search warrants, bombed Libya into tribal lawlessness without a declaration of war so that a mob there killed our ambassador with impunity, attempted to force the Roman Catholic Church to purchase insurance policies that cover artificial birth control, euthanasia and abortion, ordered your doctor to ask you whether you own guns, used the IRS to intimidate outspoken conservatives, seized the telephone records of newspaper reporters without lawful authority and in violation of court rules, and obtained a search warrant against one of my Fox colleagues by misrepresenting his true status to a federal judge.

James Rosen, my colleague and friend, is a professional journalist. He covers the State Department for Fox News. In order to do his job, he has cultivated sources in the State Department – folks willing to speak from time to time off the record.

One of Rosen’s sources apparently was a former employee of a federal contractor who was on detail to the State Department, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. Kim is an expert in arms control and national defense whose lawyers have stated that his job was to explain byzantine government behavior so we all can understand it. When he was indicted for communicating top secret and sensitive information, presumably to Rosen, his lawyers replied by stating that the information he discussed was already in the public domain, and thus it wasn’t secret.

Prior to securing Kim’s indictment, the Department of Justice obtained a search warrant for Google’s records of Rosen’s personal emails by telling a federal judge that Rosen had committed the crime of conspiracy by undue flattery of Kim and appealing to Kim’s vanity until Kim told Rosen what he wanted to hear. In a word, that is rubbish. And the FBI agent who claimed that asking a source for information and the federal judge who found that the flattering questions alone constituted criminal behavior were gravely in error.

Reporters are protected in their craft by the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has ruled that they can ask whatever questions they wish without fear of prosecution. If Kim revealed classified information to Rosen – a charge Kim vigorously denies – that is Kim’s crime, not Rosen’s. The Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case that it is not a crime for a journalist to seek secrets, to receive them, to possess them and to publish them so long as they affect a matter of material public interest.

The government’s behavior here is very troubling. Government lawyers and FBI agents are charged with knowing the law. They must have known that Rosen committed no crime, and they no doubt never intended to charge him, and they never have. They materially misled the judge, who saw the phrase “probable cause” of criminal activity (taken from the Fourth Amendment) in their affidavit in support of the search warrant they sought, and he signed. The judge should have seen this for the ruse it was. It is inconceivable that a person could conspire to commit a crime (release of classified information) that is impossible for that person to commit, particularly with a Supreme Court case directly on point.

This misuse of the search warrant mechanism by misrepresentation of the status of the target continues the radicalization of federal criminal procedure now typical of this Department of Justice. It has claimed that it can release military weapons to foreign criminal gangs just to see where the weapons end up, and that its agents cannot be prosecuted for harm caused by those who received the weapons. It has held that the serious consideration given in the White House by high-ranking government officials to the identity of persons the president wants to kill somehow is a constitutional substitute for due process and thus enables the president to use drones to kill people uncharged with federal crimes. It has extended the public safety exception to the Miranda rule from the few seconds at the scene of the crime spent securing the prisoner, where the Supreme Court has said it resides, to more than 72 hours.

And now this.

The reason we have the due process safeguards imposed upon the government by the Constitution is to keep tyranny from lurking anywhere here, much less around the corner. Due process is the intentionally created obstacle to government procedural shortcuts, which, if disregarded, will invite tyranny to knock at the front door and sneak in through the back. Justice Felix Frankfurter warned of this 70 years ago when he wrote, “The history of liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards.” That was true then, and it is true now.

Do you expect the Department of Justice to cut constitutional corners against you?

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

May 23, 2013

Andrew P. Napolitano [send
him mail
], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is
Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit creators.com.

Copyright © 2013 Andrew P. Napolitano

The Best of Andrew Napolitano


Top IRS official takes the Fifth: what it means | Jon Rappoport’s Blog


Top IRS official takes the Fifth: what it means

Top IRS official takes the Fifth: what it means

by Jon Rappoport

May 22, 2013


Now it’s getting interesting.

Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt filings, will take the Fifth in front of Congress tomorrow.

She won’t answer questions. She won’t say, for example, why she never informed Congress that she knew there was criminal fiddling going on at the IRS, where employees “gave extra scrutiny” to tea party, conservative, patriot, and other groups during the application process.

Instead, as the DOJ launches a criminal investigation, Lerner will tell the House Oversight Committee, “I decline to answer. I invoke my Fifth Amendment right.” Multiple times she will say this.

Meaning: “If I answer, I could incriminate myself.”

Her lawyer, William Taylor, has asked the Committee to excuse Lerner from testifying tomorrow, Wednesday, since she won’t be answering questions. Taylor wrote to the House Committee, “[Forcing her to testify would] have no other purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.”

Tsk, tsk. Mustn’t embarrass a person who has committed crimes. Be nice. Be kind. Yes, Lois Lerner failed to tell the Committee anything about IRS crimes, when she testified four times last year, but so what? Give her a break. Goodness gracious, don’t put her through an ordeal.

Somehow, Lerner’s lawyer’s logic doesn’t stand up. But he’s a lawyer, so that’s no surprise.

Then there was this: a presidential election last year. 2012? Obama? Remember?

If Lois Lerner had blown the whistle then, and the full-blown scandal that’s erupting now had occurred before the election, who knows who would have won the presidency.

Lois was obviously protecting a president running to win a second term. She’s “pre-taking” the Fifth now and hoping she won’t have to appear before the Committee tomorrow, so the Obama administration won’t have to risk hearing a Congressman ask, WERE YOU PROTECTING THE PRESIDENT FROM SCANDAL IN AN ELECTION YEAR?


Ahem…the Fifth Amendment wasn’t designed for that purpose. It was designed so a person wouldn’t have to incriminate himself/herself. The Fifth doesn’t exist to protect someone else from scandal.

We get it, Lois. We get what you’re up to.

If you do stand before the Committee tomorrow, why don’t you just say, “I refuse to answer on the grounds that I would cast doubt on the 2012 presidential election and the president.” Come out with it.

One question, though. Are you sure the president you’re protecting isn’t named George Bush? Because this sounds a lot like what Bush’s people were doing all those years.

Am I dreaming here? This is the Obama administration, right? The presidency that was supposed to be transparent and good and different and transcendent, and prophetic of a New Age?

Gee, you mean it’s just biz as usual? It’s every presidency and every administration that pulls dirty tricks? It’s one continuous, unbroken line of diabolical scum at work?

What a shock. Let me hold on to my chair, because the room might start spinning.

Lois, what if there is no Clark? What if he’s not in some phone booth taking off his suit and turning into Superman, so he can rescue you? What if the president and his henchmen are just throwing you to the wolves?

Consider that. Then consider what would happen if you changed your mind at the 11th hour, and instead of taking the Fifth, you checked into the Committee room tomorrow and told everything, and I mean everything, you know.

You could rock the vote, retrospectively. You could make the kind of splash we rarely see. You could upset so many apple carts it would be wondrous to behold.

Wasn’t this administration supposed to be about a massive healing and cleansing? You could make it so, Lois. You could engage with the people, for once, and tell the truth.

I know you’re sweating bullets right now, but think about it.

Imagine the looks on the faces of Steven Miller, Eric Holder, Barack Obama.

The truth and the whole truth.


Lois, your lawyer, Taylor, has written to the House Committee, “[Lois] has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation, but under the circumstances, she has no choice but to take this course [and invoke the Fifth].”

Wow, Lois, do you see how crazy it’s getting? Your own attorney is basically saying you have no reason to take the Fifth…except for the fact that you have to protect other people. Isn’t that right? Isn’t that what he really means? So who is he really working for?

You’re out there alone. You’re exposed. Why not give them all the shaft and tell the whole sordid story?

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

About these ads

May 22, 2013


Authorities never have “issues with authority” | Jon Rappoport’s Blog


Authorities never have “issues with authority”

Authorities never have “issues with authority”

by Jon Rappoport

May 21, 2013


It’s simple. Authorities invented the idea that other people have issues with authority.

Psychiatrists rank right up there among the elitists setting the standards. They, for example, have concocted a little fictional doodad called Oppositional Defiance Disorder. And magically, they never accuse their professional colleagues of having it. No.

Why should they? They amuse themselves by deciding when civilians are overly defiant and need pacification (drugs).

But we’re also talking about character structure here, because psychiatrists turn out to be exactly the people who want to slap labels like ODD on others. They like that. So they labor in universities and hospitals and earn their degrees and state-issued licenses, knowing that soon they will have that power.

Having gained it, there is nothing to be defiant about. They’re sitting on top of the heap, which they call science.

It’s quite a racket.

In response, how about this? The Challenge to Authority Syndrome (CAS). It would be diagnosed in people who hold positions of authority and react very badly when someone lower on the totem pole doubts them.

Symptoms include: facial flushes; body tremors; shouts excessively; deals out punishment; calls challenger a “terrorist”; obtains secret warrant to spy on challenger…

Treatment for CAS: sedatives; aspartame; fluoridated water.

There are literally millions of jobs and positions in this country that are entirely dependent on listening to instructions and following them, no questions asked. No suggestions permitted. No divergence tolerated.

Therefore, the potential pool of people who “have issues with authority” is huge. It seems only fair to do a reversal and start diagnosing authorities with CAS.

In 1957, at the age of 19, I found myself taking a train into New York, to see a psychologist who was going to give me a Rorschach (inkblot) Test.

We sat in his office and he ran down his credentials and background, and assured me he was a “specialist.” Right away, I had “issues.”

He said he would show me 10 cards with pictures, and he wanted me to tell him what I saw. His interpretation of my answers would enable him to assess my state of mind.

Really? Now I had serious issues.

He flashed the first card. The picture looked like a bat. Well, all ten pictures pretty much look like bats or butterflies or moths.

But I thought it would be too obvious to say “bat.” I was going for more arcane material to make it interesting.

So…a full hour later, I was still working on one section of the picture on card one. I was seeing clouds, branches, statues, ancient Rome, space travel, stoves, noses, Graham crackers, interplanetary musical notation, pregnant deer, Civil War soldiers, private detectives’ hats, freezers, sandstorms, X-rays, lint, faces in the moon, candy wrappers…

The authority figure was sweating. He was supposed to make notes on everything I said without comment. At the rate I was going, we’d be in his office all night and into the next day.

I observed him come to a boil.

Finally, he snapped. “Keep it simple!” Obvious symptom of CAS.

My, my.

“Why should I keep it simple?” I calmly asked.

“Because I have enough material!”

“What about the other pictures?” I said. “And I’m not through with this one.”

“We don’t need the other pictures!” he said, his face a fine flushing red.

“We don’t? I thought the test was all ten.”

“It doesn’t have to be!”

“Oh,” I said. “But I’m really enjoying this. It’s an interesting picture. They’ve put so much in it…”

He sat there, pen in hand, notebook on the table, and glared at me, as if I’d just blown up his house. He was clearly having a full-blown CAS episode.

“Are you doing this on purpose?” he said.

“Doing what?”

He sputtered, “Finding so many things!”

“Well,” I said, “there’s really nothing in the picture, is there, come to think of it. It’s all what I imagine.”

He shook his finger at me. “No it isn’t. I’m not asking you to imagine anything. I’m asking what you see.”

“I don’t see anything,” I said.

“That’s impossible,” he said.

“I’m just telling you the way it seems to me. Maybe there are right and wrong answers. You’re in charge. You would know.”

The authority. The authority on perception and what it means. The authority on my state of mind.

“No,” he said. “There is no right or wrong.”

“Then I guess I should continue,” I said.

So I did, for another few minutes. On the same section of the picture on card one, I chirped right along.

“Okay,” he said. “That’s enough.”

“No,” I said. “I feel like I’m just getting started. I thinks it’s therapeutic.”

“Listen,” he said. “This isn’t a test of your imagination. I want to know what you see in the picture.”

“I see an inkblot. It’s symmetrical.”

Then he came out with it. “You have a problem with authority,” he said.

“Really? You can tell that from my responses to the picture? Was it the hats? The Civil War soldiers?”

He took a deep breath and tried to calm himself down.

“No,” he said. “You don’t want to be judged.”

“Would you?” I said. “I could sit here and make notes on what you see in the pictures.”

“I’m administering the test,” he said, “not you. I’m trained to interpret it.”

“Okay,” I said. “I see male genitalia there at the top of the picture. They’re reading the New York Times and ordering coffee at a cafe.”

He stood up. He closed his notebook. He looked very tired.

He showed me out the door.

At the tender age of 19, I learned two lessons that day. One: they command, I subvert. And two: pretensions to science make a marvelous front for authorities.

There is something further. So-called mental-health authorities build a feedback loop to make a sale. They essentially ask you what you see, think, and feel, and then, when you tell them, they jam a label on your head. They just rearrange your own words and sell them back to you. In essence:

“I feel sad.”

“You have a condition called Sadness (depression).”

“I feel up and down.”

“You have condition called Up and Down (bipolar).”

No. They have a condition called Authority.

The Rorschach Test was one of those disastrous experiments where academics tried to make art into science. They presumed to carve pictures up into neat and revealing categories.

It didn’t work. It’s never worked. People looking at pictures see what they see, think what they think, and imagine what they imagine. This is why Hitler, Stalin, and the Chinese leadership destroyed so much art and set binding rules on what should be imagined.

Art is dangerous. People move out of standard-response channels and actually conceive of ideas they’ve never considered before. They surpass brainwashing.

They realize, for starters, that any system, when it becomes large enough, can only continue to exist by turning rotten at the core.

Here is a piece from an interview I did with hypnotherapist Jack True in 1990:

Q (Rappoport): “There seems to be a growing interest, from psychiatrists, in ‘problems around authority.’”

A (Jack): “It’s self-reflexive. The psychiatrists are the authorities. So they want to protect their own turf. Anyone who questions their supremacy can get a diagnosis of mental illness.

“This society is being shaped into tighter systems. It means people in charge have to exert more control. They want to be immune from serious attacks.

“Everything leads back to freedom. When you press down hard on people, they think about their freedom. They want to break out. There are a lot of strategies employed to keep that from occurring.

“Code words are dropped into the culture. ‘Family,’ ‘groups,’ ‘love,’ ‘humanity,’ ‘care,’ concern.’”

Q: “Those are real words.”

A: “Yes, but they’re put there to bring about a kind of trance. They induce certain frequencies that are calming. As vague general terms, in basically trivial contexts, they flatten out emotional responses. They reduce emotional energy.”

Q: “And then what happens?”

A: “A number of things. The idea of freedom becomes less forceful. It become associated with less power. People opt for gentle behavior. But it’s not genuine. It’s the outcome of hypnotic suggestion.”

Q: “And the people who resist, who don’t buy in?”

A: “Their numbers decline. Ways are found to characterize them as mentally ill.”

Q: “If a person doesn’t react well to overweening authority…”

A: “He’s said to have a problem. You see? It’s his problem. That’s turning it around on the rebel. He’s not exposing authority. He’s got a problem.”

Q: And the psychiatrist ‘cares.’”

A: “Sure. He ‘wants to help.’ It’s a load of hypnotic suggestion, all the way up and down the line. I wouldn’t refer a person to a psychiatrist for all the tea in China.”

end of excerpt

On August 18, 1988, George Bush the Elder gave a speech in which he said, “I want a kinder, gentler nation.” It was perfectly in line with the ongoing pysop Jack True referred to above.

Bush’s words seemed to be positive, but they were really trying to “soften the frequencies” generated by the mind. Bush was basically saying, “We’re the authorities, we’re in charge. Be nice and everything will be all right…”

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Like this:

Like Loading…