by Jon Rappoport

January 14, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

I invite readers to try this experiment. To obtain evidence about a significant issue, watch a YouTube video. When you’re done, explain to a friend what you learned. SPECIFICALLY. Chapter and verse.

Revelations like “the government is corrupt” or “you really need to watch the video yourself” don’t count.

There is an intrinsic problem with video, with moving images. They go by too quickly. Gaps and holes in the logic of presentation are behind you before you can analyze them. The relationships among presented facts or assertions are also gone before you can piece them together.

With video, the viewer can gain an IMPRESSION, but the details of the evidence tend to leak away.

Try this experiment next. Read a thing called a book.

Make notes.

For most people, this is on the order of asking them to fly to Mars on the back of a dead horse.

“Today, a college student filed suit against his professor, charging that an assignment to read a two-page article, take notes, analyze those notes, and write an essay based on evidence had collapsed his mind and placed him in the Ninth Circle of Hell. The student’s therapist has recommended he watch a hundred hours of YouTube videos…”

As I write this article, needing my own video fix, I have three added screens running in my office. The NFL playoffs, treasure hunters digging up an entire island as they search for a wooden box holding the Ark of the Covenant, and the Toodie Boo Bubble Gang cartoon marathon. This, alas, is not enough. I plan to opt for a fourth screen. I’ve found the channel transmitting the most commercials and infomercials per unit of air time. I need that one, too. I’ve also discovered a channel that broadcasts sixty seconds of news headlines every half-hour, amidst storm warnings and wall-to-wall coverage of vets performing surgeries on animals. MUST HAVE VIDEO.

According to merchdope.com, “300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute!”

There are many reasons why people who ingest evidence do nothing with it. One of those reasons is video. That’s where the supposed evidence is coming from.

Reliance on video is also a reason why people who ingest evidence tend to believe in Doom. There is no solid ground for shared discourse about the evidence, since it comes across as an impression and then sits vaguely in memory, decaying like rotten eggs. “Wow, dude, that video, wow,” does not quite qualify as discourse.

With a book or an article, you can stop. Not pause; stop. You can think. You can read what you just read. God forbid, you can look up the history of a word in a dictionary. You can underline a passage with something called a pen. You can make notes. You can engage.

With video, it’s all flow. You tend to follow along passively. You’re solidly in the march-of-frames-per-second.

Aside from all the other problems with television news broadcasts, they’re on a screen. They’re video. One little moment morphs into the next little moment.

“Did you watch the news?” “No, why?” “They’re impeaching the president.” “Yeah? And?” “What?” “Never mind.” Brilliant.

Back in the stone age of the 1970s, a friend arranged an exhibition of my paintings at her house. Prior to the opening, she came to my studio and shot video of me painting and of my work on the walls. She then set up a TV set outdoors on her patio, and during the opening she ran the video over and over. When people arrived, as if by magic they migrated to the patio and watched the video. THEN they came back inside the house and looked at my work. Several people said to their friends, “Look, that’s the painting that was in the video!” Case closed.

Teacher: “All right, class, now that we’ve watched today’s video of animals eating each other on the plain, what do you think?”

“I liked it.”

“I liked it.”

“I didn’t like it.”

“When he was talking about the thing with the thing, I wasn’t sure he was making sense.”

“Very good. We’re out of time. See you tomorrow.”

Video is in its own time. Analysis is in another time. They don’t match up.

So, what DOES YouTube do? It helps creates the illusion of sharing and pumps it up into a reality. So do Facebook and the other social media—to a greater degree. If a person in Albany passes a little video to a person in Bombay, and vice versa, that reality becomes preeminent for both people. The content of what is shared is irrelevant, as long as they can say they like it. And they can. In this bubble, disagreement doesn’t work. It doesn’t fit. It’s too complex for the structure. Yes and no are the limits. No means next to nothing. It might mean sharing will stop, but that’s about it. Entrance into the bubble has only one requirement: can you make a snap judgment?

The idea that political movements can be birthed by Facebook is fatuous. Political mobs can be formed. But not movements. If a teacher asked his students, “How many of you would join a political cause you discovered after watching a ten minute video and reading three or four brief online messages?”—some students might actually think before answering. But after only watching the video and reading the messages, without the teacher’s question, some of them might sign up for the cause.

There are subliminal factors at work. Of course, there is the desire to BELONG. But also, the very notion that an idea exists, in and of itself, outside the stream of moving images, and that this idea can be looked at, examined, considered, questioned—well, for many minds, such a reality makes no sense. Therefore, one chooses among different streams of images. “I like stream A more than stream B.”

Let’s move to the arena of movies. First of all, most movies these days are shot with the GET-EVERYTHING approach. Multiple cameras gobble a scene from various angles. Before the action even starts, cameras obtain close-ups of objects in the scene, pictures on the walls, rugs on the floors, in case the editor wants to use them later. The final version of the movie is primarily fashioned by the editor. And what is he doing? He’s cutting together little pieces of each scene, to simulate WHAT A HUMAN WOULD SEE AND TRACK IF HE WERE IN THE ROOM WHERE THE ACTION IS TAKING PLACE. For example, this happens in five seconds:

Extreme close-up of a bright light. Camera pulls back and we see a map. A hand moves across the map. New angle: three men stand around a table, on which the map is spread out. They’re discussing a military invasion. Close-up of the highest ranking officer as he talks. Cut to a close-up frown from a junior officer who is opposed to the plan. Back to a shot of the map. A finger points to a town with a red circle around it as the men continue to talk. Sound of gunfire in the distance. Close-up of a hand picking up a cup of coffee.

Several things are occurring here. First of all, there is the pace. Fast cuts. They capture and lead the viewer’s eye. Second, the question and answer trick—the viewer sees the bright light and asks himself, WHAT IS THAT? In the next instant, he sees the map and the lamp over the map. The bright light was coming from the lamp. Asked and answered. That’s a cheap trick to, again, capture the viewer’s eye/mind and lead him. And third, the sequence of cuts within the scene is meant to convince the viewer that THIS IS THE WAY HE WOULD LOOK AT AND SCAN THE ROOM IF HE WERE THERE. That’s false, but it seems to be true. This trick is part of the editor’s craft, if he doesn’t really care about the art of making a film. He just wants to create an easy impression of “realism.” (If you want a standard of comparison/contrast, watch Citizen Kane, A Touch of Evil, and The Godfather.)

The point is, in most modern commercial movies, the goal is controlling the viewer. So in addition to the intrinsic stream of images, we have the editor’s craft; a layer of heavy influence.

When movies were first invented, the original idea that jumped out at directors was: put a DREAM on the screen. Make no bones about it. Show audiences fantastic dreams. This was as far from contemporary “realism” as planets in the sky are from dogs eating garbage in alleys.

Have you watched little PR documentaries or video ads featuring political candidates? Most of them are assembled by level-B editors. The videos are transparent fakes. Why? Because real pros weren’t brought in—pros who would have cut together sequences that made us feel we were there tracking the candidate. In other words, top-flight fakery wasn’t executed. We had to settle for awkward fakery. “Why would I vote for Joe X? His ads don’t really deceive me into thinking I’m on the campaign trail with him.”

“A candidate’s IDEAS? What? We already know them. He stands for prosperity and peace. Or maybe it’s war. I can’t remember.”

A PSYCHOLOGIST OF THE FUTURE: “Well, Mr. Hogslocker, how many videos would you say you watch every day?”

HOGSLOCKER: “Since the annual universal guaranteed income level was raised two percent? I’d estimate two hundred and fifty.”

PSYCHOLOGIST: “Have you thought about cutting back?”

HOGSLOCKER: “You know, I tried that. I really did. I ordered the glasses that make you think you’re watching yourself in Hell burning for eternity. But I actually got interested in those scenes. I started watching thousands of videos of Hell. After my wife took the kids and left me, I went to cooking vids. Then haircutting videos.”

PSYCHOLOGIST: “Excuse me?”

HOGSLOCKER: “They show stylists cutting people’s hair. There’s something about it. I go into an altered state. I’m very relaxed. I sleep. The problem is, when I wake up, my brain seems to be on hold. I can’t remember where I’ve put things. Keys, credit cards, remotes, groceries, underwear. It’s a problem. Can you help me?”

Many years ago, I proposed that, in the future, movies would be transmitted directly, in an electromagnetic package, to the viewer’s brain. In a single instant. Streams of images would become outdated. The viewer would wobble out of the theater and say to his friend, “That was fantastic.” “Yes,” his friend would say. Neither person would know what was in the movie. They would only know their own reactions. Why bother with inessentials?

Once upon a time, there were ideas. People knew what they were. They could read them and even write them. They could walk around an idea and look at it from all sides and think about it and talk to each other about it. Then came streams of images. These streams contained ideas, but viewers found it difficult to isolate them because the streams moved and kept on moving. Then, the streams were concocted to achieve the simulacrum of “realism.” No ideas, just the sensation that the viewer was there, in a scene, looking at it as he would if he were REALLY there. Then, finally, since the viewer’s reaction was the only event that counted, he would receive a “stimulus package” of electronics, transmitted to his brain, in a brief moment, and he would experience satisfaction. Nothing to think about. Thinking was way back there, in the landfill of history.

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

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 29^th 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.

by Jon Rappoport

December 19, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“In experiments on mice, scientists rewired the circuits of the brain and changed the animals’ bad memories into good ones…The researchers said they were able to do the opposite as well—change a pleasurable memory in mice into one associated with fear.” (Kevin Drum, Mother Jones, 8/27/14)

Aldous Huxley once wrote to George Orwell:

“[The world’s rulers’] lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World.”

Brain researchers believe they have the future of the world in their hands. For example, they assume that one day, they will be able to turn on or turn off circuits that induce pleasure and pain in humans. Easily, reliably, precisely.

If humans seek to find pleasure and avoid pain, or if they pursue goals that deliver pleasure as a side effect…why wait? Why go through the process of striving at all? Why not cut to the bottom line immediately and experience pleasure?

In an age where instant reward, entitlement, flickering attention, and entertainment are paramount, why not stimulate the brain and give people what they want?

Work is the middle-man. Eliminate it. The interval between desire and fulfillment is long. Erase it.

In the process, simplify human aspirations. Reduce them to a lowest common denominator. Assume that what a Tesla, a Rembrandt, a Beethoven achieved was unnecessarily complicated—the “same result” could have been handed to them on a silver platter.

Individual triumph? An outmoded concept. And why should one person accomplish more than another? It’s victimization. A cardinal sin.

If a thousand robots working in a factory can turn out more cars per day than their human counterparts, thus alleviating the stress of labor, then by analogy, delivering pleasure to a population through drugs or electromagnetic stimulation, bypassing the need for work, is a worthy objective.

These are the arguments, and a significant and growing percentage of the human race would find them persuasive and attractive.

“I’m bored (tired, frustrated, unhappy, confused). Give me pleasure. Now.”

Kent Berridge, PhD, at the University of Michigan Affective & Biopsychology Lab, writes (“Hedonic hotspots of ‘Liking’ — The brain’s pleasure gloss”):

“Pleasure arises within the brain. Sweetness or other natural pleasures are mere sensations as they enter the brain, and brain systems must actively paint the pleasure onto sensation to generate a ‘liking’ reaction — as a sort of pleasure gloss or varnish. Our lab has discovered brain generators of sensory pleasure, in the form of anatomical ‘hedonic hotspots’ in the brain, which use neurochemcal signals [to] paint intense pleasure on sensation, embedded within larger hedonic circuits. It is important to identify such pleasure-causing brain hedonic hotspots, neurochemicals and circuits, in order to identify true mechanisms of pleasure. The need to find true pleasure generators is especially pressing because hedonic circuit dysfunctions may underlie mood disorders and related clinical disorders, and because several other brain candidates once thought to mediate pleasure are now increasingly recognized to not cause pleasure after all (e.g., dopamine, electrical brain stimulation). Therefore we aim to find true causes and mechanisms in the brain for pleasure.”

Thousands of brain researchers all over the world believe they are on the road to curing “mood disorders.” But the big picture is quite different. It involves the shaping of society.

The individual, stripped of goals, vision, imagination, and creative force drops into a slow-motion vortex of despair; and painting a pleasure-gloss on his interior sensations is no cure.

It’s reduction.

Brain research has come a long way since Pavlov, but the basic formula is still the same: stimulate a reaction.

Humans brought to a trough of “sweetness” and drinking from it all at once may initiate a pleasant scene; but at what price?

Tesla is just a little boy with wild ideas and a talent for mechanics, and he is offending other little boys who can’t approach his insight; so he must be cured of his disorder. To do that, he’s given a few jolts of precisely directed pleasure-stim, and he forgets. He forgets what he is and what he can do.

He’s sacrificed on the collective altar.

The pleasure dome expands. People are happy.

The level of happiness is not important. It only matters that people will accept the degree of pleasure they are afforded. They will come to view it as the fulfillment of what is possible.

So it rests with the individual to become free, powerful, and creative. No one else is going to deliver that gift.

Up the road toward the Brave New World, pleasure will be counted as a fundamental sacrament underlying the Bill of Rights. “Everyone deserves it.”

In whatever form the technology can deliver it, it will be given.

Until something untoward happens.

Below the level of consciousness, a massive rebellion will be brewing and boiling. People, like it or not, will experience waves of repressed energy they can’t explain or identify.

The inchoate desire to be what they actually are will force its way to the surface and shake the world.

The pleasure dome will shatter and fall into the sea.

Beyond the reworked and cauterized brain, like a memory, the fires of consciousness will return.

The technocrats will take to the hills.

Or: knowing what the utopian program is—and what we are—we can refuse the program now.

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 29^th 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

by Jon Rappoport

November 27, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

My third collection, Power Outside The Matrix, contains a lengthy Writer’s Tutorial. Aside from practical advice, I stress what freedom means to a writer, what it really means in terms of available energy.

And one thing it means: symbols, as they are received and understood by the culture, are a way of shaping, channeling, and ultimately draining away energy.

Let’s start here: symbols have meanings because someone assigns those meanings.

Despite common belief, symbols aren’t tagged with meanings in some cosmic way that precedes humans’ presence on the scene.

Of course, various groups would like to believe otherwise. They want you to react to symbols as if they were permanent, eternal, unavoidable, engraved in stone.

This is the objective of all cosmology: “It’s the way things are, get used to it, accept it, the universe is built in this fashion, there’s nothing you can do about it, remain passive, don’t rebel, comprehend what is given to you.”

It’s how priest classes have always operated. They paint a mural and try to get everyone to prostrate themselves before it.

They say, “This symbol is evil, avoid it and reject it. This symbol is good, praise it.”

Humans will take it to the bank. They’ll go so far as to presume God decided which symbols stand for evil and which stand for good. Naturally, they have an inside line on God’s motives and intents.

Then we have those who argue that certain symbols have meaning created by a collaboration of “collective consciousness.” And this, they claim (“woo-woo”), is very, very powerful.

Yes, it’s powerful if you don’t reject it. It’s powerful if you believe that collective consciousness contains some sort of magic. It doesn’t. It’s just another version of consensus reality.

Some people cling to the idea of the boogie man. They swim in it. They derive their moral stance from it. They depend on it. Without it, they wouldn’t know what to do. And that’s exactly why they claim symbols of evil are inherent and forever and horrible: they wouldn’t know what to do if they abandoned the notion. They’d be lost. Utterly lost.

Therefore, they grotesquely pump up the concept that some symbols are dangerous and can only be dispelled by other symbols.

The truth is, for the individual, symbols are whatever he wants to make of them. He’s free to turn them upside down, inside out, drain them of all meaning, add new meaning, slather them with mayo and mustard, grill them with cheese, pave the driveway with them, hang them from the rafters, step on them, toss them in the garbage, hurl them out of apartment windows, snort them up his nose.

What other people might think about all this is supremely irrelevant.

Society always wants to parade an ever-increasing column of symbols past the populace and define them.

Mass mind control focuses on two elements: image and feeling.

By linking the two primary elements (this is a form of symbol-making), it is possible to short-circuit thought and “cut to the chase,” when it comes to enlisting the allegiance of huge populations.

Two seemingly unrelated events spurred my interest in mass mind control.

On the evening of April 12, 1945, I listened to a radio report on the death of Franklin D Roosevelt. I was seven years old.

I became upset. I didn’t know why. I was angry at my own reaction.

Forty years later, I pulled into a gas station near my apartment in West Los Angeles. I got out of my car and took the cap off my gas tank. I looked to my right and saw Tony Curtis sitting in his car. I was shocked.

A few days later, I began making notes under the heading of “image-emotion cues.” At the time, I had just started working as a reporter, writing articles for LA Weekly. I knew next to nothing about mind control, MKULTRA, Soviet psychiatric gulags, Chinese re-education programs, or US psychological warfare operations.

But because I had been painting for 25 years, I knew something about the power of images.

I remembered my first exhibition of paintings in LA, at my friend Hadidjah Lamas’ house. We had hung my work in her large living room and dining room. Hadidjah had enlisted the services of a friend who had videotaped me painting in my studio, and at the exhibition she set up a television set out on her patio and continuously played the videocassette.

People came through her front door, almost automatically walked through the house to the patio, as if guided by an unseen hand, and watched the video; then they came back inside and looked at the paintings.

They would stop at a painting and say: “That picture was in the video!” “ You see that one? It was in his studio!”

My first note on “image-emotion cues” was, “Investing an image with importance. Projecting emotion into an image.”

Projecting emotion into a newspaper image of the president, FDR. Projecting emotion into the screen image of Tony Curtis. Projecting emotion into a video of a painter working in his studio.

When people encounter an image, when they invest it with importance, they project feeling into the image—and this all happens in a private sphere, a private space.

If this didn’t happen, there would be no way to control populations through images. It wouldn’t work. It all starts with a person setting up his own personal feedback loop that travels from him to an image and back again.

Coming out of World War 2, US psychological warfare operatives knew they could turn their skills to political purposes. They had just succeeded in making Americans believe that all Japanese and German people were horribly evil. They had been able to manipulate imagery successfully in that area. Why couldn’t they shape America’s view of a whole planet that lay beyond personal experience?

They could and they did. But the power to do that emanated from the fact that every person invests images with feeling. That’s where it really starts.

I had seen the 1957 film, Sweet Smell of Success, a number of times. I admired it. Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis gave tremendous performances. When, decades later, I saw Curtis sitting in his car at that gas station, I was “working from” the emotion I had invested in his onscreen image. It produced a sense of shock and paralysis for a few seconds.

Other people might have rushed up to Curtis and asked for his autograph. With me, it was shock, cognitive dissonance. Ditto for the death of FDR. I was working off newspaper pictures I’d seen of him, and the feeling I’d invested in those presidential images. Other people, when FDR died, went out into the street and hugged their neighbors and wept openly. For me, it was upset and shock and anger.

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with investing emotion in images. It can be exhilarating. It can be uplifting. As a painter, I know this in spades. Putting emotion into images can, in fact, vault you into a different perception of reality.

But on the downside, it can also take you into lockstep with what media operatives want you to experience, second-hand.

We focus to such a degree on how we are being manipulated that we don’t stop to consider how we are participating in the operation. And our own role is clear and stark: we invest images with feeling.

So how does one individual’s projection of feeling into an image become a uniform projection of the same feeling into one image, by millions of people? How does what one person invests privately become mass mind control?

Through external instruction or cues.

Why does this work? Why do millions of people fall into line?

Because they don’t realize they started the whole ball rolling themselves. All they know is: images are connected to feelings.

If they knew they were the real power in the whole operation, if they knew they were investing feelings into images all day long, if they could actually slow down enough to see how they do this….then they would be far less prone to taking instruction about what feelings they “ought to” invest in second-hand images.

Hypnotherapist Jack True unceremoniously put it to me this way: “If a dog could analyze how he got from eating meat to drooling at the sound of a bell that came at feeding time, he could stop drooling.”

I would add: If Chris Matthews could analyze how his own voluntary investment of feeling in the image of Barack Obama sends a tingle up his leg, he could stop tingling.

We see images of people rioting all over the Middle East. We see burning flags and crowds outside embassies. We’re supposed to invest our own anger into those images. Outrage. Or joy, depending on the narrative the television networks are selling.

We see an image of miles of flat farmland and wheat waving in the breeze. We’re supposed to invest that image with feelings of happiness and pride.

Nowhere are we told we can back up a step and realize that we are the ones who begin the whole process, by projecting feelings into images. Any images.

Imagine a thought-experiment. You’re watching your computer screen. It holds an image of a tall blue vase. With purpose, you project the feeling of joy into the vase. Then you project the feeling of disgust. Then, fear. Then, worry. Then, pleasure…on purpose.

The objective is to gain some measure of consciousness about an unconscious process.

When I was 19, I was sent to a trained expert in New York to take a Rorschach (ink-blot) Test. I was displaying signs of what would now be called Oppositional Defiance Disorder.

The expert said he wanted me to tell him everything I saw in each ink-blot. I took him at his word.

An hour later, I was still working on the first blot. I was describing everything from bats and owls and chickens to space ships and buckets of hidden treasure in caves.

Well, I was cheating a little. I wasn’t really describing what I saw. I was imagining. I was taking off from what was on the page and improvising. This was outside the bounds of the Test.

The expert was seething. He was sweating, because he had many other blots to show me, and it was late in the afternoon, and he was looking at spending the entire evening with me. Finally, he held up his hand and put an end to the Test.

I wasn’t playing his game. Among other sins, I wasn’t investing dumbed-down feelings in the images. Therefore, my choices of “what to see” in the blots expanded greatly.

When I go to a museum, I like to watch people stand in front of abstract paintings. Many of them are stumped. They’re trying to figure out what feelings they “are supposed to” project into the painting. They’re looking for “instruction,” and there isn’t any. They’re asking for mind control, and they’re not getting it.

Fanaticism of any kind begins with individuals projecting feelings into images. This is harnessed by leaders, who then choose the images and direct which feelings are permitted. The tempting prospect for the follower is: participation in a drama that goes beyond what he would ordinarily experience in life. This is bolstered by the idea that what he is doing is moral.

In the 2012 election season, people on the left were urged to project messianic feelings into images of Barack Obama. People on the right were cued to invest feelings of pride, hope, and “tradition” into images of Mitt Romney. On both sides, it was principally images that were presented. The real candidates weren’t actually experienced.

Since Vietnam, shooting wars have been more difficult to sustain among soldiers. “In the old days,” feelings of hatred could be projected into images of enemies that included civilians, so overtly killing everybody on foreign soil was easier to accept. Now, soldiers are taught “enemy combatant” and “civilian” are two different images that require the injection of two different feelings.

Here at home, police and military are taught, more and more, to invest feelings of suspicion into images of American civilians. This is an acceleration of mass mind control for law enforcement.

The astonishing number of civilians who participate in government and corporate surveillance of the public, through technological means, learn to invest “dead empty feelings” into images of citizens, as if these targets are nothing more than ciphers, units.

The bizarre instances of police detaining and questioning parents who allow their children to play unsupervised reveal another accelerating trend. These confrontations start with neighbors snitching on the parents. The neighbors have learned to invest feelings of panic, suspicion, and anger in images of “free children.”

In all these cases, there is no real experience. It’s all second-hand. It’s all feeling-projected-into-image.

In the medical arena, countless advertisements and news stories are geared to convince people to invest feelings of trust in images of doctors. The suggestion, “Ask your doctor if X is right for you,” is framed as the solution to a little problem. The problem is set this way: Drug X is wonderful; drug X has serious adverse effects; what to do? Solution: ask your doctor; trust him; he knows.

As the class of victims in society has grown by leaps and bounds, including any group that can organize and promote itself as needing help or justice—going miles beyond the people who really do need assistance—citizens have been trained to invest feelings of sympathy and concern for all images of victims everywhere, real or imagined. This, too, is mass mind control.

Pick an image; invest feelings in it. Facts don’t matter. Evidence doesn’t matter.

We shouldn’t leave out a peculiar twist on the feeling-image op. The very people who are portrayed, image-wise, as objects for us to invest feelings into, take their cues from this game as well: doctors act like the doctors on television; gangsters acts like gangsters on television; FBI agents and cops act like law-enforcement officers on television. They’re roped in, just like everyone else.

You’ve heard people say, So-and-so celebrity has become a caricature of himself. Well, that’s what it means. The person has projected massive feelings of approval into an image of himself—often an image shown on television.

As a society, we can go on this way until we become a horrific cartoon of ourselves (we’re already there), or we can step back and discover how we invest emotion into images, and then use that process to pour feeling into visions of our own choosing and invent better futures.

Since the dawn of time, leaders have portrayed themselves as gods. They’ve assembled teams to promote that image, so their followers could project powerful emotion into the image and thereby cement the leaders’ control and power.

The game isn’t new. Understanding the roots of it within each individual could, however, break the trance of mass mind control.

During the first West Nile “outbreak” of 1999, I spoke with a student who had just dropped out of medical school. He told me he’d been looking at electron-microscope photos of the West Nile Virus, and he suddenly realized he was “supposed to” invest feelings of fear in those images.

Somehow, he broke free from the image-feeling link. He was rather stunned at the experience. His entire conditioning as a medical student evaporated.

Parents all over the world are having the same experience vis-a-vis vaccines. They realize they’re supposed to invest fear in images of germs and disease, and they’re also supposed to invest feelings of hope and confidence in images of needles and vaccines. They see the game. They’re supposed to ignore evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. They’re supposed to remain victims of mass mind control.

But they’ve awakened.

We’ve all been taught that what we feel is always and everywhere out of our control. These feelings are simply part of us, and we have to act on them. The alternative would be to sit on them and repress them and turn into androids, robots.

This is simply not true. There are an infinite number of feelings, and as strange as it may sound, we can literally invent them.

This, it is said, is inhuman. It’s a bad idea. It’s wrong. It would lead us to “deserting the human community.”

Nonsense. That’s part of the propaganda of mind control. If the controllers can convince us that we’re working from a limited map of emotions and we have to stay within that territory, they can manipulate that limited set of feelings and trap us.

(The power of art is that it shows us there are so many more emotions than we had previously imagined. We can be much freer than we supposed.)

The synthetic world of mind control and the handful of feelings that are linked to images is what keeps us in thrall.

The natural world—the world of what we can be—is so much wider and more thrilling and revealing.

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

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 29^th 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.

by Jon Rappoport

March 11, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“In experiments on mice, scientists rewired the circuits of the brain and changed the animals’ bad memories into good ones…The researchers said they were able to do the opposite as well—change a pleasurable memory in mice into one associated with fear.” (Kevin Drum, Mother Jones, 8/27/14)

Aldous Huxley once wrote to George Orwell:

“[The world’s rulers’] lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World.”

Brain researchers believe they have the future of the world in their hands. For example, they assume that one day, they will be able to turn on or turn off circuits that induce pleasure and pain in humans. Easily, reliably, precisely.

If humans seek to find pleasure and avoid pain, or if they pursue goals that deliver pleasure as a side effect…why wait? Why go through the process of striving at all? Why not cut to the bottom line immediately and experience pleasure?

In an age where instant reward, entitlement, flickering attention, and entertainment are paramount, why not stimulate the brain and give people what they want?

Work is the middle-man. Eliminate it. The interval between desire and fulfillment is long. Erase it.

In the process, simplify human aspirations. Reduce them to a lowest common denominator. Assume that what a Tesla, a Rembrandt, a Beethoven achieved was unnecessarily complicated—the “same result” could have been handed to them on a silver platter.

Individual triumph? An outmoded concept. And why should one person accomplish more than another? It’s victimization. A cardinal sin.

If a thousand robots working in a factory can turn out more cars per day than their human counterparts, thus alleviating the stress of labor, then by analogy, delivering pleasure to a population through drugs or electromagnetic stimulation, bypassing the need for work, is a worthy objective.

These are the arguments, and a significant and growing percentage of the human race would find them persuasive and attractive.

“I’m bored (tired, frustrated, unhappy, confused). Give me pleasure. Now.”

Kent Berridge, PhD, at the University of Michigan Affective & Biopsychology Lab, writes (“Hedonic hotspots of ‘Liking’ — The brain’s pleasure gloss”):

“Pleasure arises within the brain. Sweetness or other natural pleasures are mere sensations as they enter the brain, and brain systems must actively paint the pleasure onto sensation to generate a ‘liking’ reaction — as a sort of pleasure gloss or varnish. Our lab has discovered brain generators of sensory pleasure, in the form of anatomical ‘hedonic hotspots’ in the brain, which use neurochemcal signals [to] paint intense pleasure on sensation, embedded within larger hedonic circuits. It is important to identify such pleasure-causing brain hedonic hotspots, neurochemicals and circuits, in order to identify true mechanisms of pleasure. The need to find true pleasure generators is especially pressing because hedonic circuit dysfunctions may underlie mood disorders and related clinical disorders, and because several other brain candidates once thought to mediate pleasure are now increasingly recognized to not cause pleasure after all (e.g., dopamine, electrical brain stimulation). Therefore we aim to find true causes and mechanisms in the brain for pleasure.”

Thousands of brain researchers all over the world believe they are on the road to curing “mood disorders.” But the big picture is quite different. It involves the shaping of society.

The individual, stripped of goals, vision, imagination, and creative force drops into a slow-motion vortex of despair; and painting a pleasure-gloss on his interior sensations is no cure.

It’s reduction.

Brain research has come a long way since Pavlov, but the basic formula is still the same: stimulate a reaction.

Humans brought to a trough of “sweetness” and drinking from it all at once may initiate a pleasant scene; but at what price?

Tesla is just a little boy with wild ideas and a talent for mechanics, and he is offending other little boys who can’t approach his insight; so he must be cured of his disorder. To do that, he’s given a few jolts of precisely directed pleasure-stim, and he forgets. He forgets what he is and what he can do.

He’s sacrificed on the collective altar.

The pleasure dome expands. People are happy.

The level of happiness is not important. It only matters that people will accept the degree of pleasure they are afforded. They will come to view it as the fulfillment of what is possible.

So it rests with the individual to become free, powerful, and creative. No one else is going to deliver that gift.

Up the road toward the Brave New World, pleasure will be counted as a fundamental sacrament underlying the Bill of Rights. “Everyone deserves it.”

In whatever form the technology can deliver it, it will be given.

Until something untoward happens.

Below the level of consciousness, a massive rebellion will be brewing and boiling. People, like it or not, will experience waves of repressed energy they can’t explain or identify.

The inchoate desire to be what they actually are will force its way to the surface and shake the world.

The pleasure dome will shatter and fall into the sea.

Beyond the reworked and cauterized brain, like a memory, the fires of consciousness will return.

The technocrats will take to the hills.

Or: knowing what the utopian program is—and what we are—we can refuse the program now.

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 29^th 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.