Category Archives: Consciousness

Interviewing the dead Albert Einstein about free will

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Note: I wrote this piece as an introduction to the scientific tyranny which has overtaken us: the premise that we are machines, and we can be decoded and transformed by genetics.

This is a lie on every possible level.

For many people, their first taste of this insanity is the COVID vaccine—a genetic treatment. However, that treatment comes out of the conviction that life is “mechanism.”

For 35 years, I’ve been waging war against this conviction. I continue to do so—not because I have some quirky mystical alternative, but because FREEDOM VERSUS THE MACHINE is the Big One, the big battlefield under the surface of our civilization.

I’m talking about today, tomorrow, the next hundred, the next five hundred years.

OK, here we go—a piece of fiction to make the truth known:

It was a strange journey into the astral realm to find Albert Einstein.

I slipped through gated communities heavily guarded by troops protecting dead Presidents. I skirted alleys where wannabe demons claiming they were Satan’s reps were selling potions made from powdered skulls of English kings. I ran through mannequin mansions where trainings for future shoppers were in progress. Apparently, some souls come to Earth to be born as aggressive entitled consumers. Who knew?

Finally, in a little valley, I spotted a cabin, and there on the porch, sitting in a rocker, smoking a pipe and reading The Bourne Ultimatum, was Dr. Einstein.

He was wearing an old sports jacket with leather patches on the elbows, jeans, and furry slippers.

I wanted to talk with the great man because I’d read a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview with him. He’d said:

“I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will…Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.”

Dr, Einstein went inside and brought out two bottles of cold beer and we began our conversation:

Q: Sir, would you say that the underlying nature of physical reality is atomic?

A: If you’re asking me whether atoms and smaller particles exist everywhere in the universe, then of course, yes.

Q: And are you satisfied that, wherever they are found, they are the same? They exhibit a uniformity?

A: Surely, yes.

Q: Regardless of location.

A: Correct.

Q: So, for example, if we consider the make-up of the brain, those atoms are no different in kind from atoms wherever in the universe they are found.

A: That’s true. The brain is composed entirely of these tiny particles. And the particles, everywhere in the universe, without exception, flow and interact and collide without any exertion of free will. It’s an unending stream of cause and effect.

Q: And when you think to yourself, “I’ll get breakfast now,” what is that?

A: The thought?

Q: Yes.

A: Ultimately, it is the outcome of particles in motion.

Q: You were compelled to have that thought.

A: As odd as that may seem, yes. Of course, we tell ourselves stories to present ourselves with a different version of reality, but those stories are social or cultural constructs.

Q: And those “stories” we tell ourselves—they aren’t freely chosen rationalizations, either. We have no choice about that.

A: Well, yes. That’s right.

Q: So there is nothing in the human brain that allows us the possibility of free will.

A: Nothing at all.

Q: And as we are sitting here right now, sir, looking at each other, sitting and talking, this whole conversation is spooling out in the way that it must. Every word. Neither you nor I is really choosing what we say.

A: I may not like it, but yes, it’s deterministic destiny. The particles flow.

Q: When you pause to consider a question I ask you…even that act of considering is mandated by the motion of atomic and sub-atomic particles. What appears to be you deciding how to give me an answer…that is a delusion.

A: The act of considering? Why, yes, that, too, would have to be determined. It’s not free. There really is no choice involved.

Q: And the outcome of this conversation, whatever points we may or may not agree upon, and the issues we may settle here, about this subject of free will versus determinism…they don’t matter at all, because, when you boil it down, the entire conversation was determined by our thoughts, which are nothing more than atomic and sub-atomic particles in motion—and that motion flows according to laws, none of which have anything to do with human choice.

A: The entire flow of reality, so to speak, proceeds according to determined sets of laws. Yes.

Q: And we are in that flow.

A: Most certainly we are.

Q: The earnestness with which we might try to settle this issue, our feelings, our thoughts, our striving—that is irrelevant. It’s window dressing. This conversation actually cannot go in different possible directions. It can only go in one direction.

A: That would ultimately have to be so.

Q: Now, are atoms and their components, and any other tiny particles in the universe…are any of them conscious?

A: Of course not. The particles themselves are not conscious.

Q: Some scientists speculate they are.

A: Some people speculate that the moon can be sliced and served on a plate with fruit.

Q: What do you think “conscious” means?

A: It means we participate in life. We take action. We converse. We gain knowledge.

Q: Any of the so-called faculties we possess—are they ultimately anything more than particles in motion?

A: Well, no, they aren’t. Because everything is particles in motion. What else could be happening in this universe? Nothing.

Q: All right. I’d like to consider the word “understanding.”

A: It’s a given. It’s real.

Q: How so?

A: The proof that it’s real, if you will, is that we are having this conversation. It makes sense to us.

Q: Yes, but how can there be understanding if everything is particles in motion? Do the particles possess understanding?

A: No they don’t.

Q: To change the focus just a bit, how can what you and I are saying have any meaning?

A: Words mean things.

Q: Again, I have to point out that, in a universe with no free will, we only have particles in motion. That’s all. That’s all we are. So where does “meaning” come from?

A: “We understand language” is a true proposition.

Q: You’re sure.

A: Of course.

Q: Then I suggest you’ve tangled yourself in a contradiction. In the universe you depict, there would be no room for understanding. Or meaning. There would be nowhere for it to come from. Unless particles understand. Do they?

A: No.

Q: Then where do “understanding” and “meaning” come from?

A: [Silence.]

Q: Furthermore, sir, if we accept your depiction of a universe of particles, then there is no basis for this conversation at all. We don’t understand each other. How could we?

A: But we do understand each other.

Q: And therefore, your philosophic materialism (no free will, only particles in motion) must have a flaw.

A: What flaw?

Q: Our existence contains more than particles in motion.

A: More? What would that be?

Q: Would you grant that whatever it is, it is non-material?

A: It would have to be, but…

Q: Then, driving further along this line, there is something non-material which is present, which allows us to understand each other, which allows us to comprehend meaning. We are conscious. Puppets are not conscious. As we sit here talking, I understand you. Do you understand me?

A: Of course.

Q: Then that understanding is coming from something other than particles in motion. Without this non-material quality, you and I would be gibbering in the dark.

A: You’re saying that, if all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom. There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

Q: Yes. That’s what I’m saying. And I think you have to admit your view of determinism and particles in motion—that picture of the universe—leads to several absurdities.

A: Well…perhaps I’m forced to consider it. Otherwise, we can’t sit here and understand each other.

Q: You and I do understand each other.

A: I hadn’t thought it through this way before, but if there is nothing inherent in particles that gives rise to understanding and meaning, then everything is gibberish. Except it isn’t gibberish. Yes, I seem to see a contradiction. Interesting.

Q: And if these non-material factors—understanding and meaning—exist, then other non-material factors can exist.

A: For example, freedom. I suppose so.

Q: And the drive to eliminate freedom in the world…is more than just the attempt to substitute one automatic reflex for another.

A: That would be…yes, that would be so.

Q: Scientists would be absolutely furious about the idea that, despite all their maneuvering, the most essential aspects of human life are beyond the scope of what they, the scientists, are “in charge of.”

A: It would be a naked challenge to the power of science.

Einstein puffed on his pipe and looked out over the valley. He took a sip of his beer. After a minute, he said, “Let me see if I can summarize this, because it’s really rather startling. The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material.”

He nodded.

“In that case,” he said, “there is…oddly enough, a completely different sphere or territory. It’s non-material. Therefore, it can’t be measured. Therefore, it has no beginning or end. If it did, it would be a material continuum and we could measure it.”

He pointed to the valley.

“That has energy. But what does it give me? Does it allow me to be conscious? Does it allow me to be free, to understand meaning? No.”

Then he laughed. He looked at me.

“I’m dead,” he said, “aren’t I? I didn’t realize it until this very moment.”

I shook my head. “No. I would say you WERE dead until this moment.”

He grinned. “Yes!” he said. “That’s a good one. I WAS dead.”

He stood up.

“Enough of this beer,” he said. “I have some schnapps inside. Let me get it. Let’s drink the good stuff! After all, I’m apparently Forever. And so are you. And so are we all.”

Exit From the Matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The lure of Religion

by Jon Rappoport

May 7, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

This is a brief collection of notes I made on one of the central realities of planet Earth:

Religion.

Down through history, organized religion has tried to take over the Paranormal as its own property. Allowing this and going along with it, humanity, even in all its goodness, has made a grievous mistake. It has paid a terrible price. Transferring the Paranormal from the individual to an organization brings on a negative result, a blanketing tragedy.

As far as I can tell, the first commandment of every religion is aimed at all other religions: OUR GOD IS REAL. YOURS IS FALSE.

The corollary, in some cases, is: IN ORDER TO PROVE THIS, WE WILL WIPE YOU OUT IF NECESSARY.

George Carlin: “But He [God] loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money!”

The second commandment of religions—directed toward their own flocks—THINK WHAT WE TELL YOU TO THINK, BELIEVE WHAT WE TELL YOU TO BELIEVE. You, an immortal soul, are incapable of determining these matters on your own. You must refer to religious leaders. You must quote them.

The large majority of eight billion souls on planet Earth believe they have two choices. Accept what a religion tells them, or conclude there is nothing spiritual about life; it is merely physical substance. They can’t conceive of other possibilities. This points to an astonishing lack of imagination.

Many scientists believe scientific lies are better than lies based on religious superstition.

Most religion is based on the premise: CONTROL OF POPULATIONS IS NECESSARY. THEREFORE, IMPOSED DOCTRINE IS NECESSARY. Control is better than no control.

If you investigated an organized religion, the more its behaviors resembled those of a mafia, the closer you would be getting to the top of the leadership.

“What’s the outlook for the next quarter” is not in any Bible, but you will hear it if you’re a fly on the wall at high-level private meetings.

Reaching back into history, you find wars between religions. Perhaps in one of these disasters, the less insane religion won. That doesn’t mean any part of that religion’s doctrine is true.

Why do some pro football players make the sign of the cross on the field or point toward the heavens after scoring a touchdown? God doesn’t watch the pros. He watches college football.

The degree of self-induced hypnotism and amnesia is apparent, when you consider the importance of ORGANIZED religion. There are few, if any, DISORGANIZED religions, whereby people meet on Sundays and freely discuss what they individually and differently believe. Giant churches are not filled with such people.

“My hair is purple. I see yours is, too. That’s good. In fact, looking around us at the ten thousand attendee at this service—they all have purple hair. It’s dawning on me that PURPLE is our collective strength. If we push it far enough, and if our preacher speaks about it, we can win. We can win the war of competing belief.”

Exit From the Matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

My work as Teacher

by Jon Rappoport

April 22, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Over the course of several decades, it’s occurred to me, with increasing certainty, that I am occupying the role of teacher.

Believe me, this was not something I actively sought or planned. But it was unavoidable, given the fact that I was following my own advice: SHAPE YOUR BEST VISION OF LIFE, AND THEN ACHIEVE IT, MAKE IT REAL IN THE WORLD.

My vision involved the power of imagining and creating new realities, and speaking and writing about this path; in the work, I was reaching out to large numbers of people; and in doing so, I was teaching. So be it.

My most complete accomplishment, by far, has been my three Matrix explorations: THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX.

It is crystal clear to me that my job is not the imposing of a particular reality on people. I work to give the individual more power to shape his own best vision and then achieve it. This, of course, includes the reshaping and widening and changing of the original vision as time passes and experience is gained.

I assume, as a fundamental, that every person has more capability and creative power than he knows. He can access it, and he can keep finding new levels of it. The individual WANTS to be more creative and free.

On the other hand, society and civilization always return to structure and organization. They deal in groups, populations, masses of people. They attract those who want to plan the collective future as if it were a board game filled with inanimate pieces. When this overall strategy reaches a peak of oppressive interference, the society declines and collapses.

As a corrective fix, re-establishing freedom and independence of the individual, as a social principle, can certainly help, but the deeper fix involves the individual himself. He finds and asserts his own freedom and independence—and then he discovers/creates a vision of a new life and seeks to make it fact in the world.

THINGS AS THEY ARE around us exert a tremendous amount of convincing conclusion: THIS IS IT, THIS IS THE ONLY REALITY, LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT, ADAPT EVERYTHING YOU DO TO THINGS AS THEY ARE. Families, groups, organizations, companies, governments support this “single-reality” fantasy to the hilt.

However, the individual experiences a nagging and reoccurring thought—WHAT IF THE APPARENT EMPIRE OF THE SINGLE ALL-EMBRACING COLLECTIVE REALITY IS A FANTASY? WHAT IF WITHIN ME I HOLD THE KEYS TO INVENTING UNLIMITED NEW REALITIES?

These points were driven home to me with indelible force during one year of my life —1962—when I was painting on canvas, paper, board, wood, and anything else I could find, day and night. In fact, every article, book, seminar, lecture, and Matrix product I have authored since then has been an effort to flesh out what I learned in 1962 and “catch up to myself.”

I took a detour with a primitive dip into theoretical physics—the collision of the particle theory of matter with the wave theory. Physicists had settled on a way to avoid a blunt series of contradictions. Taking a utilitarian pragmatic approach, they decided to deploy the particle theory when it was useful, and the wave theory when it was useful. I went in another direction—you could discover/invent an unlimited number of basic theories, each of which could explain a wide swath of collective reality…but more than that, you could also come up with theories that would essentially give birth to brand new non-collective realities—phenomena that were considered paranormal and “broke natural law,” but only for the individual who invented and fleshed out a novel theory…

In other words, REALITY ITSELF was an entirely open proposition, instead of a shared consensus.

In this case, there was no single final reality. That was the myth of myths.

Over centuries and millennia, this meta-myth piled up like banks of clouds over mountain ranges; and then, finally, came the cleansing rain, and the opportunity to strike out in an entirely new direction…

Exit From the Matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

If hidden technology were exposed for all to see

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Note: I have couched this piece in FICTION, which is a convenient way to pinpoint hidden trends…

While the cathedral of Notre Dame burned and grabbed headlines all over the world, a little noticed development took place along the Texas-Mexico border in a town called Twin. A reporter for the Twin Clarion wrote the following:

“In a heavily guarded Twin facility belonging to Two Border Oil, Inc., a massive leak of information occurred. Letters, emails, memos, and studies made their way ‘out the door’. These documents, taken together, spell out an unmistakable series of developments in the energy sector: new cutting edge forms of energy have been successfully tested and confirmed. A Border Oil executive (name blacked out) stated, in a memo to his seniors: ‘It now appears certain that the age of energy decentralization is upon us. Within the next several years, we will be able to produce small highly efficient “energy packs” at shockingly low prices. These packs will enable any person anywhere on the planet to power personal devices, without the use of oil. Obviously, we must do everything possible to prevent this revolution. The technological breakthrough would necessitate the reorganization of society along lines of extreme decentralization. The population of the planet is not prepared. Traditional political and economic structures would collapse. We would see the emergence of a new type of system—not capitalistic as we know it, and not socialistic. The individual would be empowered at a level never before seen. The collective energy grid would be superseded and made obsolete within a decade. The mechanics (physics) of this breakthrough are not totally understood—but it is clear that the tests of the technology are overwhelmingly positive and repeatable. At one point it was thought that a community of companies could control all the relevant patents, but this promise has faded. The engineering for the “new energy” is rather simple. Its method would quickly sweep across the planet and be absorbed. Our only alternative is to continue to keep the whole development secret. I enclose expert testimonies and test results for your inspection, so you can confirm what I and others already know. Our research has brought us across a bridge into a future we cannot control, predict, or fully fathom…’”

The Twin reporter continued: “A high-ranking scientist who works at a European energy company replied: ‘I’m quite sure I understand the breakthrough you’re referring to, and I can say that this is not the only one of great magnitude in the energy field. There are several others—each one different, and each one offering the same promise: the availability of small and cheap energy devices that would make The Individual self-sufficient. We are at a highly dangerous crossroad…’”

The Twin reporter: “A quite different memo has surfaced…this one appears to have been written by a senior public relations executive for a company located in England—‘Our efforts to squelch knowledge of several key energy breakthroughs have foundered on the rocks. We have somehow been outflanked. We set up a number of false fronts, inventors of technology who were actually on our payroll, who were destined to fail, who were intentional fakers. We thought that, in this way, we could discredit the whole alternative energy movement, but this has not been the case. Instead, interest in new forms of energy has increased. There is now a popular sentiment in favor of true decentralized energy platforms. We are retrenching our position. It’s possible we can predict new energy breakthroughs, but couch these estimates in terms of huge production costs, thereby making it seem that actual practical usage is decades away. We have analysts and reporters primed in this direction, should we choose it as our next step…”

A professor at Harvard offers his analysis in the leaked documents: “Self-sufficient energy usage (SSEU) will take focus away from national governments. Imagine these governments flailing at each other in their usual manner, but in the absence of interest and concern on the part of the citizenry. Politicians would look like sheer buffoons. It would be on the order of doctors insisting on expensive and quite risky surgery, when ingesting a small harmless food pill would cure the condition and thus make the surgery appear to be an absolutely insane solution for a problem that no longer exists…”

An opinion is put forward by a leader in the American Socialist Party: “Even if these estimates of SSEU are correct, the consequences would contradict and destroy every principle we have attempted to ingrain in the population. Untold numbers of individuals who can own and regulate their own energy will obviate the need for collective answers and programs…Even though SSEU will improve the condition of the environment, the very notion of individuals in charge of their own separate destinies will wreak psychological havoc in ways we as yet barely understand. We must stand for The Group, no matter what lurks over the horizon…”

All in all, the titanic leaks coming out of Big Oil sketch a campaign that is desperately trying to turn back the clock, framing civilization’s problems as they may have existed 50 years ago, thus requiring old centralized and authoritarian responses that no longer apply. It’s really a form of time travel—an attempt to force everyone to move backwards and be what they once were, not what they are now, or could be tomorrow…

The Twin reporter concludes: “I have in my possession a memo written by a research physicist at a Midwestern US oil company. It suggests the most radical position of all in this deeply shocking situation. The physicist states: ‘It appears that a variety of approaches produce technologies that run cars, buses, trains, planes, localized electrical grids, and home energy devices—for pennies. In other words, a great deal depends on the mindset of the isolated lone inventor. He can, as it were, come up with a description of a tiny particle no one has ever heard of, develop mathematics that describes its motion and other characteristics, and eventually discover (or invent) energy technology that actually works in a revolutionary manner. All these different scientific approaches seem to contradict each other, but clearly they don’t. In some way, they are complementary. How is this possible? We need to rethink our fundamentals about consciousness itself…’”

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The brain vs. consciousness: the real debate and the phony debate

The brain vs. consciousness: the phony debate and the real debate

by Jon Rappoport

October 29, 2017

I continue to write about this subject, because the answers are shaping our present and future in huge ways.

Nearly all brain researchers insist that consciousness arises from the functions of the brain.

These researchers concede they don’t know HOW consciousness arises—but “they’re getting there.” They’re making progress. This is their story and they’re sticking to it.

If they have their way, the educated class will agree with them, evidence or no evidence.

Since “consciousness is the result of brain activity and nothing else,” since consciousness is ultimately a matter of physics, neuroscience will reign supreme—manipulating brain changes to achieve certain “values” and political goals.

We are talking about an engineered society at the level of the brain. Brave New World.

For these researchers, that is the final frontier.

But suppose all their fundamental assertions are completely wrong? Suppose they’re never going to prove consciousness arises from the brain? Suppose all their efforts in this direction are dependent on nothing more than circular reasoning—assuming what they’re trying to prove?

“Consciousness must be a function of brain activity, because what else could it be?”

Let’s begin with a very simple version of what consciousness means, and in the process shred several key ideas of the brain researchers:

ONE: Right now, at this very moment, you’re reading the words on this page. You know you’re reading the worlds. You’re aware you’re reading the words. You’re conscious of reading the words. You “have that consciousness.”

TWO: The brain is composed, according to conventional physics, of tiny particles. That’s all. The neurons and their tubes and the synapses and the neurotransmitters—all the elements of the brain, when you go deep enough, without exception, are composed of atomic and sub-atomic particles.

THREE: These are the exact same particles that flow in the earth and the water and the sky and the stars and the whole universe. The particles move and interact according to immutable laws.

FOUR: There is nothing in these particles or any combination of them that suggests KNOWING. There is no KNOWING.

FIVE: But somehow, in the brain, these particles give rise to YOU KNOWING YOU ARE READING THESE WORDS AT THIS VERY MOMENT.

SIX: That assertion would be the height of absurdity.

SEVEN: And yet you do know. You know you’re reading these words. You’re conscious of that.

EIGHT: Since you do know, that consciousness is coming from somewhere other than the brain, which contains no knowing.

This is stark and simple.

Because it’s so stark, it drives some brain researchers to their backup position, which introduces a second absurdity: you’re not conscious of the fact you’re reading these words on the page, you only THINK you are. There is no such thing as consciousness. Consciousness is a bizarre illusion created by the brain. Therefore, there is no need to explain consciousness. It doesn’t exist. It never has.

Here is a third absurdity that enters the scene: there is no you. YOU is another illusion. The individual does not exist. There is a brain-process which results in the illusion of an individual existing.

So you’re not there, and I’m not here.

Well, well. That’s a towering assemblage of bullshit.

And it’s built to sidetrack the stark facts that you do exist and so do I, and we’re both conscious at this very moment, and there is NOTHING in the most basic composition of the brain to account for consciousness.

Pundits and scientist can try to introduce all sorts of elegant non-sense and technical speak to refute what you and I both know, but it isn’t going to fly.

We are not biological machines. We are not some illusion projected by the brain.

We are not badly programmed machines researchers can feel guiltless about, as they try to tweak and re-cast our brains. We’re not cars in the shop.

I could take this line of thought much farther, and I have, in other articles, where I explore the point that consciousness is not composed of matter, but I’ll leave it here for now.

One piece of advice: don’t be taken in by scientists who claim “the situation is far more complex.”

It isn’t.

Complexity is their strategy to escape the noose of their own making which hangs them in public view.

Why do I say “noose of their own making?” Because they own the theory that ALL matter and energy are composed of tiny particles which have no consciousness at all. Therefore, the brain is composed of the same particles. Therefore, there is NO reason to assume the brain can give rise to consciousness.

Consciousness, WHICH DOES EXIST, must be independent of matter and energy.

Researchers can hate this conclusion, but they have to deal with it. They refuse to deal with it in a straightforward manner.

Perhaps they have a special brand of brain that seeks specious, devious, wormy methods of wriggling out of disturbing inferences.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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.

Robots are inventing their own languages

Robots are inventing their own languages

The programming and design of artificial intelligence

by Jon Rappoport

July 14, 2017

Along with assurances that we’re facing an imminent takeover of industrial production by robots and other artificial intelligence (AI), we’re also being told that AI can develop its own systems of communication and operation, without help from humans.

Here is a sprinkling of quotes from the mainstream and technical press:

The Atlantic, June 15, 2017: “When Facebook designed chatbots to negotiate with one another, the bots made up their own way of communicating.”

Tech Crunch, November 22, 2016: “Google’s AI translation tool seems to have invented its own secret internal language.”

Wired, March 16, 2017: “It Begins: Bots Are Learning to Chat in Their Own Language.”

The suggestion is: AI can innovate. It can size up situations and invent unforeseen and un-programmed strategies, in order to accomplish set goals.

Who benefits from making such suggestions? Those companies and researchers who want to make the public believe AI is quite, quite powerful, and despite the downside risks (AI takes over its own fate), holds great promise for the human race in the immediate future. “Don’t worry, folks, we’ll rein in AI and make it work for us.”

Beyond that, the beneficiaries are technocratic Globalists who are in the process of bringing about a new society in which AI is intelligent and prescient enough to regulate human affairs at all levels. It’s the science fiction “populations ruled by machines” fantasy made into fact.

“AI doesn’t just follow orders. It sees what humans can’t see, and it runs things with greater efficiency.”

Let’s move past the propaganda and state a few facts.

AI is not running its own show.

It isn’t innovating.

It isn’t creating its own languages.

It isn’t doing any of that.

AI operates within the parameters its human inventors establish.

Any honest AI designer will tell you that.

If, for example, an AI system is given a goal and a set of “options” for achieving the goal, AI will select which option is best ACCORDING TO STANDARDS ITS HUMAN OPERATORS HAVE PROGRAMMED INTO THE SYSTEM.

Think of it this way: AI is given a set of options; but it is also given instructions on how to select what is presumably the most effective option. So AI is bounded.

There is no choice. There is no freedom. AI isn’t “jumping ship.”

“We gave our robot Charlie the task of getting from Chicago to New York. The whole plan was laid out as a vast hiking trip, with internal street maps built in. But then Charlie suddenly took a cab to O’Hare and boarded a United jet for JFK…”

No he didn’t.

AI performs as it is programmed to perform, within set parameters.

“We sent Charlie to LA to marry the actress who ordered and paid for him. But then, at the church, Charlie suddenly said, “This is a mistake. You should go back to your first husband. He never had sex with that waitress in St, Louis. She was his sister, and he was trying to help her escape from a terrorist cell. He never told you that because then he would have had to tell you he isn’t a banker, he actually works for the CIA. He’s a good guy. Talk to him. The truth will set you both free…”

Won’t happen.

But this kind of thing will happen: “According to scientists at Blah-Blah University, programmed robots are not only capable of inventing solutions to problems that ‘go beyond their internal software,’ the robots also make choices that benefit people. They’re very similar to people, except they tend to be smarter and invent more effective courses of action…”

Sell it, sell it.

“Alice, a medical technician in Minneapolis, claims her robot saved her life. ‘I was on the verge of swallowing a whole bunch of pills, but Charlie came to the rescue. He showed up in my bathroom and took the pills out of my hand. I learned something important that day. My free choice is important, but kindness and concern are more important. Charlie is the most vital companion in my life…’”

Sell it, sell it.

And of course, we’ll see more debates and court cases featuring questions about robots having rights, “just like humans.”

***Actually, in an entirely illogical fashion, we’ll see more and more “evidence” showing humans don’t have free will, because their brains dictate all thought and action, while robots will be touted as “free and creative.”

Some college professor will argue robots should be granted more “privileges” than humans, because the robots aren’t inherently “prejudiced.”

Another professor will insist that robots must be subjected to committee investigations, to make sure they aren’t “racist.”

“Today, in New York, a former Burger King employee, who is a refugee from Somalia, filed suit against a robot named Charlie, claiming Charlie uttered a racial slur while ordering a cheeseburger for his employer, a wealthy real estate developer…”

Behind all this, the fact remains that, no matter how many complex layers of “decision-making” are programmed into AI, the machine is always acting within rules and guidelines laid out in advance. It is never choosing.

Individual humans are capable of free choice, and are also capable of changing their own rules and standards.

Humans are free to say they aren’t free, as well, if they want to.

Let me make a psychological point here. There are many people who want to dominate relationships. They want to be in charge. They will want robots. They will want sophisticated robots THAT SEEM TO BE CHOOSING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR EVERY WISH AND DEMAND. These people will believe the robots are real and alive and human, in order to fulfill a fantasy in which they have found partners who want to go along with their agenda.

This is a pretty good definition of psychosis.

The AI designers and inventors and technicians tend to have their own bias. They want to believe they are creating life. They don’t want to think they are just putting together machines. That isn’t enough. The technocratic impulse involves faith in MACHINES AS LIVING ENTITIES.

Thus, we arrive at all sorts of myths and fairy tales about humans merging with machines, to arrive at a new frontier, where, for example, human brains hooked up to super-computers will result in higher consciousness and even the invocation of God.

Technocrats will say, do, and believe anything to turn machines into what machines aren’t.

They’ve crucially abandoned THEMSELVES and their own potential; so all they have left is THE MACHINE.

And if you think these technocrats should be allowed within a thousand miles of State power, I have communes for sale on Jupiter. Naturally, these utopias are run from the top by robots. They know what’s best for you.

Finally, understand this about propaganda: Those who control the output of information will admit to problems and mistakes with the issue they are promoting. Such confessions add to the “reality” of the information. And naturally, the propagandists will also claim that the problems can be solved. In the case of robots and AI, the problems are couched in terms of bots taking power into their own hands—but this “unexpected” situation a) demonstrates how capable bots are, and b) the power can be dialed back and modulated. So all is well. The future is bright.

It’s bright, if you want planned societies run by AI, where humans are fitted into slots, and algorithms determine who eats, who doesn’t, who has access to water and who doesn’t, how much energy can be used by each human, and all production and distribution are controlled from a central planning center.

Unless freedom lives—human freedom—you’ll be treated to something like this:

“Today, executives at the North American Union headquarters announced that several key bots broke through their programming and invented a new solution for clean water distribution to the population. This innovation will guarantee a more equitable water supply for millions of citizens. Control over the ‘rebel bots’ has been re-established, and their ‘amazing solution’ will now be incorporated into their standard operating framework. Three polls indicate that a lofty 68% of respondents support the bots in their efforts to better serve us…”

power outside the matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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.

Occult Man

Occult Man

by Jon Rappoport

November 20, 2015

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

The word “occult” is frequently associated with a secret society, and it is given a negative twist by pitting it against organized “clean” religion or “totally rational” science.

But the Latin root of the word comes from the verb, “to hide.” That’s all.

Occult Man means man who is hiding something. And it really means man who is hiding something from himself. What would that be?

Occult man is hiding his true nature from himself.

In order to discover what that true nature is, he would already need to be free from the belief that he owes his time, energy, and life to another person or an idea. He would need to be free from the self-debasing concept of spiritual debt—regardless of how fashionable it might be to incur (or pretend to incur) such a negative balance sheet.

Legion are those who invent these “debt scenarios” for themselves, and they rarely give them up, regardless of the consequences. They prefer to imagine they “win by losing.”

When Occult Man embarks on the journey to find his true nature, he enters a labyrinth. Sooner or later, he needs to realize the maze is composed of all possible answers to his self-inquiry. How to choose one answer above all others? How to discern?

Nevertheless, despite the difficulties, he will choose. He will clutch an answer, he will adopt it, and he will begin to live on that basis. He will say, “This is my true nature,” he will climb into that conveyance and drive it down the road.

After a certain period, he will see its limitations, he will experience first-hand the pressure of those restrictions, and he will look for a more inclusive answer to his inquiry.

As this process of accepting, testing, and rejecting answers continues, he will become aware that each solution to what-is-my-true-nature gives birth to a space that is defined—and his primary role is to fit himself into that space.

In the majority of cases, Occult Man eventually talks himself into accepting a space and learning how to adapt to his position in it. It is as if, all along, he has been asking himself, “What is my place?”

Relatively few people are prepared to admit this is a loaded question. They would rather adhere to one of thousands of “philosophies” which are determined to tell Occult Man what his place is.

According to this sort of guidance, Occult Man is supposed to take pride in finding that place.

For those who can avoid this end, there remains a less-defined path. “Where do I go? What do I do? What am I looking for?”

What about looking within? As interesting as this option may seem, and as rooted in tradition, what results does it confer?

Either Occult Man looks within and sees, disappointingly, spaces populated by random objects and ideas, or he presupposes what he is going to discover, and then discovers it. Needless to say, such sleight of hand isn’t the means for finding his true nature.

What now?

Now we come to the threshold of a shift into another dimension of experience. Regardless of how long the journey has taken so far, now Occult Man begins to examine his very role as the searcher. The seeker. The discoverer.

Is the whole paradigm of question-inquirer-answer able to yield up the effect of finding his true nature?

And in parallel, can he harken back to some past tradition and say, “Well, my conundrum triggers answers put forth by this body of wisdom or that body of wisdom or this enlightened master…” Do these references give him what he wants?

At every turn, it seems as if he’s been looking for some sort of content or material or information that will unlock the door. Or perhaps he needs an experience that will shock his system into a new realm of perception.

All along, he has been searching for some kind of reality that is already there. A deeper reality, a more elevated reality. Concealed, out of view. Hidden.

Which is why he is Occult Man. Because of the way he has been proceeding.

exit from the matrix

But suppose…there is no such hidden reality which is his true nature. Suppose that is the cosmic joke.

And suppose, instead, he is the maker of realities.

Suppose that is his true nature.

Suppose every system and traditional belief avoids putting the finger on his true nature.

Suppose he has no pre-defined place.

Suppose the shape and character of societies and civilizations on Earth flow from the inability of individuals to see their true nature?

There is much more to say about this subject, but I’ll leave it here for now—except to mention that everything I’ve authored in my collection, Exit From The Matrix, is designed to increase an individual’s power to make realities of his own choosing.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Why consciousness “must be an illusion”

Why consciousness “must be an illusion”

by Jon Rappoport

November 10, 2015

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

As my readers know, I’ve tackled this subject from a number of angles. (See also here.)

Conventional physics has painted itself into a corner, because it assumes that all sub-atomic particles (the constituents of the brain and the universe) contain no awareness whatsoever.

Therefore, there is no reason to assume that consciousness exists. The idea that it does must be an illusion, a misnomer, a groundless superstition, a holdover from a more primitive time.

And yet, there you are, right now, reading these words, and more importantly, you are conscious of the fact that you’re reading these words.

So you must be crazy, the victim of an illusion. You must be the end-user of a stream of thought over which you have no control—a stream that “tells you” you’re conscious…in the same way a voice in your head might tell you you’re living on the moon right now.

And if you multiply this unfortunate situation by about eight billion, you have a madhouse of a planet where everyone automatically assumes they’re conscious, whereas, in fact, no one is. Everyone is a machine responding to stimuli, some of which are prompting you to say, “I’m conscious”—an entirely meaningless statement.

And if you buy all that, I have golf course memberships for sale on Jupiter.

Conventional physics has painted itself into a corner, and wants to be in that corner, because admitting there is such a thing as consciousness is tantamount to admitting that a major component of life, the major component of life, is outside any analysis of matter and energy, since it, consciousness, is not made out of matter or energy.

All sorts of drug researchers would chime in at this point: “But we knew that chemicals change consciousness by affecting the brain. Therefore, the brain is the seat of all consciousness.”

As usual, they miss the point. The fact of being conscious, regardless of the particular state, is independent of those chemicals.

Whether you’re aware of seeing buildings on a street or green writhing polka-dot creatures directing traffic, you are the one who is aware. You’re the one who knows you’re seeing buildings or creatures.

Now we’re really in deep water, because, you see, you’re not supposed to exist at all. You’re supposed to be a brain. You’re supposed to be a few trillion neurons clicking and ticking. You’re supposed to be, at best, “someone who thinks he’s someone,” or rather, “no one who thinks he’s someone.”

“Hi, I’m no one who thinks he’s someone.”

“Hi. Me too. Let’s do whatever our brains are making us do, since we can’t have freedom—another illusion.”

“Sounds good. Where do we start?”

“We wait for instructions. In the meantime, I have beer, wine, or sparkling water.”

If it occurs to you that this mechanistic view of life has some uses for those who are highly interested in mind control, you’re right. “Waiting for instructions” would be an ideal state for the reception of programming. Freedom, on the other hand, would be a non-starter.

“Test subject 465-A believes he is free. His illusion is interfering with the insertion of our package of beliefs…”

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the armies of “rational people,” who are quite sure that a rejection of all-out scientific materialism would suddenly put them in the camp of religionists. They see no other alternatives. It’s either science or a church.

Well, that’s their problem. They can only entertain two possibilities. They reveal a distinct lack of imagination.

And I suppose I should also say a word about “the DNA people.” They’re utterly convinced that DNA creates consciousness. But DNA is matter, and according to the same scientists who research the whole genetic puzzle, matter is composed of tiny particles or waves that display no sign of consciousness.

Now, admitting that what I’m writing here won’t find its way into any TED talks (the source of all cutting-edge wisdom on the planet), I should point out that the issue of consciousness has been plaguing philosophers in the West ever since the onslaught of science and technology at the end of the 19th century. And in time-honored fashion, philosophers have opted for their favorite strategy: ignore the problem, pretend it doesn’t exist, claim the problem itself is based on a confusion about…anything. About language, for example. Language, as (mis)constructed, contains words that indicate the existence of meaningless objects (like consciousness). There, all done, move along, nothing to see here.

Finally, we have another bunch of people who would happily report: “Scientists miss the mark. The brain and the universe are made out of particles that do, in fact, possess consciousness. ‘Everything is conscious.’”

They say that, and for some interesting reason, they avoid saying that the individual, the You, the non-machine non-material You, has consciousness.

They only want to posit collective consciousness. That’s their tune. They keep singing it. And if you listen to the words, they are, in their own way, trying to erase the whole notion of the individual.

Why? Because the most basic form of mind control involves denying that the individual exists. If they can put that one over, if they can sell it, they can push an agenda of: The Group is All.

This resonates quite nicely with the way the world is shaping up these days. Or rather, being shaped up. On purpose.

In case you hadn’t noticed.

Among the endless number of states of consciousness, there is certainly a collective version. The individual can enter it, and he can exit it. It’s not the be-all and end-all. It’s not a permanent paradise with closed doors.

But who would notice that fact in a world where the population has bought the idea that the conscious individual doesn’t exist, and is merely a biological machine programmed this way or that way?

Our most august intellectuals are, under the surface, arguing for the machine view. They’re mixing and matching the metaphysical and the political on behalf of a Collective Hive, because the winds that carry money and prestige are blowing that way.

They’re selling the proposition that the individual, his consciousness, his freedom, and his power are delusional dust of a bygone era.

They’re using a story about science as their primary tool.

If you want to buy that ticket and take that ride, understand where it’s going to take you.

the matrix revealed

You can watch any number of talks where the speaker mentions “the ground of all being,” “collective wisdom,” “universal consciousness,” “the universe gives you permission,” and the audience snaps it up like pure sugar. It’s very interesting. Stimulus-response. Bell rings, dog drools. This is a form of programming whose time has come—if people want to surrender and drift into a passive state.

And leave behind their own individual power.

“Tonight, on the cosmological news channel, the individual isn’t conscious and doesn’t exist, the brain is all, and we’re all the same thing together. Brought to you by The Great Cheese Glob in the Sky, coming to theaters soon…”

“But first, let’s talk about Nature. As we know, we’re all part of Nature. Being an individual is a delusion that keeps us separate from Nature. And did I mention Nature? Order your manual that tells you how to think and talk about yourself as part of Nature and you’ll receive this free set of twelve dinner knives and a box of doilies reproduced from Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh’s personal collection, inscribed with his famous environmental statement: “I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.”

A real humanitarian, the Duke is.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The Cosmological News channel

The Cosmological News Channel

by Jon Rappoport

November 4, 2015

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

“People are fascinated by ancient cultures and the shamans and magicians who practice in mysterious ways. But along with this fascination, there is a kind of aversion to The New, as if it must be irrevocably tainted, as if nothing new and as yet uncreated could possibly match what once was. This is not only false, it is a form of psychic surrender. The psyche shows no faith in itself or its inherent power. Part of my work is reversing that defeatism.” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

Cosmologies are a dime a dozen.

Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Spinoza, Big Bang, String Theory, the Bible, Vedanta, Olympic gods, Egyptian gods, Norse myths, African creation stories…

Cosmology: a picture of the universe; a story about the origin of life; a tale about the connection between consciousness and the universe.

These cosmologies share a common trait. They purport to explain What Is. And they claim to do it at a “higher level.”

There is another thing about cosmology: people are magnetically attracted to it, because they want a story that will settle matters for them, give them final answers.

Poof. It’s done.

“The universe knows what I need, and it’ll give it to me when I’m ready. If something I want doesn’t happen, it wasn’t meant to be. Not yet.”

For many, many people, cosmology is permission to remain passive.

Of course, for those with great faith in a particular story, it can also provide an opportunity to go on the march and kill unbelievers.

Cosmology is a content provider. People want content. Cosmology is like the nightly news. “Fill up the empty spaces, please.”

Cosmology has a degrading effect on the individual when he uses it to stand in for what he might otherwise do, if left to his own devices and inner resources.

But how many people care about their inner resources?

Those who do, whoever they are, wherever they are: I’m speaking to them.

There is a fundamental twist in cosmology. It starts off by connecting the individual to wider, broader, deeper realities. But wait: these realities are not of his own making. They’re imported.

Sooner or later, the imports convey a hypnotic impact. “This is true, accept me, believe in me, there’s nothing else you need to do…”

So…what about the free and independent individual? And more importantly, what is freedom for?

However we might answer that last question, freedom is certainly tuned to the future. It is the basis for The New, whatever that might be.

The New. People have decidedly mixed reactions to that concept, which is uncharted. There no guarantees.

But the mind, consciousness, the psyche are not only looking for The New, they want to imagine it, invent it, create it.

That desire is inherent in the dynamic, electric, restless, wide-ranging, agile nature of consciousness.

Cut off that desire and watch what happens. Life will then organize itself into little compartments, and energy will leak away.

Creating The New is the lifeblood of the individual and individual consciousness.

This has nothing to do with cosmology.

With enough sustained creation and invention, however, the individual will come to his own cosmological ideas and answers, in a natural way.

Nikola Tesla: “Our first endeavors are purely instinctive prompting of an imagination vivid and undisciplined. As we grow older reason asserts itself and we become more and more systematic and designing. But those early [imaginative] impulses, though not immediately productive, are of the greatest moment and may shape our very destinies. Indeed, I feel now that had I understood and cultivated instead of suppressing them, I would have added substantial value to my bequest to the world. But not until I had attained manhood did I realize that I was an inventor.”

Albert Einstein: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.”

The so-called “mysteries of genius” notwithstanding, every individual has something hidden away in his soul: an urge to create and project that creation out into the world.

There is no way to tell what will come of it, or what substance it contains, until imagination walks through the door, until the process begins, and gets underway…

No matter what circumstances he lives in, the individual wants to invent The New.

It is this desire, impulse, force that moves beyond any pre-set cosmology.

It is this impulse from which Tomorrow wants to be made.

It is this impulse which shuts down the Cosmological News Channel, and recognizes it for what it is: a second-hand metaphysical media outlet, owned and operated by the Reality Manufacturing Company, a subsidiary of We Create, You Absorb, Inc.

exit from the matrix

In 1961, decades before I started to work as a reporter, I was living in New York, I had just begun painting, and I was having conversations with an extraordinary healer, Richard Jenkins. (I write about Richard in my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies — which is included as a bonus in my collections Exit From The Matrix and Power Outside The Matrix.)

One day, at my studio, I was asking him about a few Hindu creation myths. He looked at me strangely, and then he said something to this effect: Don’t you realize you’re doing your own creation stories? You’re here every day painting. What do you think that’s about? This isn’t ten thousand years ago. This is now. You’re making the future.

He was right. He was suggesting I wake up.

So many people are preoccupied with finding a cosmology in the past. They can root around forever, and still they won’t see the power they themselves have.

Any story you could invent about the cosmos would, in the long run, serve you better than accepting a burnished story someone else told 5000 years ago.

The essential quality of The New is that it is not yet created. It is beyond the reach of What Is Already Accepted, and it depends entirely on the individual and his imagination.

Beyond all programming.

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.

“Coming up after the break, more mind control. Stay with us.”

“Coming up after the break, more mind control. Stay with us.”

by Jon Rappoport

November 3, 2015

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

“What is as yet uncreated in the imagination of The Individual is the most potent force in this or any other universe. And to make things even clearer, the failure to understand that fact constitutes the most potent form of mind control in existence.” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

If an elite news anchor delivered the same “vital information” from a cheap motel room, with one camera, no field reporters, no graphics, no music, and if he wore street clothes instead of an expensive suit, who would believe him? Who would believe his information if they didn’t know who he was?

“I swear, I’m the national CBS news anchor. I swear it. I am.”

“Sure, pal. And I’m Cary Grant, after I’ve had a few drinks.”

Television News.

What does the viewer want?

The viewer wants Story. Beginning, middle, end.

It’s such a deep mind program, few people question it. “Why would I want anything else? That’s what a Story is. Beginning, middle, end. What else is there?”

However, it turns out that television news does not cover events in that fashion. Rarely is a story wrapped up. Rarely are things taken to a conclusion.

Rather, it is the news broadcast itself that is the story. It is the show that has a beginning, middle, and end. Six o’clock to 6:30. Eleven to 11:30.

This is quite an accomplishment. Networks make their own broadcasts the central story.

Viewer: “Well, tonight they covered about 10 different things. When I think about it, they left me hanging on at least eight of those. But I do know the news started at six and it ended at 6:30. That’s good. I got my daily fill.”

Every night: the illusion of beginning, middle, and end.

The role of the anchor is to impart the impression that everything he’s talking about is important. It doesn’t matter whether it is. It doesn’t matter whether a particular story is covered to a conclusion. It doesn’t matter in what order the little stories are presented. It doesn’t matter how many lies are embedded in the broadcast.

It only matters that the anchor can deliver the impression of importance.

Viewer: “I watched the news tonight. It was important.”

An interesting thing happened during the most recent Republican Presidential debate: the candidates turned against the network moderators (“anchors”). The candidates assailed the moderators for asking ridiculous questions. They broke the spell.

This was not supposed to happen.

Or was it?

The overall impression of the debate was chaos, as if the event were nothing more than a cheap argument in a bar.

The cheesy display was promoted by moderator questions. Absurd questions. “Tell us your biggest weakness, in thirty seconds.” That was the first question of the night. Apparently, the moderators were trying to revive encounter groups of the 1970s, or were fronting for Chinese-style self-criticism campaigns.

And then the candidates were asked to discuss problems connected with burgeoning fantasy football betting sites. I’m surprised nothing came up about deflated footballs or who favored the Broncos over the Packers.

It was either a major display of idiocy and incompetence, or an effort by the CNBC people to cast all the Republican candidates in a decidedly unfavorable light.

Something else is happening, as well. With the rise of alt. news sites on the Web, enormous bottom-up pressure is building, and mainstream news is feeling the effects. Their con game isn’t working so well anymore. So they’re grasping at straws, any straws, trying to hold on to their audience. Their financial bottom lines are sinking. They’re decades-long hypnosis program is falling apart.

For example, untold millions of people now know that the upcoming climate summit in Paris is going to be the occasion for forcing global energy cutbacks—but of course the major media aren’t covering this with any vigor. Neither are they covering exactly how Obama intends to eliminate Congress’ role in approving such an international agreement.

The television viewer is expected to sit still for the mind programming of the news. But that egg is showing cracks.

However, the viewer still has a vested interest in fake network news. It allows him to do: nothing. In other words, if he knew how absurd and insane the news really was, he would feel an unbidden urge to take action—and then he would really feel lost.

Why? Because he would see himself as just one person up against the gigantic machine, system, establishment.

What I’ve pointing out in one fashion or another for the last several years is: THIS IS A FALSE CONSTRUCT.

It’s not “one person up against the whole system.”

It’s one person who has yet to deploy his imagination.

What?

That’s right.

This is something to ponder deeply. A human being has no idea what he is capable of as long as he is cut off from his own imagination. And, being cut off from his own (unlimited) imagination is THE DEEPEST FORM OF MIND CONTROL ON THE PLANET.

I repeat: a single human being has no idea what he is capable of, when he is cut off from his own imagination. He has no idea what he is capable of creating.

He will, instead, see himself, like a tiny cipher, arrayed against the power of The State and its allies.

He will not be able to see things any other way.

Thus, he will prefer to accept whatever lies the news dispenses, in order to maintain the fantasy that things are basically all right and under control.

This deplorable situation also applies to many people who have seen through lies and false realities and recognize something about how the planet is being run:

They see themselves as very, very small, when it comes to “confronting the powers-that-be.” They too have not connected with their own imaginations; and they too would disparage any attempt to encourage that connection.

So be it.

exit from the matrix

But there are others who conceive of their own creative power far differently. They may not have embarked on that road, but they sense it is without limits. They want whatever that is.

It turns out there are many such people all over the world.

There are thousands and thousands of ways of outflanking the powers-that-be. They exist, in a form of potentiality, in the imaginations of individuals. There is no list. No one can predict what can be imagined and created.

This is the opportunity.

This is the difference between today and tomorrow.

This is the potential of the endless cascade, against which the masters who desire unlimited rule would stand no chance.

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.