Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

NANCY PELOSI EXPOSES OBAMACARE

 

NANCY PELOSI EXPOSES OBAMACARE

by Jon Rappoport

May 13, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZL9vNmUKyU&w=415&h=241]

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, and creative action to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

HOWARD ROARK AND THE MATRIX

 

HOWARD ROARK AND THE MATRIX

by Jon Rappoport

May 12, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Why go to fiction to learn about power?

 

Because in art we can see our dreams. We can see ideals and archetypes. These fictional characters have the energy we strive for.

 

When Ayn Rand, the author of The Fountainhead (1943), was asked whether Howard Roark, the hero of her novel, could exist in real life, she answered, with annoyance, “Of course.”

 

The implication of “of course” was: don’t you have the desire to discover your highest ideals and live them out?

 

Roark is an architect who creates buildings no one has come close to imagining before. His refusal to compromise his vision is legendary. He suffers deprivation and poverty and rejection with an astonishing amount of indifference. He is the epitome of the creative individual living in a collective world.

 

For reasons no one can discover (there must always be reasons?), Roark has freed himself from The Group. Perhaps he was born free.

 

Roark’s hidden nemesis is a little man named Ellsworth Toohey, an architecture columnist for a New York newspaper, who is quietly building a consensus that has, as its ultimate goal, the destruction of all thought and action by the individual for the individual.

 

But Roark, in his personality, spirit and force, in the cells of his being, is The Exception to the Rule.

 

Sometime after reading The Fountainhead, you may begin to feel Roark is cut from pure energy and exists in another dimension. He can take on mythic qualities.

 

He stands in juxtaposition to The Matrix, not only in human terms, but as a countervailing force that transcends the complication of Need and, instead, is pure Desire.

 

Desire, plus intelligence, plus creative power.

 

Whatever dross may once have existed in Roark’s character has been burned away.

 

Rand allows us to see that society itself is composed to accommodate everything an individual does and thinks that keeps him from being self-sufficient. That is what society, in its advanced stage of dissolution, is for.

 

Therefore, as Roark moves through space and time, he ignites in others, without trying to, all the emotions that signal their self-betrayal: shame, fear, disgust, resentment, hatred.

 

But their dedication to endless compromise remains intact. They tell themselves whatever stories they need to, in order to protect their second-hand existences.

 

They enact the range of feelings that allow for entombment in The Group.

 

These days, when people talk about “self-improvement,” they unerringly manage to avoid the starkness of these matters. And this is why the so-called “helping professions” fail.

 

These professions build ethereal mansion of cliches which emulate, like a cartoon, what Roark actually embodies. Roark is creative independence. The independence of creative power.

 

And most of all he is: vision.

 

How does vision operate for those caught up in “self-improving?” Well, the trick is to begin by conceiving of work and future taking place in a decidedly small arena. Fueled by small ideas. Small plans. Small ambitions. Dress them up, embroider them with minor dreams, claim these dreams are compelling and even heroic. Pile self-deception on self-deception.

 

And refer, always, to the cardinal rule of society, the rule of human-association-by-clinging need.

 

Roark experiences none of this. Therefore, people claim he couldn’t exist. Well, they would claim that. They live, night and day, by the rule of society, in a closed system.

 

Those who own the system enforce, celebrate, champion, and fund association-by-need.

 

It’s the drug dealer and his addicts. That’s the model.

 

But then, what of community? What of family? These are often thrown in the face of The Fountainhead as accusations, as if Rand wants to stamp them out and leave them in the dust.

 

The obvious answer is, which community, which family? Are the individuals intact, or are they sacrificing themselves to an “ideal” of diminishing their power?

 

The Matrix has an entrance, a gate on which is transcribed, “Reduce your vision and surrender your separate power.”

 

Yes, “separate.” A word that is now considered taboo. “Separate” was what we defended before we understood that the only salvation was attained in “coming together” and melting down.

 

We can even find this Melt in physics. The latest version of coming together is the interpretation placed on quantum entanglement, in which atoms light years apart react simultaneously from a stimulus placed on either atom. We are supposed to believe that the whole universe is arranged as a spontaneously reacting Whole, with no part distinct from another. And this is confirmation that the Collective is the preferred pattern of life in every venue. In other words, political collectivism mirrors cosmic collectivism.

 

Are you sensing something strange here? You should be.

 

Once upon a time, in a document called the Constitution, separateness was considered a key element. There was separation of church and state. There was separation of the rights of an individual from what the state could arbitrarily do to the individual. There was separation among the three branches of federal government, a plan enacted to limit overall federal power. There was separation of the enumerated powers of the federal government from the more numerous powers of the states.

 

DISTINCTIONS that created separation were absolutely necessary. Making and abiding by such distinctions were made possible by minds that could think, minds that could utilize logic—rather than minds that melted down in a puddle of gray sameness.

 

Roark is shown to us as a man who stands separate from the mass, the crowd, the mob, the group, the collective, the majority, the minority. That is his crime. That marks him as dangerous.

 

That also marks him as a man who can hold his vision intact, because he isn’t seeking permission or approval or praise or consensus for his work, his art, his buildings, his creations.

 

The stunning intensity of his Desire isn’t watered down by a Need to be drawn into what the group wants or accepts or believes in.

 

The hallmark of The Matrix is a collective lens, through which the individual is supposed to view his life, his work, and the world.

 

“I see what everybody sees, and they see what I see, and we all see together.”

 

Talk about fiction. The collective lens is built, step by step, piece by piece, along a path of self-betrayal and corruption.

 

To speak about individual freedom while living and seeing and thinking through the collective lens is a contradiction and impossibility of titanic proportions.

 

“I have the inalienable right to see things as others see them. To melt down what might, in other circumstances, be my Separate Vision. To melt it down for the sake of the Whole. So that I might better serve others.”

 

Well, thank you for your sacrifice. I’m sure a gold star is waiting for you in some cosmic first-grade classroom. Now, if we all sacrifice all the time, some day soon we will all be invisible. We will all live in the great mouth of a great nothing. No one will have power. No one will be free. But we will speak as if we are free.

 

Our false words will sound important. Our rhetoric will, perhaps, convince us and everyone else that freedom still exists.

 

We will, in fact, be speaking like those politicians do, the ones we accuse of acting on ulterior motives.

 

If you’re beginning to get the idea that, in my work, I’m not only talking about what THEY are doing to US, but what WE are doing to OURSELVES, you’re absolutely right.

 

For those new readers coming to my work, here is a description of my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED.

 

But first, since I’m speaking so frankly, I’ll also add this. My work is also my business, my enterprise. I create, and I sell what I create. Not only do I think “I deserve to make a living” because of the nature and content of my work, I would love to become RICH because of it.

 

I’m sure that statement must be a sin in The Great Book of Rules for Modern Living. But I’m willing to sin when sin is good.

 

“Well, Rappoport is doing a great service by giving away all his articles for years and years. He’s providing a real service. He’s selfless. He labors for humanity. He puts aside personal ambition for the sake of others. All right, he’s okay. He’s a member of the Group. He can wear the badge. Especially if he ends up poor and destitute. Then we’ll know he’s a good person.”

 

No, that was actually never my aim. I stand for what I stand for, and I research and report on what I discover, and I imagine and invent and create. That’s what I do because I want to. The prospect of finding people who will understand what I’m writing is appealing. Any artist will tell you that. But it doesn’t rule what I say or write. IF IT DID, I’D BE USELESS TO YOU AND USELESS TO MYSELF.

 

But…but…how can writing the truth and truth below that and the truth below that be a BUSINESS? The truth should be free and everybody should have access to it because, well, the cosmos says so.

 

I guess I missed the conference where that was decreed. I was probably painting in my studio, and I couldn’t be bothered. I think I saw a list of the conference speakers. As I recall, they were thieves and liars who were mouthing the word “truth” as a con, to convince people that EVERYBODY DESERVES EVERYTHING, and they, the liars and the thieves, were going to run that charity operation, and the only price people had to pay to benefit from it was to give up themselves in every possible way.

 

Sounds like one of those bothersome little contradictions, but never mind. Sounds like a principle of the Matrix, but never mind…

 

INTRODUCTION TO THE MATRIX REVEALED, Volume 1

 

by Jon Rappoport

Copyright © 2012 by Jon Rappoport

 

Let me start with the nuts and bolts of this product. It is enormous in scope.

 

250 megabytes of information.

 

Over 1100 pages of text.

 

Ten and a half hours of audio.

 

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

 

My complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades. Click here for more details on the LOGIC AND ANALYSIS Course.

 

The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical tests for diagnoses, and the invention of disease, the understanding of which is, now and in the future, vital to our correct perception of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

 

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

 

EILLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

 

RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

 

JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet. Jack’s beyond-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages.

 

Then there are several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix, including recent conversations. 53 pages.

 

The ten and a half hours of mp3 audio are my solo presentation, based on these interviews and my own research. Title: The Multi-Dimensional Planetary Chessboard—The Matrix vs. the Un-Conditioning of the Individual.

 

Here is some background on the product and my own history:

 

In 2001, I essentially left a career as an investigative reporter and rolled the dice on the emerging internet. I started a site called www.nomorefakenews.com

 

I didn’t stop investigating and publishing, but my field of operation widened. My first big question was: WHO REALLY RUNS THE WORLD?

 

And my second was: WHOEVER THEY ARE, HOW DO THEY MANUFACTURE REALITY FOR THE POPULATION OF EARTH?

 

I was prepared to deal with these enormous questions, because I had contacts. These were people I had come to know well during my days as a reporter, writing for LA Weekly and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe—and also during a stint on radio at KPFK in Los Angeles.

 

These people, these contacts, were insiders.

 

They had deep knowledge in their fields:

 

PROPAGANDA; FINANCE; HYPNOTISM; MIND CONTROL; MEDICINE; INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS…

 

They were unwilling to be cited as on-the-record sources in my articles. They knew they would suffer consequences if they went public.

 

Once I started my website, I did extensive research to confirm the credentials of my insiders. I wanted to make sure they were who they said they were. I wanted to verify they had worked where they said they had worked. This was a laborious process.

 

When I was sure, I began to interview them.

 

I wasn’t certain where all this would go.

 

Gradually, I realized I was getting VERY high-level information on The Matrix. But this was the real Matrix.

 

As one of my sources described it:

 

“Imagine a factory that turns out illusions. And these illusions are woven together to make up what we think the world is.”

 

The actual Matrix involves a number of areas: government; money; energy; the military; intelligence agencies; medicine; mega-corporations; psychology and mind control; science…

 

I started a members-only newsletter, and word quickly spread. Every Friday, I would email a newsletter to subscribers. Many of these newsletters were interviews with my insiders.

 

It was quite a job, keeping up with writing (public) daily articles for my site and also putting out the (private) newsletter. I was also collating the high-level information from my sources and making maps of the expanding territory.

 

I saw that I was looking at global CARTELS. As you will discover in reading this material, these cartels are not frozen organizations. They are evolving.

 

In this last months, I’ve had some very competent assistance, and I’ve assembled the most important newsletter-interviews for you.

 

But in addition to that, I’m publishing, for the first time, interviews that never made it into those newsletters. And I’m presenting interviews from very recent days as well.

 

It’s very instructive to talk to people who have been there on the inside. They are bright, they are informative, they convey the depth of situations they were involved with. They go beyond relaying dry facts, and in doing so, you learn how elite players play the game. You receive a rounded and three-dimensional picture of: the process of constructing The Matrix. How it’s built.

 

In every case, each insider was relieved to be able to talk with utter frankness, with no fear that his words would be twisted or taken out of context or deleted. So you’re getting the full story.

 

I met my first two insiders while I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., SCANDAL OF THE CENTURY, in 1987-88. The book was my initial experience in putting together a vast amount of data—which contradicted every official position on a supposedly rock-hard subject: medical science.

 

At the time, I didn’t really understand how deep I was drilling down into a cardinal aspect of The Matrix. I only knew I was I digging up and exposing long-held delusions broadcast as facts by the Medical Cartel. These false realities went far beyond the subject of AIDS.

 

That first book of mine started as a pure lark. I had just published a piece in LA Weekly about certain televangelists and their support of an intentionally staged Armageddon in Israel. When the piece was published, I sat back and thought, “Where do I go from here? What could be weirder than this?”

 

Like other investigative reporters, I was excited by strange and bizarre stories that could blow readers’ minds. I was motivated by that.

 

So, in 1987, I wondered what could be stranger than the Armageddon story I had just done.

 

Sitting in my Los Angeles studio, a thought popped into my head. “AIDS. I bet there’s something about that whole thing that’s pretty weird.”

 

Little did I know…

 

That was my first big leap.

 

I had studied logic extensively in college. I had been taught by a philosophy professor who was a very generous soul and a relentless thinker. If you were an inch from accuracy, he would point it out, and he would give you the full reason and understanding that pulled you back to the straight and narrow.

 

Once I dove into research for AIDS INC., I was amazed at the sloppy thinking and contradiction that was posing as science.

 

And then I met my first two insiders.

 

Their basic message to me was: keep going; you’re on the right track; we have a great deal more to share with you.

 

They weren’t just talking about medical issues.

 

They were talking about the whole construction of reality from a number of angles.

 

Each of the insiders I have gotten to know over the subsequent years has a different personal story. They have all left their particular corner of The Matrix-Construction Group. Jack True, my late friend and colleague, was a different man altogether. He was never part of that Group. He was the most informed and brilliant researcher I’ve ever come across on the subject of the mind—the essential link that makes The Matrix work.

 

Jack started the ball rolling. He was instrumental in making the deal that got AIDS INC published. He introduced me to a few key figures along the way—insiders who proved invaluable.

 

Why did these insiders want to talk and spill secrets? Well, the process of interviewing them wasn’t always easy. They could be thorny at times. But they all had seen, finally, the abyss toward which they were heading, toward which they were leading the population. And they pulled back.

 

So…

 

This Volume is for individuals.

 

Because:

 

Beyond The Matrix is true individual power.

 

Despite all the illusions, it has always been there.

 

It’s for you.

 

And it IS your power.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

https://marketplace.mybigcommerce.com/the-matrix-revealed/

OBAMA SPEAKS ABOUT RACE AND COLOR

 

OBAMA SPEAKS ABOUT RACE AND COLOR

by Jon Rappoport

May 11, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MiaiHffWFA&w=415&h=241]

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, and creative action to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Ellis Medavoy on NATO Summit Psyop

by Jon Rappoport

May 10, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

It’s rare, these days, for me to get messages from retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy. He’s always been a difficult man. Now, he’s even tougher to coax out of his cave.

Nevertheless, because I’m persistent, I interview Ellis 28 times (290 pages) in my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED. The quality of his information on the nuts and bolts of The Matrix is priceless.

Today, I’m presenting a one-way conversation, in which Ellis begins by discussing the upcoming May 20-21 NATO Summit in Chicago. It’s the jumping-off point for one of his fantastic voyages. Then he and I go into Q&A format. Eventually, the conversation gets a bit contentious. I’m used to that with Ellis. He isn’t a drink that goes down easy, like chocolate milk. He’s like a few shots of gin.

ELLIS 1: Chicago. No-fly zone. Shoot down planes. Shut businesses. Station troops. Lock down apartment buildings. Tell business employees to dress like protestors to avoid assaults. Project evacuations.

Most observers looking at the Summit are missing the boat. There is NO consensus for a gigantic protest filled with violence in Chicago.

In the US, people have no particular opinion about NATO. It’s not G-8 or WTO. What NATO has actually been doing, covertly, for decades, in war zones, has occurred under the radar.

Reports out of Chicago are claiming the crowds of protestors are going to be much smaller than predicted.

Organizers are straining to get their people to march in the streets.

The G-8 conference was supposed to take place at the same time as the NATO Summit, which would have attracted big numbers of protestors to Chicago, but then Obama moved the G-8 to Camp David.

Michelle Obama will be hosting a few events for NATO spouses, and the president will show up in town. So what?

So that leaves three possibilities, all of which are psy-ops.

One, the crowds will be small, but the military/police/DHS and various other agencies will have a chance to do a live drill and see how their systems work and mesh…while scaring the citizenry of the city.

Two, related to One, this kind of gigantic military and law-enforcement presence (with accompanying media coverage) further conditions the population of America to martial-law conditions.

Or Three, behind the scenes, a violent op is being mounted by the very people who are pushing martial law. This incident will spark sufficient chaos to maintain the idea of “imminent and continuing threat to the Homeland” and justify crushing action by troops and cops. For example, these lunatic martial-law pushers might be putting together a threat against the president or the first lady. If so, and assuming the threat is contained, this will be a ploy to gain support for Obama’s re-election campaign. “Embattled heroic president vows to never surrender to terrorism…”

Unless protest organizers can manage to invent a march out of nothing, involving large numbers of people, most of whom will have virtually no idea what they’re doing in Chicago, you’re looking at the three scenarios above.

The NATO Summit jitters are a synthetic creation. As far as genuine public awareness of NATO is concerned, it provokes no images stronger than a march against Velveeta.

So this is all psy-op. It STARTED with announcements in the press about security measures that would be taken in the city. Get it? That’s where it STARTED. Those stories were planted. All of a sudden, before anyone cared about the Summit, we were told that security would be overwhelming. The security is really the only story.

They didn’t even fake a possible threat. They just said, “We’re going to blanket the city with security.”

This is also a covert announcement to potential protestors. The message is:

GET ORGANIZED. MARCH IN THE STREETS. DO SOMETHING BIG. WE WANT YOU TO DO SOMETHING BIG. GET YOUR BUTTS IN GEAR. WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? YOU’RE LAGGING BEHIND. IF WE’RE GOING TO LOCK DOWN CHICAGO, YOU HAVE TO PLAY YOUR ROLE. YOU CAN’T JUST BRING OUT THREE HUNDRED PEOPLE. THAT WOULD BE AN EMBARRASSMENT. IF WE’RE SHUTTING DOWN CHICAGO, THERE MUST BE A GOOD REASON FOR IT. YOU’RE THE REASON, IF YOU SHOW UP IN HUGE NUMBERS. SO BE THAT REASON. THIS IS A GOLD-PLATED INVITATION TO YOU FROM US. MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN. DON’T LET US DOWN.

It’s backwards, sure. Many ops are backwards.

The press will never cover a psy-op because the press are part of that psy-op. The tool in the master’s hand doesn’t turn around and bite the master. THE PRESS EXISTS MAINLY TO PROMOTE PSY-OPS.

ELLIS 2: “Defense of the nation” is a much larger psy-op designed to convince the masses that there IS a nation, when in fact it has been stolen out from under them, and all that is left of any significant size is the partnership between huge corporations, banks, and government. Government is rapidly being assimilated into a globalist scheme and pattern of management. These are cartels.

You have to understand the mental and emotional quality of people who are hired to deliver the news. They’re basically dolts. But they’re a particular kind of dolt. They’re bright in certain ways. They’re quick on their feet. BUT they can’t grasp the possibility that the information being presented to them, the information they pass on to the public, is twisted at the source. They just can’t imagine that. They know about lies, sure. But the real nature and scope of a psy-op evades them. They are information hounds, you might say, and they NEED a reputable source for that information. They’re addicted to information and for them there has to be a constant stream of it, or they would go crazy. They have to fill their minds with news and pass on that news. That’s their itch and they have scratch it. So they need a place to go to get the information and they have to trust it. They need a place where the news pours out to them all the time. They have to have that. Their primary source is government. They rely on it. They accept it. If not, they would be at a loss, psychologically. They would have to start vetting every piece of news and that would take too much time. There wouldn’t be enough news. It’s exactly the situation a drug addict finds himself in. He has to have a dealer he trusts to be there, to have a supply of the drug.

The quality of the information or news or drugs is of secondary importance to the addict. I’ve known many newsmen and women in my time, and they mostly start out with their addiction when they are young. They’re fixated on the flow. They’re tied with a chain and anchor to the flow of news. They eat it up. They remember it. They are married to it.

Therefore, the very idea that most of the news they’re reporting has an agenda is anathema to them. They reject that proposition violently. Put a newsman on a desert island and he would go crazy. He’d start broadcasting to the bushes or the sand.

So if a particular stream of news comes into him about heavy, heavy security in Chicago for the NATO Summit, that’s a very good thing in itself. That’s information. He never questions WHY this news has no foundation. He never asks why Chicago is being targeted. That would be like a drug addict asking why the flow of heroin is suddenly picking up on the street. Would never happen.

Just as the audience for news has to be able to replace one story with the next, the newsman has to be able to do the same thing. When you stop to consider this ability, it’s again like the drug addict. It isn’t yesterday’s fix that’s important, it’s what’s going to happen right now.

All newspeople are dedicated to The Story, but they have to believe the stories are factual. If they started to realize they’re reporting fiction, they’d come apart at the seams. Their lives and their minds are founded on the idea of facts. It doesn’t really matter that the facts are fictions—the newspeople believe they’re facts. This is a very strong belief. It’s religious.

When you step back and think about this, it’s strange. Reporters want to have a death-grip on facts. Information is their addiction; pretended facts are their religion. Where do these people come from? What breeds them to be the way they are? They’re dysfunctional in a deep sense. From an early age, they’re mesmerized by “knowing what’s going on.” They’re the “know-what’s-going-on” people. It’s absolutely vital to them.

They’re perfect, perfect dupes.

Q & A with Ellis Medavoy:

Q (Jon): So the job of the propagandist is to make fiction look and feel like fact.

A (Ellis): Propagandists know who they’re feeding, and they know what morsel will be snapped up by these newspeople. They know how to shape the morsel and color it and flavor it so that it becomes a drug.

Q: The memories of these newspeople…

A: Are data banks. Their memories are all data all the time. The memories form their reality. INTERRUPTION of reality is the primary sin. It can’t be tolerated.

Q: What do you mean by interruption?

A: A place in the mind where a corrosive question or doubt is inserted about the nature or character of a fact. For the regular human, this can be dealt with, at least to some degree. For the newsman, this is like a hammer blowing time to pieces. The flow is interrupted. It would be like one of those old stock brokers, when he followed the second-to-second transmission of stock prices by looking at a narrow piece of paper tape. He’d hold the tape in his hands and read it as it came through, yards and yards of it. But suppose the tape came out of the machine blank for a few minutes. This is why some people can’t meditate. They’re instinctively afraid they might come upon a silent moment where thought stops.

Q: So to ask your own question back to you, where DO these newspeople come from?

A: They, at an early age, see power as the capacity to know “what’s going on.” They plug into that kind of power.

Q: It’s strange.

A: It’s superficial. It’s all about surface flow of information. They stick to the surface. What they’re looking at, what they’re fascinated by is a kind of theater. They’re looking at theater. I’ve known that for a long time. It was part of my job to know it, because then I could present stories that would get through to reporters in a form that would have that theatrical feel.

Q: The players know their roles.

A: The reporters know, their editors know, their reliable sources know, and people like me, who feed those reliable sources, are like directors. It’s hard to describe this, but there is a certain pulse and pace and feel to the way you should supply stories to sources or reporters or editors. You know when to go fast and when to go slow. You know how to plug into their sense of theater. Their need for theater.

Q: So the addiction of these newspeople has a theatrical dimension to it.

A: Have you ever seen a junkie operate? A great deal of his action and talk is theater. He presents theater and he wants theater back. The newsman confuses theater with facts. It’s all rolled up into a big space. I’ve sold stories to reporters based purely on the theatricality of my presentation. See, let me tell you something. When I talk to a reporter, I know I’m walking into a theater where the play is ALREADY underway. It never stops for a reporter. So I hit the ground running. I enter the scene mid-stream. I don’t think, “Now, I’m starting to pitch my lines, now the scene is beginning.” No. I’m intuiting and seeing where he [the reporter] is right now, in the middle of one of his scenes, so to speak, and I plug directly into that place, that moment. Do you understand? This is the subtlety of the art.

Q: You understand his psychology.

A: Yes, and I understand his flow. I read the signals. Oh, this is Death of a Salesman or Streetcar Named Desire, or Hamlet, and they just shoved me out on the stage, and I have to know how to match the emotions of the moment, where the scene has already been going on for five minutes. It sounds a little odd, but that’s how you play the game if you want to win. It could be a very quiet moment in the scene, and then I need to talk in a whisper. It could be the peak of the scene, where the emotions are running high, and I have to drive right in and be there for it, with my feelings turned on high, too.

Q: But behind that, you were doing something quite different.

A: Of course. I had my marching orders and my agenda.

Q: You know, it’s almost like you’re talking about frequencies.

A: I am. Propaganda runs on carrier waves. What are you using to transmit messages? What wave? I knew my targets: reporters and editors and their reliable sources. So I had to understand and tune into the frequencies they would accept. If you watch the best television news anchors, you see they’re adopting several tight emotional frequencies, and they use them to transmit, with their voices and demeanor, the news to the public. They use a nearly perfect imitation of several things: concern, objectivity, dignity, intelligence, with a bit of a rosy glow of sincerity and humanity. That’s the recipe.

Q: Imitation, you say.

A: Yes. They’re a cartoon. They create a cartoon persona. A very well crafted one. And the audience is a cartoon, too.

Q: Why is the audience a cartoon?

A: Because, underneath it all, they know they’re being conned. At some level, they realize it’s a show. So they pretend, and they do it well. They pretend they’re very involved.

Q: You can see that?

A: See it? I lived by it for many years. I staked my reputation on all of this, on everything I’m talking about here. It wasn’t just theory. I went into the trenches with my understanding, and I made it succeed.

Q: You’re talking about using your skills on people who report the news, who tell the public what’s going on.

A: As I just said, it’s all a cartoon. On both sides. Broadcasters and audience. You may not like it that I take a hard line on the audience, but too bad. The audience is faking it just as much as the newscasters. You have to admit there are levels to the mind.

Q: Meaning?

A: On one level, the audience appears to accept what the mainstream news is telling them. But on another level, as I’m saying for the third time, the audience knows it’s a fake. And why don’t they admit it? Why don’t they say, ‘I’m sitting here at night buying what I know is fake. I’m watching the screen and the anchor is giving me the news and I know it’s cooked.’ Why don’t people do that? Because they refuse to look at their own little drama of stimulation, in which they are titillated by what the newspeople are giving them. They don’t want that professionally produced titillation to go away.

Q: You may have heard of something called the Internet. It’s changing things.

A: Sounds vaguely familiar. Yes. The ground is splitting beneath the audience’s feet. I’m not a praying man, but I do something close to that every day, as regards The New York Times and NBC. I ask for them to go bankrupt. The Times is on the road to perdition and insolvency. If they go, it will make an interesting sound.

Q: Is your blood pressure okay? You’re a retired senior citizen.

A: I think I can hold my own.

Q: If you need to take a break, we can do that.

A: (laughs) Everybody needs to take his medicine.

Q: I can think of two or three meanings for that sentence.

A: See, I’m a little sick of people saying that the great unwashed masses of very fine people are being fooled and duped by the big bad controllers. It’s a mutual dance. I knew that thirty years ago. Everybody has to own up to his part in the cartoon, in the theatrical presentation. I know the difference between real victims and fake victims.

Q: What is that difference?

A: The real victims, in certain countries, are being taken out by massive corporations with their assisting government troops and all sorts of other support. The fake victims are sitting in front of television sets eating sugar and tuning right into the frequencies of the presentation of the news. They’re frequency addicts, and I’m very serious about that. This is exactly what they’re hooked on. Why do you think all this research on the brain is being done? To home in on the best frequencies for the insertion of information. That’s what we’re discussing here. But good newspeople already understand the frequency game. Intuitively. They understand it better than the brain researchers. And the audience needs that human face and voice to transmit the addicting frequencies to them. It isn’t just the old flicker rate of the TV or the frames per second or the illuminated screen. It’s the person delivering the news. He’s the prime force. He’s addicted to the frequencies he’s using! He’s addicted, too, and he’s transmitting and sharing his addiction with the audience.

Q: And what’s the cure for this addiction?

A: The world is resonating every day with what humans want. Here is what they want: they want to ingratiate themselves with each other. Ingratiation. Acceptance. Those are the frequencies. That’s the theme of the play. Those are the resonating frequencies. That’s how information is built and fabricated to invoke belief and faith. That’s the carrier wave, the resonance.

Q: When did you realize this?

A: When I was nine. But that’s a whole other story. Realizing it pushed me into the work I did. It also rescued me from continuing to do that work. I got out. You know what getting out means? It means I don’t any longer accept what I was doing, AND I refuse to accept the conditions that made it possible to do that work. I didn’t just get out part way. I got out all the way. I don’t buy the basic theme of the play or the ingratiating resonance anymore. I offloaded the whole thing. You know what? Tomorrow, if I wanted to, I could start a new religion. And it wouldn’t really involve any of the factual deceptions I used to use in my work. I could start a non-denominational religion based, say, entirely on charity. That’s all. And it would look like a very good thing. But I WOULD be using my ability to put out my messages on frequencies and resonances that would attract people. See? That’s how I’d build my audience. And I won’t do that. I know how to do it very, very well, but I won’t do that. That’s what getting out all the way means.

Q: You know—

A: I know a few solid truths. You can get people to sleepwalk from “bad things” to “good things” and they’re still sleepwalking. And that’s the real problem. That’s one element of The Matrix.

Q: Scientists tend to believe in operant conditioning. They believe people think and act according to one type of operant conditioning or another, and there are no other choices.

A: That’s right. That’s the problem. Waking up from the frequency game altogether is the real goal.

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.

PARANORMAL POWER, AN INTERVIEW

 

PARANORMAL POWER: INTERVIEW WITH A VOLUNTEER IN A LABORATORY STUDY

 

by Jon Rappoport

May 8, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derived from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness.” — Max Planck, Nobel Laureate, Physics, 1918.

 

A great chasm is being bridged. Hard-line scientists are admitting that matter and conventional energy are far from the whole story of the universe.

 

Indeed, as you can see from the Max Planck quote above, this counter-movement began a long time ago. It found its inspiration in the fact that, as the mysteries of the atom and the cosmos were coming under more intense scrutiny, as breakthroughs were being made, the expectations of scientists, vis-a-vis Life, were disappointed.

 

Here’s a statement attributed to another Nobel Laureate, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (1937): “In my search for the secret of life, I have ended up with atoms and electrons which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am retracing my steps…”

 

Into the vacuum of disappointment came spokespeople offering myriad solutions, answers, and possible futures. As usual, the capability and power of the individual were not high on the list of clues to Life Itself.

 

For a long while, I’ve been looking at The Matrix as a kind of sea from which, from time to time, individuals emerge, from which many more individuals could emerge.

 

Fifteen years ago, I delved into laboratory paranormal experiments. I ended up interviewing a few people who had done very well, beyond expectations, in these controlled tests. Here is a 2002 interview with one such volunteer.

 

He participated in a “psychokinesis ball-drop” study, in which balls are dropped down from a funnel into a case with holes and pegs in it. Probability dictates that about half the balls will fall into holes to the right of vertical center, and half will fall into holes to the left of center.

 

Volunteers are tasked with trying to mentally influence the distribution of the balls, so that more of them settle into holes to the right or left of center.

 

This volunteer significantly exceeded statistical expectations. As you’ll see, the conversation moved into some very interesting areas. My comments come at the end of the interview.

 

Q: So did you have a method? Or is this “natural” for you?

 

A: I’ve experimented.

 

Q: For example?

 

A: I tried visualizing the end result I wanted. That didn’t work. I tried putting energy into the balls. That worked a little better. Then I found I could create a field around the balls. The field was very energetic.

 

Q: What do you mean by “energetic?”

 

A: The field has many, many particles in it. The particles are invested with consciousness.

 

Q: Are you saying you created consciousness?

 

A: As far as I’m concerned, we create new consciousness all the time. We may not be aware we’re doing it, but we are.

 

Q: And this field somehow moved the balls to the left side of the board?

 

A: That was the “motive” in the field. It was a dynamic motive.

 

Q: And it worked.

 

A: I’ve had it work a number of times.

 

Q: What conclusions do you draw from this experience?

 

A: Quite a few, actually. Chance, or probability, is a human consensus. It’s not, strictly speaking, built into the universe. It’s not a physical fact. The universe favors 50-50 distribution of matter and energy? That never made sense to me.

 

Q: So from your perspective, what exactly did you accomplish [in the study]?

 

A: I “broke the rule” of common consensus, the rule that would have landed half the balls to the right and half to the left.

 

Q: Explain this “common consensus.”

 

A: I don’t see the universe as a remote thing. I think we influence it all the time. We have certain convictions that we all share and we “program” the universe with them.

 

Q: So for example, we program the universe with the idea that statistical probability—the 50-50 split—is the way things are?

 

A: That’s my view, yes.

 

Q: How would we do that?

 

A: I can’t give you a blow-by-blow account, but we do it subconsciously.

 

Q: And why would we do that?

 

A: For the sake of predictability and stability.

 

Q: But you don’t want stability? You said you broke “the rule of the shared consensus.”

 

A: Perhaps I’m a little more adventurous than the average person.

 

Q: You like upsetting apple carts.

 

A: Perhaps so, yes.

 

Q: When you put this “field” around the balls in the experiment, were you thinking about breaking the common consensus?

 

A: Sometimes. But mostly, I’m just doing what I do. I like being able to take things and move them off course.

 

Q: There’s nothing in your history, your past that would explain your ability?

 

A: Nothing that comes to mind. I didn’t have an accident where I hit my head and suddenly discovered I had a new talent.

 

Q: Can you do other things? Can you read the numbers on cards without seeing them? Can you read people’s thoughts?

 

A: No.

 

Q: When you put this field around the balls, do you feel anything?

 

A: I like it.

 

Q: It feels powerful?

 

A: Not “bad powerful.”

 

Q: Does it feel creative?

 

A: Definitely. In a unique sort of way, because nobody else is doing it exactly the way I am.

 

Q: You must have some sense of space when you’re doing it. You’re reaching out and placing this field there, around the balls?

 

A: Yes. It’s very spatial. Space is a palpable thing to me. I see it, but I also feel it.

 

Q: It’s not abstract.

 

A: Not at all. I’m not just thinking. I feel like I’m affecting physical space. I’m adding something to it. I’m almost replacing the type of space that was there with new space.

 

Q: And since you’re having a real effect on what’s in the space [the balls in the experiment], you’re changing physical space?

 

A: Yes.

 

Q: So a person can actually change physical space.

 

A: Yes.

 

Q: Ordinary space is filled with this “common consensus?”

 

A: Space is molded by it, so that events that happen [in it] are guided by the principle of neutrality, where statistical probability is the outcome.

 

Q: And we prefer this.

 

A: We make space conform to that [statistical probability].

 

Q: But you don’t.

 

A: I don’t want to sound like an outlaw.

 

Q: What do you want to sound like?

 

A: I’m just doing something that puts alteration into space.

 

Q: So you’re not acting directly on the balls as they drop down through the case.

 

A: No. I’m setting up the conditions for change.

 

Q: Do you feel, in any way, that you’re violating a rule or a law?

 

A: At first, I had a few reservations about that. But then I decided that the violations had already happened.

 

Q: Meaning what?

 

A: Well, all of us already influenced space by our common consensus. This has already happened. We programmed space to be “neutral.”

 

Q: And if we hadn’t?

 

A: I don’t know what space would be like. It would be a lot easier to change. I’m sure of that.

 

Q: Do you think there’s something wrong with this common consensus?

 

A: I really do.

 

Q: Why?

 

A: It makes a kind of grid.

 

Q: It locks us in?

 

A: That’s right. It keeps us in check.

 

Q: Whereas, if we were exerting our full power?

 

A: All together, or individually?

 

Q: Individually.

 

A: Life would be a lot more dynamic. People feel there are certain things they can do, and everything else is left to chance, or fate, or some idea of a remote force.

 

Q: Do you “remain anonymous” about what you can do?

 

A: I don’t perform at parties, if that’s what you mean.

 

Q: What about, say, at your place of work?

 

A: I’m an analyst. That’s all anybody knows. I keep it that way.

 

Q: Have you ever had a conversation where you told somebody what you’ve done, and he rejected it?

 

A: That’s how I learned my lesson. People want to believe this is nonsense.

 

Q: What about the research scientists who run the paranormal experiments?

 

A: I’m not sure. I feel they concentrate more on the results as an overall number, from all the volunteers, rather than focusing on what any one person can do.

 

Q: They want to prove that the paranormal is scientific.

 

A: But it isn’t. You have people [volunteers in the experiments] doing it, achieving the results. I don’t see how you can really put a number on it. I understand the theory. They [the researchers] want to tally up how everybody did, all together. Because that’s how they’re supposed to investigate. But the volunteers who do well in the studies aren’t statistics. It’s like a race. The 100-meter race. Do you add up the times of all the runners at the end? Would that show anything?

 

Q: What about your future? Do you have plans?

 

A: No decisions yet. I understand the [popular version of the] Observer Effect. If people change what they’re looking at, then what about changing things by consciously putting something there. Maybe that could be measured.

 

Q: You mean your field could be measured.

 

A: It would be interesting to find out.

 

Q: Do you think you could create fields that would move more than the balls in the experiment?

 

A: I haven’t tried, but maybe I could.

 

Q: Do you see your ability as natural?

 

A: I think it is. As I said at the beginning, I tried several ways to influence the distribution of the balls. I experimented. I think more people should experiment.

 

Q: So it’s occurred to you that people aren’t using the full range of their capabilities.

 

A: Sure.

 

Q: It’s been my contention that people are seeking some kind of average or normal level…

 

A: I think we give all the wrong names to things. Psychic ability, psychokinesis, paranormal—they imply either something mystical or something scientific. I don’t believe either category fits. It’s something else. I don’t have a name for it.

 

Q: This idea of a common consensus. Doesn’t that suggest a group consciousness?

 

A: Individuals are contributing to it.

 

Q: Everybody is subconsciously joining in.

 

A: That’s the way it seems.

 

Q: Like a shared secret, through which we settle for being average.

 

A: Right.

 

Q: I see this average being applied in more and more situations in life. It’s an agenda. To be average.

 

A: It’s ridiculous.

 

Q: You said that by creating a field you’re changing space. Do you think you could change “a piece of space” permanently?

 

A: I’ve never thought about it. The space I changed would probably snap back to being what it was before.

 

Q: Why?

 

A: Because of that common consensus.

 

Q: It [the space] would revert back.

 

A: But you know, suppose you could create a field around a garden? The motive you put in the field would be for flowers to grow bigger. Then a few years later, you look at the other gardens in the neighborhood, and you see your garden is healthier. It’s still healthier. That probably does happen. People do that.

 

Q: You bring up an interesting point. In the study you volunteered for, you were working with inanimate objects. Not flowers.

 

A: When those balls are dropping down and landing in the holes, they don’t quite seem inanimate.

 

Q: You mean they’re alive?

 

A: Not exactly that either. It’s as if I put a certain desire in them and they do what that desire wants. They’re enhanced.

 

Q: This cup on the table here. Would you say it has a desire?

 

A: Yes. It has a desire to be where it is.

 

Q: You feel that?

 

A: Sometimes I can sense it.

 

Q: So it [the cup] is flexible.

 

A: Wherever it is, it has the desire to be there. Objects are accommodating. They have the desire to be where they are or to move where they’re going. But if their position is changed, so does their desire.

 

Q: That sounds like a different formulation of the law of inertia.

 

A: To remain at rest or to continue in motion. The law of inertia is close to the idea that objects have desire.

 

Q: Have you seen the [1999 movie] The Matrix?

 

A: Yes. It was very interesting. But I see this “program of reality” in two ways. It’s like looking at the same geographic location from two different angles. From one angle, it looks like our reality has been programmed and set in place by an external force. From another angle, it looks like we ourselves did it. We did the programming.

 

Q: This unconscious collective consensus that establishes statistical probability and the 50-50 rule…

 

A: We do that.

 

Q: On a scale from zero to a hundred, where a hundred is sheer ecstasy and zero is boredom, where would you rate your own feeling about what you can do in influencing matter and space?

 

A: About sixty.

 

Q: Why so low?

 

A: Because I think there’s a lot more that’s possible. I’m only using part of my potential.

 

Q: A slice of it.

 

A: Yes.

 

Q: What’s the rest like?

 

A: I don’t know. I want to find out.

 

Q: Back to your idea that objects have desires in them. It reminds me also of certain Medieval points of view.

 

A: But I’m saying that people can change the desire of an object.

 

Q: By putting a new desire in it.

 

A: If I could really put a desire to fly in a book, it would jump off the shelf.

 

End of interview

 

My comments:

 

Paranormal ability is a fact. The implications of this fact are staggering: space-time is not impenetrable or fixed or final. Space-time isn’t some entity we, at best, can understand. We can affect it directly. The individual can do this.

 

Therefore, to the degree that the Continuum appears to us as an unshakable foundation, we are dealing with a delusion.

 

But this is a particular kind of delusion. It isn’t something we replace with a more profound grasp of a better alternative. We, as individuals, are the better alternative.

 

About a dozen years ago, I did an interview with Dean Radin, the author of The Conscious Universe. During an academic career as a paranormal researcher, Radin undertook a comprehensive and exhaustive review of well-formed (published) studies of various types of paranormal experiments, and he concluded that the evidence shows, overall, that statistical probability was exceeded in these studies, that paranormal ability is real.

 

The Matrix, the actual one, not the movie, involves the common shared conviction that human capability is limited. The idea that a person can change matter and space is largely rejected as fantasy. If Radin is correct in his assessment, however, and I think he is, the mainstream evidence shows that paranormal abilities are authentic.

 

I also agree with the volunteer I interviewed that academic scientific investigation of the paranormal is catering to methods that are misleading. Overall performance of volunteers across a broad spectrum of studies masks what key individuals are doing—the individuals who clearly perform beyond expectation.

 

This is important. These days, the emphasis is on what the group can do collectively. But what if group numbers conceal what key individuals in the group are making happen?

 

For example, experiments have been done in which random number generators, placed in various locations, suddenly depart from their typical randomness just before momentous global events that many people are focused on. This change in the generators’ pattern is attributed to collective reaction. Again, suppose the change is primarily being caused by a much smaller number of individuals, acting or reacting on their own?

 

The conviction that matter and space follow their course without interruption, according to immutable laws, is a major element of the Matrix. It works very well where technology is concerned, but that doesn’t mean humans must go along for the ride.

 

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism states that man derives the thrust of his power from exercising reason. Yet in The Fountainhead, her hero, Howard Roark, is an innovative architect. He is creating his buildings. Does reason explain his actions? If so, and if reason runs strictly according to the principles of logic, then why don’t his buildings absolutely derive from that logic?

 

This is not to demean logic. It is a vital discipline. But all around us, we also see the results of imagination in action. In fact, if you reread the volunteer’s comments on the field he used to influence the direction of the dropping balls, you can see he is talking about creation. In other words, he wasn’t utilizing some field that was already there. He was inventing that field.

 

The Matrix is formed to convince us of its monopoly on What Is. Imagination, creation, and invention cut across that grain. They produce realities that are new, that owe nothing to Matrix.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

https://marketplace.mybigcommerce.com/the-matrix-revealed/

NANOCHIPS/MIND CONTROL THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY

 

NANOCHIPS, AND, MIND CONTROL — THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY

 

by Jon Rappoport

May 7, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

PART ONE: NANOCHIPS

 

Linked at infowars.com, the Business Insider has the story:

 

The US Military Wants To ‘Microchip’ Troops — by Robert Johnson

“DARPA is at it again. This time, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has announced plans to create nanochips for monitoring troops’ health on the battlefield.”

 

Those who criticize the plan point out that gradually accustoming people to the insertion of chips will eventually lead to mass chipping throughout society.

 

Yes, true. But there is another op, too, and you need to know about it.

 

Further down in the Business Insider article, we have this official explanation for the chipping of soldiers: “…the sensors are targeted at preventing illness and disease [as opposed to reporting wounds], the two causes of most troops medical evacuation.”

 

Did you catch that? Apparently, the implanted nanochips are going to relay soldiers’ physical symptoms back to base in real time.

 

Now we are talking about something quite ominous: the capacity to use chips to relay hard data to authorities, who can then make off-the-shelf diagnoses of particular illnesses.

 

The troops are a test run. The actual op, up the line a few years, is to outfit private citizens with those nanochips, so medical analysts can present patients with rapid-fire and peremptory diagnoses, leading to drug treatments.

 

You can call this a high-tech version of what Obamacare is ultimately designed to do. Under the new federally controlled health insurance plan, a complete list of diseases and disorders will be assembled by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, as well as the only permitted treatments for each diagnosis.

 

This is the wet dream of the pharmaceutical industry, and the Army is running a live test with nanochips to test the logistics of a high-tech application. It’s a closed system. No outside (alternative) diagnoses or treatments allowed.

 

Should I draw a picture?

 

A person is walking down the street on his way to work, with his nanochip in his arm. The tiny computer is silently running, recording metabolic parameters and changes. Suddenly, it pings. The man on the street doesn’t hear that sound from his arm, but a computer located in a facility ten miles (or 6000 miles) away does.

 

The data from the chip are flagged and shunted to another automatic processor which, depending on the severity of the diagnosis, electronically issues an appointment slip to the walking patient. For the clinic. He’d better show up, too, or else he can be judged a public health threat.

 

He receives a nudge from his cell phone, reads the appointment info, and confirms.

 

He will see a doctor, he will be handed a diagnosis, and he will take a drug. He’s in the system.

 

Eventually, the doctor in most cases won’t be necessary. The electronic message will spell out the diagnosis, direct the patient to the nearest pharmacy, where the prescription will be filled.

 

Of course, the fact that the diagnosis may be shortsighted or completely off-base is irrelevant. It’s ironclad: symptoms A,B,C, and D add up to diagnosis X, which means take drug Y.

 

End of story.

 

Toxic effects from the drug? Never discussed. Irrelevant.

 

The published studies reporting the clinical trials of the drug were altered, on behalf of the drug company? The drug was actually ineffective and grossly dangerous? Who cares? It’s in the book. It’s official.

 

Welcome to tomorrow.

 

For those of you who want to probe a little deeper (and you should want to), here is a brief example of something that can go terribly wrong in this chipped version of healthcare. I spell it out at great length in my book, AIDS INC., which is included my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED.

 

Antibody tests. These are widely used assays to determine what disease a person may have contracted. When the test reads positive, the patient is said to have the disease for which the antibody test is custom-designed. And from that flows the diagnosis and drug treatment.

 

Why? Because, starting in the early 1980s, something astonishing happened to antibody tests. The analysis of their results was turned upside down. Before then, the presence of antibodies to a particular germ was taken as a good sign. It meant the immune system had reacted well and forcefully to the germ-intrusion. But with the new interpretation, a positive test was taken to be a bad sign. The patient was at risk. In fact, he might already be ill.

 

So there you are with a nanochip in your arm, and you’re sitting in your backyard with your family, and the chip, every so often, is running routine antibody tests through indirect access to your blood indicators.

 

Ping. At four in the afternoon, it suddenly develops that you have Hepatitis. You receive an appointment slip on your cell phone.

 

BUT you have no such disease. Not even close. You’re actually suffering from a piece of medical-research insanity that has turned antibody tests on their heads.

 

However, there is no court of first or last resort. You’re going to the doctor, and he’s going to give you a powerful and toxic drug, and you’re going to take it. If you don’t, your chip will report the non-compliance to authorities.

 

And for those of you who were quite sure that Obama was signaling you that alternative natural health practitioners were going to be protected under Obamacare, you were hallucinating. Sorry.

 

You may also doubt that computers housed in nanochips can carry out far-reaching analyses of various body indicators. Direct analysis isn’t necessary. In the same way that computer models built on a foundation of sand can assert manmade warming is real, medical models based on all sorts of indirect and abstract computations can deliver instant assessments of “physical aberrations from the norm.”

 

Again, welcome to tomorrow.

 

PART TWO: MIND CONTROL THE OLD FASHIONED WAY

 

Tiresome for some, confusing for others. I’m talking about the subject of individual power. Your power.

 

It stands as the essence of what the founding documents of the American Republic are all about, once you scratch below the surface a millimeter or so.

 

If not, what difference does freedom make? If the individual is fundamentally weak and mentally circumscribed in a small area of operation, who really cares whether he makes his own choices and decisions or lets the Big Daddy State handle his life for him?

 

With that brief prelude, consider this: since individual power, based on freedom, was what the founding of this nation was FOR, then it stands to reason that colleges and universities would be teaching courses in INDIVIDUAL POWER.

 

As soon as I write that, though, we all fall off the chair laughing, because we understand the absurdity of such a proposition. Can you imagine Harvard endowing a chair in Individual Power?

 

Students would tear down the building in which such a course was taught. They’ve been carefully instructed that the individual is the greatest living threat to the Planet.

 

If you can’t see that as mind control, visit your local optometrist and get a prescription for glasses.

 

However, the mind control goes deeper. As a former philosophy student, I can assure you that a survey of the traditionally touted Western philosophers, from Socrates and Plato, all the through to Kant and Hegel, yields up virtually nothing direct and explicit on the subject of individual power.

 

At my college, nobody minded; nobody cared; nobody realized this bizarre fact; no one complained.

 

So we have this astonishing situation: the very basis of this nation has no reflection in the educational system.

 

It’s hard to find an analogy adequate to such a mind-boggling state of affairs. But I’ll try.

 

Suppose that for a hundred years, every car mechanic was trained to repair every part of a car except the engine. The engine was never mentioned. The word “engine” was considered profane. A taboo.

 

Therefore, whenever a car owner pulled into a service garage, the mechanic would work on everything except the engine. If, as a result, the car wouldn’t make it back out on to the street, the owner would be told he needed to buy a new one.

 

And after a hundred years, people got used to this. Everyone accepted the situation. Everybody lived with it.

 

And then somebody came along and said: ENGINE.

 

People looked at each other with question marks hanging over their heads. What? Did he just say the forbidden word? Nobody is supposed to mention the you-know-what. Besides, what does en***e have to do with cars, or anything else?

 

That’s where we are.

 

You can say “individual” within certain limited contexts. You can say “power,” if you’re talking about nuclear plants, or if you’re accusing someone of a crime, but if you put “individual” and “power” together and attribute a positive quality to the combination, you’re way, way outside the consensus. Your brain needs medical drugs. You’re quite possibly a thought-criminal.

 

Because I’ve done research on, and reported on, all sorts of mind control, I know that people favor material about trauma-based CIA MKULTRA-type experiments. This is supposedly what “real” mind control is.

 

So let me put that one to bed. By far, the most insidious and invidious forms of mind control emanate from the educational system and the media. That’s where you go, if you want to find the most effective operant conditioning.

 

However, in order to spot the deepest versions of brainwashing, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME STANDARD AGAINST WHICH YOU CAN COMPARE WHAT IS COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE INTO THE BRAINS OF THE PUBLIC.

 

If you lack that standard, you miss most of the action.

 

If you lack that standard, you have already been worked over by the system.

 

And in this case, the standard is INDIVIDUAL POWER.

 

Clean it off, hose off the dirt, polish it, look at it, think about it, remember it.

 

Then you’ll see some Grade-A prime mind control. Everywhere.

 

Back in the days when I was writing on assignment for newspapers and magazines, I pitched a story about individual power to an editor. I wanted to trace its history as an idea over the past ten years.

 

He looked at me for a few seconds. He looked at me as if I’d just dropped some cow flop on his desk. He knew I was a pro and I wasn’t kidding and I had something I could write and turn in to him, but that made it worse. He began to squirm in his chair.

 

He laughed nervously.

 

Then he stopped laughing

 

He said, “This isn’t what we do.”

 

He really meant: “If you want to get back in my good graces, you’ll go away and come back with a story we can print. You’ll do that four or five times, and then MAYBE I’ll trust you again.”

 

For him, I was suddenly radioactive. I was dangerous.

 

It was one of those, “Jon, I thought I knew you. Obviously, I was mistaken.”

 

I had a similar experience with a high-school history teacher in California. We were having lunch in a cafe in Santa Monica, and I said, “You should teach a course in individual power. The positive aspects. No group stuff. Just the individual.”

 

He frowned a deep intellectual frown, as if I’d just opened my jacket and exposed a few sticks of dynamite strapped to my chest. As if he was thinking about which agency of the government to report me to.

 

He launched a lecture, the essence of which was I should consider seeing a mental-health professional.

 

Now, for the schizoid part. The movies. Television. Video games. Comics. Graphic novels. They are filled to the brim, they are overflowing with individual heroes who have considerable power. These entertainment businesses bank billions of dollars, because people want to immerse themselves in that universe of imagination, that universe where individual power is supreme.

 

But when it comes to “real” life, imagination stops at the front door and no one answers the bell.

 

Suddenly, the hero, the person with power is anathema. He’s left holding the bag. So he adjusts. He waits. He wonders. He settles for less, far less. He learns how the game is played. He stifles his hopes. He shrinks. He forgets. He develops “problems” and tries to solve them within an impossibly narrow context. He redefines success and victory down to meet limited expectations. He strives for the normal and the average. For his efforts, he receives tidbits, like a dog looking up at his master.

 

And this whole operation isn’t mind control?

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

HIDDEN POWER AND THE MATRIX

 

HIDDEN POWER AND THE MATRIX

by Jon Rappoport

May 5, 2012

 

“We the People…”

 

Underneath that formulation is the Individual.

 

“The people” is a convenient term for “every INDIVIDUAL.”

 

This has been lost in translation. It has been garbled, distorted, just as the proprietor of an old-fashioned carnival shell game distorts the audience’s perception with sleight of hand.

 

Are “the people” a group? Are we all crew members, tasked with designated functions, wearing uniforms, working on a space ship? Well, that’s the ultimate Globalist formulation.

 

However, from the point of view of the free individual, things are upside down. It is HIS power that is primary, not the state’s, not the government’s, not the group’s.

 

From his point of view, what does the social landscape look like?

 

The most significant factor is: THE OBSESSION TO ORGANIZE.

 

I’m not talking about organizations that actually produce something. I’m talking about organizations that PLAN MORE ORGANIZATION OF LIFE.

 

If you want to spend a disturbing afternoon, read through (and try to fathom) the bewildering blizzard of sub-organizations that make up the European Union. I did. And I emerged with a new definition of insanity. OTO. The Obsession to Organize.

 

OTO speaks of a bottomless fear that somewhere, someone might be living free.

 

Jack True, the groundbreaking hypnotherapist I interview in THE MATRIX REVEALED, had a few things to say about this “mental disorder”:

 

“If you put a few dozen colored blocks on a table in front of an adult, he might arrange them in patterns and structures. But some adults would prefer to form a committee to study how the blocks could be arranged, and a committee to evaluate the first committee.

 

“That’s a joke, but it’s based on reality. I’ve had patients who are constantly looking for ways to fend off life through organization. Their psychological filters are so fine almost nothing gets in.

 

“In a light trance, without any suggestions from me, they begin categorizing. Everything in its place, everything with a name and a label and a defined connection to other labels. It’s quite fantastic.

 

“On some level, these people actually believe a tree thinks of itself as a tree and an ant thinks of itself as an ant. You know, with the LABEL.

 

“It’s not an accident that elite groups like the British Royal Institute [of International Affairs] are kissing cousins of the British biologists who spend years and years devising more precise definitions of sub-sub-sub species.

 

“When people like this gain political and economic power, they look at the world and see large areas of ‘unorganized threat.’ Whatever is unorganized is, for them, by definition, a threat.

 

“Once in a great while, when you can shake one of these obsessives out of his habit, when you can get him to perceive reality more directly, he feels like he’s come out of a dream. I mean that literally. He was in a dream.

 

“You can see this dream operating when the task forces of psychiatrists get together to form new definitions of mental disorders. They’re splitting hairs of hairs that don’t even exist. But they think they do [exist], because without them they’d feel lost…”

 

THE JOURNEY TO GREATER INDIVIDUAL POWER IS ABOUT: ERASING THE SEPARATE INTERNAL COMPARTMENTS OF ENERGY THE PERSON HIMSELF HAS ORGANIZED.

 

I had early experiences of this when I began painting in 1962. The walls and compartments collapsed. Energies that had been kept apart flowed together. Lakes and rivers joined the ocean, finally.

 

The effect of this was enormous. I experienced a power that had been hidden from me.

 

I was suddenly an individual sprung from the group. Problems I had been puzzling over dissolved and disappeared.

 

Becoming joined with my own power was fluid. It came through to me as almost a physical process.

 

The trigger for all this was painting spontaneously in my studio, in somewhat the same way Asian Zen painters had been working for centuries.

 

Looking back on it now, it’s obvious that one of the effects of painting was: un-organizing a learned synthesis I’d acquired. I was offloading a “comprehensive mental strategy” tied to the way language was supposed to construct reality.

 

Perception of your own increased power is a function of cracking open the egg of your old, habitual, subconscious world-view. Your own fixed abstraction of reality.

 

These aren’t theoretical matters. They’re more real than the sensation of driving a car at 150mph on the highway. They’re more immediate than the taste of food or walking in a hurricane or trading punches in a boxing ring.

 

Flashing forward to 2001, when I began writing on the Web, I found myself joining together 1) everything I was learning about the Matrix with 2) my work and experience as a painter. One side was the vast organization-operation of the elite global planners, the nuts and bolts of which were being described to me by former insiders who had contacted me; and on the other side was individual power as it can actually exist, beyond the structures and shapes of that Matrix.

 

I wanted to explain the process of Matrix-building, so my readers could understand it at the level of engineering. And I wanted to reveal how individual power could reconnect walled-off interior energies and thereby exceed the influence of the Matrix.

 

Current technological civilization depends on fixed structures and forms and ideas and methods and systems. It succeeds brilliantly. But the side effect is a tendency to view reality through those lenses. And in the process of doing that, a person, as Jack True expressed it, “unconsciously invents a huge cabinet of drawers, and he puts what he labels as various kinds of energies into those separate closed compartments. This is draining. This cuts him off from power. This inhibits him from expressing power.”

 

Ellis Medavoy, retired propaganda insider and operative, whom I also interview in THE MATRIX REVEALED, explained it from his side of the Grand Game: “ALL propaganda, in one way or another, is aimed at prolonging amnesia in individuals about their own power. It’s much easier to do this when the individual has ALREADY put himself in a dream. The dream is: ‘I don’t have Mississippi Rivers of energy, I don’t really have power that amounts to anything, I don’t understand what power means.’”

 

People tend to think their own power is either a delusion or some sort of abstraction that’s never really EXPERIENCED. So when the subject is broached, it goes nowhere. It fizzles out. It garners shrugs and looks of confusion. Power? Are you talking about the ability to lift weights?

 

And therefore, the whole notion of freedom makes a very small impression, because without power, what’s the message of freedom? A person can choose vanilla or chocolate? He can watch Law&Order or CSI? He can buy a Buick or a Honda? He can take a trip to Yosemite or Disney World? He can pack a lunch or eat out at a restaurant? He can ask for a raise or apply for a better job with another company? That’s it? He can swim in his pool or work out at the gym?

 

Mostly, as the years roll by, he opts for more cynicism and tries to become a “smarter realist.” And that is how he closes the book on his life.

 

Or, if he is attracted to some form of self-improvement, it’s a matter of choosing between cliches. Which cliché sounds better? Which cliché seems to offer more hope for less effort? Which cliché will connect him to people who accept the same cliché?

 

And then there is this one: many people believe power is a monolithic force like a tsunami rolling over everything in its destructive path; therefore, who would want it?

 

Every which way power can be discredited or misunderstood…people will discredit it and misunderstand it.

 

Freedom in the political sphere assists the possibility of freedom in the individual sphere, and that second freedom is so poorly appreciated that it’s rejected as an illusion.

 

I’m saying there are whole universes of freedom. (And none of them have to do with The Group.)

 

The first real painting I ever made, in the summer of 1962, in a loft on 19th Street in Manhattan, relayed a message back to me: THIS painting is a world you want to exist; this is a world you’ve been unable to describe or explain—and now you don’t have to explain it because it’s there on the canvas. That was an electric jolt. I had never experienced that kind of feedback before. It changed my whole outlook on my life in a few minutes.

 

What happened there? The feedback was:

 

“This is a new world you just made because you want it. LOOK AT IT. This is all your energy coming together. You’re using it to make a world that exceeds language, that breaks out beyond the ceiling of what language can produce.”

 

Whereas, on the other hand, the Matrix is a closed circus. Lots of tricks, lots of injections of “reality.”

 

Then, on top of that, we seem to be closed off from the circus! That’s right. Elites plot and plan and execute to make us think we can’t even get a ticket to the circus, so we naturally strain harder to sneak in and stay there, because if somebody tells us we’re not allowed in, we assume it must be important and desirable. The con of cons.

 

And eventually, we’re in the circus so long we can’t conceive of another reality. This circus must be It. This must be the only reality. How could I ever have thought there would be another one?

 

And now all psychological and physiological and mental and physical and emotional and perceptual and hormonal processes undergo a major shift, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE US TO THIS ONE AND ONLY REALITY. IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT, YES, THIS IS THE ONLY REALITY THAT COULD EXIST.

 

And perhaps, in the circus, I’m the master with the whip and you’re the elephant, or you’re the master and I’m the elephant, and we switch back and forth, and we’re both trying to figure out what permanent, yes, permanent role we want to have in the circus. We’re jockeying for that role. That’s how we use our freedom.

 

Yes, this is pretty far-out stuff. I know that. So be it.

 

Language accomplishes wonderful and astonishing things. But it also shapes our view and understanding of reality. It limits that view. It hardens it over time.

 

Language is far more than a set of symbols. It’s the girders and beams and struts and floors and roofs and walls of the reality we accept. It’s the multi-faceted instrument we use to organize and over-organize our perception of reality. It’s the ultimate means of organization.

 

I’m not preaching a message about destroying language. That would be absurd. I’m indicating that it’s possible to break through to a place that is outside language. And that place is where we no longer have separate compartments of energy and power. The separate compartments are gone. Freedom and power take on a whole new significance.

 

As I continued painting in the summer and fall of 1962, I found myself in a state of mind I’d never experienced before. I no longer had a stake in the old game. Therefore, I could deal with that game and the people in it with an unexpected level of confidence.

 

I felt like an explorer who was going out every day into new worlds (that I was making in the studio)…and then at night, I would come back, and what I was coming back to was wonderful as well.

 

Decades later, when I began interviewing “Matrix insiders” who had defected from their work, I could approach these conversations as if I were talking to builders and architects and artists. In these interviews, the insiders saw and understood more about what they’d been doing than they knew before, because I knew they had hitched their wagons to a perverse version of art. I knew that in my bones, and I could talk to them on that level. I could get them to explain their nuts-and-bolts work in the same way an architect would describe a building he was designing.

 

We are all designing our lives as architecture, and in the process we are over-organizing them. We’re putting our energy and power into separate compartments. We think we’re missing details of our master plans, but actually we’re putting too many details into the plans. We’re falling into mechanical strategies that align us with the Matrix.

 

However, the more we understand the Matrix, the more we see how we’re cooperating with it, and then we can move away from that basis of operation.

 

The other half of my work involves developing techniques that put us in a direct uninterrupted line of access to our own power. Not the fragmented walled-off territories of that power. The whole unending ocean of it.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

AYN RAND AND THE MATRIX

 

AYN RAND AND THE MATRIX

by Jon Rappoport

MAY 2, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

“…nearly perfect in its immorality.” — Gore Vidal, reviewing Atlas Shrugged

 

“…shot through with hatred.” — The Saturday Review, on Atlas Shrugged

 

“…can be called a novel only by devaluing the term.” — The National Review, on Atlas Shrugged

 

“[The] creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men.” — Howard Roark, The Fountainhead

 

When people perceive that their society is being infiltrated and taken over by Collectivism, when they finally view that system as the enemy, when they point accusing fingers at the cultural and political transformation taking place under their noses, when they gear up to fight it…what is their ultimate fuel in that battle?

 

What do they resurrect as the ideal that is being scorched by Collectivism?

 

Yes, the Constitution, yes, the Bill of Rights, yes, the Republic. But what were those documents and that form of government there for in the first place? What WAS the great ideal that lay behind them?

 

And if very few people can recall the ideal or understand it, what then?

 

The ideal was and is THE INDIVIDUAL.

 

But not just the individual.

 

The FREE INDIVIDUAL.

 

But not just the free individual.

 

The FREE AND POWERFUL INDIVIDUAL.

 

Which is why I’m writing about Ayn Rand.

 

Is it possible to remove Ayn Rand’s work from its cultural context, from all the arguments it has spawned, from the weight of confusion intentionally generated to distract people from its essential lightning?

 

This was an author who lifted the subject of individual power beyond anything seen since Nietzsche. To grasp her Promethean effort and accomplishment, you have to read her books at least several times, because your own reactions and responses will change. She was attempting to dig a whole civilization out from its smug certainty about the limits of freedom, from its need for an entangling Matrix, from its compulsion to borrow and steal worn-out ideas.

 

I write this because the Matrix of modern life has no solution without a frontal exposure of the meaning and reality and sensation and emotion and mind and imagination of POWER. You can run, but you can’t hide. You can spin doily slogans and clever captions and wispy pretensions; you can call for “group consciousness” and collective sensibilities; you can say “we are all together”; you can herald consumerism or the promise of the digital universe or some version of New Ageism as the answer to our ills. But this feinting and tap dancing isn’t going to change one iota of truth about power. It isn’t a mantle you can refuse and deny and still live to the fullest. You have to come face to face with it and make your choices.

 

Ayn Rand, in her unique way, climbed the mountain of power and told about the vista that was then in her sights. She exercised no caution. She knew the consequences would be extraordinary.

 

I recommend her work because the characters she creates who embody power are electric. You experience them beyond mere fiddle-faddle with symbols. You discover what it is like to be them. What you think after that will sit on a new line of exploration.

 

Rand wrote two novels that still reverberate in the minds of millions of people: The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

 

The books have inspired unalloyed adoration and hatred. They are received as a magnificent tonic or a dose of poison.

 

Whether or not you agree with Rand’s philosophy, after you read her two novels, you will be forced to admit it is formidable. It holds nothing back. It takes its stand and it deepens that stand, page after page. It never shrinks from accepting and embracing the implications of its principles.

 

Readers who hate Rand’s work hate her for daring to present the power of an individual in full force. That apparently is a sin. If so, how should power be described? What is their better alternative? Oligarchy?

 

Rand’s major heroes, Howard Roark and John Galt, are artists. This is also apparently a central crime. These men are creators. They bow before no one and nothing. They invent. They decide. They imagine. They refuse to compromise. They see no reason to feel guilt or incur debt. They leave the team and the group and the committee and the bureaucracy and the collective behind them in the dust.

 

And they can and do explain why.

 

They bow down before no religion or mystical concept of the universe.

 

In other words, they contradict every current element of political propaganda. They see such a campaign for what it is: the attempt to kill off the individual.

 

Society is ever more, over time, a mass concept. It extols obedience and love of rules that hem in the individual. Society’s leaders, through illegal dictum, deception, and force, define a space in which all life is supposed to occur. That is the “safe zone.” Within it, a person may act with impunity. Outside that space, protection is removed. The protection racket no long applies.

 

Once you own a space, you can alter it. You can make it smaller and smaller. You can flood it with caterwauling about “the greatest good for the greatest number,” the slogan of the mob. You can pretend to elevate the mob and give it the illusion that the majority are running things. You can con whole populations.

 

Is this not what organized religions do in their so-called spiritual formulations?

 

We are supposed to believe that individual power is a taboo because men like Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Attila, and Alexander once lived. That is the proof. We are supposed to believe that individual power is always and everywhere the expression of dominance over others and nothing more. Whereas, if we only take into consideration what is best for everybody, we will see our way out of the morass.

 

Civilizations are being made more puerile because it is children who are most vulnerable to the “greatest good for all” maxim. It is children who can be suckered into that ideal.

 

At this late date, significant numbers of people are waking up to the fact that “greatest good” is being managed and manipulated by new Stalins and Hitlers, who care about humanity in the same way that a bulldozer cares about the side of a building.

 

Ayn Rand, after growing up in the USSR, knew something about the paradise of the common man. She saw it play out. She could eventually look back and see, with certainty, that writing her two novels in the Soviet Union would have cost her her life.

 

Again and again, the debate comes back to individual power. Minds swerve away from it as if it were a crime scene on the highway.

 

Who wants to face what individual power means when such confrontation is tantamount to examining one’s own life and its surrenders and compromises and excuses?

 

Profoundly compromising and surrendering people are there in Rand’s novels, in the full bloom of decay. Are they! Peter Keating, the pathetic hack; Guy Francon, Keating’s boss, a socially connected panderer and promoter of hacks; Jim Taggart, moral coward in extremis; Ellsworth Toohey, prime philosopher of the mob impulse; Robert Sadler, the scientist who sold his soul.

 

Around us today, we see growing numbers of such collectivists who operate in the political, economic, social, scientific, and spiritual realms. They make hay from their overt or subtle attachment to group goals. They sell their phony idealism over and over.

 

What are we to do?

 

I suggest, to start with, an unflinching look at individual power. What is it? What can be done with it? Why do we see it expressed and lived in such paltry terms? We know the answers on the level of society, but I’m talking about the universe of the individual.

 

If you want to lock horns with a titan and discover your own responses to power, read or re-read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

 

And, again, keep in mind that her two major heroes were artists. This is was no accident. This was the thrust of her main assault. The artist is always, by example, showing the lie of the collective. The artist begins with the assumption that reality is not final. The artist is not satisfied to accommodate himself to What Already Exists.

 

There are other important implications in the work of Rand and those who start with the assumption of freedom and individual power: for example, history is not, as some philosophers claim, a process that unfolds in a particular direction all by itself.

 

This “process” formulation has been used to argue that history is embedded with a separate intelligence that seeks collectivism. Collectivism signals progress from past to future, and its adherents are actors speaking its lines in a grand inevitable drama that culminates in domination over the individual, and utopia for the masses.

 

This is akin to saying that you may be driving your car on the road, but the real navigator in charge of arriving at some hidden destination is a predestined force inhabiting the engine.

 

Staring at individual power need not involve us in a cold, brutal, surgical exercise. After all, the kind of power we are talking about is deeply engaged in life itself. It isn’t sitting in some ivory tower or cave. It isn’t scoring points in a competition. It is intimately connected to expression of self in a far-reaching way.

 

Neither is this power married to time or contained in one space. It flows out from the individual because he launches it, because it carries his energy for purposes of his own invention. Power is bathed in freedom.

 

Many years ago, I wrote a letter to a painter whose work I admired. He was largely unknown in the New York matrix of social-art-gallery-collector entanglements. I asked him a question about power.

 

He responded: “It all comes down to this. A true artist’s work is not about time, nor is it a random occurrence ruled by society. A single artist’s power is immortal. You can take that sentence any way you want to. Do you know this statement attributed to Albert Camus? ‘Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is.’”

 

The dark opposite of that was told to me by retired propaganda operative, Ellis Medavoy, whom I interview 28 times in my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED: “What do you think my colleagues and I were doing all those years? What was our purpose? To repudiate the singular in favor of the general. And what does that boil down to? Eradicating the concept of the individual human being. Replacing it with the mass. The mass doesn’t think. There is no such thing as mass thought. There is only mass impulse. And we could administer that. We could move it around like a piece on a board, because the ‘patient’ was already hypnotized. You see, you don’t hypnotize a person into some deeper region of himself. You hypnotize him OUT of himself into a fiction called The Group…”

 

A great deal of criticism and confusion launched at Ayn Rand had to do with the style of her description of power. It was called brutal, cold, heartless, etc. People failed to realize she was attacking a mass and a collective that had burrowed its way into every corner of life on the planet. Collectivism had already won. It had beaten its opponents. The state of humankind was being managed in the aftermath of the victory. If you were going to go up against THAT, you needed to be fully armed. You needed to see the situation with great clarity. You needed to be able to describe what the free individual was dealing with. There was no way to short-circuit it.

 

More importantly, Rand was prepared to elucidate the physical, mental, and emotional DEPTH of her heroes’ commitment to their own choices, their own work, their own creations. She wasn’t merely dipping her toe in the water of that ocean.

 

She portrayed obsessive social niceties (so adored by the crowd) as the stuff and substance of a whole network of compromise, a way of surrendering to The Group. Naturally, when her critics, who were part of that system, saw themselves reflected in her mirror, they became outraged and they went on the attack. They had to. She had them in her sights.

 

Interestingly, in tracking back the ideal of the individual, not only did I visit the most obvious and important destination, ancient Athens, but I also, unexpectedly, came upon early Tibet. That philosophy (and its related practices), before the priests took over with a Matrix of super-complex and impenetrable metaphysics, began with the free individual.

 

Not an immobile individual. Not an offshoot of something else. Not an idea. Not a concept. Not mystical. A REALITY.

 

About 1500 years ago, this message was brought to Tibet by a few isolated Indian Hindu teachers who had been removed from their teaching posts at home. They had unloaded enough metaphysical and cosmological baggage to see through to the essence: THE FREE INDIVIDUAL.

 

The Matrix is a web and a network of enormous complexity generated from a fundamental desire to avoid this core of existence.

 

It is like a game of pin the tail on the donkey, in which the blindfold on the searcher guarantees that the tail will arrive everywhere except on target. And while en route to each wrong spot, a terrific amount of false wisdom is generated.

 

So we’re really looking at a series of many levels, every one of which is built as an illusion.

 

When you read these words of Howard Roark, the protagonist of The Fountainhead, keep in mind that Collectivism is, already, firmly entrenched, and that when a free individual embarks on the full expression of his own power, he isn’t thinking about charming and pleasing everyone around him. He’s cutting to the center of things:

 

“And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows…”

 

Again: “The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.”

 

Time and time again, while researching and investigating The Matrix, I came to this question: HOW FAR CAN INDIVIDUAL POWER REACH?

 

Cutting away the excess fat and the vague “collectivist-rainbow metaphysics” surrounding the question, my answer, gleaned in part from Tibet, was: THERE IS NO LIMIT.

 

All limits are imposed by fiat. All limits are imposed by agenda-driven philosophies and speculative ruminations and fearful “group-thinkers.”

 

Science itself, utilizing a severe form of reductionist materialism, reflexively denies the upper reaches of individual power, despite ample evidence to the contrary unearthed by well-formed paranormal laboratory studies.

 

The masses are not only laboring under an advancing Collectivism, they’re huddling in a preposterous rejection of what the individual can do.

 

Here again, for those who have not yet read it, is the introduction to my new extensive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED — click here.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

THE POWERFUL INDIVIDUAL AND THE MATRIX

 

THE POWERFUL INDIVIDUAL AND THE MATRIX

by Jon Rappoport

April 28, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

In a number of my recent articles (for example, see this one, this one, and this one), I’ve been dissecting levels of psy-ops in which an attempt is made to merge the individual with the group.

 

These psy-ops are low-level aspects of the Matrix. Politically, they recognize the threat of the free individual to plans for a controlled planet.

 

One subject few researchers want to tackle head-on is this: HOW POWERFUL CAN THE FREE INDIVIDUAL BE? AND WHAT IS THIS POWER?

 

When we say “free individual,” are we simply talking about someone who can exercise those rights enumerated in The Bill of Rights, who can pursue life, liberty and happiness without undue interference? Is this the whole story?

 

The answer is: no. There are many more dimensions to the story.

 

My work, for the past ten years, could be roughly divided into two areas:

 

understanding the layers and levels of deception, ops, and self-restriction imposed inside the Matrix;

 

and the potential for the individual to express and act on his own power to exit from the Matrix.

 

That second area of research has unexpectedly great depth and breadth.

 

When you read all the 40 interviews I do with Jack True in my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, you see how far and deep individual power can go. And you see what some of the keys to that power are.

 

In my last conversations with Jack before we lost contact, we agreed that many people who were exploring what could superficially be called “human potential” were compromising their efforts. They were reluctant to push too far, because they had audiences to satisfy, they had careers to protect, they had, in some cases, financial backers to appease, and they sometimes had overriding agendas that were self-defeating.

 

We were aware that, in the “human potential” field, contractors from the military and the intelligence community were muddying the waters with their programs and objectives. Empowering the individual to the highest degree possible, in their paranormal experiments, was offset by their corrupted desire to “produce” servants of a new global order.

 

Jack had been approached several times by these contractors, or their agents, and he always refused to work with them. He was profoundly indifferent to their offers and their queries. Jack was an independent force, period. He had zero interest in hitching his wagon to someone else’s star.

 

In a nutshell, when you say free you have to mean Free. You can’t mean free to enlist in a cause or an organization that ultimately has a hierarchy. That doesn’t work. It always fails. It fails because individual power is twisted into power over people. That’s a huge twist, and it is perverse.

 

Jack and I also spoke about words that are used to describe individual power, words that cause emotional reaction and confusion.

 

Two such words are “paranormal” and “magic.” Numerous misunderstandings collect around these terms.

 

In the first case, “paranormal” suggests that a person can remain average and normal in most respects, while developing, like a new appendage, strange ability. It suggests there are tricks one can learn, like openings in chess or ways to pick locks with tools. It suggests that there may be machines which will alter brain activity and suddenly catapult a person into a new realm.

 

These are all misleading.

 

In the second case, the word “magic” has hundreds of associations. In the past, it was a favorite way of indicating that someone was opposed to religion and was trying to subvert it. “Magic” suggests that a person may be operating under an external spell, or he is engaged in bizarre rituals. He may be a member of secret society. Alternatively, the word is used to designate a person who is indulging in aimless and useless fantasies about escaping from the real world; he is living in a fuzzy dream state, futilely hoping to be rendered into a charmed state of mind.

 

Again, all these references and associations are off the mark. They don’t really begin to describe what can happen when individual power exceeds a limited ceiling.

 

With “magic” and “paranormal,” most people assume that if the words mean anything important at all, they certainly hold out hope that something extraordinary can happen INSTANTLY.

 

Well, that is the habit of our present society. Everything has to happen right now, right away, in six seconds, in two days, in a month at the most. Additionally, there must be a precise protocol of steps that explain how it will happen so quickly. If there is no protocol, there is nothing.

 

A car in a factory is made step by step, as the frame moves from one station to another. This is the Way. It must be the same when we come to the subject of individual power.

 

People tend to overlook the fact that, although things are done TO the skeleton of a machine to complete its structure, power is expressed FROM an individual. They are opposite situations.

 

As we peel this whole onion of misunderstanding, also keep in mind that, in our technological society, people want to believe that biological or chemical alterations—especially genetic ones—can allow an individual to become more than he was. He can be enhanced through physical means. This is further misrepresentation.

 

None of this strikes the right chord. None of it is relevant.

 

Back in the 1950s, all those science-fiction movies based on nuclear- radiation-mutation used that plot device to launch “new humans.” This idea was actually held as a research possibility by some scientists. It gained a bit of traction, because government officials wanted to downplay the destructive effects of A-bomb testing and cancer treatments.

 

Now, we have a more sophisticated scenario: machine-human hybrids. The research on this is being done. It’s another dead end. It’s a cover for external control of humans. But some people want to believe this is where the future of individual power exists.

 

Because I’m interested in increasing individual power for adults, and I don’t have any exclusionary interest in child-magic, I was never taken by the Harry Potter books. But I was intrigued, for about five minutes, by the social furor those novels caused. Apparently, JK Rowling was really a CIA agent working for Beelzebub trying to subvert our youth. If so, then the brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen and the author of the 11th-century Song of Roland were also secret agents of ulterior forces bent on destruction.

 

The Harry Potter books need no analysis from me. I’ll simply point out, for purposes of this discussion, that a school that teaches magic in classes, utilizing ancient manuscripts and potions, enrolling children who have shown peculiar talents from an early age, plays into the notion that “paranormal” is primarily an accident of birth, and the classroom work suggests a viable protocol. Also, of course, there must be enemies who are using the same powers children learn, but for evil purposes.

 

The books may be great fun. But they don’t clarify adult individual power.

 

For that, after years of exploration, I found one tradition on planet Earth that was quite different from any system before or since. I have written about it. It existed in the early days of the society of Tibet. This was prior to the takeover by the local priests and their theocratic maneuvers to control the emerging civilization and bury the core of what was unique under tons of literature and ceremony.

 

Exhuming the essentials of what actually happened in early Tibet, and separating it from the sheer nonsense of priestly interpretation, is a fascinating undertaking. It reveals the lengths to which people will go to attribute power to everything under the sun, except themselves.

 

Well, in a significant way, that is the history of Earth. A history that combines corrosive cynicism with a yearning for what one has ALREADY surrendered on an altar of mindless sacrifice.

 

This is a person saying, “I’d rather sink into permanent unconsciousness than admit to my true potential. I’d rather blame anyone and everyone for my mindless sacrifice of Self. I’d rather undertake a campaign to deny the existence of individual power, or declare it a threat to the natural order.”

 

What do you think those fabulously rich elite environmentalists, behind the curtain, are pulling the strings for? They hate individual power and they want to bind up the whole planet in a sea of regressive stone-age suffering as an act of revenge. They want to take their own power, which they long ago gave up, because they were weak and without independent courage, and they want to reconstitute it as a boot that grinds everything under its heel. Frankly, there are many self-invented victims scattered around the planet who would do exactly the same thing, if they were suddenly outfitted with enormous bank accounts and social position. For every real Rockefeller, there are a thousand would-be’s hoping and lurking in the weeds.

 

Lord Acton famously wrote, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But which power? The capacity that is innate in a person? No. What corrupts is the urge to exercise dominance over others.

 

It is clear that the most clarified political expression of what power means is expressed in the founding documents of the American Republic. What began in ancient Greece, and what was declared by a few British and French philosophers, much later, arrived at a crucial moment in America.

 

I say this because freedom, individual freedom was spelled out in a way that was unequivocal, in those founding documents of this nation. Motives and agendas aside, the words were written and they were clear.

 

And therefore the question became: what does the individual do with this freedom? What POWER does he express? How much power does he actually have?

 

This has everything to do with what we call the Matrix. Because power, individual power is what can get you out of all—all—aspects of the Matrix.

 

I assembled volume one, THE MATRIX REVEALED, because if you know enough about the nuts and bolts, about how the structure of Matrix was put together, you know something about A MODE OF INVENTION, and Matrix begins to look quite different. In basic terms, it looks more like a painting than an armored tank.

 

True individual power has no limit.

 

It is not dominance. It is a kind of joy. It is imagination. It is, in the broadest sense, art. It is the human being as creator without limits. It is, as the saying goes, living in the world without being of the world. It is deeper and deeper realms of beauty. It is inventing new worlds. It is choosing any part of any former reality and incorporating it into something new and unprecedented. It is also inventing from Nothing. It moves in any and all directions. It is what people have deserted. They have cast it away. They have buried it. They have abandoned it. They have refused to understand it or recognize it when it is under their noses.

 

For those many readers who have recently come to this site and to my email list, here is a description of my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED:

 

INTRODUCTION TO THE MATRIX REVEALED

by Jon Rappoport

Copyright © 2012 by Jon Rappoport

Let me start with the nuts and bolts of this product. It is enormous in scope.

250 megabytes of information.

Over 1100 pages of text.

Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

My complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades. (To see the complete details of what is in the LOGIC AND ANALYSIS Course, click here.)

The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical tests for diagnoses, and the invention of disease, the understanding of which is, now and in the future, vital to our correct perception of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

EILLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet. Jack’s beyond-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages.

Then there are several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix, including recent conversations. 53 pages.

The ten and a half hours of mp3 audio are my solo presentation, based on these interviews and my own research. Title: The Multi-Dimensional Planetary Chessboard—The Matrix vs. the Un-Conditioning of the Individual.

Here is some background on the product and my own history:

In 2001, I essentially left a career as an investigative reporter and rolled the dice on the emerging internet. I started a site called www.nomorefakenews.com

I didn’t stop investigating and publishing, but my field of operation widened. My first big question was: WHO REALLY RUNS THE WORLD?

And my second was: WHOEVER THEY ARE, HOW DO THEY MANUFACTURE REALITY FOR THE POPULATION OF EARTH?

I was prepared to deal with these enormous questions, because I had contacts. These were people I had come to know well during my days as a reporter, writing for LA Weekly and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe—and also during a stint on radio at KPFK in Los Angeles.

These people, these contacts, were insiders.

They had deep knowledge in their fields:

PROPAGANDA; FINANCE; HYPNOTISM; MIND CONTROL; MEDICINE; INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS…

They were unwilling to be cited as on-the-record sources in my articles. They knew they would suffer consequences if they went public.

Once I started my website, I did extensive research to confirm the credentials of my insiders. I wanted to make sure they were who they said they were. I wanted to verify they had worked where they said they had worked. This was a laborious process.

When I was sure, I began to interview them.

I wasn’t certain where all this would go.

Gradually, I realized I was getting VERY high-level information on The Matrix. But this was the real Matrix.

As one of my sources described it:

“Imagine a factory that turns out illusions. And these illusions are woven together to make up what we think the world is.”

The actual Matrix involves a number of areas: government; money; energy; the military; intelligence agencies; medicine; mega-corporations; psychology and mind control; science…

I started a members-only newsletter, and word quickly spread. Every Friday, I would email a newsletter to subscribers. Many of these newsletters were interviews with my insiders.

It was quite a job, keeping up with writing (public) daily articles for my site (*) and also putting out the (private) newsletter. I was also collating the high-level information from my sources and making maps of the expanding territory. (* Note: The archive of my daily public postings from 2000 thru 2009, are located here. The archive of my daily public postings from 2009 to the present are located here (this wordpress blog).)

I saw that I was looking at global CARTELS. As you will discover in reading this material, these cartels are not frozen organizations. They are evolving.

In this last months, I’ve had some very competent assistance, and I’ve assembled the most important newsletter-interviews for you.

But in addition to that, I’m publishing, for the first time, interviews that never made it into those newsletters. And I’m presenting interviews from very recent days as well.

It’s very instructive to talk to people who have been there onthe inside. They are bright, they are informative, they convey the depth of situations they were involved with. They go beyond relaying dry facts, and in doing so, you learn how elite players play the game. You receive a rounded and three-dimensional picture of: the process of constructing The Matrix. How it’s built.

In every case, each insider was relieved to be able to talk with utter frankness, with no fear that his words would be twisted or taken out of context or deleted. So you’re getting the full story.

I met my first two insiders while I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., SCANDAL OF THE CENTURY, in 1987-88. The book was my initial experience in putting together a vast amount of data—which contradicted every official position on a supposedly rock-hard subject: medical science.

At the time, I didn’t really understand how deep I was drilling down into a cardinal aspect of The Matrix. I only knew I was I digging up and exposing long-held delusions broadcast as facts by the Medical Cartel. These false realities went far beyond the subject of AIDS.

That first book of mine started as a pure lark. I had just published a piece in LA Weekly about certain televangelists and their support of an intentionallystaged Armageddon in Israel. When the piece was published, I sat back and thought, “Where do I go from here? What could be weirder than this?”

Like other investigative reporters, I was excited by strange and bizarre stories that could blow readers’ minds. I was motivated by that.

So, in 1987, I wondered what could be stranger than the Armageddon story I had just done.

Sitting in my Los Angeles studio, a thought popped into my head. “AIDS. I bet there’s something about that whole thing that’s pretty weird.”

Little did I know…

That was my first big leap.

I had studied logic extensively in college. I had been taught by a philosophy professor who was a very generous soul and a relentless thinker. If you were an inch from accuracy, he would point it out, and he would give you the full reason and understanding that pulled you back to the straight and narrow.

Once I dove into research for AIDS INC., I was amazed at the sloppy thinking and contradiction that was posing as science.

And then I met my first two insiders.

Their basic message to me was: keep going; you’re on the right track; we have a great deal more to share with you.

They weren’t just talking about medical issues.

They were talking about the whole construction of reality from a number of angles.

Each of the insiders I have gotten to know over the subsequent years has a different personal story. They have all left their particular corner of The Matrix-Construction Group. Jack True, my late friend and colleague, was a different man altogether. He was never part of that Group. He was the most informed and brilliant researcher I’ve ever come across on the subject of the mind—the essential link that makes The Matrix work.

Jack started the ball rolling. He was instrumental in making the deal that got AIDS INC published. He introduced me to a few key figures along the way—insiders who proved invaluable.

Why did these insiders want to talk and spill secrets? Well, the process of interviewing them wasn’t always easy. They could be thorny at times. But they all had seen, finally, the abyss toward which they were heading, toward which they were leading the population. And they pulled back.

So…

This Volume is for individuals.

Because:

Beyond The Matrix is true individual power.

Despite all the illusions, it has always been there.

It’s for you.

And it IS your power.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

OBAMA AND RACE AND COLOR

 

OBAMA AND RACE AND COLOR

AND OTHER ILLUSIONS IN THE “NEW” AMERICA

by Jon Rappoport

April 26, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

“Early in my career as a therapist, I had a Hispanic client who, under hypnosis, regressed into a life as a white settler in Michigan. At the end of the session, he was laughing so hard he almost fell off his chair. He told me later he laughed for about two days. I don’t have any opinion about what he experienced. I don’t say he regressed into an earlier life and I don’t say he imagined the whole thing. It makes no difference to me. All I know is, he went from earning twelve dollars an hour to owning his own business, and a few years later he was making more money than I was.” — Jack True, hypnotherapist, in THE MATRIX REVEALED.

 

Barack Obama’s mother was white.

 

As far as I know, that makes him the first white and black president.

 

This would have been a perfect opportunity to ascend to a “post-racial” presidency. Of course, that didn’t happen.

 

He could have said, “I’m black and I’m white.”

 

For reasons which remain obscure, this is apparently not permitted.

 

To me, “I’m black and I’m white” is an ideal place to begin a conversation that takes things to a whole new level.

 

It cuts across many preconceptions and taboos and prejudices.

 

It also, however, could change voter polls.

 

Still, I can see the upside of “black and white.”

 

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MiaiHffWFA&w=415&h=241]

 

I’m not up on the etiquette and the correct way to proceed, but somewhere I seem to have read that a mixed-race person can decide which race he wants to belong to. He can make a declaration. The biology of the situation remains what it is, but a person can choose.

 

If so, then why can’t anybody with a drop of blood from another race make a choice? Maybe you have a drop of Indian blood. You could say and declare you’re an Indian. Do percentages of blood factor in? Is that supposed to tip the scale? What are the numbers? Who decides? Is it true that in Brazil, if a dark-hued person has a drop of white blood, he’s considered white?

 

It’s a bit confusing.

 

Obviously, a lot of people in America wanted the first black president, and to them these distinctions are irrelevant. They wanted what they wanted, and they said they won. It was a landmark moment. I agree, but I don’t buy the accepted story line.

 

I think it’s clear the landmark event was this: Obama IS a black and white president. And I do believe, with his oratorical skills—at least judging from the early speeches—he could have made that stick. He could have made his presence on the scene transcendent.

 

But we have forces at work engaged in a far-reaching psy-op, the intent of which is to divide the nation into camps. The last thing these people want is a man in the Oval Office who stands on both sides of the divide and is willing to say so in convincing and unflinching fashion, come hell or high water.

 

With enough conviction, I believe Obama could have outdistanced those forces.

 

But he wasn’t ready for that and he didn’t want that, and neither did the usual suspects who were his money men.

 

Here is perhaps a clue: “I’m the first black and white president. I can therefore think from the black and the white perspective. I can reason as a black man and I can reason as a white man…”

 

At some point in this monologue, the whole thing would fall apart, wouldn’t it? We would see the black and the white stereotypes for what they are. Separate portraits forced on us by media and by politicians and by people obsessed with their own racial agendas.

 

I recall some years ago hearing a radio broadcast by a man who had spent years in South American jungles with several tribes. He was studying their use of plant drugs. When asked what these people were like, he said, “It’s like being with any other group. There are all sorts of characters there. Some are friendly. Some are bad people. Some are shy. Others are outspoken…”

 

Nobody appeared to be interested in that representation. It didn’t play into any myth. It was beyond myths.

 

“I met Buddha in a drug store. He was buying chewing gum and a pillow. He was looking for those very small batteries, but they were out of stock. We talked about the St. Louis Cardinals. He said he wished they had signed Albert Pujols to a long-term contract…”

 

No good.

 

Definitely no good.

 

Black, white, it really does come down to that remark of Martin Luther King—judging by content of character, not by color of skin.

 

And this may be considered radical, but a person’s thoughts, actions, decisions, visions for the future, power, independence, and imagination don’t emanate from pigment.

 

Unless he says they do. Unless he takes on that role. It’s a ROLE.

 

But we’re not supposed to notice that. We’re supposed to overlook the obvious.

 

Presidents take on roles. Bush was the shitkicker cowboy from Texas, who was actually part of the eastern establishment. Clinton was the good old boy from Arkansas. Jimmy Carter was the loving binder of people’s sorrows, the kind and endlessly sympathetic member of Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission. Nixon was playing a cartoon of a cartoon, difficult to follow. Obama is the first black president.

 

It’s a play.

 

None of these were good plays. On Broadway, all of them would have closed down in a week.

 

In politics, you need pundits to keep up a steady stream of good reviews to push ticket sales along. You need, for instance, Chris Matthews, to feel his leg tingle when he thinks about Obama. You need Sean Hannity to turn Bush into a quintessential American.

 

Every psy-op requires propagandists and their minions, and dupes who swallow the myths whole. It’s a clumsy dance, and everybody involved is faking it, and they’re not faking it well.

 

But the psy-op plows ahead. Divide America into hostile camps. Blow on sparks and ignite fires whenever possible. Keep people on edge and looking the wrong way while their rights and their property are stolen out from under them.

 

When the time and the president are right, talk about the utopia just up the road. When the time is right, talk tough.

 

Meanwhile, suck America up into a funnel of globalist madness, a far different play, produced by the men behind the curtain.

 

Put America into the pot with every other no-longer-sovereign nation and melt the whole mass down into a homogeneous bankrupt glob that needs rescue From Above.

 

A civilization reaches a point of no-return when its citizens begin to recognize THEY ARE ACTORS IN A PLAY. When that day comes, when the technology of the society is far enough along to provide a level of comfort for the majority, when there is time to think about things and look at the overall landscape, when media are reflecting images back at the people and unintentionally exposing the melodramatic and farcical elements of the whole show….a moment of danger is reached.

 

The awareness of the public must not be permitted to advance beyond that point. If it does, the whole structure of the psy-op will disintegrate. People will exit their normal and average roles. Society will move to places that can’t be controlled.

 

People will look for new plays. They will write them.

 

I mark a key moment of retreat as the early 1960s. I was there. I saw it happen. I saw the U-turn and the 180.

 

People, for example, who had little apparent interest in religion suddenly began to regress into hardened fundamentalist and orthodox camps. They backed up into their corners. People for whom race was never really a major preoccupation began to assert that skin color, any color was a magical source of opinion, conviction, thought, distinct insight, separate passion, unique talent, creativity, and disposition.

 

It was as if a light had been turned off. People retreated from the edge of seeing through the conventional melodrama of society and its propaganda signals. They stood at the bank of the clear river, but they didn’t drink the water. They ran back to their “tribes.”

 

Roles in a play of conflict.

 

Every group (as opposed to the individual) of the 1960s was oversold. That was done on purpose, to make grotesque extremism succeed, and to enhance conflict. Feminism was oversold. Drugs were oversold. Hippies were oversold. Revolutionaries were oversold. Communitarianism was oversold. Black power was oversold. Fundamental Christianity was oversold. Permissiveness was oversold. Environmentalism was oversold. Rock and roll was oversold. Sex was oversold. Affirmative action was oversold. Consumerism was oversold. Liberalism and conservatism were oversold. Sheer bullshit pretentiously and obviously parading as truth was oversold.

 

All that selling is still with us.

 

Many of the groups mentioned above were infiltrated by operatives, whose mission was to push them beyond any place of simple common sense, into hardened lunacy, so that inter-group conflicts and confusion were inevitable.

 

So…in case it’s not clear, Barack Obama isn’t black or white or both. He’s Barack Obama.

 

That’s lost, because the most profound objective of the overall psy-op I’m describing is the eradication of the idea of the Individual. That’s been the globalist target in America for many, many years.

 

And what better way to achieve that than to inject, over and over again, the notion that Groups and their movements and causes and demands and separate characteristics are the basic units of life, that Groups are everything, that Groups are all we have?

 

Children are now taught that the unbridled individual is the cause of all our ills. But no. The free individual doesn’t start wars. Oligarchs do. And from groups of oligarchs ruling from behind the scenes, all the way down to street thugs, it’s the stone-cold Group that has hitched its star to destruction.

 

These are all synthetic and invented groups, when you see them for what they are. The one natural category of group that promotes life—family and small geographic community—is under the same kind of attack that the individual is.

 

It’s not accidental.

 

But at the bottom of all this manipulation is the intense multi-front campaign to make the ideal of the free powerful individual a relic.

 

The social engineers, all the way from Plato to Marx to the Frankfurt School to the Tavistock Institute, to numerous academic institutions all over the planet, will do everything in their power to scrub out any traces of the free powerful individual. They must. Their whole pattern of impulse and thought is about the group and the mass. That’s where it starts and that’s where it ends.

 

Why is that? Because as individuals, these social engineers lost the thread. They lost the threads of themselves—except as elitists entitled to special treatment in the world they were and are making. That is their only hope. They are otherwise destitute. They otherwise have nothing, because they have lost themselves as individuals. That statement is true down to the bone.

 

It is equally true of the dupes they manage and command.

 

Those “rebels” who think their particular group with its yearnings and longings and sentiments are going to gain, in the long run, favored status in the new world order, are in for a rude shock. They are only temporary tenants. Their usefulness will come to an end and they will be cast out, hung out to dry.

 

Here’s another thing. When social engineers talk about mass psychology and group profiles and managing response and aptitude tests, and when they talk about the threat of climate change and green agendas and arranging population densities and sustainability and diversity and cities of the future, they are talking about synthetic and artificial groups. They are talking about forcing actors (people) into roles and forcing them deeper into those roles.

 

In other words, they’re betting on a self-fulfilling prophecy. “If we can define groups as we want them to be defined, and if we can predict and manage a future in which the population of the planet is led and coerced into these groups we define, then we can operate the levers of the next decade and the next century…”

 

I use Obama as an example, because by the rules and propaganda of the social engineers, he couldn’t be black and white even if he wanted to be. It wouldn’t be allowed. He would be violating a taboo. A created taboo. From an early age, he was loaded up as “an agent of change,” and in order for that to work, he had to play out a black role. Oh, certainly, he’s chosen to play that out. No doubt about it.

 

But looking at the parade of presidents you’ve seen in your lifetime, you’ll notice that all of them have chosen a role: president. NOT INDIVIDUAL. That would shake things up. That would really cause a stir. That would violate the rules.

 

The planners say, “Because of THIS social situation (which we’ve created) we need THIS kind of actor.”

 

And out rolls history. One social and political and economic situation after another, created and rigged and “fictionalized” into reality—each situation demanding a different actor playing a different role to maintain the illusion.

 

Right now, it’s “black.”

 

But…

 

If the ideal and the principle and reality of the free powerful individual is instated, the whole show collapses.

 

You have to take that power.

 

It’s yours.

 

It starts with freedom, and it jumps to imagination, that supposed childish toy everyone grows out of at the age of consent.

 

Imagination IS magic, but that doesn’t equate to snapping your fingers twice on day one and causing a hundred gold bars to manifest on your living room floor.

 

Imagination and what it can yield up to you is a lifetime operation and commitment.

 

Finding imagination and exploring it and using it isn’t a child’s game. It’s the next step after a personal declaration of independence.

 

Here are three significant approaches to consciousness. The first is FEEDBACK CONSCIOUSNESS. You take every signal reported to you by your body and your feelings and the environment, and you base all your actions on those signals, which answer the question, HOW AM I DOING? When feedback consciousness rules the roost, you’re a victim, pure and simple.

 

There is PROBLEM AND SOLUTION CONSCIOUSNESS. When this mode of operation is completely in charge, EVERYTHING looks like a problem that needs to be resolved. And resolutions never end, because in this state of mind, you’re always perceiving new problems on all sides that demand your attention and energy.

 

Then there is CREATIVE CONSCIOUSNESS. This is the endless sea. This is you inventing realities. This is you deploying and immersing yourself in imagination and bringing into being, in the world, your most profound desires.

 

And believe it or not, your creative consciousness is more powerful than all the ops and all the engineering in the world.

 

It’s the unlimited role in the unlimited play. It’s more than a role. It’s you as you are and could be.

 

This is what my work is all about.

 

Here is a brief excerpt from an interview I did with Jack True, hypnotherapist (1987). I interview Jack 40 times in my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED.

 

“Hypnotizing a person isn’t the same thing as unleashing his creative potential. You don’t insert creative power into a person. It’s already there. You can help liberate it. That’s turned out to be my main thrust. But it’s there already. It’s in the closet. It’s like an engine that’s idling on low. Why low? Why not high? The reason is more than societal. It’s more than cultural. It’s more than religion or race or place of origin. It’s cosmic. (laughs) It’s about the person’s own conception of what he’s all about. It’s about how far his sense of space goes. It’s about how free he is from old wrinkled cultural space. It’s about thinking of himself as a creator. This is the great secret. What happens when a person thinks of himself as a creator? What happens then? What does he do? From my experience, he undergoes a revolution. It’s enormous. It’s electric. Now, creating something and thinking of yourself as a creator are two different things. You can create and still be largely unconscious. But when you decide you’re a creator and then you create, that’s when the electricity hits. That’s when tremendous transformation takes place…”

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com