New study: are we all living in the future now?

By Jon Rappoport

February 14, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

A recent Bonn University study suggests we may all be living in a virtual simulation. If a pixel-lattice that forms the background of this universe is presenting us with an all-encompassing “television picture” of reality, then the whole space-time continuum could be a rigorously designed artifact.

But another study, this one using a small number of meditators, pushes our understanding even further.

Dean Radin, the author of two groundbreaking books on controlled paranormal experiments, The Conscious Universe and Entangled Minds, spoke at a January conference, Electric Universe, in New Mexico. He described his recent pilot study on time and precognition.

A small group of advanced meditators who use the “non-dual” technique, were tested. While meditating, they were subjected to random interruptions: a flash of light and a beeping sound. Measuring their brain activity, Radin found that significant brain changes occurred BEFORE the light flashes or the beeps.

A control group of non-meditators were tested in exactly the same way, but their brain measurements revealed NO such changes.

In other words, the brains of the meditators anticipated the timing of the unpredictable interruptions.

The future was registering now. This, of course, opens up another way of thinking about time.

Serial time, the idea that, in this continuum, we experience a smooth progression of moments, with the present becoming, so to speak, the future, is the conventional view. But suppose that is a grossly limiting and sketchy premise?

Suppose that, for those who can be aware of it, the future is bleeding into the present? It is making an impact “before it happens.”

The non-dual method of meditation seeks to eliminate walls between “now and then, you and I, here and there.” It has also been studied by Zoran Josipovic (New York University). In 2012, Josipovic and colleagues found that, for non-dual meditators, two areas of the cerebral cortex, loosely labeled “external” and “intrinsic,” shifted their operating basis.

These two areas of the brain, long known for their independence from each other (if one is switched on, the other is switched off), both began operating with significantly less “antagonism.”

If time is deeply rooted in perception, Dean Radin’s study indicates that this even extends to the future. If people can register the impact of the future now, then our notions of time are up for grabs.

So are conventional concepts of cause and effect, which rely on chains of events moving like trains from the past to the present. We need to consider that causes can sit in the future and produce their effects in the present.

In which case, what is the future? It certainly is an expanded territory that extends beyond our normal view of it.

In correspondence with me, Dean Radin offered further information about his study:

“All participants knew that they would receive a light flash, an audio tone [beep], both, or none. In one condition they didn’t know when these would occur or what type of stimulus. In another condition they knew when it would occur but not what. In all cases no one, including experiment[ers], knew what the next stimulus would be because we used a true random number generator to select it on the fly.

“The conclusion of the study was that the reported subjective experience of exceptional spaciousness, or timelessness, reported by some advanced meditators, appears to be objectively correct. That is, their subjective sense of ‘now’ appears to expand substantially, and our experiment indicates that this was not an illusion.”

I then asked Dr. Radin how closely correlated the light flashes and audio tones were to the brain changes in the meditators. His answer was stunning. The brain changes occurred 1.5 seconds before these interruptions. And the changes obviously occurred even though the meditators didn’t know when the interruptions were coming.

Radin’s remarks offer us a major point: these meditators were expanding their consciousness of the present moment, so that it included the future.

Therefore, we would be interacting with far more than this continuum is supposed to represent.

Such a framework of understanding travels far beyond modern ideas about the makeup and laws of the physical universe. It implies more than merely a holographic or pixel-based cosmos. It speaks to titanic capabilities on our part.

Of course, having sunk to a state in which we navigate in an amnesia about ourselves, we look at these ideas with skepticism. We pretend we are trapped in a container-continuum of space and time, as Einstein and others have fleshed it out.

What if this is not the case at all? What if we are trying to resolve our problems within a highly narrow context, when in fact the ultimate solution—the only one that will finally satisfy us—depends on us waking up to what we are?

Like recovering our political freedom, the journey to re-establish our greatest hidden capacities is a magnificent enterprise. We no longer need to consign ourselves to dreams of comic-book heroes. We would be the heroes.

When I first read Dean Radin’s breakthrough book, The Conscious Universe, I was floored. Far from merely recounting anecdotes of paranormal phenomena, Radin was proving that decades of well-formed and well-conducted published laboratory studies, in the areas of telepathy and psychokinesis, revealed that these human capabilities exist.

He had performed a staggering feat. He had shown the science was valid.

It remains for other branches of the scientific community to catch up, to admit their consensus about reality is provincial, distorted, and pathetically behind the times. They are now the Roman Church of old, denying Galileo and Bruno. They are the flat-earthers, fearing that to sail in a straight line too far will drop them off the edge of a giant dinner plate into emptiness.

Consider what could be the most astonishing extension of Dean Radin’s work: suppose that for those elements of the future that aren’t yet planned or on the drawing boards at all, people can still register their presence in advance. Then we would be talking about the human capacity to reach out into a vacuum, a nothing, and still “bring back” what is going to happen.

If we all added up those moments in our lives when we suddenly and inexplicably knew what was about to occur, and then it did, we would have a significant number. What if we were foreseeing events not scripted on any possible chart? What if we were going beyond time altogether and correctly discovering “something in nothing?”

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

Are we all living inside a virtual simulation?

Feb9

Are we all living inside a virtual simulation?

By Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

A study out of Bonn University has led to a new round of speculation about the nature of the universe.

The study proposes that cosmic rays undergo a strange energy shift. The energies are “re-fitted” to align with an underlying pattern or lattice. There is only one proper fit; no exceptions are permitted.

If the lattice is, indeed, the basic pixel-like Reality we are interacting with every day of our lives, then we could be living inside a created artifice.

A simulation.

Put this description alongside the hypothesis that the universe is a hologram: lines of code inscribed on a two-dimensional surface deliver instructions on how the lattice is built, and what its properties are.

In other words, the software which holographically projects the universe includes the exact structure of the lattice.

Then, by the rules of the game, energies which don’t automatically plug into the lattice framework precisely as they’re supposed to are “snapped to” a correct fit, as Mike Adams (Natural News) has suggested.

Mike has made the analogy to a television picture, which consists of pixels that have their own dimensions and structure. So if we imagine an all-encompassing “television picture,” this would be the lattice-controlled reality we live in.

Paul Watson (infowars) asks the question: is this universe-simulation our own creation? Since time could be quite flexible where simulations are concerned, might we have made this reality from a platform in the future and then inserted ourselves into it?

What interests me is the notion that humans have used technology to construct a scientifically designed cosmos.

Is this possible, or are we applying a contemporary paradigm to a universe whose nature actually exceeds that paradigm?

In a 10-year project of putting together a collection called The Matrix Revealed, I did a great deal of research on other notions of creation or “reality-building.”

It is clear that at deep levels, propaganda turns into self-propaganda. In order to live inside a Matrix or universe of our own making, we would have to produce, in ourselves, an extraordinary level of amnesia about what we did. Otherwise we would know. We would walk around knowing full well we had designed our own illusion, and the whole thing would fall apart.

Immortal and free from the structure, we would hardly want to spend all our time trapped in it.

The ancient Tibetans knew a great deal about this conundrum. Before they became a theocratic society of rites and rituals and a rigorous elitism, they were daring adventurers on the edge of experiments in consciousness.

Relying on the teachings of itinerant outcast adepts from India, they developed a practice called, by a few later scholars, “deity visualization.” (See John Blofeld, The Tantric Mysticism of Tibet)

Perhaps based on an already existing mandala-painting, a teacher would give his student a very detailed and specific “personage” to create in his imagination. This effort, if it was successful at all, might take months or even years.

The objective was to mentally hold the complex image intact, in every detail, not just for a few seconds or minutes, but indefinitely. If the student was successful at this arduous task, he would soon find that the personage he created seemed to take on a life of its own.

The personage or deity would become the student’s friend and guide and give him valuable advice and counsel. When the teacher sensed this relationship had progressed to a very close point, he would order the student to get rid of the personage altogether.

This, it was said, was more difficult than the original act of creating it. But if the student was able to perform both aspects (creative and destructive) of the exercise, he would then realize, see, and know, with full consciousness, that THE UNIVERSE WAS A PRODUCT OF MIND.

At that crossroad, he would be able to spontaneously take apart pieces of “the hologram” or “the lattice,” and even create (out of nothing) new objects that hadn’t existed before.

It’s fascinating that now, at the beginning of the 21^st century, we have come full circle. We are contemplating the possibility that we created this universe—but through technological means.

Perhaps those Tibetan adepts, in their practice, actually saw the lattice or even the two-dimensional surface on which the holographic code of the cosmos is inscribed.

Another clue concerning the origin or underlying force that made the universe is revealed through a study of the famous alchemical diagram: two crossed staves.

The four endpoints were said to represent the basic aspects or elements of Nature: earth, air, fire, and water. According to some alchemical interpretations, these elements were in eternal conflict with one another.

The resolution of the conflict was represented by the center-place where the two staves met. This mysterious intersection was called Quintessence, and its meaning was long debated.

Paracelsus, one of the most famous of the European alchemists, seems to have thought that Quintessence was, in fact, imagination.

In other words, our creative power could change the inherent design of reality. If so, then it is just a step from there to infer that our imagination invented the design in the first place.

Some will take that step; others will not. Regardless, the history of millions of artists on this planet directly points to the fact that, when freed from restraints, human beings become enormously creative. Every painting, play, poem, novel is a world of its own; a universe. Perhaps this suggests that the physical universe is but one work of art, out of a possible infinity of universes.

William Blake, one of the most revered English poets, made several remarkable statements about the power of imagination:

“Some see nature all ridicule and deformity…and some scarce see nature at all. But to the eyes of the man of imagination, nature is imagination itself.”

“Imagination is the real and eternal world of which this vegetable universe is but a faint shadow.”

Of course, the notion of multiple universes is reflected in contemporary science. Physicist Brian Greene, author of The Hidden Reality, explains that Relativity and Quantum Theory, each highly useful in its own way, come into high mathematical conflict when set side by side.

One resolution of that conflict can be achieved through String Theory, in which tiny vibrating strings (in 10 or 11 dimensions) explain the makeup of this universe. But String Theory also suggests many surfaces or membranes or islands on which matter, energy, and time can exist: multiple universes.

No matter what force or power we say made this universe, a new day is here. We are coming to grips with the idea that the universe isn’t all the reality there is. Some find this disturbing. Others are inspired to feel it is intensely liberating.

Beyond any hypothesis about the underlying structure of the universe, there remain the basic questions about us, as succinctly expressed in the title of Paul Gauguin’s famous 1897 painting: Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where are We Going?

For those who answer these questions in terms of the Divine and God, it’s interesting to consider the original essence and principle of the Kabbalah. Contrary to many interpretations, the whole idea of this evolving text is proliferation: by advancing all knowledge, all science, all poetry, all the arts, humans move closer and closer to God. In other words, for the religiously inclined, nothing learned about our potential power—even the boggling possibility that we invented this simulation called universe—subtracts from Divine power.

I recently studied Gauguin’s intriguing painting again. Behind the three central groups of people representing the three basic questions, the light-blue background shows figures and scenes from what the artist called the Beyond.

That gives rise to yet another hypothesis. We are living in an interpenetration of several simultaneous universes or planes of existence. And they’re all here now, if we could see them.

The rigorous lattice or holographic code defining this universe is merely the way one plane of existence is structured.

Rather than reduce all possible universes to the principles on which this one may be built, why not consider many, many other such “works of art?” Each universe is constructed or improvised out of the infinite well of creative freedom…

Could there be a greater illustration of the principle of Abundance?

Throughout history, humans have been reaching for, and elevating the idea of greater abundance. In one of the early Bible stories, Old Testament Joseph, as a boy, dreams of dancing sheaves of wheat. Wheat, grain was, for the ancients, a living symbol of abundance.

Johanna Stuckey, well-known researcher on early goddesses, points out that the Sumerian grain goddess, Ezina/Ashnan, was also called Lady of Abundance.

We have always sought, in faith, in hope, in myth, in story, in investigation the means for unending abundance. Now, we also see it reflected in our most far-reaching contemplations: not just one universe, but many universes, without end. Because if we are living in this virtual space and time, why shouldn’t other continua exist?

Are they all simulations? Is a painting a simulation? Not really. It’s an independent invention, undertaken in freedom, launched from the unfettered imagination of an artist. It is its own universe.

We are all artists.

With all veils and curtains lifted, this is the truth we have been waiting for, the truth we have always known.

The three questions Paul Gauguin asked could be titanically re-framed: Dissolving the societal myths of false limitations, what can you truly create? How powerful is your imagination? What universes will you create?

Jon Rappoport

Newsflash to psychiatry: a human being is not a thing

Jan31

Newsflash to psychiatry: a human being is not a thing

by Jon Rappoport

January 31, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The ability to separate components of a machine, to increase the efficiency and power of each component, to link up all the elements in smoother ways; this is one of the hallmarks of the technological society.

And when the current machine is superseded by a new one, the process of improving efficiency starts all over again.

But a human being is not a machine, because consciousness is not a machine.

The rise of what has been called industrial psychology, or scientific management, tries to overcome that “flaw.” This is described well in Scott Noble’s film, Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century (posted at YouTube).

For example, the modern factory assembly line, in which workers did multiple tasks and functioned as skilled artisans, was overthrown in favor of a system in which each worker performed the same severely restricted, specialized task over and over again. A machine making machines.

And not just in America. In Russia, in the early stages of the revolution, worker-owned companies were on the rise. But that development was too conscious, too participatory. Lenin imposed his top-down version of human machines making machines, all in the service of constructing a super-state.

In the same way, the rise of psychology and psychiatry reflect the impulse to treat the mind as a machine. The expanding concoction of so-called mental disorders are arbitrary attempts at categorizing human thought, desire, and behavior as diseases.

Have you ever tried to solve an arbitrarily cooked-up problem for millions of people? Of course not. Who in his right mind would? Yet this is exactly what the “mental sciences” have accepted as their mission.

Consciousness is not public business. Its dimensions and capabilities are there for every person to explore on his own terms. This is called freedom.

Psychiatry has sought to redefine consciousness solely in terms of brain function. This materialist obsession is also an attempt to gain control of the mind.

In the wake of Sandy Hook, we are seeing the escalation of a social and political bargain: the sacrifice of freedom in return for more invasive “mental health,” which would purportedly reduce the number of mass murders.

Of course, this is a false promise. There is no psychiatric prospect for reducing killings (especially since some of their medicines induce extreme violence.) There is only more diagnosis of mental disorders, followed by drugging with toxic and dangerous chemicals.

This is all based on an unspoken bias against freedom and consciousness, in favor of “evening out” the emotional range and experience of humans. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin rightly characterizes this as drug-induced emotional flatness and anesthesia.

Worse yet, this layer of flatness can disintegrate, leaving the patient in a synthetically created, out-of-control emotional state.

But psychiatry’s political allies, all too happy to delegate violent-crime prevention to mental-health professionals, are viewing society as a numbers game. For them, averaging out human emotions into an acceptable and harmless range is a preferred overall solution. It’s a system of control.

Therefore, this really isn’t about violent-crime prevention at all. It’s about rendering humans into a state where they react like predictable Things under chemical restraint.

No doubt we’ll soon see a new generation of devices for stimulating brain centers, aimed at inducing pleasure and satisfaction. And the covert agenda will be to render consciousness a servant to the status quo.

The people who own governments and countries look upon this model as a reasonable method for producing “the normal human” who accepts things as they are.

Let’s face it, wherever human beings feel the possibility of liberation, they begin to devise their own communities and workplaces. They innovate. Forms and structures are created so that each person can benefit from the whole.

But top-down, this is viewed as a dangerous development. Leaders, in the camp of monopolists, do everything they can to squelch such movements. Which means they reduce the human being and consciousness to a cipher within a system, thus defeating their nemesis: decentralization.

It has been so since the beginning of time. Somewhere in a cave, prehistoric men and women, striving to survive in a hostile environment, began to think about new social relationships in their extended families—and a few leaders, watching this unwelcome development, decided they had to invent the first false flags (creation of non-existent enemies), in order to declare DEFCON 1 and centralize their control over the group.

From its earliest experiments, forged by Palov, Wundt, and other like-minded researchers, psychology has sought to prove that the conditioned-reflex (machine) model of human behavior was a true reflection of life on planet Earth.

They were given entrance into the club of controllers for precisely that reason: humans as machines was a perfect pseudoscience to build on.

Once you strip away the sophisticated complexities of modern psychiatry, you see the same proposition: the human brain, through chemical intervention, can be modified to produce “better behavior.”

Progressing from the sheer madness of researchers like Jose Delgado and Ewen Cameron, who believed no human had an inherent right to his own personality, but should be altered to fit the social needs of the State, psychiatry, hand-in-hand with Pharma, has developed kinder, gentler language to describe its mission:

Healing disease; ending suffering; bringing greater happiness.

This decades-long propaganda blitz has benefited psychiatry enormously. Smoothly fitting into programs of its government backers, promoted as the “official word” by major media, the profession has gained a primacy exceeding its most optimistic projections.

In America and many other countries, there now exists Official Mental Science. That most people don’t even notice this fact speaks to the overwhelming success of psychiatry.

Think about that. In what kind of political State do you need an official science of the mind? There is only one explanation for it. The State is a dictatorship.

In a free society, government would never dream of taking sides with one explanation of the human mind. It wouldn’t dare enable that explanation through its law-enforcement officers, court system, and publicly funded psych wards and research grants.

In the US, we have the federal NIMH, the National Institute of Mental Health, a sub-branch of the National Institutes of Health. It operates on an annual budget of $1.5 billion. Wikipedia names NIMH “the largest research organization in the world specializing in mental illness.”

In this obvious puff piece written for NIMH, Wikipedia goes on to state: “For the institution to continue fulfilling this vital public health mission it must further innovative thinking…in the evolving science of brain, behavior, and experience. In this way, breakthroughs in science can become breakthroughs for all people with mental illnesses…NIMH is particularly known for studies of genetics, neuroscience, and clinical trials of psychiatric medication.”

Official mental science. Backed and enforced by the US government.

In previous articles, I’ve demonstrated that, for all 297 officially certified mental disorders, there are NO physical tests to confirm a diagnosis. None. And on that non-basis, millions of doses of toxic and dangerous drugs are prescribed to Americans every year.

So much for science. But for control? Ah, that’s quite a different story. The power to invade and interfere with people’s lives is on the upswing.

Government simply says, “We care about you,” and for most people, this is apparently enough to satisfy them that psychiatry is a good thing, an objective thing, a thing worthy of being official and enforced and funded.

In 1906, Ivan Pavlov, the celebrated innovator in what is now called “classical conditioning,” wrote: “Mankind will possess incalculable advantages and extraordinary control over human behavior, when the scientific investigator will be able to subject his fellow men to the same external analysis he would employ for any natural object…”

Nearly half a century later, one of the most celebrated psychologists of the 20^th century, BF Skinner, offered this pithy assessment of humans: “The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do.”

Skinner’s answer to that question was no; instead, humans were driven entirely by a set of their past behaviors that were reinforced positively by others.

In both Pavlov’s and Skinner’s universe, free will was out of the question. It was only a matter of deciding how to condition people.

Modern psychiatry, 40 years ago, formed an overt alliance with pharmaceutical companies, to sell chemically-imposed conditioning as treatment for disease. At least the early behaviorists wore their agenda on their sleeves. These days, it’s all subterfuge and deception.

When all is said and done, brain researchers of the 21st century steadfastly believe that human thought, feeling, desire, and consciousness can be reduced to predetermined signals and chemicals and electronics taking place inside the skull. Therefore, for them, creating changes in those signals is entirely legitimate and ethical: they are merely making over the Unfree Human Thing into a Better Unfree Thing.

Jon Rappoport

How psychology undermined Western civilization

Jan30

How psychology undermined Western civilization

by Jon Rappoport

January 30, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

After the Sandy Hook murders, psychology and psychiatry have taken another leap forward in expanding their influence throughout society. “More mental-health services” is the catch-all phrase our leaders use in “solving” these massacres—along with gun control.

But just as grabbing guns won’t reduce the bulk of gun violence in America, the vague mental-health dictum won’t work, either.

This article focuses on psychology, which is a branch of false knowledge different from the false knowledge of psychiatry.

A psychiatrist is a medical doctor who has received special training in diagnosing and prescribing drugs for “mental disorders,” none of which disorders can be confirmed to exist by any test.

A psychologist doesn’t need to be a medical doctor. With an advanced degree and a license, he can do therapy with patients and try to resolve “mental and emotional issues,” for which no diagnostic tests exist.

From the beginning of the history of psychology, it was really a simple trick. Establish a loose category called “mental problem,” pour money and research into solving it, and enroll patients.

This approach has become so pervasive that most people can’t conceive of an alternative. A person is acting strange, he has a problem, and a mental-health practitioner can help him solve it. What else do we need to know?

Well, for starters, we need to know why the category of “mental problem” is necessary. Why should we assume it means anything?

Instead, for example: what about people making an inventory of their own deeply held convictions, followed by a self-assessment, to see how well or badly they’re living up to those convictions?

Why did that approach go out the window?

Because it’s based on some sense of responsibility, which is now verboten in a society where “intervening” and “fulfilling needs” are paramount.

If a person can’t or won’t discover what his most deeply held convictions are, what hope does he have? What problems can he solve that are going to make any great difference?

“Let’s see. I’m living a life I don’t want, and that life is throwing problems at me. If I solve the problems, I’ll be okay, right?”

Are you kidding?

Academic psychology, if you read its history, its textbooks, its methods, has nothing of value or substance to say about a person’s most profound personal convictions. That’s not on the radar. It never was. What you get is sophisticated babble about mental conditions and unresolved issues.

The existence of these issues and conditions is PROMOTED by psychology. Psychology is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you assume these conditions actually exist and if you believe they are real, then you can chew on them for ten or 15 years and come up with explanations, answers, and solutions.

Yes, that’s right. The human being is a very adaptable creature. If you can insert a primary assumption into his mind, where he accepts it as authentic, he’ll begin to cogitate and calculate around it.

Because the assumption was never his to begin with. He bought it. He went for it. He took the bait.

Now if you consider that millions and millions of people are working on this fake reality, having accepted that they suffer from mental problems, what do you get?

You get a society that, more and more, is paralyzed into inaction. You get passivity. You get an overall depletion of energy and power. You get a victim-club mentality.

Freud picked the “Oedipal Complex” out of a hat. The incest fantasy. He made this the foundation of his breakthrough. He sold it. He sold it as the underlying trauma and taboo that was always and forever twisting the minds of every male on Earth. He decided that this fantasy had to be exorcised with years of specialized therapy.

It was a new version of old guilt. Forget about the Garden of Eden and eating forbidden fruit from the tree. The incest wish was the real source of human guilt.

Psychology, from Freud forward, quickly became a prison term from which the inhabitant could be released when the therapist determined basic problems had been defeated.

Freud’s opponents and detractors argued for their own version of the correct prison (the basic mental problem). But the whole underlying notion of “a person captured” needed to come under scrutiny, and of course that never happened, as long as psychologists and psychiatrists ruled the roost.

Psychology became a major force that undermined freedom, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution in America. It asserted or implied that no rights or responsibilities meant anything as long as people were chained to their own problems and issues. This was an argument from Inherent Limitation. It was persuasive.

From the perspective of psychology, only rubes and Neanderthals would claim freedom was a core fact of existence. The more educated classes would realize they had to swim through an undersea jungle of their own mental and emotional restraints, guided by a steady professional hand, before they could finally emerge and come to experience the meaning of freedom.

So of course that journey became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There was one catch. Most people, after years of therapy, felt no dramatic difference. This disappointment translated into a deep cynicism about life. It meant more passivity.

Psychology has not only promoted the existence of mental problems, it has stated that these conditions are rock-bottom facts: there is no way to overcome them, short of talk therapy or psychiatric drugs. Psychology argues that it is useless to try to “ignore mental conditions.” That won’t work. It can’t work.

And if the patient agrees, he can go on to manufacture problems without end.

Whereas, the truth is, every so-called mental or emotional condition is a signal. It alerts a person that he is heading the ship away from its destination. He’s experiencing a crisis that has everything to do with the question: WHAT IS MY COURSE IN LIFE?

Finding an answer to that question makes all the difference.

I know somebody is going to write me about how nutrition can solve mental problems. Somebody is going to write and tell me how vaccines, medical drugs, chemtrails, GMOs, dyes and colors in food, etc., create mental problems.

I’ve written about these factors for years. Understand, however, that, in these cases, what the person is really suffering from is a severe nutritional deficit, or from the toxic overload of the vaccines, drugs, GMOs. To say it’s a mental problem is to misname what is really going on. In the same way, saying a person has an irresistible itch when what he really has is poison ivy is a diversion from the main event.

Psychology says: “Here is the mind. It contains conditions and issues. We can resolve them.”

That’s false. That’s the illusion. The mind doesn’t CONTAIN CONDITIONS or issues.

The conditions-hoax is perfectly paralleled by the disorder-hoax of psychiatry. These are, at the very best, metaphors. At their worst, they’re intentional ruses.

Here are ACTUAL rock-bottom conditions: freedom, independence, deep and profound desire, the power and energy to fulfill those desires, a sense of what is right and wrong, the wish to see others succeed brilliantly, community, expressing self, creative power, action in the world.

These are the elements of a philosophy, not psychology. These are elements of life abundant.

These are loci of decision for every conscious person.

And, as it turns out, psychology came late to the party. For millennia, humans have been engaging in philosophy and the exploration of spiritual dimensions.

The assumption of “gross limitation caused by internal problems” is a very recent concoction.

The assumption is simply the result of propaganda bought and sold.

When we delete such nonsense, we can discover the kind of personal truth that rings the bell clearly, if we are up to the task.

The rise of psychology was in part fueled by the notion that science could resolve human problems. But humans aren’t machines; they aren’t closed systems; they aren’t planets moving in fixed orbits. The analogy doesn’t work. It fails miserably.

Exploring instead, for example, what the ancient alchemists were really up to, and the original teachers of Tibet who employed the techniques of itinerant adepts from India, gives us a startling perspective on the UNLIMITED human being.

These teachers weren’t, in any meaningful sense, psychologists. They were philosophers of action. They were adventurers and explorers. They didn’t sit in offices dealing with the latest symptoms of people suffering from the malaise of a brainwashed society.

They knew there was a Matrix; they knew it was a heavy blanket of illusion; they knew it both corralled the individual and the community; and they knew it could be dispelled. It was their mission to make that happen, and they didn’t stint.

Theirs was a heraldic enterprise. It surpassed, by light years, stirring sand in a childish playpen of therapy.

That heraldic thread of adventure never dies. It can be stifled at times, but it remains alive under the surface.

Liberating the creative force in a person is the key. Not through some external and removed and remote process. The process involves everything you’ve got.

It goes down to the center of the Earth and out to the stars, and beyond. When so engaged, the mind cooperates and collaborates with the adventurer. It moves through so-called mental problems like a rocket burning up old paper.

One summer in the 1980s, when I was just starting out as a reporter, I scored a few front-page stories for LA Weekly, because other writers were out of town. I managed to squeeze in one of the weirder features the Weekly had published up to that time: off-the-record interviews with therapists detailing their private fantasies—all of which turned out to be intensely anti-social.

I later learned the “therapy community in town” didn’t appreciate my approach.

Similarly, I expect some psychologists will rankle at this one. But the point is, all these fantasies, of both patient and therapist are outcomes of the creative force in action—nothing less or more—and they should be seen that way.

Instead of assigning fantasy A to mental condition A and fantasy B to condition B, why not just throw all the insanity overboard and acknowledge, finally, that what underlies fantasia is the beginning and end of the answer to what’s bothering people and troubling them and driving them into despair and deep boredom:

Imagination and the creative force are tigers waiting to be let out of their cages so they can invent astonishing Futures.

This would be a truly modern psychology and a thoroughly contemporary reflection of what we all know.

From our deepest wellsprings, we:

INVENT;

IMAGINE;

CREATE;

IMPROVISE;

BUILD;

WORK TO MAKE WHAT WE IMAGINE INTO FACT IN THE WORLD.

Exploring the meaning and action of THIS is a worthy undertaking, and it would happily supersede what has absurdly been called psychology.

Jon Rappoport

Sandy hook actors, robots, androids, television creations

Jan21

Sandy Hook actors, robots, androids, television creations

by Jon Rappoport

January 21, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

First, I need to comment on a rumor that George Soros has been a key player in buying up gun manufacturers, with the intent of exercising “corporate gun control.”

Cerberus Capital Management, based in New York, owns a company called The Freedom Group. Freedom Group bought up Bushmaster Firearms, Remington Arms, and several other gun manufacturers.

So far, attempts to connect Soros to Cerberus or Freedom Group have fallen short. The NRA and factcheck.org state that Soros isn’t connected. If I find out otherwise, I will report it.

Right now, though, Freedom Group states it is getting out of the gun business. It is putting its stake up for sale.

That is highly significant. We are seeing disinvestment as an emerging strategy in the effort to reduce gun ownership. The plan is to convince more and more shareholders to walk away from their stake in gun and ammunition manufacturers, with the goal of starving these companies, destroying their stock-trading price on exchanges, and turning them into pariahs.

Disinvestment is a powerful approach. It applied huge pressure, for example, against apartheid, as private investors and funds disengaged themselves from any corporations doing business with South Africa.

Okay. On to the main subject of this article.

Online investigations of what really happened at Sandy Hook easily number in the thousands by now. Among other reporters, I have listed and described many contradictions and lies in the official scenario, and I’ve offered alternative explanations.

People have concluded:

no one was really killed in Sandy Hook, it was all faked;

the killings were real, but Adam Lanza wasn’t the shooter, he was the patsy;

Lanza was the killer, compelled by psychiatric drugs;

a Satanic group was behind the killings;

the federal government secretly contracted the killings in order to take guns away.

No matter what the conclusion, many of the investigations and analyses have turned up startling and useful information.

On YouTube, clips of Sandy Hook parents and teachers being interviewed reveal astonishing reactions and non-reactions that are light years away from what you would expect to see in the immediate wake of such a tragedy.

You can hear an important conversation between Jay Weidner and Jeff Rense on this subject. Some of the key interviews are referred to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJj_wZtQb_k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T76WAh9zVAY

You can also look for YouTube interview clips featuring “the people of Sandy Hook”: Robbie Parker, the Sotos family, Sally Cox, H Wayne Carver, Gene Rosen, Kaitlin Roig, etc.

These are all people who were intimately involved and affected. Their reactions, non-reactions, strange behavior, inexplicable attitudes are stunning.

This is what I want to comment on.

First of all, you have to realize that only certain people get on television. That’s fact #1, and it’s a major key. Only certain people are interviewed.

Television is the filter through which we see.

Parents who are completely grief-stricken, who have fallen apart and are incoherent (which is what you would expect): not interviewed.

Parents who are very angry and outraged: not interviewed.

Parents who demand answers from a full investigation, who aren’t satisfied with the emerging media-controlled story line: not interviewed.

Then we have parents who are in a close-to catatonic state, or parents who refuse to be engaged by any media person, who feel any media contact is insane and invasive and massively insensitive: obviously not approached for an interview.

The same exclusionary “rules for appearing on television” can be applied to neighbors, teachers, other school personnel, and friends of families who had children at the Sandy Hook School.

We don’t see these people, because they aren’t on television. So making some vast generalization about all of Sandy Hook is sketchy at best.

Then, on top of that, television news people are creating a story line about what happened at the school and in the town, and they are finding people who will corroborate that plot line, or can be convinced by news producers to corroborate it. This further narrows the field of acceptable interviews.

The third important fact about how television shapes the event is provided by the interviewees who have never been on television before, but have watched thousands of television interviews. These people have a strong tendency to “act like people are supposed to act” when they are put on camera—which is to say, artificial.

That is generally what television does to the whole society. It presents artificial sequences of emotions and responses, phony from the ground up. It presents them on the news, in sitcoms, in dramas, in magazine shows, in cartoons, in ads, in sports programming.

Television creates a model of behavior that is androidal: flattened and cooked and bent and short-circuited and averaged out. This is what television gives us, and this is what many viewers accept. Not only accept, but IMITATE in their lives:

They speak like television, they act like television, they think like television, they admire what television admires. They learn how to behave from television. They learn what is appropriate from television.

In this sense, television is the Stepford Village. It invades a town during a tragedy, it sets up, it rolls out a story line that is independent from reality, and it cues selected people to be the robots who confirm that story line, no matter how grotesque the distortion.

Television invents its shoddy, mindless, false, lying, reduced, “normalized,” hyped version of life, and then people who watch television accept and imitate it.

“I know you’ve just lost your daughter, and I can’t imagine how you feel at this moment, but you see, when we interview you, we want to honor her life. This is your chance to let people all over the world know what and who she was. Her spirit, her interests, her hobbies, what her friends felt about her. You can show the world how alive she was and how happy she was, and you can remember that and you can even smile…”

And the mother of that daughter hesitates, pauses, thinks about what she really feels, and then decides the television producer is right and she’ll go along with it.

Nevertheless, in the interviews with those people (and others) whom I’ve mentioned above, something else is also happening. Something beyond the pale. Something that includes the power and force and influence of television, but something that goes past that.

Disconnection from reality? Denial of reality? Yes. Something more? Yes.

Something inhuman. Something mechanical. As if, on some interior level, these people are programmed.

Programmed to do what?

To respond not as an individual, but as a “type of person.”

It’s as if these people have been manufactured, and the roles they’ve been outfitted with are grotesque cartoons.

As if they are machine-made cartoons. Something leaps out of them when they appear on television. They laugh, they smile, they act casual, they act “efficient” and stone-faced, they act placid and calm, they act polite, they act happy, they act as if they’ve been cast for a stage play that has nothing to do with the horrific events of the past hours and days in Sandy Hook.

They act as if they have no resource or experience that allows them to contact what they actually are. As if a wall has been built between what they are and how they are behaving.

In my opinion, this is a lot worse than if they had been (badly) trained at an actor’s school to intentionally provide material for an all-out hoax.

It’s a lot worse, because the manufactured front is their only reference point. They’re functioning robots. As such, it takes only minimal direction to move them to any chosen square on the media-controlled checkerboard.

“How do I need to behave to fit myself into the situation as an acceptable person?” This is the guiding question they ask themselves. The answer plugs in immediately. It is always going to be wrong, because every situation is, to some degree, alive, and the answer dictates dead behavior. Machine behavior.

We need to understand that these extraordinary and stunning and bizarre interviews from Sandy Hook are mirrored in other places. For example, what are we to say about thousands of soldiers who are duped into a war that had no sane reason to exist in the first place?

But there the soldiers are, on the battlefield. They are living and breathing and mouthing sentiments that have absolutely nothing to do with the situation in which they have been placed.

The war has nothing to do with defense of the nation. It is cast in that false light. It is promoted as necessary. It is heralded as an opportunity to do service, to protect freedom, but those are gross lies.

Is a typical soldier in such a war going to look any less grotesque than one of those parents interviewed at Sandy Hook?

Here’s another situation. A news anchor is covering a major tragedy, like the murder of JFK or 9/11, and it dawns on him that there are gaping holes in the story, contradictions, lies. As the hours and the reports pile up, he becomes more sure that what actually took place was a conspiracy.

But he continues to sit at the news table and impart the official line. He keeps on going. In his case, he’s able to affect what everyone accepts as the “authoritative news voice,” but does that make his broadcasts any less grotesque, for those who can see, than the interviews at Sandy Hook?

I’m not saying that all the factors I’ve described in this article explain the actions of every person interviewed on television at Sandy Hook. In particular, two of the most egregious interviews, with Robbie Parker, father of a six-year-old girl who was killed in the school, and with H Wayne Carver, the Connecticut medical examiner, are mind-boggling.

First of all, you can confirm that Parker is a real person with a real background by searching Utah newspapers; e.g., The Deseret News. Parker is seen, in his now-famous interview, smiling broadly and chuckling and having a good time just prior to stepping in front of the microphone to make a public statement, at which point he huffs and puffs and tries to get into the character of a grieving father.

It’s hideous.

Carver, in response to press questions, not only gives absurd and completely inappropriate answers, he guffaws once or twice, as if he’s out of control.

In Carver’s case, I would say he’s covering up some gigantic medical lies about the case. He’s trying to dissemble and, underneath his shaky exterior, he’s very nervous and scared that something is going to jump out of the hopper and bite him hard. He’s at sea. He doesn’t know what to do. At moments, it looks as if he’s going to come apart at the seams.

In Robbie Parker’s case, the man is certainly acting when he tries to pass off his grief as real. But why and on what level? I can only guess and speculate and ask questions.

Was he a plant? For reasons unknown, was he inserted into the situation? Or was he programmed from an early age to believe implicitly in the religious notion that he and his family would always and forever be united, here and in the afterlife? Was that programming so deep that his attitude could never accept and countenance grief, even when his own child is killed?

But then I have to ask this. If by some miracle, we had been able to see interviews with ALL the parents who lost children at Sandy Hook, and with all the brothers and sisters; if we could see all the very human feelings and emotions that television takes away from us and hides, because their story line is geared to condition the public to the inhuman; if we could see, unvarnished and uncensored, everything the people of Sandy Hook felt and experienced; would we still think the whole town was demented and phony and nothing but a twisted act?

I don’t think so.

Whatever the truth is about the actual crimes and murders committed in that town, whatever the cover-ups, whatever the true operation that was mounted and carried out there, the role of television is central.

It is the prime programmer. It tells the false story. It obscures the truth. It hijacks the truth.

Television reduces the potential of life. It is the calculated average on display for the average viewer. It is the hyper-normal maniac at loose in society.

The people who own and run television for the masses are bringers of emotional disaster. They make a wasteland out of the hypnotic screen of reality.

Why are they successful?

They plug into a deep cynicism that underlies the robotic behavior and thought of millions of people.

This inner cynicism comes about because people already feel cut off from their own wide emotional range.

Television magnifies and exacerbates that disconnectedness.

People feel cut off from their own deeper currents because they are living lives and feeling emotions that go around and around in circles.

They see nowhere else to go. This sets the stage for dehumanization.

What’s missing in all this is the human faculty that can vault life up on to another level of brilliant success.

I’m talking about the creative faculty and force, the soul of imagination, from which people can invent realities that make television look like a discarded tissue in an old railroad station.

Because it comes down to this. If you don’t have the wherewithal to invent the realities you most deeply desire, someone else will do it for you. On their terms.

They will do it for you every time.

Some high priest, some dictator, generalissimo, president, elite news anchor, some numbers cruncher who sees this modern world as a playground in which to forward market research, will find the golden average, the emotional sweet spot on which the gobbling maggots can prey.

And when the individual creative force is tamped down, dampened, squeezed, and sat on, people will take what they can get.

I have no ax to grind here. The people who honestly conclude that Sandy Hook was one great hoax from the beginning and no one died; the people who conclude that Lanza was the patsy for professionals who did the killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School; the people who believe Lanza was the killer driven over the edge by psychiatric drugs: the people who believe the Sandy Hook killings were a secret-society operation or a black-ops horror designed to grab the guns of Americans; all these people will continue to explore their paths and they will unearth important information.

What I’m offering here is a perspective on how much of what we see is delivered to us through the twisted dehumanized lens of television, presented as if it is the whole picture and the whole story.

In Sandy Hook, what still remains off-camera, never seen, never mentioned, never named, never broadcast, never permitted to find the light of day? The answer is: whatever is spontaneously alive, whatever exceeds a simple series of machined reflexes.

The great goal of media and its controllers is mechanical reduction, so populations will accept whatever seems “more efficient,” more ordered, more systematic, more bureaucratic, more automatic, more predictable, more repetitive.

With that as the merciless foundation, the population will accept whatever comes down from the top as a command. The actual content of the command is unimportant.

The machine accepts instructions.

Jon Rappoport

Universe Manufacturing, Inc.

Jan12

Universe Manufacturing, Inc.

by Jon Rappoport

January 12, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Here are several ads from an interdimensional newspaper that might prove informative:

UNIVERSE MANUFACTURING! Let us build it for you! Move-in ready. All appliances and energy sources. Consult our catalog. Gods supplied or not. Easy entrance, no exit. Pre-hypnosis induced painlessly in our clean spacious facilities by licensed physicians!

CUSTOM BUILT UNIVERSES OUR SPECIALTY! Uni-language, gated planets, military emperors. Inspect our plans, work with a seasoned professional. Dignified cemeteries. CSI reruns.

A RETIREMENT UNIVERSE for the whole family! Do you want to pass on your genes to millions of future generations? Of course you do! Why else would you be alive? In our universe, we supply a religion that forbids gene waste, under penalty of deportation to a state-run hospital. Appoint surrogates to wage an eternal war between matriarchal and patriarchal societies. Square dancing, ping-pong tournaments, celebrity-look-alike performers on weekends.

COLLECTIVE GOO UNIVERSE FOR ADDLED MINDS! Be part of the Doofus! Delete thinking! Experience the thrill of melting down in 24/7 love with the One All Thingo! At first you’ll feel icy winds whipping through your separated soul on the plains of cruel choice. But then, at the last moment, from the deepest well of reality, a radiant finale will clutch your sacred yearning, as you’re shot up on to on a cloud of honey and transported to a fortress where patented OmniJuice floods your being and you realize this is your home forever! Soft rock, lake of marshmallows, electro-massage units. One and two bedroom apts.

NATURE IS NATURE UNIVERSE! Hunt for 60,000 years, fit into the environment, hear the roots grow; climb trees, shepherd goats, bath in snow, chant in monotone, blow up evil machines in distant cities. Exclusive Gaia tweets. Become utterly convinced there is nothing else! Raise children as primates! “Secrets of the Urine Garden” for first five callers.

AT LAST! THE SOULMATE UNIVERSE! Let us design your agonizing quest for the other half of yourself. You met a stranger for 18 seconds in a hotel bar? He’s here! Receive your initiation rites in the Oprah Palace and journey out on to the landscape of despair. Lifetimes of synchrony…and just-misses…and then….but we can’t give away the glorious ending. You know you want it, so let us build this low to mid-range IQ universe with billions of extras and millions of planets. Herbal wraps, hot stones; vegan paramedics on call.

PROMISE OF PARADISE UNIVERSE, slightly used version, for sale at giveaway price. Commit untold numbers of righteous acts that would be considered capital crimes with special circumstances in other universes, along the severe path of loyalty to a standard that will put you in a heaven others are denied. Commandments, holy book, some flagellation required. All races and religions invited. We have our own God and he’s pissed off!

VICTIMS PLUS! Have you been inventing a story of oppression that’s somehow never been accorded its proper due? Well, in our universe, we bring in the sheep and put bows on their necks! This your place! Normals supplied as foils. All the tables are turned. For once (and forever), you get what you deserve! Lavish benefits! Pre-training in the necromancy of bureaucratic interactions. Work the system as it’s never been worked before! Choose from a catalog of disorders. Full insurance coverage extended to family members.

THE END OF IMAGINATION UNIVERSE! Have you finally reached the end of your tether? Want to attribute all magic and creation to an external source? We have attractive life paths for trillions of serial incarnations. You’ll go with God, you’ll go with science, you’ll go with money, you’ll go with pills. We have it all. Our calibrated partial-narcosis treatments will saddle you with just enough doubt to make you wonder whether you’re doing the right thing by your existence…and yet, in the end, you’ll submit to a Greater Pattern. Geometric homilies, sacred this and that, ideal forms, gradualism, “it’s all about family,” “I’m doing this for the children,” “you only live once,” endless distractions constructed on the basis of “realism,”–you’ll become facile with them all. We’ll keep you hopping! Try our new on-and-off paranoia option. Limited light-year adventures available in some areas. Inquire about liability. Ask yourself if the End of Imagination Universe is right for you.

And a small classified ad: “Universe disintegration plus universe invention=You. Details re imagination. Send $35 and self-addressed stamped envelope to PO Box 43920518-A, Altoona, Pennsylvania.

Jon Rappoport

Salvador Dali versus The Matrix

Jan12

Salvador Dali versus The Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

January 12, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The critics would have declared Dali a mental patient if he hadn’t had such formidable classical painting skills.

He placed his repeating images (the notorious melting watch, the face and body of his wife, the ornate and fierce skeletal structures of unknown creatures) on the canvas as if they had as much right to be there as any familiar object.

This was quite troubling to many people. If an immense jawbone that was also a rib or a forked femur could rival a perfectly rendered lamp or couch or book (on the same canvas), where were all the safe and easy accoutrements and assurances of modern comfortable living?

Where was the pleasantly mesmerizing effect of a predictable existence?

Where was a protective class structure?

To make it worse, Dali invented vast comedies. But the overall joke turned, as the viewer’s eye moved, into a nightmare, into an entrancing interlude of music, a memory of something that had never happened, a gang of genies coming out of corked bottles.

What was the man doing? Was he making fun of the audience? Was he simply showing off? Was he inventing waking dreams? Was he, God forbid, actually imagining something entirely new that resisted classification?

Dali’s greatest paintings were undeniable symphonies, and mere acknowledgment of his talent would not explain how he composed the movements.

Words failed viewers and critics and colleagues and enemies.

But they didn’t fail Dali. He took every occasion to explain his work. However, his explications were handed out in a way that made it plain he was telling tall tales—interesting, hilarious, and preposterous tall tales.

Every interview and press conference he gave, gave birth to more attacks on him. Was he inviting scorn? Was he really above it all? Was he toying with the press like some perverse Olympian?

Media analysts flocked to make him persona non grata, but what was the persona they were exiling? They had no idea then, and they have no idea now.

It comes back to this: when you invent something truly novel, you know that you are going to stir the forces trapped within others that aspire to do the very same thing. You know that others are going to begin by denying that anything truly NEW even exists. That DOES make it a comedy, whether you want to admit it or not.

It is possible that every statement ever uttered in public by Dali was a lie. A fabrication. An invention dedicated to constructing a massive (and contradictory) persona.

Commentators who try to take on Dali’s life usually center on the early death of his young brother as the core explanation for Dali’s “basic confusion”—which resulted in his bizarre approach to his own fame.

However, these days, with good reason, we might more correctly say that Dali was playing the media game on his own terms, after realizing that no reporter wanted the real Dali (whatever that might mean)—some fiction was being asked for, and the artist was merely being accommodating.

He was creating a self that matched his paintings.

It is generally acknowledged that no artist of the 20th century was superior to Dali in the ability to render realistic detail.

But of course Dali’s work was not about realism.

The most complex paintings—see, for example, Christopher Columbus Discovering America and The Hallucinogenic Toreador—brilliantly orchestrated the interpenetration of various solidities of realities, more or less occupying the same space.

I’m sure that if Dali were living today, he would execute a brain-bending UFO landing on the front lawn of the White House. Such a painting would envelop the viewer with several simultaneous dimensions colliding outside the president’s mansion.

At some point in his career, Dali saw (decided) there was no limit to what he could assemble in the same space—and there was no limit to the number of spaces he could corral on the same canvas. A painting could become a science-fiction novel reaching into several pasts and futures. The protagonist (the viewer) could find himself in such a simultaneity.

Critics have attacked the paintings relentlessly. They hate the dissonance. It’s a sign that Dali could give full play to his imagination—a sin of the first order. They resent Dali’s mordant wit, and rankle at the idea that Dali could carry out monstrous jokes—in such fierce extended detail—on any given canvas.

But above all, the sheer imagination harpoons the critics. How dare a painter turn reality upside down so blatantly, while rubbing their faces in the detail.

The cherry on the cake was: for every attack the critics launched at Dali the man (they really had no idea who he was), Dali would come back at them with yet another elaborate piece of fiction about himself. It was unfair. The critics were “devoted to the truth.” The painter was free to invent himself over and over as many times as he fancied.

Dali was holding up a mirror. He was saying, “You people are like me. We’re all doing fiction. I’m much better at it. In the process, I get at a much deeper truth.”

Dali was the hallucinogenic toreador. He was holding off and skirting the charges of the critics and the historians. They rushed at him. He moved with his cape—and danced out of the way.

The principles of organized society dictate that a person must be who he is, even if that is a cartoon of a cartoon. A person must be one recognizable caricature forever, must be IDed, must have one basic function. Must—as a civilization goes down the trail of decline—be watched and taped and profiled.

When a person shows up who is many different things, who can invent himself at the drop of hat, who seems to stand in 14 different places at the same time, the Order trembles.

This is not acceptable.

(Fake) reality declares: what you said yesterday must synchronize absolutely with what you say today.

This rule (“being the only thing you are”) guarantees that human beings will resonate with the premise that we all live and think and work in one continuum of space and time. One. Only one. Forever.

That’s the biggest joke of all. The big lie.

Whatever he was, however despicable he may have been in certain respects, Dali broke that egg. Broke the cardinal rule.

He reveled in doing it. He made people wait for an answer about himself, and the answer never came. Instead, he gave them a hundred answers, improvised like odd-shaped and meticulous reveries.

He threw people back on their own resources, and those resources proved to be severely limited.

How harsh for conventional critics to discover that nothing in Dali’s education produced an explanation for his ability to render an object so perfectly on the canvas. It was almost as if, deciding that he would present competing circumstances inside one painting, he perversely ENABLED himself to do the job with such exacting skill, “making subversive photographs come to life.”

That was too much.

But there the paintings are.

Imagination realized.

Suck on that lemon.

Like it or not, Dali paved the way for many others. He opened doors and windows.

And the pressure has been building. The growing failure of major institutions (organized religion, psychology, education, government) to keep the cork in the bottle signals a prison break in progress.

More people understand that the veil is not really a veil of tears. It’s a curtain madly drawn across the creative force.

The pot is boiling. People want out.

Somewhere along the line we have to give the green light to our own creative power. That is the first great day. That’s the dawn of no coerced boundaries. Everything we’ve been taught tells us that a life lived entirely from creative power is impossible. It’s weird. It’s crazy. It’s meaningless. We don’t have it within us. We should maintain silence and propriety in the face of greater official power and wisdom. We must abide by the rules. We must, at best, “surrender to the universe.”

But what if, when we come around the far turn, we see that the universe is us? Is simply one part of imagination? Is a twinkling rendition installed to keep us titillated with dreams that would forever drift out of reach?

Twenty years ago, I had a conversation with Jack True that touched on Dali. Jack was, in my estimation, the most innovative and gifted hypnotherapist on the planet. He was constantly inventing ways to wake people up from what he called “their core trance.”

Here is a fragment from that conversation.

Q: You wanted to say something about Dali?

A: Just that I admire him for his conviction.

Q: His conviction about what?

A: The creative act. To have executed all those paintings with as much detail—-and at the same time to bring into being situations that never existed before, there on the canvas—he shook up the world. He really did. And he satisfied all the conditions for the “common man.”

Q: What does that mean?

A: The “common man” wants his art to “look real.” Well, Dali gave the common man that in spades. To a T. Except what looked perfectly real was perfectly wild, way beyond the rules of time and space. That’s what shook up the world. Dali was working with grand gestures in grand multiple spaces.

Space really is the issue. To give the viewer the feeling that space can extend in enormous ways and impart a sense of high passion, as opposed to dead territory…Dali worked with exceedingly high intensity. And he wasn’t asking for acceptance. He was ramming his vision down the throats of the public. He was turning the screw.

Q: You think he had a major effect on the consciousness of the planet.

A: People were forced to re-think assumptions. They were forced to admit that there might be some very fantastic things floating around in their own consciousness. They may have hated Dali’s work, but they had to feel that their own minds and imaginations were much bigger than they supposed.

Q: So who was Dali?

A: Only he knows that. He was a very slippery fellow in public. He thought of every public appearance as a stage play, and he was the star. He changed roles all the time. And he did that while pretending that he was a model of consistency. Everything he did was against the grain.

Q: He took delight in exploding conventional notions of physics.

A: I think he believed that every particle of matter was a separate dream.

Q: That’s an interesting statement.

A: He knew that matter and energy were born out of dreams, visions, that they were products of imagination. This gave him enormous leverage.

Q: In his various portrayals of himself, there was a common thread. He presented himself as a kind of magician.

A: He liked to present himself as a Svengali.

Q: He gave many people the idea that someone who relies on his imagination is weird.

A: Well, you can’t avoid that. People will always think that way, even if you wear a three-piece suit.

Q: Why is there such a fear of imagination?

A: Because people know they have it and they also know they don’t use it. So they feel guilt. And that translates into fear and resentment, which are central parts of life on planet Earth.

JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet, is featured in THE MATRIX REVEALED. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages. That is just a faction of what THE MATRIX REVEALED has to offer.

Jon Rappoport

How the Matrix deals with power

Jan12

How the Matrix deals with power

by Jon Rappoport

January 12, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

In previous articles, I’ve been making clear how THE VOICE narrates the story of our times through television anchorage (See here, here, here, here, here, here).

The elite anchor is groomed to be able to induce a seamless hypnotic trance in viewers and make HIS voice THEIR voice.

There is power in a voice.

A voice can change reality.

Your voice is the voice that destroys the narrative that has been sculpted for us. Your voice is the voice that rolls over the voice of the elite anchor and the other elite leaders who speak for us.

When your voice becomes your VOICE, you connect with something oceanic that rips away false separations and false systems and false ideas and deserts of sand on which our fake reality is built.

We pretend to be small. We pretend to be whispers. We pretend to be confused. We pretend to be creatures living inside the space of this deluded society. We pretend to be clueless. We pretend to have such limited power.

We pretend.

We pretend that some overriding system or structure SUPERSEDES OUR OWN VOICE. We bow down to that system, and then we see what that does to our own power. It diminishes it. It makes our voice small. It makes our voice thin. It makes us into weaklings.

It makes us walled off from each other, from THE REAL EACH OTHER. The real each other is each one of us with power, with A VOICE.

The word “rant” is interesting to analyze. It originally referred to someone speaking in a completely unhinged way. Its recent online meaning was invented by tech heads, who adopt a “cool” attitude toward problems and answers. These cerebral types consider any outward display of passion or outrage to be a rant. For them, the “ranting voice” is suspect.

Try this experiment. Find a piece of writing you love that expresses great passion and poetry. Read it out loud while you’re alone. Read it out loud 50 times over the course of a few days. Put your own passion into the words. If you’re not already lying in a coffin, something unexpected will happen to you. You’ll find yourself coming alive in a larger way. You’ll experience glimpses of your VOICE.

This has to do with BEING ALIVE.

You’ll experience the absence of little structures and systems.

Keep reading that passage over and over. Put everything you have into it. Don’t stint. Put more and more feeling into it.

Then, watch the evening network news. Listen to the tone of the anchor. Pay attention to how he establishes a continuity. No matter how absurd you thought the evening news was, you’ll now comprehend that absurdity from an entirely new perspective.

As you expand your own VOICE, and as you EXPRESS WHAT YOU TRULY WANT TO EXPRESS—-YOUR OWN THOUGHTS, YOUR OWN IDEAS, YOUR OWN FEELINGS, YOUR OWN INVENTIONS—you are cutting away layers of stagnant consciousness. Each one of those layers says: “reality is THIS.” Each layer has a different restrictive portrait of reality, and as it disintegrates and tumbles away into space, you become freer.

The VOICE.

A path to greater power, greater aliveness, greater empathy, greater engagement, greater self, greater community, greater wholeness.

Your voice, not the anchor’s voice. The anchor’s voice operates on behalf of the established corrupt order, as a mesmerizing tool. Your VOICE liberates you and others.

Many years ago, I was teaching a small class in a school in New York. The kids were all retreads from other schools, where they didn’t make it for a variety of reasons.

They were in a constant state of distraction. Unteachable.

So I picked a short passage from a poem by Dylan Thomas. A few lines. A few great lines. I had each student read the passage out loud. Then we all read it together. Then we went around and around with each child reading it—I urged more feeling, more expression.

It was like trying to break through an iron ceiling. Each kid read the lines in a monotone. It was eerie, as if they were all in a trance. But I kept going anyway.

Nothing doing. Nothing happening.

Then I said, “I’m going to read these lines like a newscaster would read them.” I gave a pretty good impression of an anchor.

The kids cracked up. They thought it was very funny. They immediately grasped how ridiculous the anchor’s voice sounded trying to give feeling to poetry.

The kids began reading those lines as if they were news anchors. They had a great time with it. That’s what broke the ice.

“Now,” I said, “stop conning me. Read the lines with your own feeling. Come on. Put something into it.”

And they did.

Around and around we went. Each kid must have read those lines a dozen more times. They got into it. They shed their embarrassment.

The VOICES that emerged that day in class convinced me that everyone has a VOICE, and it is magnificent and powerful and it cuts through layers of conditioning like a knife through butter, once it’s unleashed.

These kids were titanic.

When we were done (I was reading the lines too), we all sat there and looked at each other in amazement. We knew. We knew we had cracked the egg. The spell of “flat reality” had been broken. We were all alive in a new way. We had come into power, into our VOICES. It was undeniable.

The famous lines we read?

Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Rage, rage, against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,

Because their words had forked no lightning they

Do not go gentle into that good night…

Although the overall sentiment of that poem might appear to be a kind of futility, when we read the lines over and over, WE came to a different place. A place where we knew that our words COULD fork lightning.

And then we read, from Fern Hill:

Now as I was young and easy under the apple boughs

About the lilting house and happy as the grass was green,

The night above the dingle starry,

Time let me hail and climb

Golden in the heydays of his eyes,

And honoured among wagons I was prince of the apple towns

And once below a time I lordly had the trees and leaves

Trail with daises and barley

Down the rivers of the windfall light…

the calves

Sang to my horn, the

Foxes on the hills barked clear and cold,

And the Sabbath rang slowly

In the pebbles of the holy streams.

To be astonished by something you see on a screen is one thing. To be astonished by what your VOICE can establish is light years beyond that.

VOICE is relentless life.

Jon Rappoport

Three paranormal experiences

Jan6

Three paranormal experiences

by Jon Rappoport

January 5, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

A healer of enormous capability, Hadidjah Lamas, worked with me in the 1970s, in Los Angeles.

Once, during a session, while I was lying on the table, something happened I was completely unprepared for. I saw, quite clearly, a dark metal mask sitting a foot or so above me in the air. It began to spin, and then it moved across the space of the room, sped up, and exited.

A few moments later, my space was flooded with blue and gold particles. They effervesced for several minutes. When I stood up, I felt as if I’d just taken a two-week vacation in the South Pacific.

As a painter, I had several interesting experiences in the mid-1990s, while I was working in my studio in Santa Monica. One day, I painted improvised black shapes on large pieces of cardboard. When I was done, I leaned the pictures against the far wall, lay down on my bed, and looked at them for several minutes.

I imagined the shapes were letters or words in a language. All of a sudden, the shapes transmitted something. For a few seconds, what was coming at me was more than I was imagining, as if a gate had opened.

The language of the shapes wasn’t in words, as we understand words. It was all motion and sensation. I understood it perfectly. It was about the exhilaration of flying, and the feelings were ecstatic, but this particular range of ecstasy was entirely new to me. It was as if the new language was expressing a higher cloud-layer of emotions, a whole series of them, from a space we could all reach, if we put aside our ordinary preconceptions.

I was so moved by this, I embarked on a 15-year period of painting what I called forgotten or imagined languages.

These glimpses and sudden revelations are indicative of what lies outside the boundaries of our culturally indoctrinated perception.

A baby learning to speak his native language cannot be explained in any normal systematic way. It isn’t a series of steps smoothly taken. It isn’t done through a graduated lesson plan. Every day, the baby makes leaps and experiences wholesale revelation.

When an actor takes on a role in a play, likewise there is no way to chart his progress in getting into character. There are key jumps of comprehension that exceed explanation.

Finding a new and genuine solution to a problem can’t be mapped out. There is always that jump into the answer. A rigid cause-and-effect chain fails to describe the process. And to assume the brain is originating breakthroughs is speculative and unsupported pseudoscience.

To use the word “paranormal” is really to talk about magic. And on this planet, there is a taboo about that. It cuts deep. The taboo implies that the act of doing real magic exceeds what is permitted to human beings.

And to explore magic or actually DO it, or even notice it when others do it, is shameful and should be accompanied by massive guilt.

Because, as the story goes, God doesn’t want humans to have too much power. What better tale to illustrate that than The Fall. The Eden myth. There in the Garden, Eve succumbed to persuasion, and she and Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Bang. Retribution, suffering, shame, guilt, excommunication.

The Roman Church (empire through mind control) capitalized on that story, dressed it up, and sold it over and over.

This is one reason why, on Earth, people who make magic fail to see it themselves, and those who would otherwise observe the magic also fail to notice it. Taboo.

If you dispassionately read the Old Testament, you could infer that the God described was, in fact, a kind of magician who decided that he wanted a territory of his own where the only magic allowed would be his.

What he was after was control of the paranormal. Exclusive ownership. So he did everything he could to “cast a blanket or a field over the planet” that would exclude others from doing what he could do.

It could then follow that a relatively few humans on Earth, somehow managing to make magic on their own, would ironically be blind to it. And people seeing it happen (objects spontaneously disappearing, other objects appearing, etc.) would likewise see nothing.

From this state of affairs, you get the blind leading the blind.

As a painter, I have thought that, walking through a museum, I’m seeing magic displayed on the paintings on the walls. Why shouldn’t these works be seen as just as real as the walls and the floors and and ceilings and spaces of the museum rooms?

Many years ago, I was sitting in a theater watching a swashbuckling sword-swinging costume drama starring Elizabeth Taylor and Stewart Granger. In one scene, they were sitting close to each other, deep in conversation.

For some reason, I decided to suspend the idea I was watching a movie. Instead, I concentrated on Taylor and Granger talking to each other. A minute or two passed.

Suddenly, I was in a new space.

These fully dressed characters receded. I was watching two people talk. It was quite startling.

This wasn’t an intellectual experience. I had blown through the “space of the movie” and I was THERE, and I was seeing directly into the two people up on the screen. They were unmasked. I had let myself into the space behind the space.

There was no movie, no artifice, no story, no background, no acting. All that was gone. I remember a thought drifting through my mind:

IS THIS LEGAL?

Taboo.

I was in a kind of space I had never known existed. I was no longer “keeping a distance.”

I was, so to speak, in the room with these two people, and I was watching them talk to each other. The utter immediacy of it was shocking. There was no acting at all. That was gone.

But it was a movie, wasn’t it? Apparently, only on one level was it a movie. That is how we conveniently see it. On another far more compelling level, it was a doorway into reality-plus.

We hear all sorts of technology talk about how movie makers are going to erase distance and immerse people in their films, to give them a living experience. Well, I can testify there is a much shorter route to that goal. The thing is, it destroys old taboos.

Because we have the capability to be in any space we want to be in, whenever we want to be in it. And when we get there, we experience, first-hand, how we’ve crossed the threshold between manufactured consent and ecstatic, unique, individual perception.

Was what I encountered when I penetrated the fourth wall of the theater what everyone would encounter? Or was the movie, the illusion a gateway into many possible deeper spaces?

That would be a question to discuss when we went there and came back.

I fully understand that people could call these three paranormal experiences nothing more than imagination. And if that’s the “worst-case scenario?” That’s saying imagination creates reality. Which puts us in paranormal territory of unbounded dimensions.

Jon Rappoport

Ready? Let’s pretend Collectivism doesn’t exist

Jan5

Ready? Let’s all pretend Collectivism doesn’t exist

by Jon Rappoport

January 5, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Let’s all get together and pretend Collectivism doesn’t exist, it’s an outmoded idea, and only the USSR ever took it seriously.

Actually, denying the reality of Collectivism is already a powerful collectivist movement in America. It has been for some time.

There is a good reason for this. The word collectivism has hideous connotations. It suggests that political power, at the top of the food chain, intends to hold down people who can make a living on their own.

It suggests that these entrepreneurs, especially if they can garner significant profits from their efforts, are evil and selfish. They are intentionally screwing over “the less fortunate.”

It’s all right for a majority of Congress and even the president to believe these hideous things, along with the three or four quadrillion people who hold down civil service government jobs, but they can’t say it.

Well, with Obama, we have to amend that. Our leaders can say these things now. They can say that everybody has to feed from a common trough. They can say that any neighborhood in America where most of the residents have savings accounts is a criminal enterprise, and should face RICO prosecution, unless it “alters its unbalanced population demographic.”

They can say that unless everyone is free and happy and taken care of, no one should be free. (Except actors and politicians.)

So they’re letting the cat out of the bag, and that’s why we need more of us to step up to the plate and declare that Collectivism in America doesn’t exist. To provide cover for our leaders.

We all want to help this massive denial persist, don’t we?

But here’s the downside and the threat. We have millions of young people coming up through schools programmed with sugar-plum idealism on behalf of “save everybody all the time everywhere in all cases for Mama Gaia.”

Those kids are formidable. They’re in lock step like any good rank and file. With just a little push, they’d all gather in Times Square at high noon and sing the Internationale.

We have to get them to mouth a whole different set of platitudes, to give themselves and us the aforementioned cover.

Then, when everything’s ready, and our glorious leaders sense the moment has arrived, we can all step out into full view and declare we are one with Marx and Lenin.

I mean, we are, right?

Isn’t this what we want?

I foresee the day when all the 24/7 surveillance of the American people will be used to assess and cap assets. They’ll cook up a sweet algorithm for it. X3s/5drt+32sv**-cfq equals: you have too much, give the excess to the government for redistribution.

The kindness and the humanity of it makes me weep.

Yesterday, I wrote an article titled, “Matrix governments pretend to be real in the fantasy called democracy.” I asserted, among other things, that all these share-and-care government programs are fakes. It’s all about the contracts let out to corporations to create utopia.

The contracts are awarded, but money leaks out of them, on purpose, like a sieve. Millions and billions of bucks disappear down into holes, laundry trucks arrive, load up cash, and start washing it.

I said many ungrateful things in that article.

Today, I have come to my senses. Mea mea culpa.

I’m sitting here with a whip flagellating myself on the back (which is a good trick, while typing). Later this afternoon, I plan to visit a pond filled with garbage and mud and sink myself up to my neck in it.

Then, starting tomorrow, I’ll enroll in a self-humiliation seminar, and pay my dues. Yes, I’ve had a real revelation.

I’m turning in my tank and my howitzer to the local police. They need these weapons, I don’t.

I’m air-mailing my 6000 dairy cows to Ted Turner. He has room for them on his 2,000,000 acres. By the way, Ted’s land is just a cover story for him. He can pretend to be awfully rich while, behind the scenes, he works to bring down the 400 people who’ve seen Atlas Shrugs, Part 2.. Ted’s with us. He wants to destroy the present money system and start over, allotting $3,000 to every man, woman, and child in America, so we can be free.

He has CNN rewriting MLK’s famous speech, so it now reads: “judged by the color of their skin, not by the content of their character.”

See, the more black people can be demeaned and cast in the light of absolute helplessness, the easier it is to present the American people with a lowest, lowest common denominator…a bottom class by which our progress as a nation can be measured.

It’s cruel, but sometimes scapegoating is necessary in the service of the Cause. Am I going too fast for you?

The underclass has to be pushed further and further down, so the government can point to it as a wretched failure and justify crashing the whole system and everybody in it, in order to institute absolute equality for all.

By the time those who are perceived to be the most unfortunate among us are rehabilitated, we’ll look around and notice that we’re all residents of a Christ-like police state.

For the common good.

Jesse and Al are definitely on board with the program. They’ve been doing this kind of shuffle-hustle for decades. They’re the pros. When it comes to making “their own people” look bad, they’re without peer.

There’s a rumor going around that Jesse wants EBT food-stamp cards to be the new money. Maybe even the global oil reserve currency.

Anyway, here’s the thing about Collectivism. It’s basically a movement to wipe out the very idea of the individual. The human of the future will only be visible as a member of a group. Otherwise, no one will see him, except to report him to Homeland Security.

Eventually, all singular nouns and pronouns will be scrubbed from the English language. On Thanksgiving, people will say, “Pass the turkeys.”

You’ll be standing alone on a street corner and a guy you know will come up to you and say, “How are you folks today?”

Obviously, this will be a wonderful improvement. But in the meantime, we have to keep promoting individuals, like athletes and movie stars, to hide the fact that, soon, we’re going to spring the trap and eliminate all unique references, all singularities, and all individuals.

Remember that.

Ridicule is the best weapon to use against those who claim we’re all living in a collectivist state right now. “Typical white male” is a good insult to shoot at somebody if you’re white. It suggests a fine degree of insight on your part.

If you’re going after a black person who’s defending individuality and freedom, you’ve got the old standby, Uncle Tom. You can also say he’s betraying his own people, his own race. Not only does it cut deep, it also suggests that black people aren’t capable of being free individuals. This is good because, again, it bolsters the idea of an intransigent, oppressed, and completely helpless underclass.

And to lift up that underclass will require the establishing of universal Collectivism. But of course you omit that part.

This might be a good time to spell out our rights under a collectivist state. The principal right is experiencing the warm feeling from knowing that we’re all in this together. It trumps everything.

Now some people might say this isn’t really a right, but they’re adhering to the classical definition of what a right is. That is exactly what we have to wipe out.

A right isn’t a right. It’s a higher degree of consciousness and a feeling. Make sure you understand that.

For example, in being willing to give up your assets, earnings, and property to the state, you’re feeling honor. And love. Especially love. And after all, that’s a Christian virtue. Not the throwing-the-money-changers-out-of-the-temple kind of love. The homogenized, melted-down, undifferentiated, jelly love.

The glazed-donut love that seeks nothing for itself.

Here’s how it works. You look out at the world and you see that, in some country you know nothing about, there are a lot of people starving and dying. You insist they be saved. You insist that, in order to save them, we have to revolutionize the entire political, economic, and social system of the planet. That’s real love. And it helps bring the world closer to being one collectivist glob of cheese.

The underlying right of all people is: to melt down in love.

Karl Marx was simply Jesus with a plan.

Here’s one more thing we need to wipe out. The old idea of will power. Ban it wherever possible. Make it a speech crime and a thought crime. Replace it with: waiting for the universe to implement the next step of its plan for the future.

This puts everybody into a passive holding pattern. Easier then to run them over with the collectivist juggernaut.

Our leaders are ready. They have the wisdom to distribute all goods and services from Central Planning. They have the discernment to take from us what should be given to others. They just need to know enough of us are on board. Until that day, we give them cover.

We firmly assert that Collectivism doesn’t exist. It’s a fiction. A fairy tale. A ruse. A paranoid delusion requiring treatment. The people who believe Collectivism is here are rigid and warped. They are cut off from being able to love.

And they are. We are the only ones who can really love. That’s why the future is ours.

Collectivism? Never heard of it.

Deny it, deny it, deny it, until all of a sudden…zap ZAP, and the trap is sprung. And then we’re all in it together, where we’ve really always been, except now we have the laws and the leaders and the plan and the personnel and the guns and the bullets to officially make it so.

On that day, we’ll stand on the peak of the mountain and raise a new flag and all will be well, all will be tranquil, and the seas will part and a man wearing desert robes emblazoned with a red Chinese star and a Star of David and a Hammer and Sickle and a photoshopped picture of Thomas Jefferson embracing David Rockefeller will come striding toward us…and angels and cherubs will dance around his head, and squadrons of mosquito drones will glow in his energy field, and synthetic electromagnetic love will pour out of his every cell, and holographic ads for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Chase and Citi will light up the sky, and we will fall to our knees and submit.

That’s the money shot.

Hang in, we’re almost there.

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Energy & Imagination

New study: are we all living in the future now?

Are we all living inside a virtual simulation?

Newsflash to psychiatry: a human being is not a thing

How psychology undermined Western civilization

Sandy hook actors, robots, androids, television creations

Universe Manufacturing, Inc.

Salvador Dali versus The Matrix

How the Matrix deals with power

Three paranormal experiences

Ready? Let’s pretend Collectivism doesn’t exist