© GoShorty.net
Just as Wall Street, war profiteers, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and other corporate favorites steal with impunity, it's OK for America's media to lie.
The ruling pertained to a 1996 Jane Akre/Steve Wilson Fox affiliate WTVT, Tampa reports on bovine growth hormone (BGH) dangers, Monsanto's hazardous to human health genetically engineered milk additive.
At first, the station loved them. Later, however, Fox executives and their attorneys ordered its reporters to admit falsifying evidence and produce bogus reports on BGH safety.
They refused, threatened to inform the FCC, were fired, and sued. A district court jury decided on their behalf, awarding Acre alone $425,000 in damages.
Fox appealed and won, the Appellate Court saying Acre wasn't protected under Florida's whistleblower statute, loosely interpreting it to mean employers must violate an adopted "law, rule, or regulation."
In other words, Fox simply followed "policy" entitling its stations to lie - whether on product safety or falsifying facts about anything, including 9/11 truth.
In 2005, Project Censored chose this story among its top 25 most important, titled "The Media Can Legally Lie," and lie they've done about 9/11 from that day to the present.
Those old enough to remember won't forget, including how media distortions turned it into perhaps the most hyped ever spectacle, especially on television.
For days, images of planes hitting the twin towers and their collapse were aired repeatedly.
A personal note. I was in a doctor's waiting room with others watching events on television. When the South Tower collapsed, everyone audibly gasped, unaware as I was how or why, let alone what lay next.
When the North Tower collapsed 30 minutes later, unsettling thoughts crystallized enough to make me sense much more was involved than met the eye or what news reports claimed.
It was almost anti-climactic when WTC 7 collapsed at 5:21PM. Notably, BBC's Jane Standley reported the event at 4:54PM New York time, 27 minutes in advance.
Later she claimed she didn't "remember minute-by-minute what she saw," or perhaps (like BBC's management) doesn't want to explain how she could report an event before it happened without advance knowledge.
Earlier in the afternoon, I smelled a rat and wrote my brother, saying: "They're drinking champagne in the White House tonight," precise words I'll never forgot. Yet they failed to imagine the horror-filled decade to come.
Back then, the whole world watched the horrific spectacle, including planes hitting the towers, both bursting into flames, desperate people jumping out of windows to avoid incineration, and then collapse at near free-fall speed, later proved (but unreported) by controlled demolitions.
A 2002 HBO film titled, "In Memoriam" called 9/11 "the most documented event in history," stopping short of revealing what really happened or why.
It provided a collage of images produced by news crews, filmmakers, amateur videographers and photographers, some of them risking their lives by so doing.
For three or more days, US television covered the event and its aftermath nonstop commercial free. In the process, they hyped war hysteria belligerently.
On October 7, 26 days later, it began against a nation having nothing to do with the attack. However, falsified reports held Osama bin Laden responsible. Later, the FBI admitted no evidence linked him to the incident.
Nonetheless, Washington demanded Taliban authorities extradite him. They, in turn, rightly wanted proof of his culpability.
None, of course, was provided to let the Bush administration go to war on false pretenses. March 2003 against Iraq followed.
Both wars rage today, besides Obama's naked aggression, notably against Libya - another nonbelligerent country America and its NATO allies systematically destroyed, butchering tens of thousands of Libyans on the pretext of protecting them.
America's post-9/11 decade is best called its visible fall from grace, waging permanent wars on humanity for wealth and power, never for falsified hyped reasons everyone needs to understand and condemn.
But don't expect America's media to explain. They're, in fact, complicit by regurgitating official lies, vilifying Islam, and resonating war fever discourse for intervention, featuring one-sided reports and commentaries.
Absent was critical debate. Vital questions weren't asked. Militarism instead was promoted as the solution to "global terrorism."
For days, political and military officials and spokespersons shared air time with so-called national security state experts and various crackpots, ranging from right-wing to hard-right to the lunatic fringe.
The common theme argued was that America was at war with Islam, Samuel Huntington's racist "clash of civilizations" notion, "good v. evil," "freedom (and our) way of life" against "forces of darkness."
Bush administration officials used cowboy metaphors, including wanting bin Laden "dead or alive," calling its campaign a "crusade" until criticism forced its change to "Operation Enduring Freedom," and vowing to "smoke out and pursue" barbaric evil doers.
Their underlying theme was fear because it sells, even when cause for it doesn't exist.
At the same time, Bush's "war on terrorism" didn't mention democracy, instead emphasizing his fighting for "freedom" mantra, no matter the human toll or illegitimacy of the Big (9/11) Lie, permitting America's war on the world to follow.
Inaugurated on January 20, 2001, his nationally televised address to Congress declared war on terrorism, describing a conflict between "those governed by fear (who) want to destroy our wealth and freedoms" and others wanting to defend it.
Thereafter, the major media hyped fear, promoted revenge, and defended falsified notions that Washington wages wars for freedom and democratic values by ridding nations of dangerous tyrants, especially ones threatening Americans.
In other words, wars of aggression are liberating ones. Civil and human rights are suppressed for our own good, and patriotism means going along with lawless governments, committing crimes of war and against humanity against one country after another.
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda replaced "the evil empire." Terrorism became the new mantra. Manichean good v. evil notions were hyped. Fear and hate overwhelmed sanity and defending right over wrong, as well as holding venal politicians accountable for acting lawlessly with impunity.
An earlier article explained that when America goes to war, managed news follows, spreading rumors, half-truths, misinformation, and willful deception about targeted nations, regimes, leaders, and other enemies, whether despots of democrats.
John Pilger said "Journalism is the first casualty" of war. "Not only that: it has become a weapon of war, a virulent censorship (and willful misreporting) that goes unrecognized in the United States, Britain and other democracies; censorship by omission (makes all) the difference between life and death for people in (targeted) countries...."
It suppresses debate, substitutes fiction for facts, filters out truth, and cheerleads in lockstep with government policy, right or wrong.
As a result, it supports America's right to be judge, jury and executioner, as well as get victor's spoils because that's why all wars are fought, never for falsified reasons, regurgitated on air and in print ad nauseam.
Because America's business is war, supported by its major media, war profiteering is a growth industry, and as famed comedian Jimmy Durante used to say:
"Everybody wants ta get inta da act," and they do.
In addition, not telling the truth and holding venal politicians accountable for taking America to war on false pretenses lets them do it again with impunity.
At best, damage control tactics follow, including Bush officials relying on 9/11 Commission liars to let them off the hook by sanitizing policy and concealing facts.
David Ray Griffin brilliantly exposed them in his book titled, "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions." He explained that Bush officials "deliberately" failed to prevent the attacks or, in fact, were "actively involved in (their) planning and execution...."
His introduction calls his book important because of the significant consequences of 9/11, taking America to war on false pretenses, and its major media lying about it supportively.
His reasons for wanting to examine the 9/11 Commission's report included:
-- to determine if Bush's "war on terrorism" response to 9/11 was appropriate;
-- to learn if the Commission's account was "definitive;" and
-- "whether the success of the attacks would have been less likely if the recommended structural changes had already been in place."
A fourth reason was the "possibility of a cover-up," and indeed that's precisely what happened. Instead of "provid(ing) the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11," damage control suppressed them.
The Commission, of course, was hardly "nonpartisan," "impartial," or "thorough," especially with Philip Zelikow as executive director, a Republican Bush administration member at the time, appointed to assure whitewash, not full disclosure.
In his exhaustive account, Griffin brilliantly, "painstaking(ly) and devasting(ly) demoli(shed)" the Commissions findings, according to Peter Dale Scott.
Though Griffin didn't address America's media, he nonetheless exposed its complicit role. They regurgitated Commission lies as truth, the way they always represent powerful interests at the expense of good journalism, commentaries and full disclosure.
To this day, 9/11 mythology remains official dogma on air and in print. As a result, most Americans remain unaware of the biggest lie of our time and its horrific consequences, touching their lives directly.
A Final Comment
Sunday marks the 10th 9/11 anniversary. This writer plans two more articles about the big lie and its aftermath to be published on or about the date.
On September 10 and 11, the Progressive Radio News Hour will feature more discussion on it, especially its horrific consequences.
Expect America's media also to react. The Washington Post already features "Full coverage: Remembering 9/11," with features headlined:
"After 9/11, security guard on high alert," against what wasn't explained.
"Brought together by catastrophe," focusing on marriage vows exchanged, not 9/11 truth.
"Twin misses his other half," killed in the attack on the Pentagon, instead of explaining the toll on millions of dead Afghans, Iraqis, and their families, their countries destroyed by US lawlessness.
"Trying to find the new normal," about a wife coping in the aftermath of her military husband's death, again ignoring a global catastrophe because of America's post-9/11 wars.
On September 4, New York Times writers Jeremy Peters and Brian Stelter headlined, "Media Strive to Cover 9/11 Without Seeming to Exploit a Tragedy," saying:
Coverage of its 10th anniversary will walk "a fine line between commemoration and exploitation. Mindful of this, television networks and magazines and others planning special coverage....are approaching it differently," some commercial free.
Unfortunately, freedom from truth already is featured. Neither writer explained, instead saying news outlets will vary in their approach with special print and on air specials.
As on previous anniversaries, they'll cover everything except what Americans most need to know - the truth.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
After 9-11 one of the NecroCon's catamites was rather boasting that, "We are creating the 'reality' you live." And to a great extent he was/is correct.
This interview is about the 'fields' that such groups can create but bear in mind that constructive fields are equally possible, as the Cs mentioned in a session perhaps two years back.
9-11 was a made-for-TV tramautization and indoctrination of the mass mind, the uncritical mind, and one day as I was sitting having coffee in my favorite huant of ten or twelve years this point was driven home to me.
I always chose a particular south facing window for its view of the trees and those walking up and down the street.
Paying no particular attention, I idly noticed a dark haired, bearded, dark skinned man walking down the sidewalk on the other side of the street. Wholly unbidden jumped into my mind the idea that there must be something 'wrong' with him, something dangerous . . . I was stunned.
Instantly I turned inward looking for the intruding thought, rather like one searching one's home for a thief.
I must say at this point that from day one I said to anyone who'd listen that OhMama-I-bin-LiedAbout had as much todo with 9-11 as I did. I --never-- belived the nonsense that a ragtag bunch of guys who couldn't run a RadioFlyer down a steep hill could fly airplanes into buildings, and even if they did those buildings were --designed-- to withstand the impact of not just one, but several 727s.
So the whole 9-11 myth flew like a lead balloon with me.
Given that, I was stunned to find myself thinking a man in a calm, Canadian city reknown for its open, friendly attitude might be, a priori, a 'threat'.
Very interesting things these fields . . .
=================
Okay, this week I am doing a second interview with the ex-fighter pilot who flew a number of missions from US aircraft carriers. In the first interview, this man recounted a spectacular experience he had with suddenly visible fields of information. Since his departure from the Armed Forces, he has continued to research this subject in a very intense way. It has become his life's mission. He has much to say. Clearly, he is a man who has devoted a great deal of time to the unraveling of mass persuasion techniques, mind control, and the relatively uncharted area of electromagnetically distributed symbols. This may seem like an exotic area, but its effect on people everywhere can be profound.
Q: Where do you want to start?
A: With the premise that I am not talking about a kind of slavery from which we cannot escape. I am not talking about that. I'm talking about a struggle to place ourselves beyond the influence of fields.
Q: What is a field?
A: It is a display of symbols and images and information which can be tapped into usually on an unconscious level by anyone.
Q: A person resonates with a field.
A: Yes.
Q: And then what?
A: Then he tends to reflect, in his thoughts, the general impression or message of the field.
Q: An example?
A: Let me offer you a statement by the UPI reporter Sam Vaknin. He is describing what he calls a collective, a group which has come to hold a very destructive view of its mission in life. The members of the collective form a material in which all the atoms vibrate with the same frequency, group behavior forms a malignant laser, a strong, same wavelength, potentially destructive beam. The group becomes abusive to others, exploitative, detached from reality, bathed in grandiose fantasies, xenophobic, lacking empathy, prone to uncontrolled rages, over-sensitive, convinced of its superiority and entitlement.
Q: Sounds like a pretty good description of the Nazis.
A: Yes. And other groups. Such as the cartels you write about.
Q: And what is the connection to these fields?
A: Well, the writer of that passage is describing quite well the effect a
field can have on a group. All the atoms of the individuals begin to vibrate together. Individuals become lost in that effect. They form a collective.
Q: You believe these fields can be generated in several ways?
A: Absolutely. When enough media concentration is focused on a single
issue, a field of information develops which is larger, as a whole, than the sum of the items.
Q: And this is a form of impressionism.
A: Right.
Q: A painter like Monet, with thousands of brushstrokes, creates a whole
landscape of a pond that vibrates with a wholeness which is obviously beyond the sum of the individual brushstrokes.
A: That would be a benevolent field.
Q: How else can a field be created?
A: It is now clear to me that a whole field can be created at once, as a kind of broadcast from a central point. From a central location.
Q: Electromagnetically.
A: Yes. For instance, a field you might call fascism.
Q: And what would this field contain?
A: All sorts of images. Flags, leaders talking to thousands of people,
symbols of the regime, brutal arrests of civilians, the joy of a mother holding a baby, a father disciplining his son, immense piles of gold bars, government buildings, victory on battlefields, people weeping, people cheering
Q: This reminds me of the test that was given to the assassin in training in the film The Parallax View.
A: Yes. Warren Beatty. He was shown all sorts of images, a field, while
he was sitting in a chair with electrodes connected to his body. In that case, it was a test to see how he reacted to all this. His controllers, his handlers wanted to see whether he displayed the requisite combination of rage, humiliation, patriotism, loyalty, criminal intent, and so forth.
Q: But you are saying a field like this could be created all at once, like a mural, which would be played over and over to large numbers of people, as a training device.
A: That's what I am saying. This would be indoctrination into obedience to a regime. Conflicting and disparate images would be resolved for the viewer in one synthesis. For example, the joy of motherhood and the illusion of freedom would be woven into the need for revenge and war. The image of great material wealth would be woven into the need to conquer all sorts of nameless enemies.
Q: Fascist order equals freedom.
A: Obedience equals power. All the contradictions resolved: into one overriding impression.
Q: It sounds like a weird form of therapy.
A: That's what it is. Only the therapy bypasses all the usual channels of thought and rational consideration. Instead, you get resolution through a form of repetition and unconscious downloading into the mind of a great deal of material.
Q: This was also the strategy of the ancient group called the Assassins.
A: Yes, although they used a simpler format. The trainees would be drugged and transported to a pastoral version of paradise. They would experience this area for a short time and be told that, when they killed their assigned victims in the ordinary world, later on, this act would guarantee them passage to paradise when they died. Paradise equals murder.
A resolution of opposites.
Q: All right. Now as far as the details go, as for how a field can be constructed and broadcast to the minds of many people
A: This takes some understanding. Lets start with the fact that the visible spectrum of light is only a fraction of the larger invisible spectrum. Yet, people can certainly be affected by the invisible part. So, a person does not have to see a field to be affected by its content.
Q: And where is the field actually located?
A: Where is light? In space. It's anywhere in space. Outside your window. In the air. In the sky. But yet you dont see it.
Q: But in the experience you described in your first interview, you did see a field.
A: And that experience, that glimpse showed me that I was only seeing with
a part of my ability most of the time. I was only seeing part of what could be there. In my revelation I was permitted to glimpse a whole other sector of reality. Fields.
Q: You know, of course, that when we discuss this phenomenon, we open the door to all sorts of interpretations, because most people dont see fields. So anyone can say anything.
A: More than that. Anyone can claim he is a victim of a field, a victim of a bad influence and therefore he has no choice about what he thinks reality is. This is the thing we have to avoid. Using something different to explain our problems and shortcomings in a way that leaves us with less power than we actually have, this is not a good idea at all. But, human beings have done this kind of explaining thing for centuries. It's unavoidable, if someone really wants to take the low road and excuse his actions and say he has no choice.
Q: Point taken.
A: Part of my research has been into the actual projecting of these fields. How it can be done.
Q: And?
A: Since I left the service, I have had a number of conversations with military researchers about holograms and about so-called battlefield projections, in which symbolic or imagistic representations of an area are available for viewing by soldiers. Now, you have to understand, these would be fairly simple technologies, relatively speaking. But several of these researchers have told me that something far more sophisticated is in the works. One, attempts to tap directly into the brains of soldiers, in order, lets say, to give them commands. And two, the projection of fields which would try to bring to the surface certain emotions and moods in troops. For example, heroism. For example, a refusal to give up or let down under any circumstances. For example, great endurance.
Q: The projection of fields.
A: Sure.
Q: Once again, I think of an analogy in painting. Dalis great work, Christopher Columbus, as he steps out of the water into the New World. Dali is able to portray all sorts of overlapping levels of opaque and translucent imagery.
A: I haven't seen this painting, but what you're describing is similar to
what I saw, and its similar to versions I've heard described.
Q: By military researchers.
A: Yes.
Q: Layers of information delivered as symbols and images.
A: Exactly.
Q: Now, in the experience you yourself had, you were viewing a very complete field. This wasn't a partially completed research project.
A: No it wasn't.
Q: So where did that field come from?
A: I don't want to wade in and sloppily play the UFO card, because it would stir up even more questions. But I have to think that the technology behind what I saw, and what others have seen, is far superior to what we have now.
Q: You would be talking about?
A: I would be talking about a very advanced form of mind control on a mass level.
Q: And yet you don't want this to be used as an excuse by people who want to play victim.
A: I operate on the basic premise that we can undo, or get past, any attempt at mass persuasion, no matter how sophisticated that effort might be.
Q: Okay. But we're still grappling with the question of where such a sophisticated field might come from.
A: Yes. My tentative conclusion is, this is a very old form of mind control. These fields have been around for a long time. In other words, our planet has been used as a self-contained locale for hopeless progress and backsliding.
Q: What exactly does that mean?
A: It means that, as I mentioned last time, we are being to exposed to fields which condition us to war as the best solution to conflict we have.
And in this way, over centuries, the world moves forward and then its major civilizations are destroyed by war, and a rebuilding effort is required. A great deal of technological progress is maintained although not nearly as much as we might have but all in all we are subject to the cycle of growth and destruction. Over and over.
Q: Now, in your conversations with these military researchers, have any of these people been aware of this cycle?
A: If they have been, they are in complete denial about it. They are not looking at the implications. They are not looking at the big picture.
Q: They are trapped inside it.
A: Yes. And that is one reason why the military cartel is so dangerous. It aids and abets this repeating cycle.
Q: All right. You said I could bring up the subject of our late mutual friend
A: Yes, go ahead.
Q: Jack True. My long-time subscribers know him. I've published several interviews out of the many I did with him. Jack died in the early 1990s.He was a brilliant hypnotherapist and a lot more. He worked with me and I with him on several independent research projects.
A: And I had been a patient of his.
Q: That's how you and I met.
A: Correct.
Q: As we both know, Jack did some experiments with fields.
A: Yes. A few with me, some with others.
Q: What was your experiment like?
A: Jack put me in a trance and had me visit several fields.
Q: What did they look like?
A: Like overlapping imagery and symbols and long strings of codes.
Q: Did you try to translate any of the coded symbols or letters?
A: Yes. There were messages that said things like, "In the long period of history, the enemies will discover one another's treasonous acts." It was like a manual, if you will, on the conceivable reasons for fighting a war.
The things others could do to you that would make you want to go war against them, That was one thing I discovered.
Q: Did you find it easy to do these translations?
A: Under hypnosis, yes. I had no restraints.
Q: Meaning?
A: I had no doubts in my capacity to read the codes.
Q: What about canceling the fields?
A: We did some experiments with that too. Jack had me practice turning on and turning off a field, once I saw it. That was easy too.
Q: What did you feel when you turned off a field?
A: Space. A sense of being liberated from the overall meaning of the
field.
Q: And what did you infer from that?
A: That I had been, in some way, under the influence of the field. It had had an effect on me. It was if I had been unconsciously straining against the overall impression of the field, to combat its message, and when it was turned off, that strain vanished.
Q: You and Jack must have found that interesting.
A: We certainly did.
Q: Do you assume that people in general are unconsciously working to
strain against these fields and their influence?
A: Yes. That is how it seems to me.
Q: What else did you do with Jack?
A: I analyzed the fields in great detail, to see the images, to see how they connected, spatially, to see what symbols were attached to what images.
Q: And?
A: I found many connections. This part is hard to describe, but I felt that there was almost an emotional glue that held certain images and symbols together. This was a bit of a mystery to me, but it was very definite that the emotional connections were there. These connections made me slide from one image to another, in a familiar way. It felt familiar, like a dream I had dreamed many times.
Q: Some form of emotional imprinting?
A: That's what Jack called it.
Q: Now when you viewed these fields under hypnosis, where did they seem to be located? In your mind?
A: Under hypnosis, I came to see the fields quite clearly. At first, I thought they were in my mind space, so to speak, and they were. But gradually I came to see that they were actually in two separate places.
They were in my mind as memories, so to speak, but they were also in space.
Q: Physical space?
A: Yes.
Q: You mean, in the space of the room in which you and Jack were working?
A: No. They were out in the space of the city, Los Angeles. In the sky. In the streets.
Q: So they were in two places. A mental space and a physical space.
A: Yes.
Q: Was this confusing?
A: Only for a short time. When I clearly picked up the field in physical space, things became clear.
Q: How did that work?
A: Under hypnosis, when I saw the field in its real world form, the other version just faded into the background. Don't ask me to explain that. That's what happened.
Q: Almost as if you were now seeing the real thing.
A: That's how it felt. I had graduated up into the more important perception of the field. I could analyze that one. I could see it more clearly. It was more stable for me. It was more responsive. It was as if I had cracked the combination to a vault and I was now inside. Once I was there, the job at hand made a lot more sense.
Q: What was the job at hand?
A: To analyze the field components, to get familiar with them, to work my way around, to translate some of the codes, to sense the connections between different parts of the field. When I had done these things, I was ready to switch the field off.
Q: And you could do that?
A: With Jacks help, yes.
Q: How did you do it?
A: Different sections of the field had switches. That is not a literal fact, but it's the closest I can come to the exactness of this. I could sense quite clearly that these sections had a willingness to be turned off. They had been created with that built-in aspect, and I used it. Its like ending a conversation that is unpleasant or boring. You just decide no more. You say goodbye. You change the subject. You walk away. You disagree with what you're being told. But as I switched off a number of sections of the field, and as I did this in a number of sessions with Jack, I found I could work faster. I could simply will a section of a field to turn off and it would. But I had to work one section at a time. This was the key for me. The whole field would not turn off as a single entity. It was as if a field was really a number of sub-fields and I had to work it the way it was built.
Q: That's quite a thing you're describing.
A: I know. Keep in mind I was under hypnosis. In Jack's method, time slows down when you're in that state. You can perceive more acutely. There are far fewer distractions.
Q: Let me ask you this. When you started working with Jack, did you begin with fields right away?
A: No. Jack put me through a step by step protocol he had developed.
Q: What was that protocol?
A: It involved getting familiar with being under hypnosis. I created or recreated several dreams I had had. I took apart these dreams and put them back together, piece by piece, event by event. Almost like cutting film. There were a number of steps to the protocol. The dreamwork was just one part of it.
Q: This was preparation for finding and viewing fields.
A: That's right.
Q: Now, when you switched off sections of a field, what was the effect for you?
A: As I said, I felt as if I had been pushing against a big stone, and I was no longer doing that. As an analogy, you could imagine you were in a wrestling match for a long time and after a while you were no longer really aware that you were wrestling but you were. Do you see? And when it stops, there is a clean feeling, as if you've just swept out a big room and its done.
Q: You're talking about deprogramming.
A: I certainly am.
Q: What is deprogrammed exactly?
A: I would say you get rid of ideas you were never really aware you had, but you did have those ideas. A level of conflict is gone. You wake up from a dream and you see the world in a much more lucid way. You see more of the beauty of it, as if a filter has been removed that separated you from it. But you also can see that other people are still in a programmed state.
Q: This is quite something, then.
A: Oh yes.
Q: And was this permanent for you? This state of mind?
A: Not entirely. But some of the good effect is still there.
Q: Why do you think its not permanent?
A: Because there are more fields. Because I have more work to do.
Q: How far did you get with Jack before he died?
A: Quite far. But not all the way. I am working with another hypnotherapist now. I can't really get into that. But this other person was trained to do the same work.
Q: By Jack?
A: By me.
Q: I want to be very clear about this. You're not saying that you had a momentary upsurge of liberation from your work with Jack and then it all collapsed soon after.
A: No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that there was a tremendous success from my work with Jack. Which has lasted to this day. But there are certain upward spikes of feeling, you know, where you feel absolutely tremendous for an hour or a day or longer. And with me, those spikes did not last forever. They diminished. But they did not go away. They did not disappear. There is still some of that with me. I am a different person than, say, when I was in the service. I have much more happiness, much more peace. I know where I'm going. I am not nearly so programmed. I see things much more lucidly. I get up in the morning with a confidence, a natural confidence I never had before. I'm looking forward to the day. I don't have to rev myself up in the way that I used to. I feel much freer.
Q: This is not a small thing.
A: No it isn't. It's of major importance.
Hopefully we will have more conversation with this man.
Let me append a remark that Jack True made to me many years ago: Hypnosis is misused or underused by most practitioners of the art. They don't see the big possibilities. And traditional therapy has pushed hypnosis out to the fringes. Don't forget, there are people who know something about what hypnosis can really address and do, and they don't want that to happen. So hypnosis has never gained any real respectability. But it is a fantastic doorway. Real hypnosis wakes people up. It doesn't put them to sleep.
JON RAPPOPORT