Not in our genes/the imagination machine

by Jon Rappoport

September 18, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

I once had a geneticist tell me, “You know, we’re going to discover the genes for promiscuity, for anti-social behavior, for compassion, for obesity, hair-loss, anger, and fear. We’re going to discover the genes for everything.”

He said this with the kind of authority only a scientist can muster…based on no proof at all. Zero proof. It’s a talent, to be able to impart blather and make it sound like experimental evidence.

As a reporter for 30 years, I’ve spent much time exposing how medical, political, economic, and social realities are imposed on populations, on people. But here’s an odd question and and an even odder answer:

Who are “people?”

Answer: Most people are secret agents.

Their mission? To disguise—first and foremost, from themselves—the fact that they have enormous imagination and creative ability.

Achieving this concealment is on the order of blocking out the sun.

It is a complex task of deception. The pretense is multi-layered. One line of defense goes like this: I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. ME? I’M JUST AN ORDINARY PERSON.

Yes, an ordinary person cast in a role in a stage play.

Let’s say I’m the director. “Okay, I’ve cast you in the role.. Now I want you to assume all the characteristics of an average guy. You understand? I don’t want any leaks or cracks. You character has to be bulletproof. You grasp what is ordinary, and you are totally ignorant when it comes to what is extraordinary. Got it? MOST OF ALL, YOUR CHARACTER MUST BE DEVOID OF IMAGINATION. Do you think you can handle that?”

People do handle it all the time, and they do it beautifully. Brilliantly.

They have their lines down cold. No matter what you throw at them, they can fend it off and leave the impression, for you and for themselves, that they don’t know anything about imagination.

For them, imagination is a car in a garage under a thousand tons of concrete and steel. They will never drive it.

They can walk and talk, they can accomplish tasks, they can be entertained, they can have fun, they can even think and solve problems, but they can’t create anything. That’s their gig. Their role.

There are a whole lot of people who believe ordinary humans are ordinary because it’s in their genes; some people are dealt good genes and some aren’t. This is completely false. It’s not a question of genes.

Genes are a story that’s told to keep everyone in the dark.

The real and true story is about imagination. When you think about it, the ability to cast one’s self in the role of “ordinary human” is a fantastic act of imagination. It’s strange, because, essentially, a human being is using his imagination TO DENY HE HAS ANY IMAGINATION. He’s creating the role. He’s imagining that role and fitting himself into it.

Why in the world would he do that?

Well, there are lots of answers to that question, but the real proof comes when a person you would never think had any imagination whatsoever emerges from the swamp and becomes intensely creative. I’ve seen that many times, and it’s extraordinary.

He was playing the role of Ordinary Person in the stage play…and then he was gone from that play and that role…and he was quite, quite different.

And from that point on, his life was never the same.

I’ve been painting for 50 years now. I’ve had some interesting experiences with people who look at my work. The work isn’t realistic at all. My paintings are what people like to call abstract. I’m not sure what that means, except the paintings don’t look like what you see on the street or in your living room.

Once, a man gazed at some paintings of mine in my studio and said, “I have no idea what this is. It doesn’t make any sense to me at all.”

He was an intelligent fellow, but he was completely put off by the pictures. For some reason, I suddenly felt I could get him to understand.

So I said, “I’m going to try a little experiment with you, okay? Will you play along for a minute? Imagine you do understand the paintings.”

It was a moment, and everything happened to be poised in the right way.

He turned away from me and looked at the paintings again.

He started perspiring. Within a few seconds, his face was covered in sweat.

He grinned and started laughing.

He turned back to me.

“How did you know?” he said.

I just shook my head.

Essentially, he was asking me how I knew he could offload his act as ordinary person and plug into his imagination all of a sudden.

This moment had nothing to do with my work. It had everything to do with him dropping his hold on the fictional role in which his comprehension was narrowly set in stone.

He had just imagined his way out of that role. He imagined he could understand something entirely foreign to him…and so he could.

This man was a chemist. For 40-some-odd years he had pretended he could only navigate within a range of information…and all of a sudden he pretended he could step outside that range. And it worked like a charm.

A bubble of enclosed reality burst.

It isn’t just that people enter the stage play by inventing roles in which they have no imagination. No, the PLAY ITSELF has this central theme. The play is all about life without imagination. The whole drama moves forward on that basis.

If that cover story is blown, and all the secret agents emerge out of their cocoons, well, then, we would really have something.

We would have, among other things, an endless proliferation of realities, and freedom will then have true meaning…

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From 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 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.

6 comments on “Not in our genes/the imagination machine

  1. The Hinoeuma says:

    Fun to watch someone take off the self-imposed mask and just BE.

  2. michaelzfreeman says:

    Reminded me of … “Out, out, brief candle!
    Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more. It is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.”. Why did Plato have to take the Hemlock ? (Not a trick question, I actually don’t know).

    • Michael:
      Ah Macbeth’s monologue — I had to do this for an acting class, when I at one time aspired as an artist to be a thespian — ‘a beggarly account of empty boxes’ — a million years ago when I was young and Irish, and full of piss and vinegar. lol

      “She should have died hereafter. There would have been a time for such a word. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day. To the last syllable of recorded time. And all my yesterdays have lighted fools. The way to dusty death. Out out , brief candle! Life is but a walking shadow…”

      Plato didn’t take poison, it was Socrates his master. Plato was his favorite student.

      Plato was not there to see him die. The old man (Socrates) took the poison at/as his execution — calming the imploring of Crito to escape. He was instructed to walk around to move the Hemlock through his veins. His legs became numb, and he had to lay down, he lost his eyesight, his face was covered. He died there, and in the last words, spoken to Crito… “Can you pay a chicken to Asclepius, don’t forget to pay the debt.” The old man felt that all philosophy was simply training for one’s own death.

      Plato his greatest student added nothing to the truth. But was amongst others who wished to bribe the guards to let Socrates go…he refused. Socrates was accused of corrupting youth, and would not run because, those youths who admired him greatly would have paid the price, and gladly would have done it. He had agreed to live by the city’s laws, and he would not have been greeted any differently in other countries. It seems those in control secretly wanted him to escape. His guards were open to bribe. Did the old man want to commit suicide? That is the question in modern times. 

  3. Tracy Kolenchuk says:

    re: “We’re going to discover the genes for everything.” It’s easy to pretend that genes are the cause of everything, but take note.

    The best proof of cause of any illness is a cure. A cure proof is not perfect of course, but it’s the best we can do.

    Causes of illness is personal. Causes of disease, on the other hand is generally statistical. Genetic causes of disease are statistical unless they can lead to cures. Each cure is specific, an anecdote, not a statistic.

    Statistical genetic causes cannot lead to a cure, only a specific genetic cause can result in a cure.

  4. Jon

    I never cease to be amazed by the synchronicity of your writings. We have a mutual distrust of “science” which expresses itself differently. If you knew where REAL genes were located, I feel sure you would alter the title of this essay.

    It has taken me two years to drum up the courage to tackle “Coming Clean on Cancer” and, in the preliminary script I have already managed to give you a couple of plugs:

    “Fantasy it must be said also transcends reality. Though I feel he doesn’t fully appreciate the scope or power of imagination, Jon Rappoport has made a career from scripting exercises geared to coaxing make-believe into being. I make no secret of the fact I enjoy his writing and his extraordinary intellect. When not distracted by corporate alliances, he is one of the best journalists on the net. Jon takes a very special interest in the manipulation of healthcare, but he tends to follow the shady “statistics” path. Accountability is the first weapon of propagandists. Who could possibly dispute “official figures”? ”

    Here’s what I say about “science”:

    “Many teachers are press ganged into feigning expert status. Were any to tackle the volatile topic “cancer”, I feel sure that, instinctively, condemned-in-waiting would be lulled in to pretending they were serious hobby doctors or technicians on the fringes of medical science. Astute Disraeli was prophetically poignant in his muse “there’s lies, there’s damned lies and then there’s statistics”. You see, the problem is that science uses statistics to cultivate determinism. Statistics are meaningless without plans of attack. Scientific goals are brought to life with data. Of course, any discovery tour would do more to impede conclusions than amplify them. That is why a thesis is written for investigation to exclusively source “proof”. A modern, blustering vicious cycle of ignorance bungles science bluff. That is until prior valued methods or products mysteriously “fail”. How could the statistics be wrong? Maybe we should ask Mr Disraeli.

    Personally not intending to fall for vanity, if ideas and explanations presented this article don’t resonate because they do not concur with established norms, I don’t care. I will not pretend to be an adjunct of the system or some loopy alternative “quack” simply to foster moronic popularity. It is abhorrently clear to me that conventional sciences, applicable medical strategies and, indeed, physicians themselves have no understanding of what cancer is. Ignorance is deep rooted. They do manage to incessantly admonish uncontrollable, ever present symptoms with such fervent zeal, I feel sure the Papacy is brought to shame by their candour. Such is the momentum, the vacuum precipitates with ceaseless and often dishonourably prejudicial accusations supporting “causes” to the detriment of reason. Whether that be specifically anti-vaccines, cigarettes or generally against ambiguous “carcinogens” depends on the vigour of focused political interests.”


  5. Some people live as a false self, not particularly intentionally. For example, a child may have been molested or abused and represses the emotional trauma. That repression results in the individual perceiving things in life differently than one otherwise would. Some people become overprotective of others, not knowing that their “inner child” is the one who really needs protection and understanding. And others unwittingly take on the identity of the abuser, and become authoritarian adults (and politicians!). That is what I have come to learn.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *