Category Archives: Consciousness

Life as matter and matter only: the fraud

Life as matter and matter only: the fraud

by Jon Rappoport

November 1, 2015

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

“The refutation of philosophic materialism is as easy as stepping off the sidewalk. An astonishing amount of professional nonsense has been written to obscure this fact. Physics has boxed itself in. Its pronouncements about the constituents of matter and the so-called laws of motion result in a series of absurdities only a charlatan could defend.” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

Recently, I was opted into an ongoing email debate about the nature of consciousness. I have no idea how I got there, but here is an edited version of what I wrote to the group of scientists and scholars:

Conventional physics posits sub-atomic particles and/or waves as the basic constituents of all matter in the universe. This would include the human body and brain.

Nothing in these particles/waves is said to have consciousness, sentience, awareness, a capacity of knowing, such as you have right now as you read these words.

Therefore, the brain does not have such consciousness, since it is entirely composed of particles/waves that have no consciousness.

If there is any consciousness to be found anywhere, it is not in the brain.

Understand: I’m not pushing an esoteric definition of consciousness here. I’m talking about you sitting there, knowing that you understand the meaning of these words. I’m talking about the conscious capacity to grasp meaning.

I’m also talking about the capacity to make choices. Why? Because if the brain is composed of particles/waves that have absolutely no freedom, but merely behave according to laws of motion, then, if the brain is the progenitor of all human action, there is no reason to posit freedom of choice as a fact.

Therefore, in the view of conventional physics, you are sitting there reading these words, but you have no consciousness that you understand them, conscious understanding of meaning is a delusion, and you have no freedom of choice at all. We are all engaging in gibberish, pretending to ourselves that we are aware and free, when we are not.

Don’t even bother to wonder whether you should respond to what I’m writing; you have no choice.

For a longer treatment of this argument, read my “Interview with a dead Einstein.”

As a reporter on matters of science and medicine for 30 years, I’m well versed in scientists’ “maybe-could be-possible” statements about issues around which they are groping:

“Consciousness remains a mystery, yes, but we are getting closer to answers every day…some illuminating work is coming out of studies of fish and grasshoppers…mapping the brain will provide a new level of understanding…it is the job of science to keep pushing back the curtains of superstition…”

And my favorite: “Of course the brain is the source of consciousness. The proof of that is the fact that we are conscious; and where else could awareness be coming from?”

Unassailable logic, if you’re a fan of tautologies and circular reasoning.

Do you know what you’re reading right now as you sit there? Or is that conscious knowing simply a grand delusion, by which something inside your skull ‘pretends to be aware’?

Are “knowing” and “understanding meaning” only translatable as “particles in motion?”

Through the aether, I’m attempting to contact the authors and signers of the US Constitution. I want to inform them that all their mumbo-jumbo about human freedom was a vain attempt to circumvent the laws of matter in the universe. What idiots they were. On the other hand, they can now rest easy. Serenity is never having to worry about the future.

“No one is free. No one ever was. No one ever will be. Don’t worry, be happy, as happy as a rock or a sidewalk.”

the matrix revealed

And remember: I’m not really asking you whether you understand these words on your screen. I’m asking if you KNOW you understand them. If your honest answer is yes, where does that knowing come from? The sub-atomic particles/waves in your brain? Really?

Since when does conventional physics attribute knowing and consciousness to quarks and wavicles, which are the exclusive constituents of your brain?

The whole notion of “emerging consciousness” as a function of evolution, via puddles of amino acids in mud or hot sea-vents, is a titanic waste of time, as long as the ultimate composition of all matter is the sub-atomic particle/wave, which is non-conscious.

Thus ends the argument. QED.

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.

Beyond an artificial world

by Jon Rappoport

October 3, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

Futurists are inclined to predict a world in which AI (artificial intelligence) will take over a major portion of what is now human activity.

In a matter of decades, for example, they say one computer will have more capacity than all the human brains on the planet put together.

Then, the prediction goes, AI will be virtually human, or more than human.

However, just because AI has greater computational skills than any person or group of persons, where is the quality that makes it human?

In order to answer that, you have to perform a little trick. You have to say that humans are really only high-class machines.

Many pundits have no difficulty with this, because they see humans as problem solvers, period. And that’s what a machine is.

It’s just like the genes-cause-everything hypothesis. Since all existence is assumed to take place on a material level, on a physical level, it’s only a matter of time until we figure out which genes create which human qualities. Eventually, we’ll have a complete map.

Then, if we want to change humans, we just tinker with the genes.

It turns out that this style of reasoning can be used to justify external control of Earth’s population. The assumption is: we are already living in a closed system of cause and effect, so that system IS controlling all human behavior. Gene tinkering and handing over immense decision-power to advanced computers is nothing more than re-arranging the closed system. It was closed and it is closed and it will be closed. No problem.

Right now, the system appears to dictate wars and pain and suffering, so won’t it be much better when the gene-reconfiguration and the computers eliminate that aspect of things?

Believe me, many scientists are thinking along these lines, and they are serious about their goals.

They consider themselves humanitarians.

I bring all this up, because there is really only one way to defeat this kind of thinking.

You need to acknowledge that a prime aspect of existence is non-material.

Non-material means: without a rigid cause-and-effect structure.

To put it another and better way, the individual human being has freedom, and he also has imagination and creative power. These qualities are not material or physical in nature, they are not generated by the brain or by genes or by computational problem-solving ability.

In all societies, past and present, those people who agree that these non-physical capacities are quite real explain them by opting for religion, for religious stories, for cosmologies promoted by one kind of church or another.

Only a tiny number of people state that such non-material qualities and abilities are inherent in the human being and need no explanation or embroidery.

You could say the pendulum has swung drastically from one side to the other. First we had superstitions everywhere and no technology, and now we have streamlined science that purports to explain all of existence, but can’t.

Believe me, this inability to put all life under the umbrella of science is frustrating to obsessed rationalists. They refuse to allow the possibility that imagination and freedom are outside the boundaries of physical cause-and-effect…and if they have to, they will try to prove their position by imposing one system after another on humans, in order to wipe out the freedom they claim doesn’t exist in the first place.

One such strategy involves using computers to generate art and poetry. The thinking is, if we can’t tell the difference between what a computer and a human produce, why do we need human art—and more importantly, why do we need to claim that human imagination and creative power are unique? They are just sub-categories of computational skills, minor tricks, and we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about it…

power outside the matrix

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

In every technological society, power is thought of as physical, and the greatest power is produced by machines. To say that human power is ultimately a non-material capacity, and is equal to or greater than what a machine can do…this is considered the height of absurdity.

But if we surrender to that view, we deal away the future to systems that will put the squeeze on the essence of what a human is.

There are thousands, perhaps millions of artists all over the world who’ve glimpsed, or know deeply, what I’m talking about in this article. Their problem, if they have one, stems from believing they have to be psychological underdogs, in order to create their art. This is a cultural artifact, this belief, and it can be cast aside by nakedly comprehending the unlimited power of imagination they possess.

Imagination creates reality.

Jon Rappoport

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

Why do people think computers will be alive?

Why do people think computers will be alive?

by Jon Rappoport

August 7, 2015

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

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

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

And this computer would, technocrats believe, come alive.

Why?

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

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

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

The statement looks strange, quite strange.

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

I’m afraid not.

It will still be a machine.

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

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

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

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

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

There is the individual.

You.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The brain is not conscious.

A computer is not conscious.

A brain-computer interface is not conscious.

There is no function or system that equals consciousness.

Individual consciousness comes before any function or system.

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

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

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

So what?

Does that mean that human imagination is just an illusion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jenkins once wrote to me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Put them there; destroy them.

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

And what does it imply?

A new psychology. A psychology of unlimited possibility:

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

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

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

exit from the matrix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Is consciousness an illusion?

Is consciousness an illusion?

by Jon Rappoport

January 26, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“Cutting through disinformation about consciousness is vital, because neuroscience is moving toward a mind-controlled society, based on the idea that individual awareness is an illusion, and stimulus-response is the key to shaping a new Collective of synchronized ‘happy’ brains.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

A brief historical note: Roughly a century ago, as scientists and philosophers were attacking organized religion, they assumed that science would come to “rule” all knowledge, for the benefit of humanity.

Today, their descendants still believe in the simplistic dichotomy between religion and science:

If science fails to answer a metaphysical question, just wait a while and it will; otherwise, we will be thrown back into the opiate soup of religion, and that must never happen.

This is nonsense.

This either-or approach is fictitious garbage. Religion or science, as the only two choices, is a fraud.

So…here is one of those metaphysical questions:

What is consciousness?

Science has done nothing to explain it. It has tap-danced and speculated and made assurances, but explain it? No.

But here, a famous biologist faces the question head-on:

“How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp.” (Thomas Henry Huxley)

And here a modern philosopher retreats to the conventional position based on zero evidence:

“Above all, consciousness is a biological phenomenon. We should think of consciousness as part of our ordinary biological history, along with digestion, growth, mitosis and meiosis…Conscious states are caused by lower level neurobiological processes in the brain and are themselves higher level features of the brain.” (John R Searle, professor of philosophy, University of California at Berkeley)

Lower biological processes somehow “give rise” to “higher biological processes,” thus producing consciousness.

This is about as convincing as using your birthdate to buy a lottery ticket.

“Well, you see, we’ve learned a great deal about lower biological functions, so as we learn more about the higher functions, we’ll discover what consciousness is.”

Really? If this is logic, an ant is a spaceship.

Consciousness, as Huxley was implying, is a different KIND of reality; it isn’t merely atoms bumping into each other or forming structures.

For example, consciousness is you knowing you’re reading this page right now. It isn’t molecules spitting out a message that “you’re reading this page.”

Consciousness is you knowing you’re alive. It isn’t the brain somehow producing the words “you’re alive.”

Consciousness isn’t an illusion. The illusion is supposing the brain knows anything.

Physicists will readily admit that atoms and sub-atomic particles do not know anything. And since the brain is made up of those particles, there is no reason to assume the brain has the capability of knowing. It’s a system of systems that operates in wide-ranging ways.

Knowing you’re reading this page isn’t a brain- message you receive. It’s different. It’s not reducible. It’s not something you can break into small pieces.

You know you’re alive.

That consciousness, that awareness, that “act” of knowing is not physical. It’s non-physical. It’s not made up of particles. It’s beyond them.

It’s independent.

power outside the matrix

Consciousness isn’t a subject for study in a philosophy department or a physics or biology or chemistry department. It doesn’t fit into any category.

Is consciousness an illusion? No. The illusion is pretending it’s “the brain.” The illusion is the selling of a future in which all existence will be controlled by science. The illusion is “a better civilization” in which all brains are “harmonized.”

If consciousness is an illusion, then freedom is, too. If consciousness is just the atoms of the brain marching around and delivering pre-determined impulses, then freedom is a hoax.

And, under the surface, this is what neuroscience proposes. “Yes, humans believe in a quaint notion of freedom, but we know that’s ludicrous. There is no such thing. It’s merely particles in motion…”

While I’m at it, taking the particles-in-motion depiction of life as a first principle…then there is no you, either. There is no you, there is no me, there is no anyone. There is no individual, there is no group. All that is illusion as well.

This is the inescapable conclusion of physics taken to its widest application.

It’s also the justification for manipulating the brain in any fashion: since “no one is home,” what difference does it make? Nullify a synapse here, rewire a connection there, dose this area with a drug, stimulate those neurons with electromagnetic impulses…and bring about more agreeable obedience.

There are many educated people who refuse to understand that both organized religion and bottomless faith in science lead to tyranny. They lack the imagination and curiosity to explore other alternatives.

Therefore, their ignorance is stunning.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Interviewing the dead Albert Einstein about free will

Interviewing the dead Albert Einstein about free will

by Jon Rappoport

September 21, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

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 of the same elements, 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 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 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?

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 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 without free will, 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: In one way or another, there is a great impulse to deny the non-materiality of the qualities that are inherent to human life. Scientists, for example, 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.

Exit From the Matrix

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.”

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.”

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com.

Interviewing the astral Albert Einstein about free will

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

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 of the same elements, 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 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 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?

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 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 without free will, 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: In one way or another, there is a great impulse to deny the non-materiality of the qualities that are inherent to human life. Scientists, for example, 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.

The Matrix Revealed

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

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, nothing. What I means is, in terms of matter and energy, we could say there is a nothing. But that’s just a relative judgment. In this nothing, there is, what shall I call it, a completely different sphere or territory. But it can’t be measured. It’s not that kind of territory. It has no beginning or end. If it did, it would be a 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. “I would say you were dead.”

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.”

While he was inside, I looked out at the valley. Suddenly, I saw the clouds and the sky and the fields as a theater. It was one more stage on which we could live, as we tend to do, within an envelope of time.

It was a beautiful artifact, intensified by our own desires.

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.

Myths and fairy tales about consciousness

Myths and fairy tales about consciousness

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2013

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

“Pieces of what consciousness creates linger and form a kind of landscape. A person consults it, as if it were a guide, over and over, until his life wears out, feels old, bores him to the point where he wants something new… He can linger and grow old staring at this landscape painting, or he can imagine and invent novel things.” (Unfinished manuscript, The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

In view of the response I received to my article, “Proof that attributing consciousness to the brain is absurd,” I’m adding a few remarks.

Take this “scientific” assertion: if you have the complex concentration of particles known as the brain, who knows what they might produce? They might bring about consciousness.

Who knows? An ant hill might produce a full-size limousine made out of raspberry jello. A box of burner phones in a police evidence locker might give rise to a new moon orbiting Jupiter. Who knows?

The “who knows” and “might” argument is a far cry from the claim of conventional physics that consciousness HAS to arise from the brain because that’s all we have.

Then we have the ever-popular “consciousness is a mystical entity” proposition. In this case, not only is consciousness a vague cloudy thing, the statements about it are also vague and cloudy.

Therefore, anything goes. Consciousness exists in the 18th dimension. Consciousness was born in the roots of a tree centered in a black hole three trillion light years east of Hoboken.

Many fairy tales spring from the idea that consciousness is a Something. The Something usually ends up being energy. What kind of energy? Take your pick.

There are many errors that derive from the fact that people like to label whatever they can with a noun. Consciousness, a noun. Therefore, a thing. Well, suppose consciousness is a situation.

And the situation is: people are aware. They know they’re alive. They know they’re looking and talking and thinking and doing—which, by the way, is not the situation of a machine.

This is why the technocratic blather about connecting the brain with computers for the purpose of infinite enhancement is a joke. It’s all on the level of mechanical process.

A machine can assist human choices, but it can’t think, and it isn’t aware.

You’re aware. I’m aware. That isn’t a thing and it isn’t “energy” and it isn’t a mystical cloud.

Neither is it restricted. What the conscious-you can become aware of is unbounded.

Being conscious is a non-material situation. Physics isn’t equipped to talk about it, because physics explores matter and energy, time and space. Consciousness isn’t any of those things. It’s, again, non-material.

exit from the matrix

Various elites don’t want to admit that, because “non-material” implies “can’t be externally shaped and controlled.”

Unfortunately, most people, when confronted with “unbounded” automatically go to “mystical.” This has resulted in numerous problems, including the hypnotic power of various priest-classes down through history, who have ruled societies with iron claws.

At its philosophical root, consciousness has been warred over by both materialistic and mystical forces, each claiming ownership, for different reasons, over that which belongs only to each person.

Fascism, Communism, scientism on one side assert their “consciousness=brain” absurdity, while on the other side, various heavily organized religious institutions promote their elite and exclusive keys to mystical consciousness.

Neither side is the slightest bit interested in individual freedom or the fully independent conscious human.

They’re dogs fighting over a piece of meat that isn’t even meat.

Here are several more quotes from The Magician Awakes:

“Scientism undermines consciousness, or tries to, by disparaging its essential poetic nature. Consciousness can revolutionize the lunatic consensus we call reality by forging it into poetry.”

“Suffering and pain and isolation keep giving themselves up to art and artists, to be transformed. The paradox is, if artists (which means everyone) took that offer in a full-blooded way, we would all rise to another level of life in which much of the suffering would no longer be necessary.”

“What consciousness can invent is, in terms of mystery and joy and complexity, light years beyond what is said about the nature of consciousness…”

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.

One-page proof that attributing consciousness to the brain is absurd

One-page proof that attributing consciousness to the brain is absurd

by Jon Rappoport

September 21, 2013

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

Consider this an open letter to philosophers, brain researchers, physicists, technocrats, Ray Kurzweil, and TED executives who censored lectures on consciousness by Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake.

Conventional science readily admits (insists) that the brain is made of the same particles that constitute everything else in the universe: rocks, chairs, comets, meteors, galaxies.

According to conventional physicists, these particles are not conscious.

Therefore, there is no reason to conclude the brain is conscious.

The brain has no more ability to spawn consciousness than a rock does.

End of story. End of proof.

You’re welcome.

Of course, a few scientists will argue (and many more will privately believe) that, since we humans ARE conscious, this proves the brain is producing consciousness—because, where else could we look for an explanation?

Which is called circular reasoning. Meaning: you already assume what you’re trying to prove. Any first-semester logic student would mark that argument INVALID.

Some scientists, suddenly invoking a brand of mysticism they otherwise deplore, claim the unique complex configuration of particles called the brain somehow—in this one case—has a capacity to break every rule in the book and deliver consciousness.

But no proof, just faith. Supposition.

Finally, you have a sprinkling of renegade physicists who assert that everything in the universe—rocks, chairs, pencils, lamps, trees, stars, galaxies are conscious.

Fine. However, their argument trivializes the brain as the seat of consciousness, because the human arm and leg and thumb and belly button and butt are all conscious, too. In which case, so what?

exit from the matrix

Bottom line? All conventional scientific arguments for the brain as the “place of consciousness” are futile and absurd. And this leads to something beyond scientific and philosophic materialism.

It leads to non-material consciousness.

The failure of physicists to admit this is just pure stubbornness, avoidance, and rank denial.

Their only refuge is to deny consciousness exists. Instead, all life is merely mechanical. “Consciousness” is a fake delusion/concept contained in faulty programming, and installing better programming will make humans more “realistic.”

This is the fall-back position of the technocrats, and it enables them to try any and all transhuman experiments, since humans are just machines. Take out this wire, insert that wire.

This brand of technocrat isn’t just a wacko who thinks storing a computer clone of a human brain is storing a human being. No. He’s a rabid Dr. Frankenstein.

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 landscape of the mind and mind control

The landscape of the mind and mind control

by Jon Rappoport

September 6, 2013

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

Three important elements of mind control are: causing automatic responses to stimuli; loading the mind with false information; and propagandizing the idea that mental disorders are actual entities that exist in the mind.

I’ve written extensively about these three elements. They conspire to produce many false realities.

I’ve also refuted the notion that the mind is nothing more than the brain. If mind and brain were identical, there would be no meaning, understanding, or freedom.

The brain is made of up of the same microparticles that constitute rocks and chairs. No matter how these particles are configured in the brain, they do not equip a person to understand words on a page, or any other type of communication. Nor do they lead to the ability to make free choices.

(This, by the way, is what the whole scandal at TED talks is all about. They’ve suppressed talks by Hancock and Sheldrake, who discuss consciousness apart from the brain.)

Even when we shift focus from brain to mind, there is the myth that mind has a particular landscape. It is a territory that can be mapped. This is false.

Let’s instead call mind consciousness, which is a better term, because it implies awareness, which is dynamic and alive.

Imagine, invent, and create: beyond analyzing, this is what consciousness does. It can do it offstage, so to speak, or with the knowledge of the person.

People are educated to believe that it takes special, inborn talent to imagine and create. That is one incredibly destructive teaching. It stunts natural development to the point where passivity becomes the order of the day—and of a life.

So we have a society where a small fraction of the population ever considers that being an artist is within their grasp.

Creating art is alchemical, in the sense that it takes feeling, thought, experience and transforms them into raw fuel for the fire.

In that very immediate sense, consciousness is no longer anything that could be called static and unchanging. It moves. It creates. And it transmutes experience.

exit from the matrix

Many myths of the past suggest there is a line, a threshold, which when crossed, changes perception forever and introduces the seeker to “great mysteries.” These stories more basically are describing a change from passivity to the creative life.

The “knight errant” on his journey comes to a point where he realizes that things as they are, are never going reveal secrets of the psyche, no matter how deeply he probes them. Instead, tapping into imagination and creating that which was never there before is the key.

That is the great change. That is the threshold that is crossed.

Mind control in all its forms is designed to prevent this insight. It turns out that the vast majority of such control is self-induced. Although outside influences are involved, finally it is the person himself who consigns himself to a repetitive future of passive acceptance of things as they are.

If we look around us, we see multiple ways in which the world is being manipulated by elites. This is one layer or one path in the maze. On another path, the individual is bottling up his own power by denying and rationalizing away his imagination and inventive force.

I am talking here about the difference between living a life that eventually dumps a person into a dead-end, and living a life in the open sky of imagination.

This is exactly why I put together my two collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix. I invite you to explore them.

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.