Category Archives: Energy & Imagination

A new teaching: Imagination

A new teaching: Imagination

by Jon Rappoport

July 17, 2015

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

I call it new because it still has not been given its proper due. Imagination is beyond “subject matter” or “content” or “knowledge” or “systems” or “philosophy” or “metaphysics.”

Imagination is not something you pursue, like a lost mine or a species of plant never seen before. Imagination is not an object.

It can solve problems. It can dispense with a problem altogether. But imagination is not a solution. It isn’t a method.

Imagination is already there in every person, as a potential. To put it in a slightly different way, imagination comes into being the moment you want it. Even more accurately, perhaps, imagination is imagining. It’s an action. When you want to take that action, you can.

What imagination invents is, of course, different from person to person. Why? Because there is no pre-set pattern. There is no “final answer” at which imagination arrives.

A painter can say, “This painting is the embodiment of everything I’ve been reaching for,” but if he think that means imagination has served its function and can then fold up and dissolve, he is mistaken.

Where does imagining happen? That’s an interesting question. Many years ago, an old acquaintance of mine told me the following amusing story: A painter of horses felt she had come to the end of the line because she wanted to paint large horses on large canvases, but she was convinced she couldn’t picture the large horses because…imagining was taking place in her brain, and her brain was small.

When she finally realized this was a major misconception, she executed a course correction and…she was painting big horses on big canvases.

Imagining doesn’t take place in the brain. As untold numbers of artists down through history have understood, imagining takes place in “a space.” That space is invented. That space is not the same space you see when you look through your window or walk down the street or stand on a roof top. You invent other spaces. You populate them with thoughts, images, sensations.

And these other spaces have no restrictions on size, shape, dimension, and so forth.

Tesla has been quoted as saying that he would envision an entire machine before he built it, and in that imagining he could view all the parts of the machine operating together—and therefore he already knew whether the device would work properly, before he assembled a single component.

Do you think he was seeing the machine inside one of his own brain cells, or inside a cluster of cells? That’s quite a joke. Of course not. He was seeing the machine sitting there in a space—and he was imagining both the machine and the space.

The literature called science fiction took off, in part, because the reader was imagining all sorts of wondrous spaces populated by many strange and fascinating creatures and civilizations. Huge spaces.

In other words, there is physical space, the common arena we share…and there are an infinity of possible other spaces a person can imagine.

What a person imagines, in the way of spaces, need not be “scientific” or “clinical” or “according to the laws of physics.” There are no restrictions.

I once spoke with a woman who had, for many years, struggled to win a victory in a just environmental cause. She was a veteran activist leader; and she had never won what she was seeking. She was stymied. I told her she had to imagine a new kind of strategy, and I gave her a simple writing exercise that would enable her to get outside all the familiar campaigns of the past. Within two minutes, she found what she was looking for. Which is to say, she imagined it.

I wasn’t giving her knowledge or content or a system or an answer. I was showing her a way to invent something new, on her own.

Exit From the Matrix

Not long after our conversation, I finished work on my second collection, Exit From The Matrix. The heart and core of that work is a series of imagination exercises that, practiced in a daily fashion, can transform a person’s view of reality and their own power.

One could say that what a person ends up with in his life is the reality he chronically and continuously imagines. And you see, this isn’t a statement about “content.” It’s about the process of subconscious invention.

The word “education” comes from two Latin roots: “ducere,” meaning to lead, and “e,” the prefix meaning “out of” or “from.” Education, in that sense, is leading something out of the person, something that was already there.

Imagination, with all its awesome possibilities, is already there in a person. The teaching part involves bringing out that innate capacity so that it becomes conscious.

The bottom line: when all the imagining a person does is happening subconsciously, he becomes wrapped up in the content of what he is imagining and inventing, and this confusion keeps him glued to the content rather than the process itself. Conversely, when the person imagines and creates consciously, he becomes aware of his power and its immense latitude, and his freedom.

This makes all the difference.

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 one space-time continuum: logic and imagination

Beyond one space-time continuum: logic and imagination

by Jon Rappoport

July 16, 2015

Logic applies to the physical universe.

It applies to statements made about that universe. It applies to factual language.

Many wonderful things can be done with logic. Don’t leave home without it. Don’t analyze information without it. Don’t endure an education without it.

But art and imagination are of another universe(s). They can deploy logic, but they can also invent in any direction without limit, and they can embrace contradiction. They can build worlds in which space and time and energy are quite different.

Magic is nothing more and nothing less than imagination superseding this universe. Magic occurs when imagination takes this reality for a ride.

Which brings us to what I call the Is People. The Is People are dedicated with a fervor to insisting that this Continuum and this consensus reality are inviolable, are the end-all and be-all.

They strive to fit themselves into Is, and this eventually has some interesting negative consequences. They come to resemble solid matter. They take on the character of matter.

For them, imagination is at least a misdemeanor, if not a felony. It’s a blow to the Is of Is. They tend to view imagination as a form of mental disorder.

Technocrats like to gibber about imagination as if it’s nothing more than just another closed system that hasn’t been mapped yet. But they’re sure it will be, and when that happens, people will apparently give up creating and opt for living in a way that more closely resembles machines.

There are many people who secretly wish they were machines that functioned automatically and without flaws. It’s their wet dream.

Magic eventually comes to the conclusion that imagination creates reality. Any reality. And therefore, one universe, indivisible, is an illusion, a way of trapping Self.

What began as the physical universe, a brilliant work of art, ends up as a psychic straitjacket, a mental ward in which the inmates strive for normalcy. Those who fail at even this are labeled and shunted into a special section of the ward.

But the result of imagination, if pursued and deployed long enough and intensely enough, is:

Consensus reality begins to organize itself around you, rather than you organizing yourself around it.

There are various names and labels used to describe this state of affairs, but none of them catches the sensation of it.

Magic is one of those labels.

What I’m describing here isn’t some snap-of-the-fingers trick of manifestation; it’s a life lived.

The old alchemists were working in this area. They were striving for the transformation of consciousness. In true alchemy, one’s past, one’s experience, one’s conflicts all become fuel for the fire of creating new realities. Taken along certain lines, this is called art.

One universe, one logic, one Continuum, one role in that Continuum, one all-embracing commitment to that role, one avenue of perception, one Is…this is the delusion.

And eventually, the delusion gives birth to a dedication to what “everyone else” thinks and supposes and assumes and accepts. This is slavery.

Freeing one’s self, living through and by imagination, is not a mass movement. It’s a choice taken by one person. It’s a new and unique road for each person.

Societies and civilizations are organized around some concept of the common good. The concept always deteriorates, and this is because it is employed to lower the ceiling on individual power rather than raise it.

“Be less than you are, then we can all come together in a common cause.”

It’s essentially a doctrine of sacrifice—everyone sacrifices to everyone else, and the result is a coagulated mass of denial of Self.

It is a theme promoted under a number of guises by men who have one thing in mind: control.

It’s a dictatorship of the soul. It has always existed.

Breaking out of it involves reasserting the power of imagination to invent new and novel realities.

Under a variety of names, this is art.

Promoting the image of the artist as a suffering victim is simply one more way to impose the doctrine of sacrifice.

In 1961, when I began writing and painting in earnest, I had a conversation with the extraordinary healer, Richard Jenkins, whom I write about in my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies (included in Exit From The Matrix). This is my note from that time about what Richard told me:

“Paint what you want to, no matter what anyone else says. You may not always know what you want to create, but that’s good. Keep working, keep painting. You’ll find your way. You’ll invent something new, something unique, if you don’t give in. You’ll see everything in a new light. Reality is a bad joke. It’s nothing more than what everyone assents to, because they’re afraid. They’re afraid of what people will say. They’re afraid they have far more power than they want to discover. They’re afraid that power will lead them away from common and ordinary beliefs. They’re afraid they’ll become a target for the masses who have surrendered their own lives and don’t want to be reminded of it. They afraid they’ll find out something tremendous about themselves…”

Nothing I’ve experienced in the 50 years since then has diminished what Richard said to me.

These fears are all illusions that disintegrate when a person shoves in his chips on imagination and makes that bet and lives it.

Exit From the Matrix

Here are several notes from the years 1999-2010, while I was preparing my collection, The Matrix Revealed. They take up the subject of reality-construction, mind control, mind freedom, and creative power.

“You have to understand that there are dimensions. In the dimension we call the world, a person needs logic. He needs it badly. He needs to be able to analyze and take apart things and put them back together again. He needs to identify flaws in reasoning and discover deceptions. He needs to recognize formal arguments and trace them all the way through from assumptions to conclusions. But in the dimension where creative power operates, where things happen that most certainly impact this world, all bets are off. He needs to understand and experience and launch a kind of vast freedom for his own imagination that takes him entirely out of the realm of being a normal person, a provincial “realist,” a mechanically thinking human. He has to go light-years past that. He has to stop pretending he is some kind of scientist. In other words, he has to stop burying his own creative power. Two dimensions, two capabilities.”

“Mind control, brainwashing, programming, conditioning all refer to the imposition of systems on the human creative impulse. When you have a whole civilization that, more and more, consists of systems, you have an effort to replace the individual with the group, with the machine.”

“At the highest level, elites are in the business of inventing reality for everyone else. This is more than lying. It’s the wholesale invention of a continuum. Past, present, and future.”

“Imagination is the opposite of mind control. It is creating beyond the boundaries of accepted reality. It is more than perception. Imagination expands perception.”

“Elites are perverse artists who invent reality for everyone else. Part of the plan is convincing everyone else that they can’t invent their own far-reaching reality.”

“Most people define freedom as liberation from certain externally imposed restrictions. But freedom goes much farther than that. It goes beyond how individuals ordinarily define their own existence, their own concerns, their own habits. A person’s own definitions are self-imposed limits. These limits = everything a person does and thinks that excludes imagination.”

The Matrix Revealed

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 individual and his future

The individual and his future

by Jon Rappoport

July 13, 2015

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

“It’s instructive to read what authors wrote about core values a hundred or two hundred years ago, because then you can appreciate what has happened to the culture of a nation. You can grasp the enormous influence of planned propaganda, which changes minds, builds new consensus, and exiles certain disruptive thinkers to the margins of society. You can see what has been painted over, with great intent, in order to promote tyranny that proclaims a greater good for all.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Here I present several statements about the individual, written in 19th century America. The authors, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and James Fenimore Cooper were prominent figures. Emerson, in his time, was the most famous.

“All greatness of character is dependent on individuality. The man who has no other existence than that which he partakes in common with all around him, will never have any other than an existence of mediocrity.” — James Fenimore Cooper

“The less government we have, the better, — the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of [by] formal Government, is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

“The former generations acted under the belief that a shining social prosperity was the beatitude of man, and sacrificed uniformly the citizen to the State. The modern mind believed that the nation existed for the individual, for the guardianship and education of every man. This idea, roughly written in revolutions and national movements, in the mind of the philosopher had far more precision; the individual is the world.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

“If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” — Henry David Thoreau

“They [conformists] think society wiser than their soul, and know not that one soul, and their soul, is wiser than the whole world…Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members….Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist…. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

Can you imagine, today, any of these statements gaining traction in the public mind, much less the mainstream media?

Immediately, there would be virulent pushback, on the grounds that unfettered individualism equals brutal greed, equals (hated) capitalism, equals inhumane indifference to the plight of the less fortunate, equals callous disregard for the needs of the group.

The 19th-century men who wrote those assertions would be viewed with hostile suspicion, as potential criminals, as potential “anti-government” outliers who should go on a list. They might have terrorist tendencies.

Contemporary analysis of the individual goes much further than this.

Case in point: Peter Collero, of the department of sociology, Western Oregon University, has written a book titled: The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives:

“Most people today believe that an individual is a person with an independent and distinct identification. This, however, is a myth.”

Callero is claiming an absence of any uniqueness from person to person. He’s asserting there is no significant distinction between any two people. There aren’t two individuals to begin with. They’re a group.

This downgrading of the individual human spirit is remarkable, but it is not the exception. There are many, many people today who would agree (without comprehending what they are talking about) that the individual does not exist. They would agree because, to take the opposite position would set them on a path toward admitting that each individual has independent power—and thus they would violate a sacred proscription of political correctness.

These are the extreme conformists Emerson was referring to a century and a half ago.

Unable to partake in anything resembling clear thought, such people salute the flag of the Collective, blithely assuming it means “whatever is best for everyone.” Such questions as “who defines ‘best’” and “who engineers this outcome” are beyond their capacity to make distinctions. They rest their proud case in vagueness.

Without realizing it, they are tools of a program. They’re foot soldiers in a ceaseless campaign to promote collectivism (dictatorship from the top) under the guise of equality.

Exit From the Matrix

Let me repeat one of Emerson’s statements: “The antidote to this abuse of [by] formal Government, is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual.” The corollary: If there is no widespread growth of individuals and their independent thoughts, actions, and moral consciousness, if they don’t widen their horizons and spheres of influence, then in the long run what check is there on government?

Demeaning the individual is, in fact, an intentional operation designed to keep government power intact and expand its range.

Consider this question: If all opposition to overbearing, intrusive, and illegitimate government were contained in organized groups, and if there were no independent “Emersonian” individuals, what would be the outcome?

In the long term, those groups would stagnate and fail in their missions. They would be co-opted by government. Eventually, all such groups would be viewed as “special needs” cases, requiring “intervention” to “help them.”

That is a future without promise, without reason, without imagination, without life-force.

That is why the individual remains vital; above, beyond, and through any blizzard of propaganda.

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.

Magic and depression

Magic and depression

A vaccine against magic

by Jon Rappoport

July 8, 2015

OutsideTheRealityMachine

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

“The function of the artist is to provide what life does not.” —Tom Robbins, Another Roadside Attraction

“Those people who recognize that imagination is reality’s master we call ‘sages,’ and those who act upon it, we call ‘artists.’” —Tom Robbins, Skinny Legs and All

In the human psyche, from the moment a newborn baby emerges into the light of day, he/she has a desire for magic.

We are told this is an early fetish that fades away as the experience of the world sets in. As maturity evolves. As practical reality is better understood.

In most areas of psychology, sensible adjustment to practical reality is a great prize to be won by the patient. It marks the passage from child to adult. It is hailed as a therapeutic triumph.

In truth, the desire for magic never goes away, and the longer it is buried, the greater the price a person pays.

A vaccine against a disease can mask the visible signs of that disease, but under the surface, the immune system may be carrying on a low-level chronic war against toxic elements of the vaccine. And the effects of the war can manifest in odd forms.

So it is with the inoculation of reality aimed at suppressing magic.

One of the byproducts of the “reality shot” is depression.

The person feels cut off from the very feeling and urge he once considered a hallmark of life. Therefore, chronic sadness. Of course, one explains that sadness in a variety of ways, none of which gets to the heart of the matter.

It is assumed that so-called primitive cultures placed magic front and center simply because “they couldn’t do better.” They didn’t have science, and they couldn’t formulate a “true and rational” religion with a church and monks and collection plate and a European choir and an array of pedophiles.

Historically, the impulse for magic had to be defamed and reduced and discredited. Why? Obviously, because the Westerners who were poking through ancient cultures had already discredited magic in themselves—they had put it on a dusty shelf in a room in a cellar beyond the reach of their own memory. But they couldn’t leave it alone. They had to keep worrying it, scratching it, and so they journeyed thousands of miles to find it somewhere else—and then they scoffed at it and tried to crush it.

And we wonder why, under the banner of organized religion, there has been so much killing. At a deep level, the adherents know they’ve sold their souls and they’re depressed, angry, resentful, remorseful, and they want to assuage and expiate their guilt through violence.

But the urge for magic is forever.

And yet the charade goes on. While paying homage and lip service to ordinary practical reality seasoned with a bit of fairy-tale organized religion, people actually want to change reality, they want to reveal their latent power, they want to create realities that, by conventional standards, are deemed impossible.

They want to find and use their own magic.

In our modern culture, we’re taught that everything is learned as a system. That, you could say, is the underlying assumption of education. It has far-reaching consequences. It leads to the systematizing of the mind. The mind is shaped to accommodate this premise.

“If I want to know something, I have to learn it. Somebody has to teach it to me. They will teach it as a system. I will learn the system. I will elevate the very notion of systems. Everything will be a system.”

In the long run, that gets you a lump of coal in a sock, a spiritual cardboard box to live in.

The intellectual enrolls at Harvard, he studies anthropology for six years, he flies to a jungle in South America, he digs up remnants of a lost culture, he infers they performed arcane ceremonies six times a week, he writes monographs—and he concludes they were a very picturesque society with fascinating customs and totems, and their brand of magic can best be understood as an inevitable consequence of their matriarchal organization, which itself was an accommodation to rainfall levels.

Back home, the anthropologist takes two Paxil and goes off to teach a class on the meaning of ancient eyebrow trimming in Tierra del Fuego.

Systems are wonderful things. They produce results. They take us into technological triumphs. They help us become more rational. But when they are overdone, when the mind itself becomes shaped like a system, it reaches a dead-end. Then the mind works against the unquenchable desire for magic. Then society is organized as a tighter and tighter system and turns into a madhouse.

And then people say, “Maybe machines can actually think and choose and decide. Maybe machines are alive. What would happen if we grafted computers on to our brains? It might be wonderful.”

People move in this direction after their own minds have been shaped, like putty, into systems. They don’t see much difference between themselves and machines.

The desire for magic in every individual is squelched. So the first order of business is the restoration of imagination, from which all magic flows. Imagination is sitting there, always ready, waiting.

Exit From the Matrix

Imagination is saying, “The mind has been shaped into a system? I can undo that. I can liberate the mind and make it into an adventurous vessel. I can provide untold amounts of new energy.”

Life is waiting for imagination to revolutionize it down to its core.

Since imagination is a wild card that technocrats can’t absorb in their systems, they pretend it a faculty produced by the action of atoms in the brain. They pretend it is a delusion that can be explained by demonstrating, for example, that a machine can turn out paintings. Or poems.

“You see? We don’t need humans to make art. Computers can do just as well. Imagination isn’t mysterious at all.”

Technocracy and transhumanism flow from the concept that the human being is just another machine. And any machine can be made to operate more efficiently.

Meanwhile, imagination waits. It never vanishes. It stands by, just in case an individual decides to live a life that overflows with creative power.

If my work in this area has any organized precedent, it is ancient Tibet where, 1500 years ago, before the priests took over with their interminable spiritual baggage of ritual, practitioners engaged in exercises that engaged imagination to the hilt.

The entire goal was revealing that the Universe was ultimately a product of mind.

This was not about ultimate worship. This was not about some deep substrate in the Universe that one could plug into, to guide his actions and thought. It was about liberating the individual from all systems. It was about endless creation.

The first teachers of this Way came from India, where they had been pushed out of the academies of orthodox religious instruction. They were rebels. They had offloaded the metaphysical labyrinths of control. They were, in a sense, artists. Artists of reality.

They were brilliant riverboat gamblers, and in Tibet, for a time, they found a home.

They found students who, as now, were tired of the preaching designed to make humans into sophisticated mind-machines.

These people wanted more. They wanted to awaken their own imaginations and exceed the illusory boundaries of space and time.

They wanted magic.

Despite every cynical ploy, that desire is still alive.

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 psyop to neuter The Rebel

The psyop to neuter The Rebel

by Jon Rappoport

July 6, 2015

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

If you want to track a civilization as it collapses, watch what happens to the concept of the rebel.

On a profound level, mass shootings and assassinations (whether staged or not) are used to define the ever-present “lone assassin” as the REPRESENTATION AND THE SYMBOL OF WHAT THE INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL IS.

You’re a separate and distinct individual? An outsider? Watch out. Overnight, you could turn into a raging killer.

You happen to know an outsider, a loner? He’s dangerous. He doesn’t live by the rules the rest of us accept. He’s deranged. Stay away from him. Shun him. And if you see the slightest indication of (insert your own term here), report him to the authorities.

“See a rebel, say something,” to paraphrase the DHS motto.

Any human being who has courage, intelligence, eyes to see, and a determination to express his power in uncompromising terms can now be redefined as a potential threat to the stability of society—if he criticizes the prevailing Authority.

From the 1960s onward—starting with Lee Oswald and the assassination of JFK—the whole idea of “the rebel” with power has been sequentially updated and repackaged. This is intentional.

The objective is to equate “rebel” with a whole host of qualities—e.g., runaway self-serving paranoia; random destruction; out-of-control drug use; generalized hatred; the commission of crimes—qualities that defeat the very notion of powerful opposition to fascist authority:

On a lesser, “commercialized” level, the new rebel can define himself by merely showing up at a concert to scream and drink heavily and break something, having already dressed to make a dissident fashion statement. He can take an afternoon off from college classes and have his arms tattooed. All the while, of course, he functions as an avid consumer of mainstream corporate products.

You even have people who, considering themselves rebels of the first order, support a government that spies on its people 24/7, launches military attacks all over the world, and now funds a Manhattan Project to map every move of the 100 billion neurons of the brain, for the ultimate purpose of controlling it.

More than ever, the individual has to explore and discover, with intelligence, a position that is FOR himself and AGAINST the concocted and sustained illusion called consensus reality.

When the individual embarks on this path, the external false definitions of him as rebel or outsider or mentally ill or criminal no longer matter. Instead, what matters is his deepest nature.

Even going back as far as the 1950s, the so-called decade of conformity, psyops professionals sculpted notions of The Rebel: He was the person who didn’t want to take part in the emerging bland corporate culture.

He was imagined and presented as troubled, morose, a wobbly unfocused JD Salinger Holden Caulfield, or a beatnik, a Madison Avenue caricature of somebody who opposed Madison Avenue.

In other words, the people who were shaping the consumer culture were creating the image of the rebel as a cartoon figure who just didn’t want to buy into “the good life.”

Time Magazine ran a cover story on the beatniks, and characterized them as a disaffected trend. Marlon Brando, heading up a bunch of moronic motorcycle riders, invaded a town of pleasant clueless citizens and took it over, wreaking destruction. The 1953 movie was The Wild One. James Dean, who had the same trouble Brando did in articulating a complete sentence, was “the rebel without a cause” in the “iconic film” of the same name. He raced cars toward cliffs because his father couldn’t understand him.

These were all puff pieces designed to make rebels look ridiculous, and they worked. They also functioned to transmit the idea to young people that being a rebel should be a showbiz affectation. That worked, too.

Then the 1960s arrived. Flower children, in part invented by the major media, would surely take over the world and dethrone fascist authority with rainbows. San Francisco was the epicenter. But Haight-Ashbury, where the flowers and the weed were magically growing out of the sidewalks, turned into a speed, acid, and heroin nightmare, a playground for psychopaths to cash in and steal and destroy lives. The CIA, of course, gave the LSD culture a major push.

For all that the anti-war movement eventually accomplished in ending the Vietnam war crime, in the aftermath all those college students who had been in the streets—once the fear of being drafted was gone—scurried into counselors’ offices to see where they might fit into the job market after graduation. The military industrial complex took its profits and moved on, undeterred.

The idea of the rebel was gone. It later resurfaced as The Cocaine Dealer, the archangel of the 1980s.

And so forth and so on. All these incarnations of The Rebel were artificially created and sustained as psyops, for the purpose of deflating attempts at genuine and powerful rebellion. And, at bottom, the idea was to discredit the Individual, in favor of The Group.

Now, in our collectivist society of 2015, The Group, as a rapidly expanding victim class, is the government’s number one project. While extolling this group as heroic and in constant need of help, the government is doing everything it can to crash the economy and widen the population of victims. It’s a straight con. “We’re here to make you worse off while we lift you up.”

In the psyop to demean, distort, and squash the rebel, there is a single obvious common denominator: the establishment media are doing the defining; they are the ones who are setting the parameters and making the descriptions; they are the ones who build the cartoons; looking down their noses, pretending to a degree of sympathy, they paint one unflattering picture after another of what the rebel is and does and says; they have co-opted the whole game.

These days, the ultimate rebels, the media would have you believe, are “the Tea Party and their affiliated gun-toting racist bitter clingers who have religion.” Another distorted unflattering portrait, meant not only to drive people away from the Tea Party, but also to prove the guilt, by association, of any person who says the federal government is unconstitutional and out of control.

“All the fascism is on the political Right. There can be no fascism on the Left.” This is the major domestic policy of this administration—this absurd assertion.

The Rebel is real. He has been covered up by media fabrications and caricatures.

You can take a whole host of political films and television series of the past 50 years, and look at them for signs of the Rebel: Seven Days in May, Advise and Consent, The Candidate, The Seduction of Joe Tynan, Dave, Primary Colors, The Contender, Good Night and Good Luck, The American President, West Wing, Scandal, The Newsroom…

Good acting, bad acting, drama, message—at the end you’re looking for the core. What do the rebel heroes really stand for? What are their principles? It’s all bland. It’s vague. It has the posturing of importance, but little else.

As I was finishing this piece, a friend wrote with a quote attributed to Robert Anton Wilson: “The universe is a war between reality programmers.”

This is exactly where the real rebel enters the scene. He’s not trying to program people. Freedom means cutting loose from programming.

The rebel dismantles inhibiting and artificial structures.

He doesn’t go to the market and choose which reality program he wants. They’re all used up as soon as they come out of the package.

The political fancy or trend or program of the moment is a hardened dream somebody borrowed to make mincemeat out of the population. The rebel has no allegiance to any of this.

Albert Camus one wrote: “The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. It would be easy, however, to destroy that good conscience by shouting to them: if you want the happiness of the people, let them speak out and tell what kind of happiness they want and what kind they don’t want! But, in truth, the very ones who make use of such alibis know they are lies; they leave to their intellectuals on duty the chore of believing in them and of proving that religion, patriotism, and justice need for their survival the sacrifice of freedom.”

“THIS or THAT” is the history of Earth: choose reality program A or B. The choice was always a con.

Exit From the Matrix

We’re well into a time period when the experts and scientific authorities are settling on the human being as a biological machine that can only respond to programming. That’s their view and their default position.

It’s sheer madness, of course, but what else do you expect? We’re in an intense technological age, and people are obsessed with making things run smoother. They treat their precious little algorithms for control like the Crown Jewels. They’re terribly enthusiastic about the problem they’re solving, and that problem is us.

We’re the wild cards, a fact which they take to be result of our improper and incomplete conditioning. They aim to fix that.

There is—and has been, for a long time—a blended sequence in operation: a) observe; b) predict; c) control; d) re-create. “Well, we can see many patterns in this society. So we can make some predictions about what is going to happen. Actually, if we covertly introduce certain elements from the outside, we can control what happens. Why not stop diddling around and just make the whole thing over? Why not reshape humans?”

Having decided that, the battle begins between competing programmers of the mind. Which program for humans is better?

The rebel is against all such programming, no matter how “good and right” it sounds. “Good” and “right” are the traps:

“Well, certainly we could make a list of qualities we want all people to have. You know, the best qualities, like bravery and determination. Who could be against that? So suppose we could actually program such qualities into humans? Wouldn’t that be a fine thing? Then people would just BE that way…”

The ultimate rebellion is against programming, whatever it looks like, wherever it occurs.

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 individual vs. collective mind control

The individual vs. collective mind control

by Jon Rappoport

June 28, 2015

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

“Inside the mind, there is a landscape of reality. Its purpose? Maintaining personal stability. Society’s programmers feed that landscape, they provide it with more material to confirm that the overall portrait of reality is correct.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Under a big lie, the truth is the great shocker. I’ve been writing about one of these truths for years, and I always measure the reaction or lack of reaction.

I’m talking about the mass of mainstream evidence that, in the United States, every year, the medical system kills 225,000 people. This is a conservative assessment.

I point out that the death toll, when extrapolated to a decade, is 2.25 million Americans.

When I’ve presented these figures to mainstream reporters, doctors, scientists, some independent reporters, the response is:

Nothing.

Whether I’ve communicated through writing or in person, it’s as if I haven’t said anything at all.

There is a blank space, a hiatus, a fracture in time.

It’s as if I’ve been remarking on the weather…and who cares about the weather.

It’s quite stunning.

But of course, there is a split-second reaction: “No, that couldn’t be true.”

There are several supporting “reasons” for assuming the medically caused death-numbers couldn’t be true, and these reasons also flicker for a moment on the screen of the mind:

“If that were true, I would have heard about it.”

“If those figures were true, everything I’ve heard about doctors helping people, saving people, giving them the best care…I’d have to rethink all that.”

“No group could be killing that many people.”

I would call those and other similar “reasons” normal and average reactions.

Beyond them, there is something else going on. The person on the receiving end of the data is doing a scan, so to speak. A scan of…

His basic conception of reality.

This inner conception, structure, landscape encompasses many subjects and areas.

It offers great stability, on a subconscious level.

And this structure is suddenly threatened. All of it.

And that must never happen.

Therefore, on a conscious level, the person appears to notice nothing. There is no visible reaction.

Imagine something like this: a landscape composed of tall buildings, offices, government centers, corporate headquarters, media broadcasts beaming out into streets, mountains of conventional data about politics, economics, social conditions—all this and more sitting in the subconscious of a person. And then…

There is an intrusion. A single disruptive intrusion. A fact that shakes the whole structure in the mind, like an earthquake.

Alarms go off. “Reject that fact! Reject it! It’s false! It has to be false! Maintain stability!”

“Stability being restored. The structure is intact. Standards are being rebooted. Normality is being reasserted. Resume standard operations.”

The big truth is neutralized.

Hypnotherapist, Jack True, with whom I did much research in the late 1980s, once put it to me this way in an interview: “A person will do everything in his power to maintain his ‘inner landscape’, because it protects a core of passivity.”

One important power is the power to reject. Reject with no compromise. In the active person, this is a prelude to more discovery, more knowledge, more insight.

In Adjustment Team (1954), Philip K Dick wrote:

“You were supposed to have been in the Sector when the adjustment began. Because of an error you were not. You came into the Sector late — during the adjustment itself. You fled, and when you returned it was over. You saw, and you should not have seen. Instead of a witness you should have been part of the adjustment. Like the others, you should have undergone changes… something went wrong. An error occurred. And now a serious problem exists. You have seen these things. You know a great deal. And you are not coordinated with the new configuration.”

What I call the Reality Manufacturing Company wants everyone to have the same inner configuration.

That is the basis of collectivism at the deepest level.

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

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

Are “the people” one group? Well, that’s the ultimate Globalist formulation.

However, from the point of view of the free individual, things are upside down. It is HIS power that is primary, not the monolithic corporate State’s.

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

It looks like: THE OBSESSION TO ORGANIZE.

I’m not talking about organizations that are actually streamlined to produce something of value. I’m talking about organizations that PLAN MORE ORGANIZATION OF LIFE.

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

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

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

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

He can take Prozac, or Paxil, or Zoloft?

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

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

And then all psychological and physiological and mental and physical and emotional and perceptual and hormonal processes undergo a major shift, in order to accommodate to a reality, a space in which the individual has virtually no power at all.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t include this one: “power=greed.” Mountains of propaganda are heaped on people to convince them that having individual power to make something happen is the same as committing crimes against humanity.

Globalism=collectivism=Glob-consciousness. We’re all one Glob. We exist in that great Cheese Melt.

Even the radical Left of the 1960s, who rioted at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, because they believed the nominee, Hubert Humphrey, and his allies wouldn’t stop the war in Vietnam…even that radical force on the Left eventually gave in and morphed into romantic sentimentalists who came to love the State under Clinton and Obama.

Sooner or later, it comes down to the question: does the individual conceive of himself as an individual, or as part of The Group?

Shall the individual discover how much power and freedom and imagination he actually has, or shall he cut off that process of discovery at the knees, in order to join a group whose aims are diluted and foreshortened versions of consciousness and freedom?

The individual answers these questions overtly, with great consideration, or the questions answer and diminish him through wretched default.

Consider this,…

The Surveillance State is a robot camera. It captures everything, based on the premise that what isn’t Normal is dangerous.

The cartels of the world become the cartels of the mind.

At the outbreak of World War 2, the Council on Foreign Relations began making plans for the post-war world.

The question it posed was this: could America exist as a self-sufficient nation, or would it have to go outside its borders for vital resources?

Predictably, the answer was: imperial empire.

The US would not only need to obtain natural resources abroad, it would have to embark on endless conquest to assure continued access.

The CFR, of course, wasn’t just some think tank. It was connected to the highest levels of US government, through the State Department. A front for Rockefeller interests, it actually stood above the government.

Behind all its machinations was the presumption that planned societies were the future of the planet. Not open societies.

Through wars, clandestine operations, legislation, treaties, manipulation of nations’ debt, control of banks and money supplies, countries could be turned into “managed units.”

Increasingly, the populations of countries would be regulated and directed and held in thrall to the State.

And the individual? He would go the way of other extinct species.

For several decades, the pseudo-discipline called “social science” had been turning out reams of studies and reports on tribes, societal groupings, and so-called classes of people. Groups.

Deeply embedded in the social sciences were psychological warfare specialists who, after World War 2, emerged with a new academic status and new field of study: mass communications.

Their objective? The broadcasting of messages that would, in accordance with political goals, provoke hostility or pacified acceptance in the masses.

Hostility channeled into support of new wars; acceptance of greater domestic government control.

Nowhere in these formulas was the individual protected. He was considered a wild card, a loose cannon, and he needed to be demeaned, made an outsider, and characterized as a criminal who opposed the needs of the collective.

Collective=robot minds welded into one mind.

As the years and decades passed, this notion of the collective and its requirements, in a “humane civilization,” expanded. Never mind that out of view, the rich were getting richer and poor were getting poorer. That fact was downplayed, and the cover story–”share and care”—took center stage.

On every level of society, people were urged to think of themselves as part of a greater group. The individual and his hopes, his unique dreams, his desires and energies, his determination and will power…all these were portrayed as relics of an unworkable and deluded past.

In certain cases, lone pioneers who were innovating in directions that could, in fact, benefit all of humanity, were absorbed into the one body of the collective, heralded as humane…and then dumped on the side of the road with their inventions and forgotten.

In the planned society, no one rises above the mass, except those men who run and operate and propagandize the mass.

In order to affect the illusion of individual success, as a kind of safety valve for the yearnings of millions of people, the cult of celebrity emerged. But even there, extraordinary tales of rise and then precipitous fall, glory and then humiliation, were and are presented as cautionary melodramas.

This could happen to you. You would be exposed. You would suffer the consequences. Let others take the fall. Keep your mind blank. Do nothing unusual. Shorten your attention span. Disable your own mental machinery. Then you’ll never be tempted to stand out from the mass.

The onrush of technocracy gears its wild promises to genetic manipulation, brain-machine interfaces, and other automatic downloads assuring “greater life.” No effort required. Plug in, and ascend to new heights.

Freedom? Independence? Old flickering dreams vicariously viewed on a screen.

Individual greatness, imagination, creative power? A sunken galleon loaded with treasure that, upon closer investigation, was never there to begin with.

The Plan is all that is important. The plan involves universal surveillance, in order to map the lives of billions of people, move by move, in order to design systems of control within which those billions live, day to day.

Exit From the Matrix

But the worst outcome of all is: the individual cannot even conceive of his own life and future in large terms. The individual responds to tighter and control with a shrug, as if to say, “What difference does it make?”

He has bought the collectivist package. His own uniqueness and inner resources are submerged under layers of passive acceptance of the consensus.

And make no mistake about it, this consensus reality, for all its exaltation of the group, is not heraldic in any sense. The propagandized veneer covers a cynical exploitation of every man, woman, and child.

Strapped by an amnesia about his own freedom and what it can truly mean, the individual opts for a place in the collective gloom. He may grumble and complain, but he fits in.

He can’t remember another possibility.

Every enterprise in which he finds himself turns out to be a pale copy of the real thing.

The deep energies and power and desire for freedom remain untapped.

Yet a struggle continues to live. It lives in the hidden places of every individual who wants out, who wants to come back to himself, who wants to stride out on a stage.

Freedom and power again. The shattering of amnesia.

In this stolen world.

A new stage play:

The extinct individual returns.

Petty little hungers and obsessions become great hungers.

Dominoes of the collective begin to fall. The stinking structure collapses, a wing here and a wing there, and the robots open their eyes.

The vast sticky web called “the people” begins to disintegrate in roaring cities and in the mind.

A new instructive message appears on billboards and screens: “normal=crazy.”

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 OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Maps of consciousness, ancient Tibet, and a new psychology

by Jon Rappoport

June 21, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

“For the most part, today’s individual wants his spirituality to sit there like a plum on a tree. He doesn’t want it to be highly dynamic. He certainly doesn’t want to make it intensely personal and unique to himself.” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

Readers who have been with me for a while notice that I work against the grain.

This is my natural tendency, but it’s also the result of 30-plus years of research into a number of “sacred cows.” The findings of my research have shown me that civilization supports numerous false realities, and this extends to so-called mental, spiritual, and metaphysical foundations.

There are wide cracks and leaks and large holes.

I have enormous faith, long-term, in the individual. Not in the group. I see the individual as the future, no matter how long it takes, no matter how deep his potential is buried under a mass of propaganda and misdirection.

Over the years, I have written several articles describing the underpinning for my 3 Matrix collections.

This is another one, based on my investigations of: Tibet, modern “consciousness writing,” and the role of psychology in a controlled society.

To begin with, psychology, in theory and therapeutic practice, has a way, over time, of “settling in” to the society around it. With some exceptions, it more and more mirrors the values of society.

To sum it up, mainline psychology considers the individual as having key relationships, and seeks to strengthen, repair, and normalize them.

This is all very well for the patient who already considers himself to be living inside fairly conventional boundaries. But when the boundaries themselves are the issue, psychology tends to waver, wobble, tap dance, and even cast doubt on the mental health of the patient, as if his challenging the limits were somehow a sign of “inner imbalance” or neurosis or misperception.

The “playing field” of society is taken as the fundamental ground of operation, and the person who is walking outside those lines, looking in, assessing what is going on, is suspect. He may “require help.”

You won’t get a psychologist to admit what I’m pointing out here, but this conformist aspect of his work has come all the way down from the early, wide-ranging, fantastical ramblings of Freud, to a comfortable and even smug, small narrative.

Why? Because psychology has been determined to establish itself as an institution within the context of society. Smallness of conception is the fate of all such efforts.

For the past 75 years or so, a counter to psychology has emerged and gained popularity. I call it “consciousness mapping.” It begins by acknowledging that normal and average perception is grossly limited, and then moves on to offer an alternative.

However, the emphasis has been placed on explaining a structure or an ultimate object which consciousness, in its elevated state, would apprehend: a pot of gold; a cosmic entity; a universal connectivity.

“This is where you will arrive, and this is what it looks like, and this is what you will know.”

The Big It.

Well, this is attractive, because many people want to hold on to a Big It. They want to know what lies at the end of the road before they step foot on the road for the first time.

The metaphysical calculus of religion is transferred to consciousness itself.

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; take them away.

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.

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.

That last sentence could serve as a summary of what I’ve been doing in my writing for the past 30 years.

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.

If you truly wanted to gain insight into the basis of a person’s problems, you would find it in an area of his imagination where he stored all those things he considered impossible.

Over the years, the “impossibles” build up. And so the future diminishes.

Shrinks.

He carves down the size of his journey. He even turns around and tracks backward, revisiting the places he has already inhabited.

What will he find? Basically, what he already knows.

He becomes like the painter who repeats the same theme over and over.

Whereas the blank canvas actually stands for unlimited open space, unlimited possibility.

Exit From the Matrix

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

In the arena of The Group, we see all manner of problems presented along with their solutions. Replace the free market with government control. Conduct a religious revival to wean populations away from their consumerist addictions. Eliminate money altogether, in favor a more “equitable” plan. Provide monetary compensation for every group who has ever been wronged in the past. Achieve better education by reducing it to a Pavlovian series of stimuli and responses. Track and observe every human, 24/7, in order to curb anti-social behavior. Hook all brains up to a super-computer which has trillions of important data. Genetically alter humans, to make them more talented and healthy. And so on.

Each and every solution winds around and ends up against a brick wall, where the outcome is worse than the original dilemma, where suffering is compounded.

If only we were smarter. If only we were more ingenious. If only we had a better plan. But no, I’m afraid that isn’t the difficulty. The difficulty stems from considering humans as groups in the first place.

The secret to the labyrinth is at the beginning, where the individual surrendered to the idea of the group. It was all downhill from there.

As the future of society plays out over the next few hundred years, there will be a return to the individual.

And then he will decide what happens next.

He will decide whether he should remove the filter, through which he sees all remedies as collective and mass remedies.

He will decide whether to breathe life back into his infinite imagination.

He will decide whether to take his own power as seriously as he now takes centralized spirituality.

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 OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Part 2, the Reality salesman makes a house call

Part 2, the Reality salesman makes a house call

by Jon Rappoport

May 29, 2015

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

“Imagination is a force of nature. Is this not enough to make a person full of ecstasy? Imagination, imagination, imagination. It converts to actual. It sustains, it alters, it redeems!” —Saul Bellow, Henderson the Rain King

“When the imagination sleeps, words are emptied of their meaning.” —Albert Camus

“I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.” —Albert Einstein

“But imagination gives us the sweet music of tiniest insect wings, enables us to hear, all around the world, the vibration of every needle, the waving of every bole and branch, the sound of stars in circulation like particles in the blood. The Sierra canyons are full of avalanche debris—we hear them boom again, and we read the past sounds from present conditions. Again we hear the earthquake rock-falls. Imagination is usually regarded as a synonym for the unreal. Yet is true imagination healthful and real, no more likely to mislead than the coarse senses. Indeed, the power of imagination makes us infinite.” —John Muir

“Reality can be beaten with enough imagination.” —Mark Twain

“The world of reality has its limits; the world of imagination is boundless.” —Jean-Jacques Rousseau

“The imagination is not a state: it is the human existence itself.” —William Blake

“One group, one collective, one unified species—consider the tonnage of propaganda that has been poured into that formula, in order to convince populations that elites want the Good, rather than what they really want: Control. What if the universal concepts of One Space and One Time in One Continuum is, likewise, a basic fraud?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

“In the face of crises, people keep saying, ‘What can we do, what can we do, what can we do?’ And I keep saying, the real target of that question is the person asking it. He’s asking himself. I’m not demeaning solutions and staunch groups that are already out there. But I’m saying that the individual, by tapping into his own imagination, is a further solution. Imagination is the ultimate wild card. There are many answers and solutions and actions that haven’t been dreamed up yet. To ignore this fact, to remain out of touch with one’s own imagination is the worst possible idea.” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

Hi again, folks. This is your friendly reality salesman, back for another reminder.

In my last message, I mentioned that all the inhabitants of Earth are due for a booster shot of our massively popular Perception Package. These updates occur every 20,000 years.

Our superior product gives you stability, reliability, and a basic foundation of unchanging reality.

Last time, I also mentioned that imagination was the fly in the ointment. Don’t venture into that area; if you do, your Perception Package will deteriorate and lose force.

You may even begin to see “other spaces and times,” and what good is that? No, stick with what you’ve bought, and you’ll remain happy.

Limits make lives. You can fiddle and diddle and experiment within the boundaries of the Package. You can put your faith in all sorts of fairy tales. But in the end, it is your perception along a severely restricted arc of the potential spectrum that gives you comfort and security.

Think of our Package as a gated community, where all your needs are met on-site. Why venture out? Why visit strange places? You’re safe right where you are.

I want to make a clarification re our Information Brochure 405-A2, which, as you know, goes out to all 10 billion subscribers on Earth. A statement on page 567, paragraph 4, has caused a bit of confusion. It reads:

“On other worlds, the inhabitants may perceive space and time differently, but that is because their environments and circumstances vary…”

We received a number of queries about how the perception of space and time could possibly differ from world to world. For example, one person asked, “Are not space and time the same in all places and times?”

The answer is: space and time are functions of perception. Otherwise, why would be selling a Perception Package?

Yes, other experiences of space/time are possible. But for you, the result of treading beyond the Package we have provided is disorientation and danger.

We have calculated “how far you can go.” That is our genius. Trust us. You don’t want to test the limits.

Exit From the Matrix

At this time, we are working closely with Earth governments to identify and rescue those who have strayed. Those souls need help, and we are determined to bring them back into the fold.

Life as it exists for you is a series of systems, nothing more. Our Package integrates with these systems. It’s a perfect fit.

DON’T EXPERIMENT WITH THE PACKAGE.

Doing so is symptomatic of a serious disorder.

Our repair and re-ed groups are currently expanding their reach across the planet. Contact us if you sense a problem. Report others who may be in trouble.

How you see reality=our Perception Package=a constant faithful friend and guide.

We are more than a manufacturing and sales organization. We are dedicated to the Good of All.

That dedication keeps us strong in the face of any disruption in service.

Our trained technicians are available 24/7 to take your calls and initiate program reconfigurations.

Remember our first principle: Perception makes the world go ‘round.

Signing off for now. Enjoy today. No matter what may befall you, you’re operating at the optimum level, all things considered. Accept things as they are. This is true enlightenment. We should know; we invented it.

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 OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The Reality salesman makes a house call

The Reality salesman makes a house call

by Jon Rappoport

May 23, 2015

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

…For a moment, a person sees beyond the picture of his own reality. He sees huge open space. He knows he can act on the basis of an inner leverage. He knows he has great power.

And then…

THE REALITY SALESMAN CALLS.

Step up, folks. This is a deal you can’t afford to miss. You know that thing you cling to like a drowning man in a turbulent sea?

It’s called reality, and I represent the company that manufactures it. I’m proud to say I’ve held this job for over a hundred thousand years. So as far as product knowledge is concerned, you just aren’t going to find anybody like me.

I’m here to tell you that reality is never anything more than rocks and bricks and concrete and steel. Reality is never anything more than a house and all the things in it, and the mementos you hold on to, to remind you of the past.

And in conjunction with that, I’m really selling…guess what?

A little thing called perception.

I’m selling How You See Things.

Because, no matter what time period you live in, it all comes down to that: how you see what’s in front of you.

And believe it or not, perception comes in different forms. My company makes the perception that endures. It’s the package you’re living with right now. It’s the down-to-earth here-it-is straight-ahead common-sense type. We call it: IT IS WHAT IT IS. That’s trademarked, by the way. ISWII. It is what it is.

ISWII was invented by a very smart guy whose name has been long forgotten. He was a flaming genius, and he realized something great. People would go for ISWII because it would lock them in.

Who wants to wake up on a Tuesday morning and suddenly see life in a completely different way?

ISWII is the most popular perception package in the universe, bar none. It has Reliability. Consistency.

All those centuries and epochs ago, when I was a rookie training for this job, the guys let me try on a whole bunch of different perception packages, so I could see what kind of competition I was up against.

I saw foolish things, ridiculous things. But when I was given ISWII, our product, I felt like I was home.

ISWII gives you a stability you can count on for your whole life. And, believe me, that’s no small feat.

ISWII is time-tested. It’s as solid as solid can be. It doesn’t break down.

But it does need vaccine boosters from time to time, and that’s why I’m here today talking to you.

Every twenty thousand years, we institute a planet-wide upgrade, just to make sure nothing goes wrong. And you’re all due.

Now, you could refuse, in which case you’ll have to take full responsibility for the ugly consequences, or you could do the right thing and just re-up. I have to tell you, our re-up rate is 99.859 percent. I’m proud of that figure.

Exit From the Matrix

In the small print, the contract lays out a few details concerning IMAGINATION. This is for your own protection—because if you take imagination too far (and who knows how far that is, until it’s too late), you’ll set up what we call an interference field, which means ISWII will tend to malfunction. You don’t want that.

So here’s the contract. Sign on the dotted line, and we’re done.

Thank you very much.

I love you guys. Really, I do. I admire your tenacity and your willingness to stay with our package. Our company continues to prosper because of you.

THE PLEDGE: “I promise not to mess with the perception package. If I believe someone is operating outside the boundaries of the package, I will shun him. I will turn him in to the authorities. If I myself stray, I will confess and receive treatment. All hail to the ISWII perception package!”

The reality salesman knows what he’s doing. He makes a very good living. Secretly, he knows our perception of our own lives and futures is grossly limited by his product, just as our eyes can only see part of the light spectrum. He is aware of this.

He’s selling limitation.

It’s a winner.

Unless you happen to be part of the 1%. No, I don’t mean the super-wealthy class. I mean the 1% of the population who doesn’t want limitation of perception. I mean the people who want to see beyond the virtual bubble they live in.

The creators, the artists, the inventors, the explorers, who don’t sign on the dotted line when the reality salesman makes a house call.

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.

Rappoport interviews a dead Albert Einstein

The invention of robot humans

Free will vs. determinism

by Jon Rappoport

May 13, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

I love it when people tell me philosophy isn’t important. It makes me feel like a shark in a pool of farmed fish.

I’ll put this simply. If a person doesn’t think having his own philosophic stance is important, then he should consider that other people have philosophies, and they are bent on creating reality FOR him…and in doing so, they use that philosophy “thingo” he doesn’t think matters at all.

And one of the great philosophic issues—it flies under the radar—is free will versus determinism. Determinism means: events and lives and reality itself are a parade of happenings entirely devoid of choice. No freedom.

In labs all over the world, brain researchers are pushing this notion, believing that someday they will be able to control the brain to an absolute degree. For them, you see, it really doesn’t matter what they do to that organ in our skulls and how that will affect the global population…because they’re sure people were never free to begin with.

Get it? So nothing much is riding on the question of free will vs. determinism except the future of the human race.

In the next 50, 100 years, will we see billions of fully-programmed, “new-brain” human androids everywhere, or will freedom survive?

Armed with a philosophy of determinism, researchers will try to install whatever programming they want to, “for the good of all.” And they won’t feel even a twitch of guilt.

I was searching through a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview with Albert Einstein. I found an interesting quote:

“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.”

I’m always shocked but not surprised when I come across statements like this from scientists.

I guess after Einstein escaped from the Nazis in 1933, he eventually came to America because our brand of no-free-will just happened to be better. Or something.

So I decided to pull Einstein back from the past and engage him in conversation.

Every time I do one of these interviews with dead people, somebody thinks it’s real. I don’t know why. So again, for clarification, this is fiction. However, sometimes fiction makes a point more clearly.

Does free will exist?

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

A (Einstein): 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: Certainly.

Q: Regardless of location.

A: Correct.

Q: So, for example, if we analyze the brain into its constituent elements, we find those same tiny particles, which are no different in kind from other sub-atomic particles anywhere in the universe.

A: That’s true. Actually, everything inside the human body is composed 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 avoid that conclusion.

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 or what some would call the mind 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 and what your answer will be…even that act of considering is mandated by the motion of sub-atomic particles in the brain. What appears to be you deciding how to give me an answer…that is a delusion.

A: The act of considering is not done freely with a range of possible choices. I know that sounds harsh. It may be hard to swallow. But there is no free will.

Q: The notion of considering is, you might say, a cultural or social delusion.

A: I guess that’s so, yes.

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 the products of 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.

Q: And we are in that flow.

A: Most certainly we are.

Q: But the earnestness with which we try to settle the issue of free will versus determinism, the application of feeling and thought and striving—all 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. Yes.

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

A: Of course not.

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: That’s hard to say.

Q: Is imagination made up of the same tiny particles that inhabit the whole universe?

A: That’s an odd idea.

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

A: I see. 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.

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

A: No they don’t. They just are.

Q: And does “they just are” include understanding?

A: No.

Q: Then, 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? Is it just an automatic reflex, a delusion, as “being conscious” is a delusion, as “understanding” is a delusion?

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. There would nowhere for it to come from. Unless particles understand. Do they?

A: No.

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

A: They are facts.

Q: Based on what?

A: …I don’t know.

Q: 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? We are not truly conscious, we are making sounds, we are “going back and forth,” the outcome is not within our choice, and we don’t understand what we are saying to each other. Again, there is no room for understanding in your universe.

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: What would that be?

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

A: It would have to be.

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.

A: But that would open the door to all the religions that have fought with each for centuries.

Q: Why? Does “non-material” of necessity translate into “religion?”

A: Well, no, I suppose not. But non-material consciousness would certainly be a mystery.

Q: Is that acceptable?

A: The mystery?

Q: As we sit here talking, I understand you. Do you understand me?

A: Of course.

Q: Then that is coming from something other than particles in motion. And freedom would be another quality, a non-material quality that exceeds the “grasp” of particles in motion. In fact, without these non-material qualities, you and I would be gibbering and pretending to understand each other. And both the gibber and the pretense would be no more important than a rock developing a trace of fungus after a thousand years.

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

Q: Yes. That’s what I’m saying.

A: Well…

Q: There are many people who would say this conversation is terribly old-fashioned and outmoded—and much newer concepts on the frontier of exploration have relegated what we are talking about to the dustbin of a bygone era.

A: Yes. But I could also say the notion of solid objects is passe, because we know nothing is actually solid. However, as long as I can stub my toe on a rock and break the toe, the notion of solidity is still relevant.

Q: So you believe what we’ve been discussing here is significant.

A: I do.

Q: And you admit your view of determinism and particles in motion—this picture of the universe—leads to several absurdities.

A: I’m forced to. Otherwise, this very conversation is absurd to a degree I can’t fathom.

Q: You and I understand each other. What we are saying has meaning.

A: I had not thought it through all the way before, but if there is nothing inherent in particles and their processes that gives rise to understanding and meaning, then everything, and I mean everything, is gibberish. Except it isn’t gibberish. I see the contradiction. The absurdity.

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

A: For example, freedom. Yes.

Q: And the drive to eliminate freedom in the world…is more than just the unimportant pre-determined attempt to substitute one delusion for another, one reflex for another.

A: That would be…yes, that’s 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. There is a reason for this impulse. Scientists, for example, would be absolutely furious about the idea that, despite all their maneuvering and discovering in the physical and material realm, 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 their power. You know, I don’t like leaving this mystery hanging in the air.

Q: Which mystery is that?

A: We’ve come to agree that basic qualities of human life—meaning, understanding, consciousness, freedom—would have to be non-material. But where does that leave us? “Where” is the non-materiality?

Q: It’s certainly not going to be in the physical universe. By definition, that would be impossible.

A: I know. I can see that.

Q: Let me suggest that your capacity to understand, your ability to comprehend meaning, your freedom, your consciousness, are wherever YOU ARE.

A: I’ll have to think about that.

Q: I could say, “Well, you see, throughout the universe there are other levels of energy, and they aren’t based on atomic or sub-atomic particles. These other energies are ‘spiritual,’ they are most certainly conscious, and they impart to us our capacity to understand, to comprehend meaning, to have freedom, to imagine, and so on. This other energy is part of our very consciousness, or our consciousness is an aspect of this other energy.”

A: You could say that, yes. But that’s just a convoluted way of asserting that consciousness, meaning, understanding, freedom, ad imagination are beyond the realm of physical causation. It’s a hypothesis that doesn’t open the door to actual research, to science. To me, it’s just a kind of passive, permissive religion.

Q: Not only that, it tends to allow the idea that freedom, free choice are not really our own, and therefore, we don’t have to pay any price for the choices we make. We can become passive and quietly pass the buck to “the universe.” I’ve seen that outcome in many people who take this “cosmic view” of energy.

A: I wouldn’t like that at all. If we’re going to let freedom in the door, then we need to act on it in a dynamic way, and also accept the results of the free choices we make.

—end of interview—

Exit From the Matrix

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

Einstein disappeared in a puff of wind, and I saw a note he left on my kitchen table. I went over to it and read it:

“If everything in the universe is composed of sub-atomic particles, including us, then this conversation and its outcome are HG^&&%DSE^. Gibberish. If there truly is freedom, consciousness, meaning, and understanding, then each one of us is, at the root, a non-material being.”

I put the note down.

Finally, consider that, for a non-material being operating with a physical form called the body, perhaps his most valuable adjunct, aid, and “assistant” in that partnership is the brain.

Scientists and elite planners believe the brain can be programmed and reprogrammed and surgically altered at will, because freedom has never existed.

They believe they’re simply changing the specifications of a robot, an android.

Actually, they’re interrupting and changing a vital link between the non-material and free and conscious YOU and your brain, in order to make your potential actions simpler and less capable.

The result would be a civilization of androids.

Which says a great deal about the importance of that rejected item called philosophy.

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.