Category Archives: Energy & Imagination

Migration of populations vs. the individual

Migration of populations vs. the individual

by Jon Rappoport

September 7, 2015

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

We are seeing a flood of population-migration in various parts of the world. The Globalist strategy is obvious:

Make the only solution a global solution.

Instigate the chaos that causes the migrations, and then come in behind that with the answer: “better planning, better organization, international agreements”—in short, a planned society for the borderless world.

Of course, “global solution” means the individual is cut out of the equation, he doesn’t count, he doesn’t mean anything in the larger scheme of things, he is just another pawn and cipher to move around on the board.

And as more duped and deluded people sign on to this agenda, the whole concept of the individual shrinks and becomes irrelevant.

This is purposeful.

This is the script for the future: in many ways create problems whose only solution appears to be collective.

Psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually divert the individual’s attention from his own vision, his own profound desires, his own consciousness, his own imagination—and place it within The Group (“all of humanity”).

Propagandize the idea that, if the individual concerns himself with anything other than The Group, he is selfish, greedy, inhumane. He is a criminal.

More and more, this is how the young are being trained these days.

The grand “we” is being sold to them like a cheap street drug. They buy in. They believe this “we” is real, instead of a hollow con designed to drag them into a Globalist framework owned and operated by mega-corporations, banks, foundations, governments, and ubiquitous Rockefeller interests.

And what of the individual, his mind, his unique perception, his independent ideas, his originality, his life-force?

Swept away in the rush toward “a better world.”

I have breaking news. Earth is not a spaceship and we are not crew members. If Earth is a spaceship, it has serious design flaws, because it keeps making the same trip around the same sun every year.

Each one of us does not have a specified function, as a crew member would.

Going back as far as you want to in history, every shortage and scarcity in the world that engendered a crisis was either created by some elite or maintained by them, for the purpose of eradicating dissent and fomenting a collectivist solution. Meaning a solution that came from the top. Meaning a solution that reduced individual freedom.

In recent human history, a different idea emerged: establish severely hamstrung government, in order to protect the individual against it.

This idea existed in its pristine form for about an hour after the ink dried on the founding documents.

Elites emerged with the realization that they would need to build great wealth for certain men, who would then turn around and use their power to expand government and corporate and banking control, in order to sink the population back into the swamp from which they had just been liberated.

On and on it goes. But regardless of circumstances, the individual can author his own freedom and what it implies. He can discover, within himself, extraordinary possibilities and extraordinary consciousness. He can contemplate what it means to create reality that expresses his most profound desires.

And then he can begin a voyage that no one and no group can stop.

Civilizations come and go, rise and fall, but the individual remains.

Behind and below and above all the false prescriptions of the State and its allies, he remains. He is at the core.

But why wait until some distant day to wake up?

The word “imagination,” when properly understood, indicates that the individual can envision and then create futures that never were, and never would be, unless he invented them.

Imagination is the opposite of “provincial,” “restricted,” “well-known,” “familiar,” “accepted.”

That is its danger to the status quo.

That is the true threat the individual poses to all predictive systems.

exit from the matrix

The modern State works from the assumption that you are renting your life and your self. It sees itself as the landlord, whose beneficent concern, expressed through “programs,” should direct your behavior and thought.

It is softening 1984 into the effects of Brave New World. Pain is the stick and pleasure is the carrot.

Soon you will see official calculations of “pleasure quotients” for citizens. You will even see promises to “expand” those quotients.

“The greater good of all” will be highlighted.

That is the primary selling point.

Its success depends on the individual ceasing to exist in his own mind. He is The Group.

On the horizon: researchers studying the myriad activities of the brain in real time will claim there is no chemical/biological/electrical basis in the brain for the concept of the individual. The whole notion is an aberration, resulting from an imbalance that can be corrected.

Sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and other charlatans will chime in, pointing to indisputable evidence that, throughout history, it has been the individual who has caused all the trouble. (This propaganda op has been actively underway for a hundred years.)

Yes, the hard scientists, will agree. “But to be more precise, it is the disordered brain that has caused the trouble.”

Yes, my friends, you can be free of the imbalance, and the suffering and turmoil it causes. You can be liberated, and thus discover a new world of pleasure.

“Take the carrot.”

Against all this stands: the individual.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The individual vs. the collective in the Matrix

The individual vs. the collective in the Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

September 5, 2015

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

In the 1950s, before television had numbed minds and turned them into jelly, there was a growing sense of: the Individual versus the Corporate State.

Something needed to be done. People were fitting into slots. They were surrendering their lives in increasing numbers. They were carving away their own idiosyncrasies and their independent ideas.

Collectivism wasn’t merely a Soviet paradigm. It was spreading like a fungus at every level of American life. It might fly a political banner here and there, but on the whole it was a social phenomenon and nightmare.

Television then added fuel to the fire. Under the control of psyops experts, it became, as the 1950s droned on, the facile barrel of a weapon:

“What’s important is the group, the family, peers. Conform. Give in. Bathe in the great belonging…”

Recognize that every message television imparts is a proxy, a fabrication, a simulacrum, an imitation of life one step removed. It isn’t people talking in a park or on a street corner or in a saloon or a barber shop or a meeting hall or a church.

It’s happening on a screen.

When this medium also broadcasts words and images of belonging and the need to belong, it’s engaged in revolutionary social engineering.

The very opposite of living as a strong, independent, and powerful individual is the cloying need to belong. And the latter is what television ceaselessly promotes.

This is no accident. After World War 2, psychological-warfare operatives turned their attention to two long-term strategies: inculcating negative stereotypes of distant populations, to rationalize covert military plans to conquer and build an empire for America; and disseminating the unparalleled joys of disappearing into a group existence.

When, for example, television promotes “family,” it’s all on the level of fictitiously happy, desperate, yearning, last-chance, problem-resolving, melted-down, trance-inducing, gooey family.

This isn’t, by any stretch, an actual human value. Whether it’s the suburban-lawn family in an ad for the wonders of a toxic pesticide, or the mob family going to the mattresses to fend off a rival, it’s fantasy time in the land of mind control.

Television has carried its mission forward. The consciousness of the Individual versus the State has turned into: love the State. Love the State as family.

The political Left of the 1960s, who rioted against Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, at the Century Plaza Hotel, and ended his hopes to run again in 1968…that Left is now all about the State and its glories and gifts. The collective.

A great deal of the television coverage of mass shootings is now dedicated to bringing home the spurious message: we all grieve together and heal together.

In the only study I have been able to find, Wictionary partially surveys the scripts of all television shows from the year 2006, to analyze the words most frequently broadcast to viewers in America.

Out of 29,713,800 words, including the massively used “a,” “an,” “the,” “you,” “me,” and the like, the word “home” ranks 179 from the top. “Mom” is 218. “Together” is 222. “Family” is 250.

This usage reflects an unending psyop.

Are you with the family or not? Are you with the group, the collective, or not? Those are the blunt parameters.

“When you get right down to it, all you have is family.” “Our team is really a family.” “You’re deserting the family.” “You fight for the guy next to you.” “Our department is like a family.” “Here at Corporation X, we’re a family.” “Above all, this is a community.”

The community, the group, the company, the sector, the planet, the family.

The goal? Submerge the individual and tie him inexorably to a group.

Individual achievement, imagination, creative power? Not on the agenda. Something for the dustbin of history.

All you need to do is fall into the arms of a group. After that, everything is settled. You can care exclusively about the collective.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World: “‘Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines’! The voice was almost tremulous with enthusiasm. ‘You really know where you are. For the first time in history.’”

George Orwell, 1984: “The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.”

Television seeks to emphasize one decision: inclusion or exclusion. Exclusion is portrayed as the only condition that is possible if you aren’t part of the group. And exclusion carries the connotation of exile, excommunication, and criminality.

The soap opera is the apotheosis of television. The long-running characters in Anytown are irreversibly enmeshed in one another’s lives. There’s no escape. And with that comes mind-numbing meddling.

“I’m just trying to help you realize we all love you (in chains).”

“Your father, rest his soul, would never have wanted you to do this to yourself…”

“How dare you set yourself apart from us. Who do you think you are?”

Of the three elite network anchors, the one who fictionally conveyed the sense that “we’re all in this together” was Brian Williams (NBC), before his downfall. He was the number-one-rated anchor on the evening news.

Am I saying that no groups anywhere can achieve important objectives? No. I’m talking about a state of mind wherein the individual surrenders his own life-force.

There is an indissoluble link between the artifact called “we” and “limited context.” This is precisely what television news gives to the public. With each story that fails to explore the deeper elite players and their motives, the news speaks to a collective consciousness, which is to say, the sharing of a fabrication.

What “we” shares is foreshortened perspective, lies, misdirection, and superficial gloss. Those qualities are built for the group, and the group digests them automatically.

For some people, “we” has a fragrant scent, until they get down in the trenches with it. There they discover odd odors and postures and mutations. They find self-distorted creatures running around doing bizarre things with an exhibitionist flair.

The night becomes long. The ideals melt. The level of intelligence required to inhabit this cave-like realm is lower than expected, much lower.

Perceptions formerly believed to be the glue that holds this territory together begin to crack and fall apart, and all that is left is a grim determination to see things through.

As the night moves into its latter stages, some participants come to know that all their activity is taking place in a chimerical universe.

It is as if reality has been constructed to yield up gibberish.

Whose idea was it to become deaf, dumb, and blind in the first place?

And then perhaps one person in the cave suddenly says: I EXIST.

That’s starts a cacophony of howling.

People dimly wonder whether, beyond this night, there is another whole world where individuals live, where individuals finally separate from the sticky substance of coordinated defeat.

The “we” that television gives us is a fiction designed to make the independent individual extinct. That is its job.

In the aftermath of the 1963 assassination of JFK and the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the covert theme was the same: a lone individual did this.

A lone individual, detached from the group, did this. “See what happens when the group is rejected? Lone individuals are really no different than individuals. They are people who left the fold. They wandered from the communal hearth. They thought for themselves. This is what happens when individuals assert their independent existence. They become killers. They lose their way. They break the sacred bond. They are heretics who fall away from the collective.”

In 1995, after the Oklahoma City Bombing, President Bill Clinton made a speech to the nation. He rescued his presidency by essentially saying, “Come home to the government. We will protect you and save you.”

He framed the crime in those terms. The individual versus the collective.

The strongest argument against the free and independent and powerful individual, and in favor of the collective is, simply: the collective has advanced to such a degree that there is no going back; the individual can’t win; the battle is over.

But the liberation of the individual has existed as an aim since the dawn of time on this planet. That aim will not vanish.

Why? Because underneath all the programs for mind control, there is, obviously, something to control. Otherwise, why bother? The deeper you go in discovering what “must be controlled,” the more freedom and power and imagination you encounter in the individual.

It may not seem so. It may seem that all the propaganda about the inherent weakness and smallness of the human being is accurate. But that is a false dream.

The reality is far different.

A million psyops won’t change that reality.

power outside the matrix

Here is a 1980 quote from author Philip K Dick. He is writing poignantly about another titan of science fiction, Robert Heinlein. The relevance of Phil’s words to the subject of this article? Here are two powerful and independent individuals who, despite all their differences, find a common sharing. This is what that sharing looks like and feels like:

“Several years ago, when I was ill, Heinlein offered his help, anything he could do, and we had never met; he would phone me to cheer me up and see how I was doing. He wanted to buy me an electric typewriter, God bless him—one of the few true gentlemen in this world. I don’t agree with any ideas he puts forth in his writing, but that is neither here nor there. One time when I owed the IRS a lot of money and couldn’t raise it, Heinlein loaned the money to me. I think a great deal of him and his wife; I dedicated a book to them in appreciation. Robert Heinlein is a fine-looking man, very impressive and very military in stance; you can tell he has a military background, even to the haircut. He knows I’m a flipped-out freak and still he helped me and my wife when we were in trouble. That is the best in humanity, there; that is who and what I love.”

Here is one more from Philip Dick. I don’t agree with the “motive” part of the quote, but everything else? Perfect.

“Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups…So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.”

The question is, in gaining freedom from these pseudo-realities, does the process happen for everyone at once, or is it one individual at a time? The answer is clear. It must be one individual at a time—and that tells us a great deal about the illusion of the collective.

The history of human struggle on this planet is about the individual emerging FROM the group, from the tribe, from the clan, from ethnicity and race and skin color and from all outward signs of collective existence.

The history of struggle is not about the individual surrendering and going back into group identity.

That is the psyop.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Who I write for…

Who I write for…

by Jon Rappoport

August 24, 2015

(To read about Jon’s mega-collections, click here.)

Consciousness.

Freedom.

Power.

The individual.

Imagination. Creating new realities.

Society and civilization as a potential force for helping to liberate the individual.

Underneath all my articles, all my investigations into corruption and crime at the highest levels, these above factors have been my motivation,

Who do I write for?

I write for people who recognize they can do something for themselves and others, who can improve their lives and consciousness and power.

I write for people who want to increase their own power.

I’ve been at this for 33 years. I recognize there are people out there who dig down and discover massive chunks of corruption, crime, and conspiracy in the world—and then they twist that knowledge to say: “See, this is why I can’t make any progress in life. This is why I’m blocked. This is why I’m having trouble. This is why I can’t do anything.”

I’m not writing for those people.

They’re using their hard-won knowledge to doom themselves to a life they don’t want. They jumped out of one box and put themselves in another one.

Regardless of how bad things are in this world, there is always something a person can do. For himself, and for others.

In doing that, in moving toward the life he wants most profoundly, in taking creative action, he becomes more alive, more conscious, more powerful.

He is the person I’m writing for.

I’m writing for those men and women.

There is the Personal and the Planetary. They can’t be entirely separated and walled off from each other.

But that doesn’t mean one sphere should be absorbed in the other.

You can’t eliminate personal desire from the equation and expect to find all the life you want. It doesn’t work.

I write for people who have at least glimpsed the power of their own imaginations, and want to increase that power.

I write for people who, becoming aware of how fake realities are built, cross over and realize they can invent better realities and futures.

I write for people who can wake up to that.

I write for people who want to understand the details of how corrupt and deceptive realities are built. My investigative articles serve that purpose.

I write for the individual.

I write for myself.

I write to expose corruption to the light of day, because I want to.

I write for people who understand they can become more alive.

I write for people who are willing to consider something new, who aren’t trapped by the belief that everything important is ancient.

I write for people who hunger for adventure.

I write for people who know they have the strength to make something happen.

I write for people who suspect they have latent capabilities that can come to the surface.

I write for people who realize answers and solutions to their own lives come from themselves.

I write for people who refuse to relinquish their individuality.

I write for people who want to increase the power and range and scope of their own imaginations, in order to discover and invent new startling enterprises and adventures.

I write for people who are on a spiritual road that isn’t clouded by convenient slogans, who know their journey is unique to them, and not part of a system.

I write for people who’ve taken hold of their own freedom and want more freedom.

I write for people who can follow a train of thought.

I write for people who have done their best to make their way through life, who sense there is something more, who want knowledge that will be liberating, not entrapping.

I write for people who, acknowledging that systems and structures can be quite useful, reject the idea that all of life is encompassed by a system.

I write for people who want more power to think, do, create—rather than being told what to think and create.

I write for people who, understanding conspiracies, don’t fold up, but rather, as my friend Catherine Austin Fitts says, want to start their own (good) conspiracy.

I write for all these reasons and more.

I write for people who, when they discover how much corruption abounds, refrain from demanding that others tell them what to do about it—but rather discover/invent for themselves what actions they can take.

I write for people who don’t give up.

I write for people who have already found some answers and some success, and want more.

I write for pleasure and enjoyment.

I write for people who want to read.

I write for people who want to consider ideas that reach miles and miles past the borders of consensus reality.

I write for people who are sick and tired of how this world is being run, and want to do something about it, want to discover the creativity within themselves that will provide answers.

I write for people who never give up.

I write for people who want to make a better world, by their own definition, and will work toward that end.

I write for people who have thrown away this formula: a) blaming others for their own shortcomings; and b) using that blame to build their own personal prisons of despair.

exit from the matrix

I write as part of the business I run, the sole proprietorship called NoMoreFakeNews.com. On that site, I sell my products. I’m an entrepreneur. I believe in giving value for value. Since I started NoMoreFakeNews.com in 2001, I’ve written a stream of articles people can, in fact, read for nothing.

I write for people who can follow this train of thought: a) discover the nuts and bolts of how elites invent reality for rest of us (The Matrix Revealed); b) instead, extend the power of their own imaginations and invent better realities (Exit From The Matrix); and c) attain the power to operate inside and outside the Matrix (Power Outside The Matrix). Yes, that’s a plug for my three Matrix collections.

I write for people who aren’t afraid of having power.

I write for people who know the difference between belonging to a group that ultimately asks them to surrender their own individuality, and a group composed of true individuals.

I write for people who do their best to weather every storm.

I write for people born into a place that has been taken over by corrupt fascists.

I write to rise as high as I can.

I write to expose every restraint of freedom I can perceive.

I write to say this space-time box is not the only place there is.

I write to say every individual who inhabits a physical form is immortal, whether he likes it or not…and it’s better to face the truth than deny it.

I write to promote both logic and imagination—each in its own sphere of action.

I hope I write for you.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The collapse of Europe

The collapse of Europe

by Jon Rappoport

August 22, 2015

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

“For a long time, we’ve lived with the delusion that prosperous nations were going to raise the standard of living of poor nations. That was a piece of infernal propaganda. The objective was always the exploitation of those poverty-stricken nations. Their land, their resources, their labor.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Let’s start with this bit of background:

The fear of individuality comes from the apprehension that a human, unchained and alive, might create something that would expose the titanic hoax of the collective and the group; the apprehension that an individual might create something undeniably great and different; and, therefore, put collective human society in its proper perspective.

And so the individual is called upon to sacrifice himself on the altar of the group.

That is the directive.

The counter-force is the individual using his rational mind, his imagination, and his creative force to surpass this societal brainwashing.

The first step is realizing he is not part of the great collective Cheese Glob.

But most people in so-called “democracies” would not see things this way. They would object. They would claim “the needs of all the people” are not being met. They would claim no one has the right to rise above the standards of the masses.

And “the masses” now refer to wide-open borders in Europe and, as in America, the influx of huge numbers of people fleeing from other parts of the world.

Many of these immigrating people hope for, and expect, economic survival in their new homes. They expect government assistance programs. This is no melting pot. This is a vast extension of the Welfare State, in which the concerns of the individual have no place. No place at all.

Stereotypes are the order of the day. “Which group do you belong to? What race are you? What ethnicity? What are your grievances and demands?”

On the surface, this vast program appears to be humanitarian in nature, but nothing could be further from the truth. Sowing chaos in the nations of Europe is the objective.

Why? Because Globalism, like every elite scheme in the history of the planet, lives by the motto, “Order from Chaos.”

Create chaos, then move in with tighter control, to “solve the problem.”

Wall-to-wall surveillance, militarized police, decimation of free speech.

In this atmosphere, it is very easy for the individual to forget and cast aside his own power and his own unique vision of the future, and his own capacity to invent the future.

It is very easy for the individual to forego rationality and logic as useless objects of a bygone era and simply sink to the level of a stimulus-response creature.

But if that happens, what is left?

Nothing.

During centuries of struggle, Europe carved out a mission of individual freedom, against all odds, and there were eventually many victories.

Now, there is the danger of all that going down the drain.

If the liberation of the individual from the State and the Church is now viewed as a mere fantasy, an old dream, an old lie of history, an old delusion, then the future is turned over to Globalist masters and their program of mass control.

There is a joker in the deck. The European mega-corporations, which are part and parcel of the Globalist network, will discover that their consumer base is shrinking. In short, there will come a point at which these corporations can’t expand by selling their products in the marketplace. Too late, the corporations will realize they are expendable in the diabolical Globalist plan.

One of the winners? The Vatican.

The Roman Church has always realized that their best days are those in which poverty escalates. People then return to older forms of hope and desperation. People then grasp at straws.

Make no mistake, the humanitarian pronouncements of this Pope are a cover story that obscures the Church’s true ambition: flourishing in a time of crisis.

The longer the crisis, the better. The vision of widespread poverty as a permanent condition is the Church’s wet dream. It brings back their glory days.

exit from the matrix

At its core, the entire Globalist operation is aimed at making the individual believe he is helpless.

Whether and to what degree this program succeeds is not in the hands of any group. It is in the hands, the soul of the individual himself.

Which is why my work, for the past decade, has focused more and more on the individual, his power, his life-force, his mind, his imagination, his uniqueness.

The future is up for grabs. Will the wide channel of individual freedom and power, which has been dug for centuries, in a great struggle, be the substance of the future, or will the coming century devolve into one great planetary Collective, mindless and begging for scraps?

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

My talk last night in Newport Beach

My talk last night in Newport Beach

by Jon Rappoport

August 13, 2015

Last night, I gave a talk for 2 hours to a packed room at the Dead Chiropractic Society in Newport Beach, California. I may be becoming a Zen dude in my advancing years.

My paradox was: audience. What is an audience? That’s a mystery. Why exactly are people sitting there? To receive information about which they’re already—at least in a general sense—already aware? That doesn’t fly.

So, in my perverse way, I assume the audience is there to be disturbed. That’s a good assumption. The audience is there to be jarred out of being an audience. I like that. I can go with that. It makes sense to me. If I were audience, that’s what I would want.

I would want to feel shaken out of my role as somebody sitting in a seat being a pipeline for information flowing down my gullet.

I would want something alive to be happening.

As I mentioned to the crowd last night, the last thing I want to do is bore myself. That’s a no-no. Can’t stand there and talk and feel bored.

So I want to see the audience as a kind of false construct. Yes, it’s necessary to for people to sit in their seats and listen, but at the same time, that doesn’t really work. It’s a paradox.

As I was talking last night, it occurred to me that every person in the audience had a story. Not a social story. Not a familiar story. Not a hackneyed story. Not an ordinary or conventional story. Not a boring story. Not a sob story. Not a canned “uplifting” story.

In fact, each person didn’t “have” a story. Each person could invent a story. Put together a story. Make it compelling. Make it a Niagara. Make it pour down with immense force. I suppose this sounds crazy. Good. That’s not a negative. Many things sound crazy because we’re comparing them to “normal.” Comparing them to what we expect.

As long as we’re dealing with what we expect, we’re sunk. The war is over. We lost.

For example, as I mentioned last night, psychiatry has a hell of a story. 300 officially certified mental disorders, and they say they’re doing science, but not one of those disorders has any defining diagnostic test. And they’ve sold this story to the heavens. They’re gotten over on the world. That’s a feat worthy of an Atlas.

And the world is full of such stories, and they’re all official, and they’ve all been sold. So if we’re going to go up against that, we need lots of stories of our own. We need wild stories. We need electric stories delivered with electric force, no quarter given or asked for. We need stories that approach the world from completely different points of view. We need people who want to cook up and tell those stories, come hell or high water.

That’s what audience really is. A bunch of people who, for convenience sake, are doing this ridiculous thing. They’re sitting in a room in chairs and waiting for something to happen. But behind that, behind that construct, each one can tell stories. Each one can throw off convention and normality and consent and break out.

And if they did, every day of their lives, the world would be flooded with something different. And that would resolve the paradox. That would create unexpected consequences and massive disruptions in the field, the smooth field of accepted average nonsense and insanity.

That’s what occurred to me last night. I didn’t plan it or think about it before I started talking. I just saw it as I was talking, because I wasn’t happy with people sitting in chairs. I like the raw material of people sitting in chairs, but I hate it as a finished product. I refuse to accept it as a finished product.

I guess you could say I want people, at the end of a talk, to rise up and go home on fire as artists of reality.

I realize that some people in chairs aren’t going to be happy. They’re going feel put upon or dislodged and they’re going to think, “This isn’t what I bargained for.” And that’s the whole idea. Breaking the bargain. That’s what you want to do. You want to do it with, what shall I call it, good cheer, but you want to do it relentlessly.

So if by chance I were giving a talk to a room full of people who were students and practitioners of Zen meditation, and they were all sitting there, very, very calmly, I would disrupt the field. I would change the flow, redirect it, turn it inside out and upside down and squirt whipped cream and mustard on it. Because I would know that the prevailing consensus in that room was some sort of end point, and there isn’t any end point. Ever.

Audience is prepared for something finite, and you want to crack that egg. “Sorry, tonight nothing is finite or fenced or perfectly shaped or final.”

And if you can crack that egg, audience is relieved. By and large they’re relieved. And they start laughing. For you detectives out there, that’s called a clue. Steam comes out of their ears and they laugh. The message is: some con has been exposed. Maybe they don’t know what it is, and maybe the speaker doesn’t, either, but it just happened. The finite and perfect was cracked open.

Through that crack, people can escape.

Facts are important, yes. Very important. Especially when they contradict official stories. But then there is this other thing, the untouched thing. The thing that is still passive. The thing that is not telling new stories. The thing that still wants the old tales. The paralyzed thing.

And for that, you have to take the social construct in front of you, in the moment, and slice it apart. You have to move audience out of being audience.

Maybe that’s Zen.

exit from the matrix

Anyway, that’s my quick take on last night, and I thank Billy DeMoss and his crew at DeMoss Chiropractic for setting this up. Billy and I discovered neither of us has a cell phone, so we’re starting a new revolution along that line. The Dead Cell Phone Society.

Thanks to Brett for the ride home and the conversation, and thanks to my long-time readers who showed up so I could meet them face to face, and thanks to L who flew out from a long way off, and thanks to the woman in the first row who got me talking about the early Tibetan magicians and Alexandra David-Neel and John Blofeld and creation and destruction. Thanks to all. By my estimate, it was a hell of a night.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Proof: the program to erase the individual

England, Australia, Canada, USA: poof

The program to erase the individual

by Jon Rappoport

August 13, 2015

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

“The less government we have, the better, — the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of formal Government [taking more power for itself], is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual.” (Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1844)

“If it were felt that the free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being…there would be no danger that liberty should be undervalued.” (John Stuart Mill, 1859)

“If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” (Henry David Thoreau, 1854)

“Art is individualism, and individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine.” (Oscar Wilde, 1891)

I could have added a number of other countries to those in the title of this article. In those I mentioned, there was once a tradition of the free and independent and unique individual. That tradition has faded like a photo on an old postcard.

The individual is now considered a) a criminal by definition, or b) a member of a group defined solely by ethnicity, color, religion, gender, or c) either in the 1% or the 99%.

But the individual is not considered to be himself/herself. Certainly not. Anything but.

In any of these countries, go back through the speeches of recent presidents and prime ministers and try to find a significant, positive, extensive mention of the individual. Good luck.

These days, mention “private property” and “individual” in the same sentence, and if you’re understood at all, chances are you’ll be labeled with some slur—because public-everything is supposed to be the utopian answer to humankind’s ills.

At one time, it was believed that a centuries-long struggle to liberate the individual from both church and king was meaningful. It was where history was heading. It was about more than economics. Freedom of thought and expression had something to do with it. Of course, the individual had to have an operating mind, if his independent thoughts were to add up to anything.

The power of the individual. That phrase carried a message. It was well-received. The idea that government existed in order to enforce a basic minimum of laws which would support the individual; that idea made sense.

The idea that innovations were made by the individual, not the committee. That notion had currency.

But this trend stalled and reversed.

It reversed, for example, in the hands of people suddenly called social scientists. These were bloviating academic analysts of societies, who were unleashed to pontificate opinions as if they had been confirmed by laboratory experiments.

One of the founders of sociology, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), coined the phrase “collective consciousness.” Durkheim insisted there were “inherent” qualities that existed in society apart from individuals. Exposing his own absurd theory, he went so far as to claim suicide was one of those qualities, as if the “phenomenon” were present beyond any individual choice to end life.

He wrote: “Man is the more vulnerable to self-destruction the more he is detached from any collectivity, that is to say, the more he lives as an egoist.”

In other words, according to Burkheim, the individual who rejects the norms and conformity of society must be wrapped up in himself in some morally repugnant way. There are no other alternatives. He’s either part of the collective or he’s tinged with criminality.

In his book, The Division of Labour in Society (1893) (wikipedia), Burkheim spun moral conscience in the following fashion: “…Make yourself usefully fulfill a determinate function.” He cited this as a kind of command issued by collective consciousness. This is the presentation of the individual human as machine-cog.

From the mud of sociology’s beginnings, the long sordid history of the academic discipline brings us to something like this. Peter Callero, of the department of sociology, Western Oregon University, has written a book titled: The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives (2013, 2nd Ed):

“Most people today believe that an individual is a person with an independent and distinct identification. This, however, is a myth.”

Staggering. But as public relations and propaganda experts have learned, hauling a really huge lie in front of the public gives you a better chance of being believed than telling a small lie does.

When Callero writes “distinct identification,” he isn’t talking about ID cards and Social Security numbers. He’s asserting there is no significant difference between any two people. There aren’t two individuals to begin with. They’re a group.

This downgrading of the individual human spirit is far from accidental. It’s launched as a sustained propaganda campaign, the ultimate purpose of which is top-down control over the population.

Here’s another gem:

“The cold truth is that the individualist creed of everybody for himself and the devil take the hindmost is principally responsible for the distress in which Western civilization finds itself — with investment racketeering at one end and labor racketeering at the other. Whatever merits the creed may have had in the days of primitive agriculture and industry, it is not applicable in an age of technology, science, and rationalized economy. Once useful, it has become a danger to society.” (Charles Beard, 1931)

Beard, a celebrated historian, sees no difference between individual racketeering and the individual freely choosing and living his own life. In making this judgment, he becomes an intellectual/propaganda racketeer of the highest order.

One more:

“British empiricist philosophy is individualist. And it is of course clear that if the only criterion of true and false which a man accepts is that man’s, then he has no base for social agreement. The question of how man ought to behave is a social question, which always involves several people; and if he accepts no evidence and no judgment except his own, he has no tools with which to frame an answer.” (Jacob Bronowski, Science and Human Values, 1956).

Bronowski is quite sure that hearing other people’s evidence and then keeping one’s own counsel is wrong. One has to accept that evidence on its face. This is sheer idiocy. Individuals are capable of deciding, on their own, what social agreements to enter into. They aren’t permanently enmeshed from birth.

Even more to the point, Beard and Bronowski were both high-achieving individuals—who then turned around and celebrated the kind of society that would try to flatten and level the individual to an average.

The world has many such experts. They rise high enough and then they preach collectivism. They become social meddlers. They believe they have the tools to plan what kind of world we should live in—since they are not part of that world anymore.

Freed from the obligations with which they want to bind us, they can scheme and fantasize about social, economic, and political constructs in which The Group is all.

This is elitism par excellence.

What is the primary power of the individual? It is the power to create. If that idea seems shop-worn or vague, it is only because the creative force of the individual has been purposefully downgraded from a hurricane to a drizzle. The force is now viewed with a blank stare of non-recognition—or it has been transferred over to used car salesmen and other hustlers who have rebranded themselves as self-improvement gurus, who reduce their proclamations to the language of infomercials.

Cheapening the most profound human impulses and energies is part and parcel of engendering a civilization that looks, sounds, feels, and tastes like a cartoon. We live in it. It is often vicious and painful for many people, but it is a cartoon. Intellectually, it imitates life with shortened perspectives and short-circuited ideas.

But…the individual does not have to buy any of this. The individual can refuse. He can take up a different position. He can invent from the platform of his own freedom.

He doesn’t have to play the part of idiot or slave.

He can reject the collective and the group. He can pursue the unlimited space that opens up when he is launching his best future.

The tradition of the individual, in the nations where it once existed, where it was fought for, may be dead; but the individual himself is not dead.

He can find his way. He can return to the center. He can live through and by his own imagination, come hell or high water.

He can walk away from every fungus-ridden collectivist scheme and invent his own destiny.

He can stop prostrating himself before the billion possible little phony gods the salesmen are selling.

The endless volleys of contemporary criticism aimed at “the human species” and its desecrations, crimes, and insanities do not distinguish The Group from the individual. They attempt to bury the individual, but they fail.

You are not everyone else, and everyone else is not you. That absurd prescription is glazed, re-fried, many-times-boiled, and sold-on-a-stick “ancient Asian wisdom,” in modern-mall “spiritual centers” of the West. It has been recycled to conceal its collectivist message.

The individual, no matter how hard he tries, can’t rid himself of his independence, creative-force, power, or freedom. He can induce amnesia, but somewhere within himself, he knows what he is doing.

exit from the matrix

Dedicated slaves are a dime a dozen. But there was once a tradition in some nations, and it stood for the unique individual. It was real. It was never perfect; far from it. But it existed. That tradition was hijacked and turned inside out.

As the battle for individual freedom and independence gained ground, education was seen as the means to teach boys and girls what it meant to be a citizen in a limited Republic. That was a major purpose of schooling.

But as education was turned into a quacking duck, as too many students refused to learn, as too many teachers refused to teach, as too many citizens didn’t care, as government slyly expanded its reach and size and control, the public education experiment went down the drain. And so did limited government.

The resurrection of the individual by the individual is now the course. It can only be understood by those who know that “average” and “normal” aren’t the objectives.

There are many, many people who are living half-blind, while believing that they can see clearly, and that everyone else should see on this level. That is another feature of the cartoon.

Don’t buy the cartoon.

The group has no creative power or imagination. It merely pretends it does. It passes a gross imitation from hand to hand…and if it ever stops, it will find dust, only dust…

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Poem32 under the gun in all countries

Poem32 under the gun in all countries

by Jon Rappoport

August 10, 2015

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Everyone knows
there is no medicine in a poem
medicine is too bland a subject for sentences that are supposed to touch the sky in a poem
and someone suffering a serious illness must see a doctor

Living in a dream is one thing but a medicine that spins the brain around to attack itself
cannot be contained in a poem

We cannot talk about the number of deaths from medicines in a poem

We cannot talk about falsified medical studies supporting the use of a poison

We cannot talk about the silent war on the population a war of injections a war of arrogant foot soldiers in white coats and drugged people dying in hospitals and driven to mortuaries

Or the Justice Department ignoring a million deaths a decade we can’t talk about that can’t talk about the Attorney General this isn’t the subject for a poem

Or the FDA Mafia Genghis Attila

Or a child whose brain shuts down after a vaccine

Can’t talk about that

Or the everyday Earth culture spreading medical death

Or the presidents and premiers and prime ministers and kings and dictators who pretend not to notice
stuffing their pockets with blood money

Or the doctors on television mouthing garbage for the medical police state

We can’t talk about that

Or the medical reporters for the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Wall St. Journal covering up the crimes

We can’t talk about that

We can’t talk about the medical schools corrupting young souls eager to sell their souls we can’t talk about that

We can’t talk about citizens slowly marching in the bleak half-light channels of death toward the cemeteries and what happened to them in doctors’ offices and hospitals

We can’t talk about the pills that cause heart attacks and strokes or the antidepressants that push people over the edge to commit random murders or the diabolical Johnny Appleseed pharmaceutical companies that plant the drugs everywhere as a precursor to the murders

We can’t talk about that in a poem

We can’t talk about the hypnotized population and their willingness to accept death as a cure

We can’t talk about the new generation of vaccines that will plant genes in humans and permanently alter their DNA

We can’t talk about the killers performing injections on babies at birth or the laws that mandate it or the fathers and mothers who stand by and watch or the bloodthirsty zombies who sit in academic towers and accept research grants to create more poison

Not in a poem

We can’t talk about that

We can’t talk about the monopoly of paid experts who camouflage the whole operation and the State that backs up the monopoly with courts and guns

We can’t talk about the men and women and children in psych wards and the “finely tuned” procedures that hack out pieces of their brains and send shock waves of electricity through their bodies causing grand mal seizures

Not in a poem

We can’t talk about the fake epidemics and the orders to take vaccines to protect against viruses that don’t even exist

We certainly can’t resort to citations such as the July 26, 2000, review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Barbara Starfield, who at the time was a revered public health expert at the John Hopkins School of Public Health, and her conclusion that every year, like clockwork, the US medical system kills 225,000 people, which when extrapolated, turns into to 2.25 million killings per decade a figure that stops minds in their tracks

We can’t discuss that in a poem

Or mention the word genocide or holocaust

And we can’t discuss the drugs causing new symptoms that are then diagnosed as unrelated diseases requiring more poisonous drugs we can’t begin to discuss that

Everyone knows there is no medicine in a poem

medicine is too bland a subject for sentences that are supposed to touch the sky in a poem
and someone suffering a serious illness must see a doctor

reputations must be protected
money must be protected
the State must be protected
the hypnotized must be protected
prestige must be protected
androids must be protected

power outside the matrix

In a poem, we can’t discuss military research aimed at inserting images directly into the brain or the surveillance of brain activity in real time

Or the wall of a wave against magic that gives birth to the conclusion that the brain is the mind and the brain is nothing more than whirling atoms whose course and destiny is preordained by the laws of the universe, therefore erasing the possibility of freedom

We can’t discuss the population control vaccines engineered to cause miscarriages

We can’t discuss the politicians who cover up the murders

And the childlike faith of the voters

We can’t discuss any of this in a poem

Or the people who lie down in their beds and wait patiently for the end

Or the relatives who nod in agreement
…all concerned are obediently following the best advice…

…while life ebbs away…

Once, long ago, a dutiful son roared at me in a hospital waiting room that his father, who had been diagnosed with stage four lung cancer, had to receive chemotherapy, although the doctor who suggested it said it wouldn’t make one drop of difference…

And then, years later, the same son asked me if I knew how to kill his older sister, who was decaying in a nursing home under the daily assault of brain dissolving medicines…

This is not an “issue”

This is not an “issue”

This is not something to be spoken of

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Imagination is not the stepchild of reality

Imagination is not the stepchild of reality

by Jon Rappoport

August 9, 2015

This is a previously unpublished introduction to my collection, Exit From The Matrix:

“Civilization is waiting for imagination to revolutionize it down to its core.” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

At the beginning of human history, imagination was an overt means of control. A tribe or clan member had a dream, a product of his own imagination. He went to the medicine man and asked for an interpretation. He was given a canned message that folded into the cosmology of the group. That was called knowledge.

Hijacking imagination is still the most widespread con on the planet.

If a person understood how widely he was engaged in imagining, his life would radically change in a minute. He would step forward and take over. He would demolish his old framework and invent a new one.

It’s no accident that conventional psychology is about everything except imagination. If the patient understood this inherent aspect of himself, the curtain would lift and he would begin to see that the coloration of his past was irrelevant, because he had lived it solving problems that now, in his current state, have no meaning.

Early Tibetan practitioners, 1400 years ago, understood all this and much more, until a theocracy took over. The new rulers told their people: “We will tell you what to imagine.” No matter how charming, how pleasant, how assuring, how ‘good’ the content of what one is imagining is, if someone else is the guide, life begins to drain away, energy fades, and the mind becomes mechanical.

By the end of the 19th century, many people were seeing a cardinal truth: they had been believing what they were imagining, and pretending it came from an external supernatural force. But then, a retrenching occurred. At the edge of a new morning, people drew back. They sought refuge in older traditions. They returned to groups they’d abandoned. They lost their courage. Individuals submerged themselves, once again, in the Collective. They turned back, in order to recapitulate history and induce amnesia about what they’d just discovered about themselves.

Descartes’ famous statement, “I think, therefore I am,” and Buddha’s statement, “As a person thinks, so he is,” would become more powerful if it were formulated: “As a person imagines, so he is.” Then it would become apparent that imagination is a power which shapes appearances, as well as limitations. New questions would arise. “How am I imagining the future?” “How do I want to re-invent the future?”

Now, these days, there is an enormous pretense when it comes to the subject of imagination. The individual, having already retreated from his realization about the power of his own creative impulse, goes into cover-up operations. He launches various cover stories to obscure his own inherent capacities. He shoves in all his chips betting against himself.

The overthrow of this pretension is paramount.

There are revolutions of circumstance, and revolutions by the individual. In the latter case, what is thrown overboard is not the major concern. The revolution is a leap, first of all, into imagining something quite different. Then, a commitment, a launch to make it a reality. Then, discarding what is unnecessary just happens.

exit from the matrix

All the complex formulations and structures of metaphysics are the content of what was once imagined. Something was an epic poem; then others took it over and made it into a religion. They froze it in mid-stride and shaped a structure.

“Art is individualism, and individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine.” Oscar Wilde, 1891

Those men who try to control civilization are in love with the machine. They install it everywhere they can. They want repeatable pattern.

A large percentage of the population falls in line with this vision. Varnish it with the gloss of “humanitarianism” and you have a piece of stage magic. The puerile conscience is satisfied. “We’re doing Good.”

Even the idea of freedom can be reduced to an apparatus of tyranny. Relatively few people notice. They recast liberty as duty, progress, measurable improvement. They squirt a little oil into the machine and rest satisfied they’re doing their part.

Whereas freedom is the platform from which imagination takes flight.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Why do people think computers will be alive?

Why do people think computers will be alive?

by Jon Rappoport

August 7, 2015

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

“Because, supposedly, one digital processing unit will eventually be able to manipulate zillions of pieces of information at a faster rate than all the human brains on the planet taken together…the result will be…what? And if that digital unit is sitting in The Cloud and every human’s brain is hooked up to it, the result will be…what? A person will be able to master French in five minutes? How does that work? Information can be injected like a drug and produce instant learning? Automatically? Perhaps this is a fantasy hatched at Disney World. Two machines can rapidly exchange data and programmed methods of analysis, but it so happens that humans are not machines, even if they believe they are.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

How do you think a super-brain would be constructed? I’m talking about the technocrats’ dream to build a computer that would rival and surpass the human brain, in terms of “reliable data.” And don’t forget, the plan is to somehow connect brains directly to the super-computer, so data can be downloaded into humans.

And this computer would, technocrats believe, come alive.

Why?

Because a) it can store far more information than the human brain; b) it can choose how to utilize that information to solve problems; c) it can solve those problems at lightning speed; and d) it can work on millions of problems at the same time.

Basically, technocrats believe a super-computer will be alive because it can process enormous amounts of data—as if there is a threshold beyond which the sheer volume of processing triggers an event…birth. What was merely a machine is now something More.

I’ve boiled down the above statement, in order to remove mystical fluff.

The statement looks strange, quite strange.

By way of analogy, if you could outfit a Porsche so it can run at 400mph, without need of a driver; and also view detailed traffic patterns within a radius of a hundred miles, adjusting its trajectory to minute changes; also report weather, stock market moves, headlines, and the moment-to-moment output of home surveillance sensors; also cook soup; acquire hostile targets and fire beam weapons to eliminate them; shop remotely at any of 50,000 stores; interview and pitch prospective customers to win contracts; deliver a haircut, shave, and minor surgery; write your autobiography in 5000 volumes; track ice flows at the North Pole; day-trade stocks and commodities; report the second-to-second movements and conversations of up to 100,000 people; record every event taking place on a million other planets…and do all this simultaneously… at some point the Porsche will cross over and become alive.

I’m afraid not.

It will still be a machine.

For technocrats, “information processing” is basically a religious undertaking. As if it were a form of prayer, a blessing conferred, a ritual connecting the computer to the innards of the universe.

There is no level of complexity beyond which life suddenly occurs. Complexity, in and of itself, does not initiate life.

There is no number of “correct answers” which triggers life.

At bottom, technocracy assumes quite juvenile concepts: accumulation of data automatically imparts learning; the power of information-processing bypasses the problem of false, authority-based data; enough learning eliminates the need for imagination.

Technocrats assume that mysteries about how humans learn can be solved by claiming: “well, the brain is doing something we’ll eventually understand. It’s all happening in the brain because…what else is there?”

There is the individual.

You.

If you are your brain, an ant is a spaceship pilot.

Technocrats are making the brain into a sacred totem, a magic gizmo.

If you’re aware you have a brain, who is being aware? You’re just an artifact fed illusions about self by your brain? You aren’t there at all?

I’m an illusion writing illusions to the illusion called you?

Now, we’re getting to the core of the matter. A great many channels of propaganda, for obvious reasons, are aimed at the eradication of the concept of the individual, of self. It suits the collectivist model.

The assertion that the brain is “all there is” is a piece of political puppetry. It leads directly into the effort to “enhance” (alter, re-program, control) the brain.

The brain is not conscious.

A computer is not conscious.

A brain-computer interface is not conscious.

There is no function or system that equals consciousness.

Individual consciousness comes before any function or system.

The individual is not defined as the passive recipient of signals from the brain. The individual is intensely creative, although for various reasons he can bury that capacity to the point where he will deny he has it.

When the individual expresses his imagination and creative power intensely enough, he surpasses the habitual and passive acceptance of things as they are. And in doing so, his consciousness assumes a different level, and he sees life from a far different perspective. All this does not emanate from the brain.

Theoretically, if one had a super-computer of sufficient power, he could program it to spit out all the paintings in all the museums in the world, and all the music ever composed, and all the poems and novels and plays ever written, plus billions of new paintings and songs and poems. But…

So what?

Does that mean that human imagination is just an illusion?

If a carpenter makes a cabinet, and a computer running a machine produces the same cabinet, does that mean the carpenter is useless, and has gained nothing from his endeavor? Of course not.

Imagination is the source of reality, including the creation of computers.

Imagination is also the means by which an individual can attain a state in which he truly understands that the universe of “rigid natural laws” is actually an infinitely malleable stage play.

Technocrats want to be machines. They aren’t, but they keep trying.

If necessary, let them have their own island, where they can fiddle and diddle to their hearts’ content, without imposing their machinery on the rest of us. Call it an experiment. We run it. We watch what happens to them as they expend titanic effort to be brains and computers. We’ll call the experiment: “A Self-Selecting Cohort of Humans Who Think They’re Machines Attempt to Attain a Lowest-Common-Denominator Default Setting As If It Were Enlightenment.”

In my search for a different approach to the power of individual consciousness, I came upon the history of early Tibet, before the society hardened into a theocracy.

Several sources were particularly helpful. The work of author John Blofeld (The Tantric Mysticism of Tibet), the writings of the intrepid explorer, Alexandra David-Neel, and a quite unconventional healer, Richard Jenkins, with whom I worked in the early 1960s in New York.

Jenkins once wrote to me:

“There are people who want to tell us what consciousness should perceive. They’re blind to the electric, alive, and free nature of awareness. They’re wrapped up in content and addicted to it. Their biggest mistake is omitting the creative nature of human beings…”

That creative nature was the intense focus of the early Tibetans.

These practitioners, teachers, and students, some 1500 years ago, realized that most people viewed consciousness as an accumulator of knowledge. A searching tool, or a receiving apparatus.

Instead, the Tibetans embarked on a far more adventurous course.

Their many images (e.g., mandalas) weren’t meant as depictions of what finally exists in higher realms. Those realms were just as provisional and changeable as the physical world. You might call the multiple locales and dimensions representations of “what humans in certain Asian cultures would expect to encounter in their journeys of spirit.”

In other words, the Tibetans consciously treated their pantheons of gods and semi-gods as convincing illusions.

Several of their key exercises and techniques were all about having students mentally create these illusions in voluminous and meticulous detail. That was difficult enough, to be sure. Far more difficult was the next aspect of their practice: get rid of these creations.

Put them there; destroy them.

The Tibetans were committed to living life on the level of imagination, with all that implied.

And what does it imply?

A new psychology. A psychology of unlimited possibility:

A person’s past, his history, his problems, his relationships are all framed against the wider context of what he can imagine and then invent, create, in the world.

Living through and by imagination long enough, the individual discovers that his prior relationships are transformed. They no longer set themselves up as questions or problems.

He is operating from a platform that affords an utterly different, original, and unexpected outcome.

exit from the matrix

A psychology of possibility not only looks forward to the future, it has a reason to do so. Bringing electricity back into life depends, initially, on viewing possibilities in the space of one’s own imagination.

It may strike you at this point that our current civilization is bent on lowering possibilities; and that is true. That is the psychology of the psyop.

There is a good reason for this programming, as well as the staging of events that seem to give the programming validity. Those who aim to control the destiny of humankind want to shrink the “size of humans.” That is their intent.

A psychology of possibility would reverse that trend and expose it.

To the casual observer, the weight of this civilization and all its accoutrement seems enormous. But the creative potential of the individual outstrips that structure by light years.

How does the individual realize that fact? What is the spark that ignites his understanding? It all begins in imagination, which is the home of possibility.

Against this background, the computer is a drop in the ocean.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Consciousness versus computers

Consciousness versus computers

by Jon Rappoport

August 5, 2015

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

“Technocrats believe all brains can be directly hooked up to a super-computer. They’re looking at humans beings through the wrong end of the telescope. Everything they see about humans is reduced, shrunken, and ‘automatic’. Technocrats are trained to miss the big picture, even though they incessantly talk about it. They’re visionaries who are blind. Thus, they’re in the grand tradition of religious fanatics.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

If you take away a person’s ability to employ logic, and if you also take away his imagination, and thus his capacity to extrapolate and predict what is coming, what you are left with is: eyeballs.

Eyeball perception of what is happening now. And even then, eyeballs are seeing immediate reality through unconscious filters.

The ability to apply reason and to predict are vital components of perception. They are voluntary components. They don’t sweep in like a wave and take over. They are born out of freedom and choice.

So…what is the difference between you moving around on the Internet, reading and researching; versus you with your brain directly connected to some grand computer stacked with trillions of pieces of data?

In the former case, you have freedom. In the latter case, it all happens automatically. You get “the best possible data on any given subject.”

Of course, “best possible” is not your decision or conclusion. It’s someone else’s. Worse, the data are instantly downloaded into your brain (whatever that actually means).

How this deterministic system amounts to a glorious breakthrough of enormous spiritual significance, triggering revelations, is beyond mysterious. In fact, the whole conception is absurd.

If you were a robot operating on an assembly line, and your task could be automatically modulated and adjusted, depending on changing circumstances, then yes, that would be a nice innovation.

But you aren’t a robot. You’re conscious. You have choice. Freedom. You can apply logic. You can conceive of futures, based on your present knowledge.

Contrary to technocratic catechism, computers aren’t conscious. They don’t have freedom. They can be programmed to select conclusions relative to specified objectives and goals, but even then their methods of selection are part of their programming. They don’t suddenly wake up and become alive.

Technocrats tend to believe computers, when developed to a sufficient level of complexity that mirrors what the human brain does, DO come alive.

They believe that information-processing alone is a sign of life. But that’s a self-serving fantasy.

Information-processing is one effect of being alive and conscious. The technocrats have it backwards.

Unfortunately for them and their religion, consciousness isn’t measurable. And that’s a bone stuck in their throat.

Therefore, they need to reduce and reduce the concept of consciousness. So they claim it’s in the brain, and then they say the brain works automatically—and therefore consciousness is simply an aspect of pre-determined function. Consciousness is just a delusion brought on, like an illness, by chemicals and electrical impulses inside the skull.

They say whatever they have to, in order to minimize, degrade, and destroy the idea of consciousness.

To the degree that technocrats are gaining control of society and its future, the human population is at considerable risk. Because these secular-religious fanatics are sniffing and building their way toward a “best possible apparatus.”

And wherever they spot freedom, they try to wipe it out, and then they say it never existed.

Consciousness is not function. Nor is it derived from function.

The foot soldiers of technocracy spend every working day with systems. They become entrained: they see life as systems. Therefore, they presume that awareness must be some sort of structure yet to be mapped out.

This is false. A person can be conscious of a system, but that has nothing to do with what consciousness is.

These distinctions, among the technocratic class, have been lost.

Along similar lines, technocrats believe that a closed and tightly planned society is “scientific” and therefore “advanced.” This is another blunder. You can put a hundred people inside a large cage and regulate their movements. That’s a plan. That’s precise. But it has nothing to do with science.

Technocrats are juggling all sorts of metaphors and comparisons and coming up with wrong answers like clockwork.

On a much higher level, their bosses and leaders are manipulating these notions as a smokescreen, to hide their naked ambition: overt control and dominance of the population.

Regardless of what groups may be able to accomplish to head off the technocratic takeover, there is no victory if the individual doesn’t grasp his own inherent consciousness, which is vastly dynamic, energetic, and creative.

exit from the matrix

Imagination and the creative force are the prow of the present as it becomes the future.

The individual isn’t constrained to act merely from past tradition and experience.

The individual is under no obligation to wait for “everyone else” to wake up.

Consensus reality is: waiting in a defunct railroad station for something to happen. It never does.

As time passes, we are going to see more and more bizarre twists on technocracy; more pseudoscientific pronouncements; more messianic assurances.

It is up to the individual to reject the glare of this Wondrous Collective Tomorrow, and instead, invent his own.

To that, a person might reply, “But all around me, I see people who can’t consciously invent their own future. They’re mired in all sorts of problems.”

Whether these “other people” can or can’t is a subject for a different discussion. They aren’t the measure or the standard. Assessing one’s own ability by referring to others is just a convenient distraction.

In fact, the collective “we” and “everyone” is the target of technocrats, who envision mass solutions to civilization’s problems, through a super-computer’s definitive answers framed as “best available data.”

If this sounds like a con and an approach to humans as if they were non-creative machines, it is. It’s exactly that. Previous efforts at mind control pale by comparison. Technocracy is the wholesale Pavlovian insertion of stimuli, transmitted involuntarily to achieve uniform responses all the way across the board.

Madness? Insanity? Absurdity? Since when has that ever stopped manipulators bent on expanding their power and control? Repeated often enough by the right people, huge lies are always easier to sell than small ones.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.