Category Archives: Individual Freedom

Do memes exist? Or are they fictions?

Do memes exist? Or are they fictions?

by Jon Rappoport

April 6, 2016

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

There was a time when words like “slogan” and “motto” were used frequently. They were good solid terms. But then something happened.

The new, dreamy, utopian, educated, tech class wanted a mystical item for their new “information culture.”

So meme came along in 1976. Thank you, Richard Dawkins.

“Slogan” comes from the early 16th century Scottish Gaelic: sluagh (army) and gairm (shout). An army shout. A battle cry. No mistaking it. Bang.

“Motto” is just as good. The Latin gives us muttum (a mutter, a grunt).

But now, from the Online Etymology Dictionary:

Meme: “1976, introduced by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in ‘The Selfish Gene,’ coined by him from Greek sources, such as mimeisthai “to imitate”…and intended to echo gene.”

Dawkins writes: “We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. ‘Mimeme’ comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like ‘gene’.”

A unit of cultural transmission. Sounds a bit like ‘gene.’ A replicator. Heavy pseudo-tech overtones.

With “meme,” we’re into different territory. We’re encouraged to believe (and even celebrate) that key words and phrases and images “automatically” transfer from person to person—a cultural phenomenon. As if there is a contagion factor beyond anyone’s control. As if genes are being passed along. Or viruses. No one is really responsible. It just happens.

This absurd notion is, of course, entirely in line with collectivism —“the things we’re all thinking at once.”

We’re supposed to believe that ideas “happen” in the group, the mass, the Glob. They just show up.

They especially happen on the Web, where these “memes” of the collective (all hail!) sweep through the brains of millions of people like a dust storm—because that’s how reality should work in the Great New Epoch.

The individual is nothing more than a link in a chain. Electrical impulses pass along the chain. Or genes do. Or viruses.

No choice is involved. It’s a wonderful cheese-melt infection and contagion. The group knows. The group twitches this way and then that way. This is the heraldic future. Sizzle, twitch, sizzle, twitch.

Independent individual consciousness? Choice? Never heard of it.

But let me quote the well-known British psychologist, Susan Blackmore, because she lays out the “meme-philosophy” in an unmistakable way:

“Consciousness is an illusion constructed by the memes.”

Boom. There is no such thing as consciousness. It’s just a grab-bag of contagious memes. And if this isn’t enough, here is her foundation:

“Memetics appears to have a lot of implications that we humans are machines, which people have never liked. Of course we’re machines, we’re biological machines. But people don’t like that. Free will and consciousness is an illusion, and the self is a complex of memes. People don’t like that. My view is that if these things are true it doesn’t matter if we like them or not.”

I see. We’re machines. There is no freedom. In fact, there is no self. So Blackmore, I presume, is just another collection of memes talking to other collections of memes—and she’s not choosing to do so, because choice doesn’t exist. There is no “she.” There is no you. There is no me.

Perfect.

Transhumanists must love her. They push the narrative that humans are merely biological machines, too. Therefore, since “no one is really there,” any changes to the machines are acceptable, especially if introduced from above, in order to create a far better future. Naturally, these transhumanists define what that future should be. They decide how to re-program all the billions of defective biological machines on Earth to fit their vision.

Plant countless numbers of memes; modify genetics; beam electromagnetics into skulls; rearrange hormones; insert images directly into the visual cortex bypassing the usual mode of perception; prescribe drugs that radically alter brain chemistry; replace body parts; hook brains to computers that supply answers to all questions and problems; create human clones; establish hatcheries for synthetic births.

You know, that sort of thing.

Rewire all the sizzles and twitches of the universal collective.

In Brave New World, Huxley was presenting a future in which humans would opt for the pleasures of sensation and belonging, and in return they would sacrifice whatever they might dimly remember of a different kind of life.

All the suffering of the past would be the rationalization for making this new world, where suffering would be absent.

The memes that refer to this trade-off are still in the infancy stage, but you can bet they will proliferate. And they will not spontaneously arise. They’ll be inserted, as part of the ongoing psychological operation to carry us forward into a shadowless society of happy bio-machines.

A few memes that have come and gone and resurfaced—the meanings change as well: “Spaceship Earth, biosphere, infosphere, going viral.” Depending on the usage, you can see, creeping in at the edges, the Collective We, as if the “I” is simply a remnant of a bygone era of monsters…but now, thank goodness, the human race is being re-educated to the correct frequency.

Meme-metaphysics emphasizes what the Internet supposedly proves: all is information. Life is information. Flesh, blood, desire, passion, high ideals, achievement—these and other “older” terms are now inappropriate and meaningless, because we know that organisms, including humans, are actually only houses for information-flow and transfer.

This essentially soulless view coordinates well with transhumanists, who would say of their projects to reshape all humans, “Well, we’re just directing information in new ways. No harm in that.”

No harm, if you want to let loose soulless surgeons to drain the life-force from everyone they can, because underneath it all, they have no life left of their own.

No harm at all.

You’re a machine. I’m a machine.

You sitting there, reading these words, understanding them, knowing that you understand them at this very moment—that’s all some kind of synaptic boondoggle. You’re not conscious of this moment. How could you be? You’re just information.

You’re composed of 5000 memes. I’m composed of 5000 memes. We’re memeing. That’s all.

This is being sold to (and by) the educated class step by step.

It was once called philosophic materialism, before that term was deemed clunky and aged, before it was dropped like a hot potato—because it characterized too well and too purely the titanic campaign to erase the individual and his unique consciousness.

Replacing the unique and irreducible individual, we have the notion of a “soft infection” of memes. They are now the particles of existence. They spread endlessly. That’s the new philosophy.

It’s utter nonsense, of course.

It’s an op.

It’s designed to take language, and therefore thought, out of the hands of the individual.

Exit From the Matrix

The designers are betting you won’t notice, that you’ll waft with the tide of the elite info-nauts and eventually wind up in their placid beds of the Brave New World, sizzling and twitching with minor pleasures, bereft of what you once were.

Their culture is a rank fraud.

And cultures only exist when people decide to enlist in them. They don’t happen by uncontrollable contagion. If you buy the contagion myth, you buy a fluffy puffy fairy tale that, sooner or later, leads you into a dark wet dead-end alley.

They’re essentially claiming they can reprogram you to believe the alley is a bed of delights and never notice the broken bricks and the decay and the debris.

You have the power to reason and analyze and imagine and create and invent futures and realities of your own choosing, out of your most profound desires.

There never was and never will be a meme for that.

Jon Rappoport

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

The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2016

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

Trumpets blare. In the night sky, spotlights roam. A great confusion of smoke and dust and fog, and emerging banners, carrying the single message:

WE.

The great meltdown of all consciousness into a glob of utopian simplicity…

There are denizens among us.

They present themselves as the Normals.

And once again, I find it necessary to return to the subject of The Individual.

This time, I’m prompted by the current madness swirling around the film, Vaxxed (trailer). I’ve written about the film and the controversy from several angles, but here I want to point out another factor. The CDC whistleblower at the heart of the story is one man going up against The Group.

I don’t call William Thompson an unsullied hero. Far from it. He lied, he committed fraud, he hid the fraud for 10 years, and finally, perhaps because he was caught in his own web, he confessed.

But the group, his employer, the grotesque CDC, his fellow scientists—and especially the hideous rotting press, a dumping ground for professional agents, front men, con artists, shysters, wormy night crawlers (and I’m speaking more kindly of them than I should)—have attacked Thompson and the film mercilessly.

Beyond all political objectives in this attack, there is a simple fact: those who have given up their souls will rage against the faintest appearance of one who tries to keep his. And in this rage, the soulless ones will try to pull the other down to where they live.

And somehow, it all looks normal and proper and rational.

So this article isn’t about Thompson, it’s about the caverns of crime and the inhabitants.

In the 1950s, before television had numbed minds and turned them into jelly, there was a growing sense of: the Individual versus the Corporate State.

Something needed to be done. People were fitting into slots. They were surrendering their lives in increasing numbers. They were carving away their own idiosyncrasies and their independent ideas.

But television, under the control of psyops experts, became, as the 1950s droned on, the facile barrel of a weapon:

“What’s important is the group. Conform. Give in. Bathe in the great belonging…”

Recognize that every message television imparts is a proxy, a fabrication, a simulacrum, an imitation of life one step removed.

When this medium also broadcasts words and images of belonging and the need to belong, it’s engaged in revolutionary social engineering.

Whether it’s the happy-happy suburban-lawn family in an ad for the wonders of a toxic pesticide, or the mob family going to the mattresses to fend off a rival, it’s fantasy time in the land of mind control.

Television has carried its mission forward. The consciousness of the Individual versus the State has turned into: love the State. Love the State as family.

In the only study I have been able to find, Wictionary partially surveys the scripts of all television shows from the year 2006, to analyze the words most frequently broadcast to viewers in America.

Out of 29,713,800 words, including the massively used “a,” “an,” “the,” “you,” “me,” and the like, the word “home” ranks 179 from the top. “Mom” is 218. “Together” is 222. “Family” is 250.

This usage reflects an unending psyop.

Are you with the family or not? Are you with the group, the collective, or not? Those are the blunt parameters.

“When you get right down to it, all you have is family.” “Our team is really a family.” “You’re deserting the family.” “You fight for the guy next to you.” “Our department is like a family.” “Here at Corporation X, we’re a family.” “Above all, this is a community.”

The committee, the group, the company, the sector, the planet.

The goal? Submerge the individual.

Individual achievement, imagination, creative power? Not on the agenda. Something for the dustbin of history.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World: “‘Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines’! The voice was almost tremulous with enthusiasm. ‘You really know where you are. For the first time in history.’”

George Orwell, 1984: “The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.”

The soap opera is the apotheosis of television. The long-running characters in Anytown are irreversibly enmeshed in one another’s lives. There’s no escape. And with that comes mind-numbing meddling.

“I’m just trying to help you realize we all love you (in chains).”

“Your father, rest his soul, would never have wanted you to do this to yourself…”

“How dare you set yourself apart from us. Who do you think you are?”

For some people, the collective “WE” has a fragrant scent—until they get down in the trenches with it. There they discover odd odors and postures and mutations. There they discover self-distorted creatures scurrying around celebrating their twistedness.

The night becomes long. The ideals melt. The level of intelligence required to inhabit this cave-like realm is lower than expected, much lower.

Hypnotic perceptions, which are the glue that holds the territory together, begin to crack and fall apart, and all that is left is a grim determination to see things through.

As the night moves into its latter stages, some participants come to know that all their activity is taking place in a chimerical universe.

It is as if reality has been constructed to yield up gibberish.

Whose idea was it to become deaf, dumb, and blind in the first place?

And then perhaps one person in the cave suddenly says: I EXIST.

That starts a cacophony of howling.

In the aftermath of the 1963 assassination of JFK and the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the covert theme was the same: a lone individual did this.

A lone individual, detached from the group, did this. “Lone individuals are people who left the fold. They wandered from the communal hearth. Therefore, they inevitably became killers.”

In 1995, after the Oklahoma City Bombing, President Bill Clinton made a speech to the nation. He rescued his presidency by essentially saying, “Come home to the government. We will protect you and save you.”

He framed the crime in those terms. The individual versus the collective.

The history of human struggle on this planet is about the individual emerging FROM the group, from the tribe, from the clan. The history of struggle is not about the individual surrendering and going back into group identity.

Going back is the psyop.

The intended psyop.

Exit From the Matrix

As the trumpets blare in the night sky, as the fog-ridden spotlights roam, as the banners emerge carrying the single message, WE, as people below are magnetically drawn to this show, an unpredicted thing happens:

Someone shouts: WHAT IS WE?

Others pick up the shout.

And the banners begin to catch fire and melt. They drip steel and wax and the false grinding of hypnotic dreams breaks its rhythm.

The whole sky-scene stutters like a great weapon losing its capacity to contain heat. The sky itself drips and caves inward and collapses, and the trumpets tail off and there is a new fresh silence.

There is now the sky behind the sky, and the wind blowing.

The delusion, in pieces, is drifting away…

The cover: gone.

Behind it is The Individual.

What will he do now?

Will he seek to find his inherent power, the power he cast aside in his eagerness to join the collective?

Will he?

Or will he search for another staged melodrama designed to absorb him in an all-embracing WE?

Jon Rappoport

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

Updated: the stimulus-response Empire

Updated: the stimulus-response Empire

by Jon Rappoport

March 21, 2016

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

“From the moment the first leader of the first clan in human history took charge, he busied himself with this question: ‘What can I say and do that will make my people react the way I want them to.’ He was the first Pavlov. He was the first psychologist, the first propagandist, the first mind-control boss. His was the first little empire. Since then, only the means and methods have changed.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

I include my original article below. I want to provide a new introduction, based on the notion of “expanding thought-forms.”

A thought-form is a picture in the mind that tends to guide behavior. Its presence is usually unknown to the user.

If the behavior results in objective successes in the world, the thought-form expands, takes on more force, and even can pretend to a sense of inevitability.

Sometimes, for example, in war, an Alexander, operating from his thought-form of conquest, and piling up victories, begins to see himself destined to be the “ruler of the whole world.”

The dominant thought-form in Earth civilization today is: universal rule through gigantic, highly organized structures; e.g., mega-corporations that owe no allegiance to any nation.

Imagine a few thousand such corporations with interlocking boards and directorates; colluding with super-regional governments and their honeycombed bureaucracies; combined with regional armies, intelligence agencies and technological elites; hooked to a global surveillance operation; in control of media; cooperating with the largest organized religions on Earth.

Imagine all this as essentially one organization—and you see the thought-form in its wide-screen version.

Top-down as top-down has never been before.

Functions and compartments defined and specialized at every level, and coordinated in order to carry out policy decisions.

As to why such a thought-form should come to dominate human affairs, the simplest explanation is: because it works.

But beneath that answer, for those who can see, there is much, much more.

Individuals come to think that “effective” and “instrumental” and “efficient” are more important than anything else.

Keep building, keep expanding, keep consolidating gains—and above all else, keep organizing.

Such notions and thought-forms replace life itself.

At that point, the civilization is doomed. It may take a thousand years to fall, or it may happen all at once. But it’s finished.

The individual creative-force has gone into hibernation. It’s over.

The Machine has come to the fore. All questions are now about how the individual sees himself fitting into the structure and function of The Machine.

Which cog does he want to be part of? At which level?

Which piece of the latest technology does he want to adhere to, like a barnacle?

—end of introduction—

I’ve spent the past 30 years analyzing, taking apart, and exposing highly centralized structures:

Government, supra-government, corporate, energy, intelligence, education, medical, mind-control, media, organized-religion structures; those are some of the targets.

They all operate on the basis of stimulus-response.

The elite future is stimulus-response. It’s based on the premise that humans are inherently (biologically) programmed to be dangerous and the programming must change. In other words, a better Pavlovian dog must be created.

Stimulus-response has been the guiding principle of elite rule since the dawn of history. The priest-class searches for the most effective inputs it can find, which in turn will produce the desired responses from the population.

Mainstream media, which are actually disseminated propaganda, aim to produce three overall responses to stimuli: a) “conflicts and major problems are never resolved”; b) “I should be afraid”; and c) “this is all too confusing,” which results in viewers and readers sinking into passivity.

For the most part, political leaders have paid no attention to the idea of freedom, regardless of which documents they’ve signed and given lip-service to. Why? Because freedom implies something beyond stimulus-response. Freedom implies action by choice. And politicians know their power depends on managing conditioned response in populations.

In that light, the 20th century was the century of PR, advertising, propaganda, and it was also the launching pad for a number of drugs targeting the brain and its responses.

But now, further technological paths are being followed. The alteration of the human genetic structure. The probing of brains with electronic interventions, so that, for example, it will be possible to insert images directly into the visual cortex, bypassing what humans would ordinarily perceive.

This is called the transhumanist agenda, and it is. But it is also stimulus-response at a more sophisticated level. And it is another way of attempting to eliminate freedom, while never admitting that freedom exists in the first place.

What are the requirements of a future society in which conditioned responses are locked down and pervasive, on chemical, biological, and electronic levels? Well, there is one basic requirement:

The population must believe they are happy.

That’s the end game. That’s the triumph of Brave New World over 1984.

“Happiness” is an elusive word. It can refer to a number of feelings and thoughts.

If you recall, from your childhood, a peak experience, a few moments of sheer ecstasy, you are certainly remembering happiness. But you are also remembering freedom.

That’s not what the elite controllers are aiming to produce as a mass societal effect. No; for them to succeed, they must create, in people, an article of faith:

People must believe that happiness is shallow, tepid, “average.” If they accept that premise, the game is over.

Because, through genetic manipulation, through chemicals, through electronics, that happiness-target stands a chance of being reached.

Then you would have a population ruled by stimulus-response, by conditioned reflex—a population that nevertheless interprets that state of affairs as acceptable, because it carries “happiness” with it.

This is how you drastically reduce the possibility of unending rebellion, revolution, and war between the people and the leaders.

This is the goal of elite empire.

Counter to that, as I mentioned above, is freedom.

In its fullness, freedom implies a personal and individual knowing that one is free. No doubts, no conditions.

Travel anywhere is the world, visit every college and university from Tierra del Fuego to the North Pole, and count how many courses are called Freedom. Count how many courses are taught with the explicit intent of exploring, deeply, what individual freedom means and is.

If, reading this far, you are beginning to suspect that the discredited and ugly word “philosophy” is creeping in, you’re right. Yes, that old saw, that ridiculous subject.

Back in the Stone Age, when I went to college, I majored in it. I have a good memory, and I can tell you that nowhere in the department’s curriculum was there a serious and extensive treatment of individual freedom.

Philosophy is supposed to take up and illuminate fundamental questions of existence and fundamental conflicts embedded in opposing views.

Such as the conflict I’m discussing here: stimulus-response vs. freedom.

Exit From the Matrix

Let me boil this titanic issue down to something I’ve introduced before: my analysis of two concepts: understanding and meaning.

You are reading this article, these words on the page. If you are nothing more than responses to stimuli, if you are merely atoms in motion, none of which are conscious in and of themselves, then how can you possibly understand the meaning of what you are reading?

Yet you do understand the meaning of the words.

So do I.

We are not merely atoms in motion. We are not merely matter. We are not merely pre-programmed responses to stimuli.

Which is a way of saying: we can choose, we can decide, we are free, each one of us.

The princes of Pavlov would have us accept that there is no “you” or “I.” Instead, there is the just the unceasing flow of particles in the universe. That’s all.

But again, you are here, right now. You, beyond particles, are reading these words and you understand them.

This is what has happened to the human race, through unceasing tons of propaganda and false science: people have come to believe that the arena of stimulus-response is gigantic. But the opposite is true:

It is individual freedom that is gigantic.

Which leads to the question every individual must ask himself: what is my freedom for?

For what action?

Is it for bowing down to the Reality that has been artificially constructed for me and everyone else?

Or is it for imagining and creating and inventing the reality and the future I most profoundly desire?

Now we are getting to the pivot of this civilization. Which way will it ultimately swing? Toward the stimulus-response empire, or toward individual power?

Jon Rappoport

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

The fear of individuality

The fear of individuality

by Jon Rappoport

February 11, 2016

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

Let’s start with this bit of background:

The fear of individuality comes from the apprehension that a human, unchained and alive, might create something that would expose the titanic hoax of the collective and the group; the apprehension that an individual might create something undeniably great and different; and, therefore, put collective human society in its proper perspective.

And so the individual is called upon to sacrifice himself on the altar of the group.

That is the directive.

The counter-force is the individual using his rational mind, his imagination, and his creative force to surpass this societal brainwashing.

The first step is realizing he is not part of the great collective Cheese Glob.

But most people in so-called “democracies” would not see things this way. They would object. They would claim “the needs of all the people” are not being met. They would claim no one has the right to rise above the standards of the masses.

And “the masses” now refer to wide-open borders in Europe and, as in America, the influx of huge numbers of people exiting from other parts of the world.

Many of these immigrating people hope for, and expect, economic survival in their new homes. They expect government assistance programs. This is no melting pot. This is a vast extension of the Welfare State, in which the concerns of the individual have no place. No place at all.

Stereotypes are the order of the day. “Which group do you belong to? What race are you? What ethnicity? What are your grievances and demands?”

On the surface, this vast program appears to be humanitarian in nature, but nothing could be further from the truth. Sowing chaos in the nations of Europe is the objective.

Why? Because Globalism, like every elite scheme in the history of the planet, lives by the motto, “Order from Chaos.”

Create chaos, then move in with tighter control, to “solve the problem.”

Wall-to-wall surveillance, militarized police, decimation of free speech.

In this atmosphere, it is very easy for the individual to forget and cast aside his own power and his own unique vision of the future, and his own capacity to invent the future.

It is very easy for the individual to forego rationality and logic as useless objects of a bygone era and simply sink to the level of a stimulus-response creature.

But if that happens, what is left?

Nothing.

During centuries of struggle, Europe carved out a mission of individual freedom, against all odds, and there were eventually many victories.

Now, there is the danger of all that going down the drain.

If the liberation of the individual from the State and the Church is now viewed as a mere fantasy, an old dream, an old lie of history, an old delusion, then the future is turned over to Globalist planners and their program of mass control.

exit from the matrix

At its core, the entire Globalist operation is aimed at making the individual believe he is helpless.

Whether and to what degree this program succeeds is not in the hands of any group. It is in the hands, the soul of the individual himself.

Which is why my work, for the past decade, has focused more and more on the individual, his power, his life-force, his mind, his imagination, his uniqueness.

The future is up for grabs. Will the wide channel of individual freedom and power, which has been dug for centuries, in a great struggle, be the substance of the future, or will the coming century devolve into one great planetary Collective, mindless, begging for scraps, and shouting slogans?

Jon Rappoport

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

Collective consciousness as propaganda: the individual is gone

Collective consciousness as propaganda: the individual is gone

by Jon Rappoport

February 11, 2016

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

“In the middle of all the brain-research going on, from one end of the planet to the other, there is the assumption that the individual doesn’t really exist. He’s a fiction. There is only the motion of particles in the brain. Therefore, nothing is inviolate, nothing is protected. Make the brain do A, make it do B; it doesn’t matter. What matters is harmonizing these tiny particles, in order to build a collective consensus, in order to force a science of behavior.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Individual power. Your power.

It stands as the essence of what the founding documents of the American Republic are all about, once you scratch below the surface a millimeter or so.

Therefore, it stands to reason that colleges and universities would be teaching courses in INDIVIDUAL POWER.

As soon as I write that, though, we all fall down laughing, because we understand the absurdity of such a proposition. Can you imagine Harvard endowing a chair in Individual Power?

Students would tear down the building in which such courses were taught. They’ve been carefully instructed that the individual is the greatest living threat to the planet.

If you can’t see that as mind control, visit your local optometrist and get a prescription for glasses.

So we have this astonishing situation: the very basis of freedom has no reflection in the educational system.

You can say “individual” within certain limited contexts. You can say “power,” if you’re talking about nuclear plants, or if you’re accusing someone of a crime, but if you put “individual” and “power” together and attribute a positive quality to the combination, you’re way, way outside the consensus. You’re crazy. You’re committing some kind of treason.

In order to spot the deepest versions of educational brainwashing, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME STANDARD AGAINST WHICH YOU CAN COMPARE WHAT IS COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE INTO THE MINDS OF STUDENTS.

If you lack that standard, you miss most of the action.

If you lack that standard, you have already been worked over by the system.

And in this case, the standard is INDIVIDUAL POWER.

Clean it off, hose off the dirt, polish it, look at it, think about it, remember it.

Then you’ll see some Grade-A prime mind control. Everywhere. Because schools either don’t mention it, or they discredit it.

Back in the days when I was writing on assignment for newspapers and magazines, I pitched a story about individual power to an editor. I wanted to trace its history as an idea over the past ten years.

He looked at me for a few seconds. He looked at me as if I’d just dropped some cow flop on his desk. He knew I wasn’t kidding and I had something I could write and turn in to him, but that made it worse. He began to squirm in his chair.

He laughed nervously.

Then he stopped laughing

He said, “This isn’t what we do.”

For him, I was suddenly radioactive.

I had a similar experience with a high-school history teacher in California. We were having lunch in a cafe in Santa Monica, and I said, “You should teach a course in individual power. The positive aspects. No group stuff. Just the individual.”

He frowned a deep intellectual frown, as if I’d just opened my jacket and exposed a few sticks of dynamite strapped to my chest. As if he was thinking about which agency of the government to report me to.

Now, for the schizoid part. The movies. Television. Video games. Comics. Graphic novels. They are filled to the brim, they are overflowing with individual heroes who have considerable power. These entertainment businesses bank billions of dollars, because people want to immerse themselves in that universe where the individual is supreme. They want it badly.

But when it comes to “real” life, power stops at the front door and no one answers the bell.

Suddenly, the hero, the person with power is anathema. He’s left holding the bag. So he adjusts. He waits. He wonders. He settles for less, far less. He stifles his hopes. He shrinks. He forgets. He develops “problems” and tries to solve them within an impossibly narrow context. He redefines success and victory down to meet limited expectations. He strives for the normal and the average. For his efforts, he receives tidbits, like a dog looking up at his master.

If that isn’t mind control, nothing is.

exit from the matrix

Once we enter a world where the individual no longer has credibility, a world where “greatest good for the greatest number” is the overriding principle, and where that principle is defined by the elite few, the term “mind control” will have a positive connotation. It will be accepted as the obvious strategy for achieving “peace in our time.”

At a job interview, a candidate will say, “Yes, I received my PhD in Mind Control at Yale, and then I did three years of post-doc work in Cooperative Learning Studies at MIT. My PhD thesis? It was titled, ‘Coordination Strategies in the Classroom for Eliminating the Concept of the Individual.’”

From Wikipedia, “Cooperative Learning”:

“Students must work in groups to complete tasks collectively toward academic goals. Unlike individual learning, which can be competitive in nature, students learning cooperatively can capitalize on one another’s resources and skills…Furthermore, the teacher’s role changes from giving information to facilitating students’ learning. Everyone succeeds when the group succeeds.”

That is a towering assembly of bullshit.

Jon Rappoport

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

Who I write for (updated)

Who I write for (updated)

by Jon Rappoport

January 21, 2016

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

I have published this piece before. It stands as my best description of why I do what I do. And now I’m adding a new introduction:

When I began writing seriously, in the summer of 1959, the idea that I would focus on The Individual was the farthest thing from my mind.

I assumed everyone was an individual. Case closed. Why bother to mention it? Why bother to think about it?

Even then, though, a massive propaganda operation was underway. It was aimed at replacing the individual with the group. Some people call this cultural Marxism. It’s much larger than that. It’s Collectivism at every possible level. It aims to eradicate the individual’s awareness that he is an individual. Why? Because if he truly knows what he is, then he also knows that society and civilization are opposing him. They are dedicated to the creation and sustenance of groups. Groups are manageable. Individuals aren’t.

Needless to say, much has happened since that time.

Skipping ahead, by the late 1990s it had become apparent to me that many people were falling by the wayside. Their “universal tolerance” was a form of self-sabotage. They were sacrificing themselves on the soft buttery altar of “doing good.” It was obvious to me, for example, that the notion of repairing all past injustices of society was a well with no bottom. It was a covert op. It was an attempt to entangle minds in a case of amnesia about individual power. Rather than trying to raise people up, it was a plan to victimize a permanent (and ever expanding) underclass.

I wasn’t sure my message about all this would reach many readers. I wasn’t sure what their reaction would be. But I didn’t care. I was motivated to make my case. So I did. So I do.

And lo and behold, people have responded. Over and above the nonsensical static of trolls and self-appointed victims, a wave of confirmation reached me. People were still there—as individuals. They knew it. They were seeing the demise of society around them.

Beyond confirmation, though, what I was aiming at was (and is) expansion of individual power. Not just an acknowledgment of it.

Power. Creative power. The power of imagination. The capacity of the individual to conceive of his deepest desires, pursue them, and turn them into visible fact in the world. (This is shorthand for what I cover extensively in my collection, Exit From The Matrix.)

Since I was a child and read great sea-adventure novels and science fiction novels, I assumed that fleshing out a vision of what one wants for his future was the obvious and standard enterprise for every person. Of course, I was grossly overestimating the situation. But I never lost that fundamental understanding. And never will.

Societal reality, consensus reality, “world reality,” is basically a gigantic covert op. It’s designed to keep the individual inside a set framework of response and consent. It is hugely destructive. As a reporter for the past 30 years, I’ve investigated many cases and angles of this op, and I’ve published my findings without compromise.

But always, above and beyond that, I’ve been referring to the individual and his capacity to create and build better realities of his own choosing. Gorgeous, free, open, wild, unfettered, majestic realities.

That’s my introduction, for the moment. Here is the article, Who I write for:

Consciousness.

Freedom.

Power.

The individual.

Imagination. Creating new realities.

Society and civilization as a potential force for helping to liberate the individual.

Underneath all my articles, all my investigations into corruption and crime at the highest levels, these above factors have been my motivation,

Who do I write for?

I write for people who recognize they can do something for themselves and others, who can improve their lives and consciousness and power.

I write for people who want to increase their own power.

I’ve been at this for 33 years. I recognize there are people out there who dig down and discover massive chunks of corruption, crime, and conspiracy in the world—and then they twist that knowledge to say: “See, this is why I can’t make any progress in life. This is why I’m blocked. This is why I’m having trouble. This is why I can’t do anything.”

I’m not writing for those people.

They’re using their hard-won knowledge to doom themselves to a life they don’t want. They jumped out of one box and put themselves in another one.

Regardless of how bad things are in this world, there is always something a person can do. For himself, and for others.

In doing that, in moving toward the life he wants most profoundly, in taking creative action, he becomes more alive, more conscious, more powerful.

He is the person I’m writing for.

I’m writing for those men and women.

There is the Personal and the Planetary. They can’t be entirely separated and walled off from each other.

But that doesn’t mean one sphere should be absorbed in the other.

You can’t eliminate personal desire from the equation and expect to find all the life you want. It doesn’t work.

I write for people who have at least glimpsed the power of their own imaginations, and want to increase that power.

I write for people who, becoming aware of how fake realities are built, cross over and realize they can invent better realities and futures.

I write for people who can wake up to that.

I write for people who want to understand the details of how corrupt and deceptive realities are built. My investigative articles serve that purpose.

I write for the individual.

I write for myself.

I write to expose corruption to the light of day, because I want to.

I write for people who understand they can become more alive.

I write for people who are willing to consider something new, who aren’t trapped by the belief that everything important is ancient.

I write for people who hunger for adventure.

I write for people who know they have the strength to make something happen.

I write for people who suspect they have latent capabilities that can come to the surface.

I write for people who realize answers and solutions to their own lives come from themselves.

I write for people who refuse to relinquish their individuality.

I write for people who want to increase the power and range and scope of their own imaginations, in order to discover and invent new startling enterprises and adventures.

I write for people who are on a spiritual road that isn’t clouded by convenient slogans, who know their journey is unique to them, and not part of a system.

I write for people who’ve taken hold of their own freedom and want more freedom.

I write for people who can follow a train of thought.

I write for people who have done their best to make their way through life, who sense there is something more, who want knowledge that will be liberating, not entrapping.

I write for people who, acknowledging that systems and structures can be quite useful, reject the idea that all of life is encompassed by a system.

I write for people who want more power to think, do, create—rather than being told what to think and create.

I write for people who, understanding conspiracies, don’t fold up, but rather, as my friend Catherine Austin Fitts says, want to start their own (good) conspiracy.

I write for all these reasons and more.

I write for people who, when they discover how much corruption abounds, refrain from demanding that others tell them what to do about it—but rather discover/invent for themselves what actions they can take.

I write for people who don’t give up.

I write for people who have already found some answers and some success, and want more.

I write for pleasure and enjoyment.

I write for people who want to read.

I write for people who want to consider ideas that reach miles and miles past the borders of consensus reality.

I write for people who are sick and tired of how this world is being run, and want to do something about it, want to discover the creativity within themselves that will provide answers.

I write for people who never give up.

I write for people who want to make a better world, by their own definition, and will work toward that end.

I write for people who have thrown away this formula: a) blaming others for their own shortcomings; and b) using that blame to build their own personal prisons of despair.

exit from the matrix

I write as part of the business I run, the sole proprietorship called NoMoreFakeNews.com. On that site, I sell my products. I’m an entrepreneur. I believe in giving value for value. Since I started NoMoreFakeNews.com in 2001, I’ve written a stream of articles people can, in fact, read for nothing.

I write for people who can follow this train of thought: a) discover the nuts and bolts of how elites invent reality for rest of us (The Matrix Revealed); b) instead, extend the power of their own imaginations and invent better realities (Exit From The Matrix); and c) attain the power to operate inside and outside the Matrix (Power Outside The Matrix). Yes, that’s a plug for my three Matrix collections.

I write for people who aren’t afraid of having power.

I write for people who know the difference between belonging to a group that ultimately asks them to surrender their own individuality, and a group composed of true individuals.

I write for people who do their best to weather every storm.

I write for people born into a place that has been taken over by corrupt fascists.

I write to rise as high as I can.

I write to expose every restraint of freedom I can perceive.

I write to say this space-time box is not the only place there is.

I write to say every individual who inhabits a physical form is immortal, whether he likes it or not…and it’s better to face the truth than deny it.

I write to promote both logic and imagination—each in its own sphere of action.

I hope I write for you.

Jon Rappoport

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

The formula of war vs. a pandemic of freedom

The formula of war vs. a pandemic of freedom

Notes on the exit from titanic boredom and failure.

Follow the bouncing ball all the way to the end, which is a beginning

by Jon Rappoport

January 15, 2016

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

Making war makes money. Winning a war makes more money.

The desire to keep making war requires building up and maintaining a standing army.

When many nations are pursuing this general course, the “threat-need” for maintaining a standing army rises to a new level.

The “need, for the sake of defense and preparedness,” to strengthen armies is exactly what war makers exploit.

Dismantling this whole operation, by scaling back foreign military bases, withdrawing troops, and setting boundaries and no-go zones is anathema to war makers.

If JFK, as a few scholars suggest, was planning to get out of Vietnam, and if he was also in the process of planning space missions with Russia, these would have been ample reasons for his assassination.

Everyone has his favorite reason for JFK’s murder—he wanted to take money-creation out of the hands of the Federal Reserve; he was about to blow the whistle on UFO secrets; he was on the verge of destroying the CIA; he signed the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty with Russia; he and his brother were trying to destroy the Mafia; JFK was about to lay taxes on multi-billion-dollar Liberian shipping operations; anti-Castro Cubans hated him because he failed to back the Bay of Pigs invasion; he was determined to push forward an ocean-turbine technology for the generation of electricity. Everyone who has a reason for JFK’s murder is quite sure it is the primary or only reason.

If withdrawal from Vietnam was one reason, it speaks to the “sensitivity” of the war machine and its allied industries.

If international peace broke out, what would happen to the US economy? To be more precise, what would happen to those corporations who depend on the largest government military contracts? To be even more precise, what would happen to these corporations, who depend on government taxes and money invented out of thin air by elite government-backed banks?

Those corporations would imagine new enterprises or crash.

And?

The nation would have to find another way to have an economy. Would this signal, beyond the chaos, the end of the world? No.

Along a similar front, if gangs were wiped out, along with drug cartels, and if the main terrorist groups were isolated, attacked, and defunded (cut off from drug money, diverted government tax money and elite invented money), other sectors of the economy would take a hit, but again, the world would not end.

Along a similar front, if corporations who manufacture and sell poison (e.g., drug companies, pesticide companies) were punished to the full extent of the law, and even disbanded, the economy would take another hit, but again, the world would not end.

Along a similar front, if cheating, lying, and thieving banks and allied Wall St. firms were punished to the full extent of the law, and even disbanded, the world would not end.

What would the new emerging economy look like? That would depend on the imagination, and challenging work, done by individuals (not governments) who see new possibilities. That would depend on people who attempt to wake up a population muddled in passive acceptance of whatever consumer products are shoved down their throats.

Yes, I know all this speculation sounds like dreaming impossible dreams. But while I’m at it, here is another one: what would happen if everything I’ve written so far in this article became the subject of reasoned debate in colleges? I’m talking about serious lengthy debate about a new economy.

Several things would happen. First, it would come to light that the overwhelming number of students are intellectually incapable of carrying on such a dialogue. That in itself would rank as an inconvenient truth.

Students don’t learn how to think in a rational fashion. They know next to nothing about logic. Most of them aren’t even aware of what a line of reasoning looks like. They can’t follow such a line.

Second, it would become obvious that the overwhelming number of students are incapable of conceiving a new economy that is not spearheaded and controlled by government.

Students are brainwashed into thinking that all significant change must come from above. It must be planned. It must be designed to produce some vague outcome called “equality.”

This preference for central government control and planning is sustained even though, with a little thought, it’s clear that government has been the driving (and permissive) criminal force that protects the very economy that is causing all the trouble.

Third, it would become obvious that the faculties of colleges are also intellectually incapable of carrying on this debate. They, too, have been trained to ignore logic. They’ve also been trained to push a values-laden agenda that celebrates centrally planned collectivist economies.

Fourth, the idea that free and independent and creative individuals could spearhead a new economy seems outrageous, preposterous, and even illegal to the mass of students and professors. For them, all non-group-associated individuals, viewed in any light, are, a priori, greedy criminals.

So actually, this article isn’t about creating a new economy. It’s about the barriers to a rational, extensive, lengthy dialogue and debate about the creation of a new economy. A dialogue, by the way, that goes beyond what might be contained in cell phone texting or tweeting. How shocking.

Here is just one idea that might spring up in the kind of dialogue I’m talking about. Urban farms. They already exist, of course. In each case, they began as an idea in the mind of one individual. They didn’t spring to life, originally, when six people, walking down the street, suddenly turned to each other and said, “Urban farms.”

These are very large operations that grow food crops for residents of cities, especially those who can’t afford good food. The people themselves learn to grow the crops.

What would happen, what would be the consequence of, say, 10,000 urban farms across America? What would this do for the health and morale of people in cities? How would profit be made? And, peripherally, why is it that local, state, and federal government haven’t backed such an idea—for an infinitesimal fraction of the money they spend on alleviating poverty; money that, by the way, seems to make things worse.

Again, peripherally, what would happen if thousands of college students, who matriculate on privileged campuses and yap endlessly about their lack of privilege, instead turned their victimhood-energies to starting urban farms and working in them? Would the world end? Would the sky fall? The same questions could be asked about the students’ professors, many of whom are merely paid propagandists of the State.

There are all sorts of interesting questions that could arise in a real debate/dialogue. Here’s another one: what would a world without Monsanto or Merck actually look like? Or: what would America look like with an army dedicated only to defense of the nation?

Such a dialogue could lead to action. Many separate actions. What a thought. Would the world end? Would the sky fall?

You want more? Pay particular and close attention to this one. What would happen, if one state in the union decided that anyone could offer health advice and non-harmful, non-toxic treatment to another person, for any ailment or illness, without control from above, without the need for government licensing? Suppose this arrangement, between consenting adults, was done by contract, not license? Suppose both parties asserted that no liability or blame would be attached to the outcome of such advice or treatment? In other words, God forbid, the citizens would actually take responsibility for themselves. Do you think many citizens and practitioners might flock to such a state? Do you think an economic bonanza might explode in that state? Do you think the outbreak of freedom might raise the morale in that area? Do you think improved health might result? Do you think other states might follow suit, merely by removing, at no cost, their grotesque rules and licensing/enforcement bureaus? Would you be afraid of such an arrangement, understanding the fact that current orthodox medicine, as licensed and practiced throughout the land, results in widespread pharmaceutical devastation? Shown a projection of the foreseeable economic bonanza from the new arrangement I just outlined, do you think there is at least one state in the US that might throw irrational caution to the winds and enact this program of health freedom?

In the kind of extended dialogue I’m talking about here, individuals come up with lots of interesting ideas—ideas that could very well lead to action. And in the process, the nightmare zombie cloud of government control and meddling takes major hits. All its operations aimed at interfering with freedom are exposed. The crud washes off. The unconscionable dreck drains away.

People start actually thinking again. They start imagining again. They feel their chains slipping away. They come out of the collective dream. They experience cascades of new energy. They think about entrepreneurship in a new way. They think about morality and ethics in a new way. They re-find themselves.

Does the sky fall? Does the world end?

No. It begins.

Perhaps (miracle of miracles) the quantity of self-invented victims begins to diminish. Perhaps untold numbers of people floating along in a New Age daze (because they see no way out of the dilemmas and conflicts of our time) rise up from their plastic lotus pads, sensing a genuine impulse of hope and desire for the first time in many years. Their own hope. Their own desire. Perhaps millions of people trapped in dead-end robotic work feel a creak in the psychological and spiritual machinery that surrounds them, as it begins to malfunction and split apart. Perhaps moon-blown, full-bore, doctrinal collectivist freaks feel a few pin pricks in the purple bloated corpse of their one-size-fits-all planetary vision.

Who knows what might happen if a true ongoing dialogue about a new economy persisted long enough?

If a person is dead inside and doesn’t want to be dead inside, he has to ask himself (paraphrasing Clint Eastwood) this question: Did he fire six shots into his psyche or only five? If only five, can he fire that last bullet into the passive trance that keeps him in thrall to Control Central?

Waking up may be hard to do, but it’s also contagious. If a college dared to offer a four-year course which consisted entirely of the dialogue/debate I’m proposing, carried out along respectful lines, omitting and barring the screaming opponents of free speech, who knows what might happen?

As William Blake wrote, “If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise.” As the dialogue proceeds, all sorts of foolish ideas would come to light and unravel, and turn into other ideas, and those ideas would transmute into useful ideas, out of which would be born a few brilliant ideas…and on it would go.

And the process itself would act as a catalyst for every person within listening range. His own imagination would rev up. He would discover his own future path.

Would that be a calamity? Would the sky fall? Would the world end?

Or would the dawn finally break?

exit from the matrix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the public mind? Yes, I can.

The world, as it is presented to us, is a shrunken mural in which the individual must carve down his energies, in order to fit in. If he reverses that process, he finds a new world that didn’t seem to be there before.

But now it is.

It most definitely is.

Jon Rappoport

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

Occult Man

Occult Man

by Jon Rappoport

November 20, 2015

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

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

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

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

Occult man is hiding his true nature from himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

exit from the matrix

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

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

Suppose that is his true nature.

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

Suppose he has no pre-defined place.

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

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

Jon Rappoport

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

The first cave painter and freedom from mind control

The first cave painter and freedom from mind control

by Jon Rappoport

November 19, 2015

Note: Consider this an opening to a much larger presentation. I’ve already made forays in past articles; in my work posted at Outside The Reality Machine; and, in much greater detail, I’ve covered the brilliant work of hypnotherapist Jack True in my collection, The Matrix Revealed.

We’ll never know who he was, but the moment he scratched out an animal on the wall of a cave, everything changed.

As yet, there was no formalized religion among his clan. The animal was not a symbol. It was later that the obsession for symbols developed. And of course the obsession continues to this day. Everything is supposed to mean something else.

But when the first cave painter made his first drawing, he was simply expressing a desire to go beyond the physical world. It was not enough to see a tiger in the forest. The painter wanted to move past that.

This fact is still not acknowledged. Millions of people pass through art museums every year and hunt for work that reminds them of objects they already know—and the closer the paintings resemble those objects, the more satisfied they feel.

But the first cave painter was doing something else. He was using a rock wall as a new space. He was seeing the wall as a potential space that went beyond the physical world.

Who knows what happened to him? Perhaps his clan were so awed they appointed him a god on Earth. Perhaps they were so disturbed by his presumption they killed him.

In either case, they were unable and unwilling to acknowledge that “the one and only space and time” was a fraud, a deception.

If you want to understand an underlying principle of “reality as prison,” know we are looking at the selling of one continuum as the only one.

As my long-time readers know, as well as those who have my collection, The Matrix Revealed, I worked closely, in the late 1980s, with a brilliant hypnotherapist named Jack True. I interviewed Jack many times.

During one of our first formal interviews, he had this to say about the space-time continuum, based on his experience with clients:

“Under hypnosis, people will give you extraordinary information if you can ask them the right questions, if you can go past the ordinary sort of material that is usually requested. It turns out that people, below their ordinary state of waking consciousness, perceive different times and spaces.

“They see and can deal with what I call islands of space and time. Separate islands. Each locale has its own continuum, and these continua are not the same. I’m talking about multiple spaces and multiple times.

“Their waking lives, their daily lives are a reduction, a social artifact in which one moving arrow of time and one space are assumed to be all there is.

“If an artist creates a few hundred paintings, each one has its own space and sense of time. This is not trivial observation. I’m not employing a metaphor. The painter is at ease with what he’s doing. It’s not a problem for him. Why would he make only one painting with one space and time and then stop forever? That would be absurd.

“Here is the interesting part for me as a therapist. When I have a patient, under hypnosis, open up his perception of time and space, when I have him branch out, so to speak, and when he becomes familiar with this process, a great deal of his anxiety vanishes.

“This indicates that the habit of his waking life, his absolute dedication to one space and time, operates like putting a lid on a pot of heating water. Pressure builds up under the lid.

“Release that pressure and everything is different. In his waking life, he can function quite well with one space and time—better than he did before—but he has this reservoir of truth: He’s experienced, many times, his own deeper level of perception. And as a result, he becomes more creative in the world…”

the matrix revealed

Jack and I often discussed how various systems are built to sustain and force “the one and only space-time.” This obsessive and unconscious mind control goes light years beyond the usual types of brainwashing people are familiar with.

Modern physics does little more than dip a toe in the water, when it comes to conceiving other continua. You would find out a great deal more by looking at the work of early 20th-century painters—who were, unsurprisingly, attacked, as they cut up and multiplied space and even time.

Rigid traditionalists, who still long for some grand human unification (under a banner of their own choosing), are too late to the party. The cat is out of the bag. It remains for humans to catch up to what they already perceive below their every-day consciousness: many dimensions.

Jon Rappoport

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

The individual and his future

The individual and his future

by Jon Rappoport

November 18, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contemporary analysis of the individual goes much further than this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exit From the Matrix

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

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