The psychological crossroad of an unhappy life

by Jon Rappoport

May 3, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

There is a point at which a life becomes unsatisfying. Regardless of the reasons, a person begins to place too much emphasis on:

what already exists;

and what he believes.

That may sound like a strange thing to say.

There is nothing automatically wrong with what exists or with what he believes, but the key term here is “too much emphasis.”

A person makes a castle and fortress out of what was once flowing, energetic, and alive.

This is one of those unfair facts of existence, because it would seem, on cursory examination, that to believe what is good, right, and true should be tethered down with the strongest possible ropes. It should be permanently imprinted in the mind, engraved deeply.

But then something happens. The beliefs lose their dynamism. They sit there. They turn into dead stars.

The person, from that point on, can speak and act from these beliefs, but his actions and words take on a mechanical hue. He becomes a one-trick pony. The people around him know how he is going to respond. They know what he’s going to say.

He himself knows what he’s going to say.

His life now resembles a machine.

To one degree or another, everyone can fall into this trap. The sap of life becomes sour.

“Whatever already exists,” rather than “what could possibly be” takes center stage.

And, another irony: what already exists could be the most cogent position in the world, yet it returns no psychological or spiritual dividends.

What happened? How did things come to this?

The classic case, because it is so visible, is the artist who winds up repeating the same themes again and again in his work, the force of them deadening as he grows more “mature.”

But we could be talking about anyone.

The person becomes bored with himself. And then, he thinks, he has nowhere to go. It’s time for old age.

That old age can come at 30, at 50, at 70. It doesn’t matter when. The door seems to close. The walls are permanently set.

Wisdom, intellectual prowess, success, insight, strength no longer seem to matter. Being correct and right about the most important things has worn out like old shoes.

A person can tout his own beliefs to the rooftops, but it has no effect, no salutary effect on himself.

The search for what is deeply true and what beliefs are most important has succeeded, but the result is ashes.

What I’m describing here is a central aspect of the Matrix, an aspect most people would rather not consider.

They would prefer to say, “Nothing’s wrong,” and simply turn up the decibel count on their all-too-familiar assertions, which by now have taken on the coloration of slogans.

And there are millions of so-called professionals who are ready to jump into the breach and analyze this existential situation as a collection of symptoms which refer to some pseudo-disorder.

Yet there is help. There has always been help. It waits on the sidelines, and if the call comes, everything transforms. The person mired in his own stagnant juices doesn’t have to consciously change a thing about his beliefs. He doesn’t have to try to manipulate his mind or reorganize its contents.

This help, which is waiting for the call to action, doesn’t function on the basis of what already exists. It never has. That’s why it has been rejected. It doesn’t seem to be practical. It doesn’t seem to be the drill that can bore a hole in the lock of the door and let the prisoner out of his cell.

This help isn’t “true” or “right” or “correct.” It isn’t “harmonious” or “perfect.”

It’s oceanic.

It is the imagination.

Imagination is the buried key that unlocks the door that exits from the Matrix. EXIT FROM THE MATRIX contains exercises and techniques aimed at expanding the power, range, and scope of the imagination—along with very simple instructions on how to use these exercises. This collection also contains a presentation of the vital philosophy that underpins the limitless power of the individual. This is more than theory. It’s a guide to exiting from the Matrix.

Consigned as a mere toy for children, a distraction, a useless appendage for adults, a minor preoccupation, it is actually the faculty that surpasses what already exists in any dimension.

It doesn’t rely on the past. It doesn’t operate as a system. It doesn’t make calculations in accounting books. It isn’t a pattern.

It’s free.

Imagination wakes up the psyche. It wakes up the cells of the body. It invents the space of an open future. It sweeps the deck clean of morbid boredom. It solves problems in unforeseen ways. It moves out ahead of problems and creates new avenues along which old conflicts dissolve.

Imagination can be deployed to express deep beliefs and make them impact the world. It brings those beliefs back to life. It develops ingenious strategies to forward plans that were dying on the vine.

Imagination changes what already exists for the better. It can leap ahead of reality and build futures that shatter moribund consensus.

Imagination awakens abilities beyond the five senses and beyond structured consciousness.

When a life turns sour, stolid, and old, imagination injects the fire of youth.

Imagination says, “It’s never too late.”

“Late” turns out to be a faulty proposition that was omitting the most powerful force in the individual.

Imagination resides in the individual, not the collective. A life and a world founded on the collective is actually a covert operation to induce amnesia about the imagination.

The individual can choose to move forward by embodying patterns of the past, or he can step on to an entirely different path.

The universe is waiting for imagination to revolutionize it down to its core.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Consensus shredded; major media up against the wall

Apr25

Consensus shredded; major media up against the wall

by Jon Rappoport

April 24, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Television news is shriveling. And it’s under attack from a new breed. You can call them counter-programmers, video freaks, whatever.

But they’re winning.

Every dollar and inch of technology the networks employ move toward an irrefutable image on the screen. “Here it is. Look.”

And counter-programmers say, “Look again. See those guys in the yellow jackets standing right near the bomb when it goes off? They don’t move at all. They’re fine.”

There is something very powerful in that response, because people are addicted to images. When the image you’re watching blows up, because somebody forces you to see something new, you start to wake up and effect a cure, even if you don’t want to.

Image-addiction is sacred to people.

No one goes to the movies and comes out saying, “You know, images don’t really add up to anything. It’s a waste of time.”

No one walks into the Sistine Chapel, looks at Michelangelo’s ceiling, and says, “Why did they bother? They could have just written down a message to explain what the ceiling means.”

No one asks, “Why did they have the president sit there in the Oval Office and address the nation? He could have written a statement or talked on radio.”

Image.

Unbeatable.

So when major media cover a monster of the story, on television, they’re producing images by the ton, day after day, and the anchors are telling us what they add up to, and most viewers soak it all in and accept the force of it as irresistible truth.

If television presents Aurora, Sandy Hook, Boston, and if it pours thousands of impact images at us and tells us what they mean, what are the chances television will, upon learning new facts, reverse course?

What are the odds?

Virtually zero.

Of course, the networks are unwilling to admit mistakes or lies. But at another level, this is television’s unwillingness to injure the medium itself and what it does.

“We showed you all those images and we burned them into your brains, to program you, and now we’re going to say that was an illusion?”

Never happens.

The people who own and run television never turn around, on a huge story, and endanger their medium by admitting that the images were deceptions. Because they’re drug dealers, and their drug is Image.

If the Constitution were written today, people would want to watch it being done, in the room in Philadelphia. They’d want to watch the men at work. They’d want to make up their minds about the Constitution as they would any other television show.

“Well, today, amid long-winded arguments about the proposed Bill of Rights, audience share dropped eight points.”

Why does Obama take the Sandy Hook parents around with him, as he promotes his gun agenda? So audiences can hear them speak? So audiences can see them speak.

Why do the networks lay on those interminable news-talk programs, with hosts and guests? Why don’t they consign them to radio? Because people want to see the participants talk.

Image.

“Here, let’s sit down and watch these six people talk. Let’s see what they look like when they talk.”

“I love watching Chris Matthews talk.”

Now, when a person gets on (Internet) TV and blows up major media and exposes it and tears it from stem to stern, that’s different. That’s counter-programming. People start to come out of a dream-state and realize they’re finally watching something they’ve been longing for:

“Here’s a television image. See it? It’s a lie. It’s not what you think it is. Let’s do this in slow motion, one frame at a time. Look at the corner over there. Do you see the yellow glare suddenly appearing at the top of the screen? Just beyond the plume of smoke? At the top left? That yellow glare isn’t connected to the burning fertilizer factory in the center of the screen. It’s separate! It’s coming in from the left. And then, less than a second later, the whole building explodes! See it? So what was that glare at the top left? Think about it. Consider the possibilities. For example, the burning building wouldn’t have blown up all on its own…something came in from the left and blew it up…”

Taking an image apart.

It’s the beginning of the end of television.

And that’s exactly what’s happening now, 24/7, wherever videos are posted on the Net. The assault is well underway.

“Look at that gas mask on the ground behind the Aurora theater. Who does it belong to? Was a second shooter wearing it? And there on the pavement, is that a trail of blood leading into the theater?”

Don’t worry about the fact that some of these counter-programmers are making mistakes or unwarranted leaps of judgment. The overall force is taking down television.

Impaling it on its own sword: image.

Television desperately needs events like Aurora, Sandy Hook, and Boston. When the big tragedies hit, and the elite anchors go on the road and show up in the towns where the blood is spilling and the people are in a state of extreme shock, the television audience at home gets another deep injection of mass mind control, through image-insertion.

But now, within days, even hours, counter-programmers are striking back, by playing network broadcast footage and pointing out flaws and contradictions and mistakes and deceptions, and posting these findings.

“You thought image was the end-all and be-all. All right, look at this!”

Crash a picture, take it apart, re-explain it, and you make people think.

This is the formula that’s burying television.

It’s exactly what surrealists did a hundred years ago. Max Ernst, Andre Breton, Alfred Jarry, Dali. But today, it’s happening to the news, to television. Right now. Story by story. For all to see.

Among many other reasons, this is why we’re witnessing the effort to censor and control the Internet. The news networks want to assert a propriety of copyright on their footage and punish those who use it against them.

Backed by billions of dollars, Brian Williams and Scott Pelley and Diane Sawyer say this and show that, and one guy in Ohio says NO and I’LL PROVE IT TO YOU WITH YOUR OWN IMAGES.

The hounds are loose.

These hounds are sitting in rooms making the networks and the greatest law-enforcement agencies in the world look like cheap hawkers at carnivals.

Frame by frame.

Umberto Eco, in 1979, wrote: “A democratic civilization will save itself only if it makes the language of the image into a stimulus for critical reflection—not an invitation for hypnosis.”

No, Umberto, there was never any chance of that happening. Not as an official program of the culture. Instead, we have a new breed now. And they’re buzzsawing those images, splitting them open.

Big newspapers have so-called television critics who size up shows and comment on them. The Internet has television critics who magnify news footage and point to what nobody saw in it.

“Watch this Sandy Hook father who just lost his child come to the podium to speak. Watch. See him smiling and laughing? Watch it again. Here it is. What do you make of that? Keep looking. See him get into character all of a sudden? See him make himself grieve right there? Are you kidding? What’s really going on here?”

“See the puff of smoke from the first bomb in Boston? It goes straight up. Not out into the street. See those people near the explosion? Do they look bothered by it in any way? They’re just standing there.”

These counter-programmers are cracking people’s junk-image-addiction by showing them a “higher order” of those images.

Remember Wag the Dog, that splendid movie about inventing a fictitious war in order to get a president re-elected? The president had to have a war. He was sagging in the polls. So the war was put on television.

But there’s another layer to the story. Television needed the fake war, too. It always needs staged events. Without them it would shrivel and die.

Except the events have to look exactly like “real life.”

When counter-programmers get busy, they reveal the staging, and the whole business falls to pieces.

“Hooked? Do you feel like you’re going to die if you don’t turn on the TV set? Sign up for our ten-day cure. We’ll turn you into a counter-programmer. We’ll take you through our wake-up course in image analysis, and you’ll come out the other side as a meta-wizard, ready to take on the world of false news.”

To say this is corrosive to network television news is a vast understatement. It’s a Waterloo.

Against the citizen video-analysts, television would have only one solution: stop broadcasting footage.

Here is a fragment from a short story I wrote a few days after the Aurora theater massacre. It illustrates the potential effect of a counter-programmer:

I sat in my private cabin and watched wall screens displaying decks on the slow-moving airship; I understood there were seven levels.

On Deck Three, I saw Mr. R. Smith-Jones, a fifth-generation android, who was occupying two rows. He was propped up on a wheelchair-couch.

He was growling and snarling at a doughy flight attendant turned out in a jeans tuxedo and a sombrero made of balloons and artificial peacock feathers.

Smith-Jones’ infamous three-year case, tried in the Superior Court of Newfoundland New York, had ground to a halt, when Judge Sleepy Shigitz decided Smith-Jones had earned the right to multiple classifications of Life Disabled.

On the screen, Smith-Jones was waving two objects which, to me, looked like cataclysmic salt shakers. They were spewing crystals that emitted smoke when they hit the air. Passengers started coughing.

Then I realized Smith-Jones was holding patterning cylinders he’d pulled from his innards. These cylinders played a major role in what his Alamo designers called Repetitive Accommodation. I knew this because Smith-Jones had pulled the trick a number of times, on each occasion subsequently filing suit for environmental incursion. Once, as porters were pushing him up the Matterhorn in his wheel-chair couch, he’d yanked out the cylinders, asserting the thinning atmosphere was slowing down his speech-recognition faculty; he’d won a major settlement in a Swiss tribunal.

All in all, over the course of a hundred years, Smith-Jones’ lawsuits had earned him more than twenty billion dollars.

Now he was foaming at the mouth and spitting. He doubled over and a siren went off. It was amplified by a speaker in his skull. A security guard appeared with a riot baton and sent a blue fork of electricity into his genitals, quieting him somewhat.

Smith-Jones was the majority stockholder of NBCCBSABC Networks, Inc. As such, he had at his disposal the InZap technology.

He deployed it now.

At horrific high speed, he began broadcasting images of a flaming city and people dying and crackling in the heat. Then, black tanks appeared. Soldiers dressed in combat gear moved in and sprayed streets with chemical retardant from wide hoses.

The flames died. Other soldiers ran down and arrested two fleeing suspects, and the InZAP emitted waves of relief throughout Smith-Jones’ cabin. People wept in their seats.

Smith-Jones said, “Thus we are rescued.”

“Thank God,” one passenger said.

A scruffy boy stood up and aimed his cell at a white wall. Pictures appeared there. “As you can see,” he said, “ people actually fried and died, but over at the far right of the street, a soldier is setting the initial fire. See him? The two suspects they caught later were patsies.”

Everyone looked, and everyone froze.

Smith-Jones said, “You don’t understand. I can take all those images away, as if they’d never existed. I own them.”

“Right,” the boy said. “But then what are you going to put on television? Giraffes? Peaceful streets at night under a warm moon?”

Three days later, I would learn that: reclining in his suite at the Ritz Hotel in Beverly Hills, sketching out yet another cause-for-action, this time for improper Hotel tech support on his (merely decorative) breathing apparatus, Smith-Jones stopped functioning.

He entered a state of paralysis. He shut down. According to Hotel employees, he wore an unchanging expression of sadness.

On his night table, he’d left a note:

“My existence is zero. I seem to be employing an unending string of morons who can’t plan and execute a disaster without exposing themselves.

“It’s a bit ironic that the desecration of IQ I’ve fostered all these years, through the medium I own and control, has also been my undoing. Operatives are now unable to perform. I hire them; they fail me.

“The entire population has brains of oatmeal. Yet, when some nobody points out a fatal flaw in my news stream, they all begin to wake up. How is that possible?

“I could sue and sue and sue and gain all the money in the world, but it appears I’m incapable of placing humans in a trance whereby they forget I’m just a machine, a heartless bastard of a machine.

“And that’s all I ever wanted. To make people think of me as one of their own. But I never will. And now I am Not.”

Jon Rappoport

Obama’s new brain-mapping project is already a Lilliputian disaster

Apr11

Obama’s new brain-mapping project is already a Lilliputian disaster

by Jon Rappoport

April 11, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Why? It’s simple. The scientists don’t know what they’re doing. They have no clear objectives, and the notion of building an accurate picture of a few trillion neurons in action is as far from reality as a flea painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

The utopian technocrats, who’ve been predicting that, by the middle of this century, they will create an artificial brain that outstrips the one inside the skull, are suddenly on vacation. They’re mumbling and backing away.

It’s the old put up or shut up. They’re shutting up. They’ve got nothing.

I guess paradise is postponed. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Obama’s Manhattan Project of the brain (known as The BRAIN Initiative (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies, also commonly referred to as the Brain Activity Map Project)), launched in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, is a sop to make suckers think science can stop murders by making accurate predictions based on some monumental, all-encompassing portrait of the mind.

The current debate, sparked by Obama’s launch, centers around “which paradigm” should be utilized in this Magellan voyage through our gray matter. That’s just a cover-up. Nobody has the faintest idea about which approach will work.

Part of the reason? The titanic complexity of brain activity is always changing, moment to moment. So even a perfect snapshot, frozen in time—which scientists have no idea how to execute—means almost nothing in the next split-second. The adage about never stepping the same river twice applies perfectly to the brain.

To illustrate the whirlpool into which scientists are stepping, their sheer incompetence, and their wretched reductionist philosophy, we have only to look at what they’ve done with the concept of a mental disorder.

In past articles, I’ve demonstrated that, of the 297 official mental disorders, none can be tested for. The diagnosis in every case is a fiction.

That is to say, there is no scientific basis for labeling a person with such a condition or prescribing a drug.

I’ve also written extensively on the toxic destruction wrought by the drugs.

Behind all of this, then, what is a mental disorder?

It’s a social construct invented by psychiatrists and their allies to carve up the concepts of mind, brain, behavior, and thought. This construct is primarily inhibiting, which means that a kind of ceiling is created on human experience and consciousness.

“If you go there, or there, or there, or there, you have an illness, a disease, a disorder.”

Control.

“Stay here, don’t go there. This area means you’re all right; that area means you’re not all right.”

But of course, millions of people like the fiction. They like it for various reasons. And they absolutely insist on equating the fact that people suffer, have problems, lose control, can’t fit in, feel pain, are confused, with the idea of mental disorders.

They feel compelled to make that connection. They’ll die making that connection.

These people want to be inside the prison called super-organized society, where “mental disorders” make sense. That’s where they’re comfortable. That’s where they feel they belong. That’s their “area of expertise.” That’s where they know how to maneuver.

Labels make them feel safe. The more labels the better. They enjoy tossing the labels around, as if they’ve attained special technical knowledge that equips them to make important judgments. As if there is any basis for those judgments, when of course there is no basis at all. But delusions can be friends.

The greatest ops in the history of planet Earth have always focused on the mind, because that’s where the action is. That’s where people learn to give in. That’s where people learn how to adjust, perceive, and settle on some basic notion of what reality is all about.

The basic purpose of a psyop is this: “2 plus 2 equals 5, AND that is really saying 2 plus 2 equals 4.” There it is. That’s what a psyop does.

So when Pavlov and Freud began to publish their “findings,” other men who were quite interested in societal control and organization peeped in and realized they had something astonishing on their hands: a false way to educate the masses about the mind itself.

What an enterprise that would be!

“You see, this is what your mind is. This is how it is structured. And there are these disorders, and they help define the mind. They make things clear. Learn about this. Accept it. Live with it. Understand your own mind. Here’s how to do it.”

Just as the Roman Church (the old Roman empire, reorganized to conquer by other means) once took all of history, took key events in history and recast them as mere symbols of underlying metaphysical Church doctrine, thereby cutting off adherents from the richness and vitality of the past, so this 20th-century psyop has distanced people from the free and untrammeled energies of their own minds.

Today’s psychiatrist, the secular priest in a white coat with a medical degree, with 297 mental disorders to play with, and patients lining up for drugs, is the foot soldier in a vast op to train the mind to think about itself in very specific and narrow terms.

Moral and intellectual midgets like Hillary Clinton and a bevy of beautiful celebrities, enlisted as dupes, work the angle of “removing the stigma” from a mental-disorder diagnosis, as if that were a real problem, instead of a down-and-dirty 2am infomercial hustle.

Gone are the days when psychologists and psychiatrists made statements like this:

“The cry for freedom is a sign of suppression. It will not cease to ring as long as man feels himself captive. As diverse as the cries for freedom may be, basically they all express one and the same thing: The intolerability of the rigidity of the organism and of the machine-like institutions which create a sharp conflict with the natural feelings for life.”

(Wilhelm Reich, Work Democracy, 1937)

“Rooting [yourself] in work is crucial to any accomplishment. Rooting in mere enthusiasm will in the long run force illusory measures to keep the fires of empty enthusiasm going. And this makes politics and politicians.”

(Reich, Writings, 1951)

“If the psychic energies of the average mass of people watching a football game or a musical comedy could be diverted into the rational channels of a freedom movement, they would be invincible.”

(Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, 1933)

A terrorist is the product of our education that says that fantasy is not real, that says aesthetics is just for artists, that says soul is only for priests, imagination is trivial or dangerous and for crazies, and that reality, what we must adapt to, is the external world, a world that is dead. A terrorist is a result of this whole long process of wiping out the psyche.”

(James Hillman, psychologist)

Instead, we have this (an opening statement in a recent psychiatric study): “Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) is highly comorbid with alcohol disorders (AUDs) and cannabis dependence. However, the temporal sequencing of these disorders has not been extensively studied to determine whether SAD serves as a specific risk factor for problematic substance use.”

This is the language of the machine, adapted for human use, with the human “under observation” viewed as a machine. It is the language whose basic building blocks are categories of scientifically non-existent disorders. It is a tinker-toy language applied to the mind.

It is to the actual mind and imagination as a junk-heap robot is to Keats or Yeats or Dylan Thomas.

It is a sign of a fool’s errand such as the world has never seen.

Yet, it captivates. People want to learn more, as they might want to learn more about how a dinner table was set in an old English manor; where each fork was placed and what it was for, how the napkins were folded, how many glasses went with each place setting.

People think they are being given a window on the brain.

However, they are being instructed in a reduction of energy, life, and joy with each lesson, with each little foray into mechanistic sophistry.

Psychiatry is the language of bureaucracy. Every sentence sits on a presumption that in turn refers to a department where people bend over work they will transfer to a division which will rearrange it and coordinate it with other incoming streams of senseless calculation.

“Yes, well, we thought that disorder A preceded B 37% of the time, but we were mistaken. A more accurate figure would be 41%, and even then we have to take into account the overlapping symptoms of disorder C…”

Not only is psychiatry a grand op, it’s also a phenomenon arising from the fact that people want to submerge and bury their discontents, which they see no way to explore. In this sense, psychiatry and psychology become theater. The participants take on roles based on the premise that there is no way out. No way out of being a dutiful citizen inside a highly organized prison of social and political choices.

Be a person with a disorder. Be a person who can express emotion within the context of “having problems.”

In the middle of writing this, I went into the living room and turned on the TV set. I saw a close-up of a woman crying on the Dr. Phil show. I have no idea what she was crying about, but I did see, quite clearly, that she was having the time of her life, the only time of her life. She was digging her hole deeper, because it was something to do. It was something far better than the routine of a day spent distracting herself from a mysterious X she knew nothing about and wouldn’t dare inhabit.

That X is boredom of the soul. It can extend light years in every direction, because it has nothing to do with society. Society becomes the occasion, the means to express boredom.

“Show me a place where the people always follow the rules and the customs and I will go there, because then I can reveal how exhausted I am.”

This is a grand tradition. It is even expressed in the ancient Greek myths. Behind all the power and action and rage and lust of the Olympian gods, those great myths invented by the Greek poets, there was the unmistakable scent of weariness. The immortals had nothing better to do than interfere with the humans below. The gods would invent the slightest infraction they could interpret as a slight, deserving punishment.

He wandered through the forest and by accident came upon me when I was naked, so I turned him into a stag.”

Psychiatry and its allied therapies feed on boredom. They stretch it and twist it and cut it and label it. They may say that, indeed, they are concerned with the soul, but it is a lie. They are dealing with a synthetic imitation, fabricated within the structure of a dwindling civilization cut off from its vital energies.

People who choose to live inside that structure are emotionally bored, cosmically bored, universally bored, psychically bored. .

The breakout of the individual, the Soul, is not going to be accomplished through the help of a university-trained acolyte with an advanced degree.

Instead, inside the ever-more structured rules-and-regulations civilization, progress is defined within the space of a freeze-dried concentrate, a commercial package, a mechanical artifact that is never you, never me, never any of us, but only seems to be.

Under the terms of the implied contract, the professional expert says to the patient: give me a you that isn’t you and I can help him; give me a cartoon of yourself and I will cure it.

And the patient says: here it is; go to work on it; just don’t touch the real center of the storm, my psyche; don’t set sail for that place and neither will I; we both know that land is beyond any adjustments you or I, as representatives of this shrunken society, can engineer.

It’s not quite like the myth of the knights of old, crossing the threshold into the Mystery, where life itself takes on larger meaning, and great spontaneous creation rises in the unending sky every morning.

It’s not anything like that. It’s not meant to be. It’s meant to be a virtual fraud that operates on a shrunken desiccated version of ourselves.

It’s meant to be a scientific expedition to catch life in a net and pin it to a board.

It’s meant to be a potion we drink, whereby we shrivel to tiny dimensions, and then discover everything looks bizarre, precisely because we’ve reduced ourselves. And then we need help. Then we need experts.

Then we need a brain-mapping project, a preposterous babble of assurance that our experience is comprehensible and curable.

Of course, the real cure is finding a way to attain our actual size, which is without boundaries. Then and only then do we begin to see our lives. Then we see the skies beyond the cartoon sky. Then we see the great adventure. Then we feel the cosmic boredom of the soul disintegrate. Then we feel Freedom, not freedom. Then we shrug off these fools and operators who are trying to enthrall us with their yak-yak-yak sewing machines of false knowledge.

Jon Rappoport

It was nice knowing you, America

Apr5

It was nice knowing you, America

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

There are now an astonishing 90 million people absent from the US labor force.

NPR reports: “Every month, 14 million Americans get a disability check from the government.”

“In Hale County, Alabama, nearly 1 in 4 working-age adults is on disability.”

As of December 2012, 47 million Americans were on food stamps. The USDA assesses the annual cost of the program at $71.8 billion.

Separate from food stamps, and apparently not including other members of a household where at least one person is receiving government payments, we have 4.3 million Americans on welfare.

Medicaid, the government medical-care program for the poor, lists 50.1 million people enrolled in 2011. If you include Americans who were on Medicaid for at least one month in that year, the number swells to 70.4 million. As a result of Obamacare, the US Dept. of Health and Human Services predicts 20 million new people will be added to Medicaid in 2019.

Forbes Magazine states the annual cost of healthcare in the US is $2 trillion. And yet, concealed from the public, this money is used to wreak incredible destruction on the people.

In 2001, a landmark article in the LA Times, written by Linda Marsa, reported that 100,000 Americans are killed by FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs every year, and 2.1 million more people are hospitalized as a result of adverse reactions to the medical drugs. In all, there are 22 million significant adverse reactions each year in the US.

The Times article was based, in part, on a July 26, 2000, review by Dr. Barbara Starfield, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield stated that the American medical system kills 225,000 people a year, or 2.25 million people per decade. Of these, slightly less than half are killed by FDA-approved medicines, and the rest meet their deaths as a result of malpractice and errors committed in hospitals.

Of course, there are also the untold numbers of Americans exposed to GMO crops, fluorides, and toxic pesticides.

And then there is the number of people US troops have killed and maimed in recent foreign wars. Economic sanctions alone, between the two Iraq wars, killed 500,000 Iraqi children.

How did this culture of death and disability take over?

Could one possibly attribute the great change to a deterioration of principle? And its replacement with a sheer intent to conquer, sell, consume, profit, gorge, and cheat no matter what the outcome?

Given the fact that more and more Americans don’t even know what a principle is, it’s obvious that a deterioration has occurred.

Forget the idea of help from central government. It continues to rot as it expands. It enables spokespersons who wouldn’t be able to wake up in the morning if they didn’t have at least a dozen lies to tell during the coming day.

The commander-in-chief of lies is the president. Bush, Obama, it makes no difference. Lies, obfuscations, omissions, pretenses, excuses, cover stories. They’re a president’s stock in trade. Some presidents lie more convincingly than others.

It’s exactly what you would expect from any major corporate CEO. The federal government is basically a self-generating bank with an army.

A public official is a person who a) cultivates a corrupt objective and then b) drapes it in false Caring. Heaven slowly reveals itself as Hell.

A public official is a fragment of scum seeking to join a larger lake of scum.

A public official attempts to earn entrance to a circle of people far more corrupt than he ever dreamed he could be.

Media anchors are barnacles on public officials.

Viewer-adherents to the nightly news are androids who, as they sit mute before their screens, experience a weak electric signal they interpret as satisfaction.

Sensorily, telepathically, intellectually, the androids transit to their young the value of these signals.

The official apparatus of information merges with the human nervous system to illuminate a desolate cartoon that plays over and over and produces movements in ligaments, tendons, and muscles called “life.”.

From brain to brain and mind to mind, without sound or word, the affirmation of an existence empty of principle is transmitted at a speed beyond that of light.

The collective consciousness anticipates the next hyper-sentimental tragedy in the circus maximus.

Technocrats are busy designing a machine-brain that will mimic all these reflections, and this machine will be called utopia.

With eyes averted, the populace studiously ignores the figure standing in the wings:

The individual. The awake individual.

The alive and intensely creative individual, who is free.

The individual who refuses to join the crippled parade.

Why would he join it? For the barely traceable comfort of a wan washed-out hope?

The principle of the free and powerful individual was once a barrier against the assault of the government-corporate State. It was a reminder that we could live beyond the shadow of collectivist destruction emblazoned in the statistics I cited above.

The principle offered the promise that groups of such free individuals, without compromise, could band together and embody achievement, strength, and independence from entrenched authority.

But an intense psychological operation was underway and has continued to this day. Its essence is: the collective is everything, the hive is everything, the individual is nothing, the individual is the cause of all our trouble.

Turning the truth upside down and deserting the principle of the individual has done as much harm to the house of this nation as any bomb could. More actually, because of the effect on the mind and spirit.

The answer to this massive crime and its effects has to begin with a renaissance of the individual, no matter how distant the prospects of success may seem.

Waking up isn’t a group phenomenon. The building block is the single human being. The layers and webs and networks of collectivist illusion have to be wiped away from his eyes.

The Group as the basis for all life is the lie that has gotten us this far down the road to perdition. It is the image promoted by the psyop. It is the false dream that has been used and twisted to push an agenda of endless Need which must be fed from Above.

From the earliest days of history on this planet, top-down authority, aided and abetted by a privileged priest or intellectual class, has monopolized power by defining the population as a mass and a group, and that formula has been assiduously followed in every society and civilization.

It is being followed now, to squelch the consciousness of the individual, and demote that from a cardinal principle to an “outmoded and primitive evolutionary dead-end.”

The results, in this country, are there for anyone to see.

So is the solution.

Life, power, and consciousness begin with the individual.

We can try to tap dance our way past that, we can make excuses and proclaim theory after theory of disability, we can raise flag after flag on behalf of “group security,” but nothing will change.

We are at the same gate, the same doorway, the same starting point. And in that place, we have a choice. To live with the spirit, energy, and imagination of the free individual, or to enroll in the amorphous collective and shove in all our chips on the future that will bring.

“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.” Tom Paine, December 23, 1776

Jon Rappoport

Chemical warfare against the nation right under our noses

Apr2

Chemical warfare against the nation right under our noses

by Jon Rappoport

April 2, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Thirty years ago, Nancy Reagan launched her version of the war on drugs: “just say no.”

She campaigned on that slogan all over America.

She was lampooned as an idiot.

Now, some researchers estimate that 60% of the Mexican economy would crash if the drug business disappeared there. We have US street gangs operating as retailers for Mexican cartels. We have Mexican cartel soldiers living in suburban homes outside American cities, guarding rooms piled to the ceiling with cash.

US banks are laundering drug money. In Mexico, battling cartels have murdered 50,000 people over the past several years.

We have scores of serious reports from former DEA agents about the collusion of US federal agencies in the drug trade.

Right now, in Chicago, US attorneys are winning delay after delay in the trafficking trial of Jesus Niebla, a Sinaloa cartel lieutenant who was busted in 2009. The issue? Niebla’s lawyers claim the US government granted Sinaloa immunity from prosecution, in return for intell on rival cartels. The government doesn’t want possible evidence of this claim to see the light of day.

The war on drugs was lost a long time ago.

How many lives do you think have been destroyed, how many marriages ruined, how much violence committed, on the basis of booze since 1933, when Prohibition was lifted?

Legalize drugs, don’t legalize them, people find them and buy them and ingest them. They develop physical illnesses. They deteriorate.

The number of lives destroyed by drugs, and the peripheral ripples, continue to increase.

We’re left with: just say yes or just say no. And it isn’t some Sinaloa chief who says it. It’s the user, the person who swallows it or snorts it or shoots it. It always was.

For those people who love citing poverty, abuse, lack of education as the social causes of drug use, the answer is a program to lift up the poor. But despite billions of dollars in aid, over decades, such a program, in the hands of the government, hasn’t shown results. The actual intent to foster dependence on government is the covert purpose of this op.

It may be insensitive and cruel to suggest that the poor have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and revolutionize their own communities, but it is another hard fact of life. The government isn’t going to do it. All previous attempts have ended in disaster. The condition of the poor in this country is worse than it was 30 years ago.

So even at that level of society, “just say no” applies. People who are better off may find this intolerable. They may say we can’t consign the poor to making their own hard decisions. They may say it’s inhuman. They may say Bill Gates can save Detroit with computers in every classroom. They may say anything. But what they’re saying isn’t making any difference.

I fully realize that making no difference doesn’t deter these caring individuals from their idealism. They wear it as a badge of honor, and they don’t give a damn what the results show.

The federal government is fully aware, for example, that drug gangs in inner cities are causing enormous destruction. But are these gangs the targets of any successful program of deterrence or elimination?

On a larger scale, is Mexico going to destroy its drug business? The answer in both cases is no.

People speak of high-level corruption. Of course it exists. Governments and banks profit from drugs. In many ways. You could say banks are leaders in the drug business. You could say they ultimately run it.

But what does that do for the addict, for the chronic user?

The person at the end of the supply line, the user, says yes or no. If you think there is no wisdom in that, you’re surrendering far more than lives destroyed by drugs. You’re advocating the destruction of lives in which the freedom to choose is eliminated by a social construct that, in one way or another, denies such freedom exists.

It’s a hell of a lot harder to affirm freedom in Iraq than it is in Scarsdale or Beverly Hills. But that doesn’t mean we should have invaded Iraq and mangled millions of lives. If we really wanted freedom to exist there, we would have left those people to their own devices. Why? Because you can’t deliver freedom like a steak on a plate to someone else.

They have to take it. And sometimes that means risking life and limb.

My best friend, when I was 20, killed himself on drugs. He could have chosen a different road. He didn’t. It was expected, by his wife and friends, that he would kill himself. Naturally, they wanted him to get healthy and strong instead, but he went another way. They were there to help him, but he didn’t take the help. So they knew he would do himself in.

He was smart enough to know he had a choice. He chose. On some level, everyone is that smart. To keep saying, over and over and over and over, that people can’t choose to stop taking drugs, is a fatal position.

Yes, families help, and yes, friends can help, and yes, there are groups that can help. But the user is the one who decides.

You have to ask yourself this: what culture is better and stronger and safer? The one that regards freedom and choice as primary values, or the one that claims these qualities don’t really exist at all?

So now we come to pharmaceutical drugs, which in the US kill, at minimum, 106,000 people a year. (See Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”)

The CDC has just reported that a staggering 6.4 million American children under the age of 17 have been diagnosed with ADHD. This figure includes one out of five boys of high school age. Every one of these children has, of course, been prescribed Ritalin or Adderall.

This corporate-government juggernaut wants more control than it has now. By legislation, by edict, by regulation, people will no longer be able to refuse medication—that’s its goal. Under Obamacare, the ability to achieve this objective improves.

Patients can be intimidated. They can be told they must obey their doctors if they want to stay in the program. They can be exiled if they’re labeled “resistant” or “non-compliant.”

But as with street drugs, the onus would fall on the user, and he would make the choice. Say yes or no to a drug. Regardless of consequences, the choice is there.

Freedom and choice. This society is moving away from these values like an express train. The ticket to ride is “victim status.” You buy that, you’re on the train.

You keep telling people who live hard lives they have no choice, they’re suffering from social injustice and diseases of addiction, and so forth, and you draw in believers. Whether you’re right or wrong in your assessments of other people’s problems, if you deny choice and freedom, you’re helping to kill hope at the deepest level.

You may like what you’re hearing yourself say, you may believe you’re on the side of the angels, you may feel better, you may be able to argue your position cogently, but you’re in the killing fields with a scythe.

The pundits on television with their careful hair and their bland smiles and their earnest expressions are waving scythes, when they cite all the social and economic reasons people can’t rise up on their own. These social critics are trying to create a culture in which only the powerful criminals survive. They may as well be peddling crack on a street corner.

“We just want to help the less fortunate,” delivered with a goonish thrust, is the same lie it always was. It’s superiority in sheep’s clothing.

The drug dealer sees through that in a second. Put him on television and let him speak uncensored, and very soon you’ll notice a real and inconvenient truth swim to the surface: people make choices.

The dealer knows that. His job is to make those choices as hard as possible. He works that angle all day and all night. If he bothers to listen to the pundits, he celebrates their lies. They’re helping him do business. They’re peddling the psychological equivalent of physical addiction.

Addiction to the idea that there really is no freedom:

“Nobody can say no and nobody can say yes. It’s all up to the machinery turning in the brain. It’s all social and economic. It’s all predetermined.” That’s the big infomercial and the big sales campaign and the big lie.

It’s taken root. The roots are so deep even middle-class kids are trying to figure out how they can qualify as victims with a disability. ADHD is right up there on their list.

The street drug dealer and the doctor are basically operating on the same premise. Use every available strategy to cut off the possibility of choice by the user.

But the eternal fact about freedom is anybody can choose it at any time. No permission required.

If the government really wanted to start solving the problems (including drugs) of inner cities in America, you would see a completely different approach. It would be based on encouraging at least some degree of freedom and strength—which runs counter to government’s aims. Instead of the interminable agency and task force bullshit which is par for the course in poverty programs, you would see, for a millionth of the $$ now being doled out, people participating in building their own homes, growing their own food in vast urban farms, making their own clothes.

But instead, you see funding, funding, funding, drugs, drugs, and drugs, more and more poverty.

You hear generality after generality after generality, about “the moral imperative to help the downtrodden,” dissolve into nothing. No progress, no betterment, only destruction.

It’s a straight con.

Freedom, power, and choice are the only way out.

Take a bombed-out destitute city like Detroit. To the precise degree the residents of Detroit have bought the idea that help and liberation are on the way and they have no power of choice over their own future, they’re paralyzed and doomed. That’s the plain fact. You can try to weasel your way around it and make excuses and say you’re for “a humane answer” and “there is a moral obligation,” but that rides on the wind like dust.

If tomorrow, the people of Detroit said ENOUGH and came out of their homes on to the dangerous streets, whose drug-thugs are keeping them hostage and guaranteeing their long slide into sickness and death; if the people of Detroit took over large swathes of land and started growing food, because food is survival, and if those who had guns stood guard over that land around the clock and protected it as their last refuge against decimation, they could begin to reverse the tide. That is a choice called freedom. It’s a choice called power.

I once interviewed a crack dealer who told me, “I live on that government bullshit.” He was saying the promises and the humanitarian clap-trap and the sentimental musings and oozings were the staple that kept the poor in check, in the middle of nowhere, in a squeeze play. Ripe for drugs.

He was saying the government wants people to be addicted to drugs.

And this is true, all the way from crack to Prozac.

So if the government of the United States hadn’t made a deal to keep Sinaloa, the largest drug cartel in Mexico, out of prison, that would truly be a shock. The Sinaloa is a key element of US government domestic policy.

So is Big Pharma. They are the two pillars of the real structure of government.

This is why, for instance, you can read studies about levels of depression among residents of inner cities. Calling depression in those areas a brain chemical imbalance is like saying a pilot in a plane that’s just dropped a flaming engine into the sea is suffering from Panic Disorder.

The latest “humanitarian” program in these blighted neighborhoods is giving kids Ritalin without even bothering to diagnose ADHD, in order to “level the playing field.” Despite studies that show ADHD drugs do no good and are highly toxic, psychiatrists are feeding these kids cheap speed to “help them in school.”

Street drugs aren’t enough. Pharmaceutical psychotropics have to be introduced.

The best definition of depression is: a person won’t fight his way out of feeling depressed. That also is considered a cruel assessment. Maybe it is, but it’s accurate. It’s accurate in Beverly Hills and the south side of Chicago and the slums of Bombay. It’s accurate in the American midwest where farms have been hit by long droughts and in parts of Ethiopia.

People change their circumstances by choosing to take action and then taking it. Nothing can alter that formula.

Yes, help can arrive, and help can help, but whether it does or doesn’t, people have to pull themselves up. They can do it, or they can refuse to do it. If they refuse, they pay the price.

Relying on government for a solution is dangerous. Waiting for idealists to change government’s mind about helping is very dangerous.

Just ask people in parts of Africa where, like gifts from heaven, doctors arrive with drugs and vaccines. The vaccines push already compromised immune systems over the edge into failure, and the drugs, many of them past expiration date, spoiled from lack of refrigeration, and toxic to begin with, kill and maim.

It’s chemical warfare. It’s chemical warfare on the streets with drugs sold by cartels, and it’s warfare from Big Pharma. The promise is always Relief, but the tightening spiral takes people down into destruction.

Governments are basically selling less freedom and more drugs as an answer, and they’re packaging it as We Care.

For people who really want to lift the poor, here is a piece of advice. Ask yourself, what would really help people become freer, stronger, and more self-reliant? Find answers that actually fit that bill, and then put those answers into action. Don’t wait. Forget the government. Organize on your own, and launch.

Freer, stronger, more self-reliant. Able to choose. Able to say yes or no. Those are qualities that represent a platform from which a life can be lived.

Anytime you see a program based on “we’re going to give you what you need, and then we’re going to do that again and again and again and again,” know you’re looking at an op designed to torpedo the core of what a human being is.

Turn your telescope around. You’ve been looking through the wrong end.

Try reading a history of drug companies like Hoffman La Roche, Sandoz, and Boehringer. Starting in the early years of the 20^th century, they shipped large quantities of heroin and cocaine to the Far East. When necessary, they used falsified records, shell companies, and foreign staging areas to circumvent confiscation and arrest.

Little has changed since the British Opium Wars against China. These days, the PR is much better. So are government connections and support. The main players have better teeth and smile often. It’s still More Drugs, More Human Destruction, More Profits, Less Freedom.

Here’s another factor to contemplate. For corporations listed on The New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ: if the extent to which these companies relied on laundered street-drug cash were known, trading markets across the world would crash in 24 hours.

That tells you two things. Governments aren’t going to fight a real war on drugs, no matter what. And the end user of those drugs, the person who snorts and shoots and swallows them, is funding those corporations and holding up the global trading markets, on his back, as he goes down the tunnel to oblivion, to be replaced by a fresh customer.

So if you think that, somehow, help is on the way to users, rich or poor, and the choice to take or not take drugs is in the hands of people other than the users, think again. And again.

Bill Hicks, one of the truly great comedians of our time, used to say:

“Here’s what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defense each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.”

Yes, we could. And we could repeat what Bill said many times, and still the “we,” which turns out to be the government/corporate nexus, would have no intention of producing Christmas on Earth.

That’s why the burden falls on the end user. The end user of drugs, the end user of intelligence, of hope, of desire, of courage, of whatever he uses and decides to use.

The true cruelty is omitting that factor from the equation, omitting it in what we teach ourselves and those we profess to care about.

Sometimes freedom and choice are easy. Sometimes they’re very hard. But no matter who you are, no matter what your circumstances, no matter where you live, you always choose. You can default that natural right and fact, in which case that was your decision.

Whether we’re talking about street drugs or pharmaceuticals, whether we’re talking about people who live in Beverly Hills or South Central LA, whether we’re talking about Fair or Unfair, the building block is freedom. The individual chooses.

The most basic psyop of our time is the denial of the existence of freedom. And in many ways, life seems to cooperate with that psyop. It seems to say, as it always has, since the beginning of time: you have no freedom, you have no choice, you must give in.

That is the grand illusion.

People say, “That’s not right. Many people simply don’t have the means to make choices. They’re at the bottom of the ladder. They can only climb it with outside help, lots of it.”

I point out, again, that this notion, no matter how well-intentioned, can’t ever replace the individual’s courage to take his freedom in his own hands.

I began this article to expose the obvious but overlooked fact that the population is a target of chemical warfare from drugs. And yes, I know there are still other chemicals involved. Fluorides, chemtrail heavy metals, pesticides. But I wanted to go for the most basic thing. I ended up at freedom, because our society is leaving it behind.

And the stark truth is, when for any reason under the sun, a person denies or gives up his own freedom to choose, he is doomed. He is waiting for the war to end, and it won’t. The quality of help he might or might not receive is always in doubt.

There are thousands and thousands of talk-show hosts and pundits and reporters and academics who, armed with “superior understanding,” are ready to take up the cudgel and beat down any attempt to say people must use their freedom to escape their problems and dire circumstances.

These professional liars earn their bread by making it seem obvious that people can’t be free, they can only function through massive outside help.

Yes, and that help, of course, would come from the precise people and agencies and companies that are waging the all-out chemical war against the populace.

Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

A totalitarian closed circle always does, until you have to live inside it.

Jon Rappoport

The launch of my new collection, Exit From the Matrix

Mar29

The launch of my new collection, Exit From the Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

March 28, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

If you haven’t already read it, you can find the complete description of Exit From the Matrix in my store at nomorefakenews.com.

Readers who’ve been with me for a while know I’ve written a great deal about imagination. This new collection puts together more than 50 exercises and techniques for expanding the scope, range, and power of imagination.

Why? Because it is the quality that outdoes reality. Any kind of reality. Imagination is the infinite road.

It turns out that consciousness wants to create new consciousness, and it can. Imagination is how it does it. If there were some ultimate state of consciousness, imagination would always be able to play another card and take it further.

In any arena of life, and especially when it comes to mind, perception, power, empathy, and so on, there is always a status quo. It’s the place where a person says, “Well, that’s enough. I’ll settle for what I have. I’ll stop here.”

Sooner or later, this leads to boredom, frustration, problems, and conflict. It leads to a decline.

Here are some quotes about imagination I wrote a couple of years ago. They impart the flavor and the sense and great adventure I’m pointing to. What remains are ways of using imagination, and living through and by it and expanding its power and building your own worlds without limit.

That’s what Exit From the Matrix is all about:

Imagination, which knows no bounds, is the fountainhead for the most adventurous explorations. It can have great impact on the material world, of course, but one mustn’t therefore conclude it is composed of matter or energy. Imagination is non-material. To think otherwise can wind you up in using some version of physics to depict imagination—and then you are imposing limits on it. This is an error. Imagination doesn’t obey any laws of physics.

Sooner or later, you will come across people who try to assert that every power is “inherent in the universe.” They will describe such power. They will keep on doing this until they realize that nothing they have discovered begins to explain consciousness or imagination.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we’ve flattered reality enough. It doesn’t need any more.

Imagination can be used to invent a better shade of nail polish or a universe. In a society devoted to nail polish, imagination is not to blame.

You make me a painting of something that never was. I make you a painting of something that never was. The beginning of a true friendship.

To launch, all you need is the imagining of imagination.

You can create the same thing over and over, and eventually you’ll be about as alive as a table. Inject imagination into the mix, and everything suddenly changes. You can steer that boat anywhere you want to. You can steer it into nothing and build worlds.

The lowest common denominator of consensus implies an absence of imagination. Everyone agrees; everyone is bored; everyone is obedient. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are massive floods of unique individual creation, and then that sought-after thing called abundance is as natural as the sun rising in the morning.

Sitting around in a cosmic bus station waiting for reality is what reality is. Everything else is imagination.

There are those who believe life is a museum. You walk through the rooms, find one painting, stroll into it and take up permanent residence. But the museum is endless. If you were a painter, you’d never decide to live inside one of your canvases forever. You’d keep on painting.

Traveling to places one has never seen is far different from creating something that never existed before.

The relentless and obsessive search for all those things on which we can agree is a confession of bankruptcy.

We re-learn to live through and by imagination, and then we enter and invent new space and time. But space and time aren’t superior forces. They come into being at the tap of imagination.

With imagination, one can solve a problem. More importantly, one can skip ahead of the problem and render it null and void.

You can enter imagination as an infinitely fluid medium, or you can give it sharp lines and edges. You can balance left and right, or you can tilt it eighty degrees to the right. You can do anything you want to. You can put a million pink quarks into a bowl or turn the bowl upside down in the sky. It’s Tuesday or it’s Thursday. It’s raining. The sun is out. It helps considerably to have a medium by which to express all this.

When you tap imagination on the head, everything changes in a split second. There is no compelling reason to complain after that.

There are a billion murals on a billion walls, and the person chooses one and falls down before it and devotes himself to it. He spends a thousand years trying to decipher it. So be it. Eventually, he’ll wind his way out of the labyrinth, because where else can he go? Then he’ll enter another labyrinth and undergo the same process. He’ll do this on and on and on, and finally he’ll get the notion that he can imagine his own labyrinth. So he does. He invents many labyrinths. The one day, it’ll occur to him that he can imagine whatever he wants to. It doesn’t have to be labyrinth.

Imagination isn’t a system. It might invent systems, but it is non-material. It’s a capacity. It feels no compulsion to imitate reality. It makes realities. Its scope is limited only by a person’s imagining of how far imagination can go.

The human race is obsessed by the question: what exists? It appears to be a far easier question than: what do you want to imagine? This comparison explains why civilizations decline.

Imagination is a path. Walking on that path long enough, you find answers to all the questions you’ve ever asked. You also find power that people dream of.

Jon Rappoport

The disaster of manufactured consent in the Matrix

Mar15

The disaster of manufacturing consent in the Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

March 15, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

This article may seem to be about abstract theory, but it isn’t. It’s about how populations are viewed by psychological-operations specialists.

More importantly, it’s about how people are led to accept substitutes for their own highest ideals. The substitutes look like the real thing, but they’re actually very well drawn cartoons.

The most successful long-terms psyops are aimed at getting people to accept “good things, wonderful things.” Except, it turns out that these things magically evaporate and leave populations in the lurch.

Imagine for a moment that every crisis we now find ourselves in, every form of pollution and poisoning and every war and every mass destruction of life…was preceded and precipitated by…a psyop that looked like a golden destiny of fulfillment.

Okay. Let’s begin.

At some point, every intelligent human develops their own reality.

This reality isn’t usually a clear, articulated, and overall position. It tends to be a hodge-podge of linked ideas, preferences, feelings, principles, and morals.

Nevertheless, consciously and unconsciously, the person refers to it often, and uses it as a tool with which to navigate through life.

In the Matrix, there is pressure to have people connect their realities to each other. Why? Because groups can thus be created. Groups are easier to compromise than individuals.

We get the concept of hooked ideas. A hooked idea is one which will entice people to merge their realities into One. The hooked idea can be expressed as a slogan, a so-called meme, a principle. It is introduced by people who work psyops.

A psyop is a campaign to herd people into a place where their individual realities overlap.

For the propagandist, there is the eternal search for the good, better, and best hooking idea, the one that will collect the greatest possible number of people under one roof.

This has nothing to do with true progress or honest intent. It has everything to do with control.

Therefore, the actual content and substance and meaning of the hooking idea is irrelevant. A retired propaganda operative once told me, “If I could broadcast a piece of absolute gibberish from one end of the planet to the other, and have it picked up and consented to, I would do it.”

For a psyop specialist, the jackpot is a large group of hooked ideas that, taken together, change the world, and bring a billion or more people’s realities into one overlapping space.

Here is a current ongoing group of such hooked ideas. Before you read them, remember that the aim of such ideas is collecting people under AN IMITATION OF THE REAL THING.

Whatever meaning these hooked ideas have, they are not searching out people to move them into actual individual choices. No, the objective is to rope them under a fake banner that looks real.

“Help others. Help the needy. Raise up the needy. We’re all in this together. Greatest good. Greatest good for the greatest number. Humanity as one. Peace. Let’s all cooperate. The human family…”

This is only a partial list of the group of hooked ideas.

These ideas are transmitted to the global population through every means possible: ads, public service announcements, political speeches, movies, articles, books, the news, television shows of every type, the education system. It’s a blitz, and it doesn’t stop. All the angles are played.

The psyop calculation runs this way: the majority of people who buy in and connect their realities to other people’s realities and achieve overlap—will go passive and accept “the new humane society.” All these people are complete pawns.

The sector of people who buy in and thus share realities, collectively, and then DO something about it…these people will follow a prescribed path. They’ll join the approved groups and campaign for the chosen causes. They’re dupes.

The very small fraction of people who buy into the group of hooked ideas and think of them as genuine and real, and also DO something genuine and real and good about it, will create a manageable amount of disruption to the scheme and the objective—which by the way is a completely collectivist planet. The operative word here is “manageable.”

This same retired propaganda operative, who goes by the pseudonym of Ellis Medavoy (I interview him 28 times in one section of my collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED), explained this “psyop calculation”:

“The target of a terrific psyop is yearning and longing. That’s what I looked for when I was working: what people long and yearn for. Something unformed and undefined but very powerful. That’s what I wanted to tap into.

“If I could tap into that, people would buy in and surrender a significant part of whatever their personal world looks like. Because they want to believe they’re coming together with like-minded others. They’ll also believe the path laid out for them is correct and proper and wonderful. This is really a fake religion we’re talking about.

“A fake religion. It’s really for children, and most people turn out to be children. Give them a group of high-minded ideas, and they’ll grab on and think everything they’ve done up to that moment is a prelude to THIS.

“We [operatives] are playing a symphony, you see, and once they listen to the prelude, they’re hooked. They stay. They long for the climax, which doesn’t exist; not the way they imagine it. To them it’s all about ‘arrival in the promised land,’ as if that’s some kind of gift that’s wrapped up under the tree, waiting to be opened.

“We give them a fake god, a dead-end god. If they were once burning with authentic faith, we derail that and take them to another place…”

In truth, there is no such thing as the sum of all personal realities. That concept is a delusion that is foisted on people.

As I stated at the beginning of this article, each person has their own reality. It may be a hodge-podge, it may be borrowed to some degree, but it IS the reality of the individual. Each person has the opportunity, if he takes it, to expand that reality and make it more profound, on his own terms.

But once he becomes mesmerized by the notion of overlapping his reality with others, he’s in a whole different pew.

Here is another very important distinction: you and I and others could, for example, decide to start a business. We could cooperate in this new enterprise. We could decide on common objectives. We could be inspired to a tremendous degree. But we are still—each of us—carrying along our individual realities. That’s what gives us our core individual strength. That’s what allows us to contribute to the group.

And we’re aware of what we’re doing. We’re choosing to do it.

That’s quite different from falling under the sway of a psyop. That’s quite different from buying into hooked ideas on a emotional level. That’s quite different from accepting the generalized idea of an emotional and spiritual merger of our personal realities.

In the latter case, what is happening is the supreme irony: people are buying the idea that their freedom actually equals their merging.

It is exactly this “merging” that obsessed technocrats are proposing. They see it in terms of humans and machines “coming together.” This is their envisioned promised land. The ability to instantly access trillions of pieces of information and do lightning-speed calculation and organize that information in countless ways is their version of personal revelation.

It’s their fake religion.

Humans and machines as One is, if you examine it, the sacrifice of personal reality.

Of course, technocrats don’t see it that way. But that’s what they’re doing. Information is only one component of personal reality—and they’re blowing that up into a god.

There is a sequence at work here. First, with the development of the computer, people could search and find information. Now, they can have computers anticipate what the desired information is and provide it. Finally, people will be given—quite apart from their desires—the information they require, as adjudicated by experts.

This has less and less to do with personal reality.

Manufactured consent in the Matrix is a bit of a misnomer. Manufactured consent IS the Matrix, at the most profound level.

The heart and soul of THE MATRIX REVEALED are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together. One of those Matrix-insiders is ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades. For more information on how increasing your command of Logic can help you navigate your convictions more clearly, see the FREE article I wrote entitled “Matrix programming 101: destroy logic”.

Whatever a person has as his personal reality is something to build on. You might say it’s the engine by which he can set sail and voyage. And during his personally navigated voyage, he enlarges and changes his personal reality. It becomes more powerful. It becomes more a matter of imagination and a life lived through and by imagination.

In this light, cooperation with others takes on a whole new meaning. The longing and obsession to overlap his reality with that of others fades in importance.

His immunity to hooked ideas becomes stronger.

The very notion of what personal reality is changes. It is no longer simply a fixed configuration set in concrete.

The psyop is aimed at disintegrating the personal voyage.

It is aimed at flattening the emotions and shortening the perspective and short-circuiting the fire in the soul.

Hooked ideas and manufacturing consent and overlapping realities and merging are the tools used to deaden life and invent the collective future.

In that future, each person becomes a mirror that reflects every other person. And it turns out that there is no substance at all in the trillions of rebounding reflections.

The endless overlapping deletes all content.

Personal reality and the personal voyage are the WAKING UP that breaks the trance.

A great deal of history of the human race, littered as it is with suffering and pain and war and hunger, was produced by competing psyops.

Each side was utterly convinced that its ideals were superior. What neither side realized was that everybody, on all sides, was accepting a psyop substitute of their own personal reality. That was the big switch.

Each person on each side had bought into a hooking idea that looked so good and so right and so wonderful.

And each person was operating on a false basis. Each person had, without noticing it, misplaced his own personal reality.

You could accurately write, on many gravestones: “I died for a psyop.”

In this day and age, political leaders have entirely given up the notion of personal reality, if they even understand what it means. For them, it’s all about psyop, because they are thinking about mass and number and population. They are looking for central hooking ideas—the very best they can find—and how to express them and transmit them as convincingly as possible.

The major differences between these leaders are to be found in how well they function as mouthpieces for hooking ideas.

Freedom? Democracy? The will of the people? A better future for all? Equality? Justice? These are merely concepts in search of ways to run psyops.

Jon Rappoport

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

Who will narrate reality in the future?

Mar10

Who will narrate reality in the future?

by Jon Rappoport

March 10, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Humans love to study animals and catalog their unique habits. If we could back up far enough to see ourselves, surely we would rank our modern method of gaining something we call “the news” one of our strangest customs.

A face and a voice on one of three preferred channels tells us what the world is like every day.

Millions of us consider such transmissions not only informative but authoritative. Somehow, the capsulized squibs and fragments form for us a picture of truth.

The first principle applied to the training of an elite anchor is: pay no attention to what opposing sides agree on.

It may seem like a strange place to start, but it’s absolutely crucial.

As a hopeful anchor rises up through the ranks toward cherished positions on the national evening news at NBC, CBS, and ABC, he is exposed to Washington politics. He learns those ropes well.

He perceives conflict and battle and anger and hatred. He is looking at issues on which the two major parties differ in the strongest possible terms. This is what he is supposed to see. This is his indoctrination.

He gets a feel for this. After all, it is what he is already predisposed to observe, because he knows that all news involves side A versus side B. Without that, there is no news.

“…a scheduled meeting between House leaders was canceled after a rancorous confrontation between…”

But here are a few items that are largely ignored: paid lobbyists and secret councils shaping legislative decisions; fraudulent medical research; the federal government aligning itself with Globalist policies; federal support of illegal corporate activities; enormous and illegal Federal Reserve power.

To the degree that both major parties agree in these areas, there is no news. It doesn’t exist.

The aspiring anchor learns to ignore such “dead subjects.”

Therefore, he’s conditioned to define what is news in very narrow terms with narrow boundaries. He consistently misses the big picture.

A reporter for one of the major networks once told me, “It’s useless to pitch stories [to producers] where there isn’t any clear conflict among the recognized players.”

Of course, a conspiracy consists of people who wholeheartedly agree on something behind the scenes. Conspiracy is often what the noisy out-front conflict is supposed to hide.

When a major news reporter makes light of conspiracies, part of what he’s saying is: “It wouldn’t be news because people aren’t fighting with each other about it.”

As a reporter moves closer to winning an elite anchor’s slot, something else happens. He’s introduced to what used to be called “the Eastern establishment.” At parties, at charity fundraisers, at meetings of the CFR, he meets players:

bankers, Congressmen, lobbyists, key lawyers, leaders of non-profit foundations, favored academics and technocrats, PR agency people, Beltway “facilitators,” corporate big shots, a few intelligence-agency friendlies, Pentagon execs.

He understands very well that his new friends are feeling him out and vetting him. They expect him to be earnest, glib, and facile. They watch for signs that a cloud of doubt is hanging over his head—meaning that he is skeptical of entrenched Power. That would be an overwhelming mark against him.

Essentially, a subliminal unspoken pact is forged. The heavy hitters assert: “We are the core of the country. What we do in secret is not to be discussed or aired.”

The anchor replies: “I understand that. Don’t worry. I won’t cover it unless you can’t conceal it. It’s not news. I’m looking for conflict.”

The reporter who is on his way up to an elite anchor’s job can affect a strong moral sense, because that is part of his persona, because being able to invoke it sells advertisers’ products on the evening news; he can and does apply his morals selectively.

Through tone of voice and facial expression, he can make his disapproval known to the viewing audience, when he “objectively” covers a drug recall—the drug in question having caused deaths among patients.

“The best-selling drug Vioxx was taken off the market today when it was revealed that…its manufacturer nevertheless suggested that many people were helped by…”

But the anchor would never recommend collecting many such stories and welding them into a wide-ranging indictment of the FDA or the drug companies. That’s not on his radar. That’s not permitted. That’s called inventing a conflict that doesn’t exist.

A crime dug up solely by reporters is almost always non-starter. At best, it might run as a brief “feature” on the evening broadcast, and then the coverage would contain sufficient generalities to obscure the perpetrators. And once this feature is aired, it is forgotten. It was filler.

Take a story like Wall Street bankers committing huge and ongoing RICO financial felonies. A certain amount of coverage is allowed, but it’s verboten to highlight the fact, over and over again, that these people aren’t being arrested, tried, and sentenced to prison terms.

A Bernie Madoff gets the full treatment, but only after the Justice Department arrests him. And then Madoff is portrayed as the crazy Ponzi-scheme hustler, the exception, the lone wolf.

The vetting of an elite anchor is very thorough, because normally he is going to be the managing editor for his own national evening broadcast. That means he will have the final word on which stories run and where they run in the line-up.

His bosses want no blowups. They want no visible wrangling between the anchor and his editors and producers. They definitely don’t want the anchor going off the reservation to bring in a dangerous (to favored players) story out of left field. A few of these gross transgressions and he’ll be fired. But the whole point is to avoid the mess by choosing the “right” anchor to begin with.

Several years before golden boy Brian Williams was tapped to sit in the prince’s throne at NBC, it was obvious he was the heir apparent. He could affect an aura of honesty, a sincere dedication to the truth. He passed the “character test” with flying colors.

On the scale of “believable moral sense,” Williams was within shooting distance of a young Walter Cronkite. Of course, if you started to qualify where and how his moral commitment would be exercised, and where it would be excused from duty, you would find yourself traveling down into a very deep and disturbing rabbit hole.

If you’re looking for Williams to cover the nexus of the CIA, the Pentagon, mega-corporations, NATO, and other players in their ongoing program of destabilizing foreign nations, you’ll be wasting your time. Unless some giant blow-up over this issue surfaces in the Congress, Williams will be silent. And in this regard, you’ll see an effort to minimize and distort coverage of Rand Paul, because he, like his father, states that he wants to bring US troops home from their massive foreign deployments.

If, by chance, a long-form interviewer at C-Span or PBS, addled for the moment by a prescription drug, throws out a question to Williams about US government empire-building, Williams will talk out of several sides of his mouth simultaneously, leaving the impression that this is “a profound issue he really cares about.”

The elite news anchor a) believes the news only involves visible conflict, b) misses the big picture through ignorance, c) understands there is a big picture and intentionally ignores it, d) is truly honest, e) is a liar down to his shoes, f) opposes undo corporate influence on government and politics, g) is completely sold out to the corporate-government partnership, h) has no clue about the true intentions of US foreign policy, while purposely omitting coverage of those intentions and their consequences.

The elite news anchor is an actor who can know and not know, at a moment’s notice, that he is acting.

He can deal with these massive internal contradictions because he is a roaring success; he is admired; he banks a big check every month; he exerts influence; he has a certain amount of power; he thinks about ratings and what he has to do to improve them; he lives in a bubble where all the important people lie all the time. He is familiar with the culture and is part of it.

If everybody else in his world is a multiple personality, he can be, too, and it isn’t disturbing. It’s how the stage play works.

Over time, though, the elite anchor performs a kind of psychic surgery on himself, cuts away the rough edges and the doubts and the consciousness of the con and the scam. It’s more comfortable that way.

In other words, he lowers his own IQ and blurs the boundaries of his perception. The lies he never really believed before he does believe now.

His own multiplicity and contradictions are mixed into a sludge, whereby the apt summary and the capsule explanation, beamed out to millions of people every night, are “the best that can be done under the circumstances.”

The elite anchor comes to know, intimately, the mad rush and the deadline and the fever to beat the competition. If he needs a final distraction to lead him away from what he once comprehended about reality at a deeper level, this is it. “We have to get this story on in five minutes…”

The elite anchor is everything the CIA would program into existence, if they needed to. But they don’t. Because all over America, children are growing up who want to do the news. And out of all of them, the few who will rise to the top are already internalizing the personal and professional requirements of the job, day in and day out. They haven’t even visited Washington DC yet, and they’re sopping up psychic clues like sponges.

This is a piece of how the Matrix operates. In a highly organized society, roles are available. People will cast themselves in those roles and learn how to play them. They’ll reach out for the brass ring. Some will do a better imitation than others. Some will do the imitation and believe in it. And the winners will believe it and not believe it.

The elite anchor knows that if he wanders too far afield, if he becomes too real, if he brings in stories that don’t fit the mold, if he goes up against the forces with whom he is allied, he will suffer.

There is no need to point this out to him. There is no need, because the anchor has already geared his persona and intelligence to the machine he represents.

Once in a great while, he probably plays out a little scene in his head: he brings in an incredible story that mangles the highest people he knows in the pyramid of power; he achieves great recognition for his courage; and then one night he dies on a lonely road.

But this cautionary tale is sheer fantasy, because he is the incarnation of what social planners and engineers and psyops specialists and spooks and mind-control researchers and PR experts would have cooked up to fill his chair in the studio of NBC, ABC, or CBS. He’s that guy.

And he did it himself, which always works better because the result is more convincing.

A retired propaganda operative once told me that the index of an anchor’s performance is his sources. For those shadowy types who keep track of how well an anchor is working his mass deceptions, an examination of sources is revealing.

More specifically, who is feeding stories to the reporters who work for the anchor? A list compiled over the years will tell you whether the anchor is staying within the prescribed boundaries. When you see hundreds or even thousands of names from government, from foundations, from corporations, from think-tanks, from favored academia, and almost no names from anywhere else, you know the anchor is in the right wheelhouse.

The anchor is the magnet created to attract specific kinds of metal filings.

He can say, “We take our information from the most reliable people out there. What else can you ask for?”

Not much, if you want the news to emanate from a sealed universe, with one highly structured hole for IN and one for OUT.

Because of that architecture, the major news businesses of the country are failing. Their bottom lines are shrinking. They’re going up against this other universe we all know about and access, which has at least 500 million holes for in and out.

But don’t discount the hypnotic effect an anchor like Brian Williams has on the public. There is a marriage there, no question about it.

Williams, like others before him, fits the stripped down concept of the operator, one who can push and pull all the right gears, to convey Factoid and Summary.

Sit down at the meal, Brian’s here. He’s a smooth server. He brings only what is necessary, and because of that, we can trust him.

America wants (and therefore gets) a newsman to tell its national stories every night in terms a salesman who has risen through the ranks would use: he doesn’t persuade or cajole or push; he’s above that; he’s shed the big smile and the glad hand.

He’s a pro’s pro. He need only tilt his head in a direction and people follow. He need only indicate with a glance and the message is picked up by the millions. He informs us, by his very manner, that we are all now operating in a vacuum jar. All our battles and oppositions are being played out in a strange silence at the core of the surrounding noise.

We’re all dead, except we’ve forgotten the fact. In this limbo, he will guide us. There is no boat to take souls across the river. There is no inner life of the individual; that is over. There are only the slight changing shades of feeling that signify one thing is more important than another.

Postmortem America presents its own peculiar problems, and Williams understands them well. He schooled himself to be the guide in this moonscape, where his ministrations are like changing ticks in the stock market of drained souls.

Up a little today, down a little tomorrow. A crisis here, a crisis there. This is better, that is worse. Today the machine outperformed the machine yesterday by seven degrees of calculation.

He speaks in atomic strings of thought, adjusted and groomed.

Yes, this is a marriage. The public wants this. It wants the conversion rate of consciousness at 6:30 every night, presented in terms a computer can fathom and store until the next modulation.

He, the anchor, will decide how horrible an event can become. He will draw the line. He will make the distinctions. Nothing is measured or given meaning outside the vacuum.

Underneath and between his words, the alive Desire that once animated souls washes up on the beach of television like a dead fish, every night.

Spiritually and cosmologically speaking, it is his job to move steadily ahead, broadcast by broadcast, and present debris, fragments of existence after the Fall. It is his job to walk the parched deserts and translate into beveled English the aftershocks of detonations set off by the crime bosses called leaders.

What he conveys, and what the medium through which he reaches us proposes, is a declaration of surrender. The loss of a war. We’re supposed to believe that the war fought on behalf of the inner fecund life of the individual is lost.

This is the imperative peddled by our official salesmen.

They don’t realize that such a war can never be lost. Any person can pick up the scent and the sound of the river within his own psyche and awaken his need for open water.

Any one of us can stop calculating gains and losses by a serial morbid clock. Any one of us can stop hammering new pieces into a mechanical fortress, which is only an impregnable symbol of despair.

We can awaken from the dream of motion, time, and energy inside the vacuum. Then we will see there are trillions of other dreams, none of them yet created, but wholly dependent on our capacity to invent Something from Nothing.

This is the spark. After the fire begins to burn in the true soul, not the fabricated one, The News will fade away like an old skin, no longer needed.

The hunger for a voice to tell us what death after death is like will vanish, and so will the news, as we know it.

People will say, “Yes, there was once a rare specimen who narrated reality to the rest of us. It was a hypnotic dream we were all engaged in. But that specimen is now extinct. It outlived its usefulness.”

Is such a heraldic future possible? The answer each one of us makes draws a line in the sand. On one side are those who consent to the declaration of surrender. On the other side are those who intimately understand the terms of the struggle and never give in.

Jon Rappoport

Miracle: no one shot by strawberry tart shaped like a gun

Mar4

Miracle: no one shot by strawberry tart shaped like a gun

by Jon Rappoport

March 4, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Josh Welch. Seven years old. Park Elementary School, Baltimore. Bit off pieces of strawberry tart, trying to make shape of mountain. Tart ended up looking like gun. Josh suspended for two days. No bullet wounds reported.

On top of all that, the students at Park Elementary were sent home with a letter stating there had been a disruption at the school.

So far, no federal troops have been deployed to guarantee the security of the students.

I can think of a solution to this problem. Every pupil at Park Elementary should make a gun out of his/her next strawberry tart. All at once. An armed rebellion.

Then the parents should yank their kids out of Park and start their own school. I’m reasonably certain they can find, among themselves, teachers and a principal who aren’t absolutely insane.

In the wake of this Strawberry Statement, perhaps we’ll see waves of supporting protests across America: kids bringing paper guns and pictures of guns and pastry guns and bubble gum guns and water pistols to school.

“Suspend all of us!”

Thousands of new private schools and home schools then spring up. Parents defect out of the public school nightmare. No more random diagnoses of ADHD and drugging with cheap speed called Ritalin or Adderall. No more pressure to take dozens of toxic vaccines. No more social engineering programs in classrooms. No more sex ed for kids. No more junk food lunches. No more pastry scares.

No more federal funding accepted for public schools. No more no child left behind or left ahead or left in the middle. No more textbook publishers ripping off schools with new editions of the same old books every year. No more “every child has to have a computer or else they won’t learn anything” nonsense.

Just thousands upon thousands of empty school buildings, which are then razed, leaving open land on which fresh clean food crops can be planted for the community. By the community. No outside help required. No Monsanto.

The US public school system was originally invented for one purpose. To teach children how to be citizens of a newly minted Republic.

Obviously, that mission has failed. To even mention “Republic” or “individual freedom” these days in a school, with serious intent, with the goal of exploring their meanings in depth, could provoke an alarm bell, a lockdown, and a phone call to the DHS.

Therefore, nullify. Defect. Decentralize. Get out.

Let these “strawberry tart” teachers educate their own kids and make a mess out of it. You don’t have to allow them to make a mess out of your kids.

In their own homes, these psychos can act out their own social programming, until hopefully their children rebel and refuse to knuckle under.

Need I even say it? The elites behind the public school apparatus in America send their kids to private academies. They wouldn’t get within sniffing distance of the mind-numbing factories they’ve designed.

Decades ago, I taught in three private schools. But these were special places. They were built to take on the discarded refuse of public education, the kids of the zombie parents who gladly got rid of their little ones every day so they could forget about them. I saw the wrecks, the boys and girls who drifted, clueless about what was happening to them. They were virtually unteachable. They’d already been blasted out of whatever interested them in life.

On my last day at one of these baby-sitting horrors, a teacher told me: “In five years, I haven’t taught one student one thing he remembers.”

For me, there was a saving grace. I saw that my students had imagination. It was some kind of immortal and indestructible quality that survived, no matter what. It came out in bizarre and sudden ways, and the buttoned-up classroom certainly wasn’t the best setting for it, but it was there.

It was the bottom-line refusal to go under. As bad as things got, these kids still wanted to create something different. That’s why I admired them.

They were canaries in the coal mine, because what they’d experienced was a cameo of where this whole society was (and is) going.

As the pressure builds, people are driven back on their own resources, and those resources turn out to be the capacity to invent.

People eventually say, “I don’t like this reality. I want to make another one.”

If they hear themselves loudly and clearly enough, they can do something. They can defect, opt out, and decentralize. They can become the artists they always were.

They can offload the mind control and the garbage they’ve been tuned up with, and they can step out into the sunlight.

When enough of that happens, the robots who are in charge of running the day-to-day details of a mad overweening system, like public education, will gradually wake up and realize they’ve been conned, and they’ve been conning themselves.

They’ll walk out the door, too.

None of this happens without crisis. There is an internal struggle to shake free, shake loose. But victory is there to be had.

If I had a kid, I’d teach him to make a Glock-shape out of a strawberry tart long before I’d let him near the door of one of those android factories called a public school.

That’s why I think public schools aren’t doing enough to indoctrinate children. We need more recycling of cans, more fake talk about global warming science, more tolerance of inter-species sex, more hundred-dollar textbooks filled with social messages, more overt anti-religious propaganda, more intervention by counselors who fantasize about being psychologists, more metal detectors, more verbal attacks on students who ask uncomfortable questions, more junk food in cafeterias, more information about living gay in the third grade, more lockdowns, more anti-terror drills, more DHS pamphlets, more instruction on how to snoop and meddle and snitch, more “we’re all in this together,” more teachers breaking down and weeping and flipping out, more unionization, more control, more administrative pronouncements from educrats, more uniform curricula from government, more studies and task forces getting nothing done to stem the tide.

Until finally, the whole business crashes.

Until finally, the light goes on in people’s minds.

Until this thing we call public education is exposed for anyone with three working brain cells to see.

Until this product is recalled to the factory—except there is no factory.

Then the canaries in the coal mine will be vindicated.

Then people will have to take their destiny in their own hands.

Then my student, James, who came to the West LA loony bin where I taught, who showed up every day with a different propeller hat he’d made, who danced in the aisles in the assembly hall, who sang little improvised ditties about snowstorms in July and doctors taking off their clothes and examining themselves…James will be vindicated.

He’ll be remembered (at least by me) as the kid who saw the crackup coming and tried to create works of art to explain it.

James was a happy inventor. He was the court clown. He delivered messages from his own psyche. He was more alive than the president or Congress, and far more knowledgeable than the evening news.

I dream of meeting him after all these years. I, wearing one of his propeller hats. I take it off and tip it to him. He grins and nods. Finally, I understand what he was telling us.

Propeller hat, strawberry tart. Listen to the canaries.

Jon Rappoport

The era of programming the mind

Feb22

by Jon Rappoport

February 22, 2013

(To join our email list, 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 will defeat the very notion of honorable and righteous and 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 presented as troubled and 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 programming 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 getting out 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 2013, 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 and program 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. But 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. It’s not meant to have real substance, only undefined affectation. The rebel takes action, but it’s based on superficial slogan. It’s another deflating caricature.

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

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 mince meat 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 modern history of civilization: choose reality program A or B. The choice was always a con.

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 29^th 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.

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Energy & Imagination

The psychological crossroad of an unhappy life

Consensus shredded; major media up against the wall

Obama’s new brain-mapping project is already a Lilliputian disaster

It was nice knowing you, America

Chemical warfare against the nation right under our noses

The launch of my new collection, Exit From the Matrix

The disaster of manufactured consent in the Matrix

Who will narrate reality in the future?

Miracle: no one shot by strawberry tart shaped like a gun

The era of programming the mind