The Future of the Future

by Jon Rappoport

August 10, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

“An artist who has no imagination is a mechanic.” (Robert Henri)

“Without the playing with fantasy no creative work has ever yet come to birth. The debt we owe to the play of imagination is incalculable.” (Carl Jung)

“What if imagination and art are not frosting at all, but the fountainhead of human experience?” (Rollo May)

“Everything you can imagine is real.” (Pablo Picasso)

“You cannot hear the waterfall if you stand next to it. I paint my jungles in the desert.” (Macedonlo de la Torre)

Face it. For various reasons, the human race is addicted to solving problems, even where problems don’t exist.

But imagination, unchained, would take us into a wholly different arena.

At some point in the future, art will intersect with reality in a way that exceeds any transformation yet seen.

I can’t put a number on the year or the century in which this will occur, but it won’t matter, because when it does happen, something will also happen to time itself…

As a result of art, language will change. A new layer will be added to the way we think and talk, and this layer will impregnate us with new esthetics which are impossible to define or label.

What was mystery becomes fact, but not rationally surrounded fact. It is immediacy of experience. In every second, we are alive. And a new language facilitates that.

For all this to come true, we need, above all, imagination—unchained.

Here is an introduction made by the famous astrologer and philosopher, Dane Rudhyar, before a concert of his music almost 40 years ago:

“Thus you find in my music extended chords which provide a definite sense of spacing between notes, notes which are supposed to be in dissonant relationship. These harmonies can be disturbing at first, but eventually you can learn to realize what is their essential purpose; and this purpose is to stimulate you, to arouse you, to break down crystallization…

“It is that kind of music to which you are subjected tonight. I hope that it will bring to you some sort of a realization of a possibility which perhaps you have not been aware of, or confusedly so, in the past. To really help you to live a more intense, a more creative life — this is the purpose I have always had in music, in other arts, or in my philosophy, astrology — indeed in whatever I have done. It is always an attempt to bring the human person away from the old traditional pattern of a classical, set and definite kind of society, and to lead it to new horizons where the creative factor in what really is man can be seen operating in full and glorious freedom.”

Paul Klee: “To emphasize only the beautiful seems to me to be like a mathematical system that only concerns itself with positive numbers.”

Klee was intimating that our language could be expanded so that it exceeds the possibility of translation back into prosaic terms.

What we are has the potential to invent art out along an infinite number of roads—and in doing so, we surpass any previous form of language. And when THAT happens, our communication with one another reaches new heights and depths. There is nothing technical or scientific about such a momentous breakthrough.

We tend to place a tremendous emphasis on UNITY in our culture. But the truth is, evolution is taking us in another direction. When this false unity fragments enough, we discover another possibility. The unique character of every individual can be taken to its extreme, and then we arrive at millions of different ways of being artists.

This is the future.

As improbable as it may seem, it has wings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magic is one of those labels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under a variety of names, this is art.

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

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

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

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

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

This new language—what does it consist of? Heightened ecstatic impressions, a sense of thrilling dynamic motion, images, emotions on the aesthetic plane, and other qualities too immediate to describe. These are all in flux. There is no aim to “trap them in a bottle.” Trapping them would change their nature. The “procession of packets of energy” in some cases might appear to tell a story, but a story without the usual plotlines, without beginnings, middles, or endings.

It is a language we have known before and will know again. It is an expression of imagination itself, and it contains, as direct experience, all those desired exaltations and triumphs and joys and powers that we once thought were hidden from us, like mountaintops in the clouds. But instead, they are right here. They are flowing from person to person. They are the substance of daily life. They are vision finally realized. But they are not an ending. They are rivers.

Art is dangerous to authorities.

In 1891, Oscar Wilde wrote: “Art is individualism, and individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine.”

Authority wants limited perception.

It wants “things as they are” to rule the day.

It wants the fire of creative exploration to go out and turn to ashes.

Art is dangerous. It makes people move out of standard-response channels.

They don’t see what they’re supposed to see anymore.

That’s why schools teach brain-deadening courses in art history. Every attempt is made to codify the students’ reactions.

I’m not just talking about political art. I mean ANYTHING that truly comes out of reliance on imagination.

Those who run things—and their willing dupes—want reality to look a certain way and be experienced and felt in certain ways. These limited spectra form a shared lowest common denominator.

Even so-called spiritual experience is codified. It’s called organized religion. I call it “give money to the ceiling.” You give your money and they tell you high how the ceiling of your experience is and what you’ll find when you get there.

Art has none of these limitations. It’s created by people who’ve gone beyond the shrunken catalog of emotions, thoughts, and perceptions.

Art, by which I mean imagination, throws caution to the winds. It invents realities that engender new reactions, never before experienced.

The hammer blows and the soft propaganda of the common culture install layers of mind control: “See things, experience things in these prescribed ways.”

Over the years, I’ve encouraged a number of people to become artists. Aside from the work they then invented, I noticed their whole approach to, and perception of, life altered radically.

Their sense of vitality, their courage, their adventurous spirit came to the foreground.

Mind control, both externally applied and self-induced, is all about putting a lid on creative power. That is its real target.

Technocrats would like you to believe that hooking your brain up to some super-computer will fulfill your needs and desires. They seek to prove that all invention, all creation, all art, all imagination is merely a set of calculations within a closed system.

This effort betrays their own despair: they see no way they can truly create.

It is the vacuum in which all elites live. They build up a frozen dead consciousness of models and algorithms and “solutions,” and they seek to impose it, as reality, on the minds of populations.

Essentially, they’re saying, “If we have a soul-sickness, you have to have it, too.”

It’s called hatred of life.

On the other hand, individual creative power launches from a platform of freedom and rises through layer upon layer of greater freedom.

From that perspective, authoritarian power looks like a sick-unto-dying charade.

There are two levels of fake news. The first one, many people know about. This is false and deceptive information broadcast by major media, to keep the public from discovering what really goes on under the surface and behind the veil, where power is used.

The second level, very few people understand. It is owned and operated by what I call the Wizards of Is. They say, “Now this IS and that IS and here is something else that IS…keep looking and thinking about what is, what already exists.”

“Familiarize yourself with everything that already exists. We will give you an endless supply of things and ideas you can peruse and feast on. We will give you what exists. Look at all these things and accept them. Keep doing that.”

The corollary is: There is nothing for you to create. Everything that can be created is being created. You yourself have no power to create.

This is the deeper lie. This is where the battle stops and the individual surrenders.

This is where the individual who could be more becomes less.

This is where the artist is still-born and decides to live in half-light.

This is also where vital energies deplete and peter out.

This is where the machine takes over.

OR…

The individual can wake up and deploy his imagination.

Without limit.

This is where the new battle begins. This is where the artist sets aside all the standard responses and petty emotions and, instead, INVENTS.

This is where fear is blown away.

This is where the individual reacquaints himself with his deepest drives.

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Disrupting the story line of the mechanical mind

Jul30

Piero della Francesca, Antoni Gaudi, and Salvador Dali

by Jon Rappoport

July 30, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

What city is this
Whose moments tremble
Azure sky and lime lights
Walking in the intersections
Through the squares of paradise

People are solidly addicted to story line. Beginning, middle, end. They want to have it, over and over, in different guises.

The ultimate payoff of that addiction? There is none. Except the need for more.

Propaganda, media, announced government policy, education, religious messages, hundreds of medical treatments—the underlying theme is polished story line. Wrapped up and sold. When the wrong ending looms like a thundercloud, an order to goes out to hide it or lie about it.

When a relentlessly creative individual disrupts story lines, an unlimited number of universes opens up. And every one of them causes tremors in the addict.

“Don’t do that. I don’t understand what you’re doing. Stop. It makes no sense. You’re crazy. Where is the ending? Civilization is going to fall into the sea. What is your message? I can’t find it. Boil down what you’re saying. God will punish you.”

The addict feels his mind is cracking. He runs screaming in the night looking for his next fix.

For example, the open and basically endless poetry of Pablo Neruda, Walt Whitman, William Carlos Williams, and Arthur Rimbaud can have that effect.

So many new worlds moving through the old one.

Why does a story have to have a recognizable plot and a tuned-up climax? Same question: Why does a person need to inject heroin?

Look at Piero della Francesca’s 1464 fresco, Legend of the True Cross—perhaps the greatest painting of the Renaissance. In a series of episodic panels, it traces the mythical history of the wooden cross on which Jesus was crucified. However, there are a number of puzzling “non-linear” representations in Piero’s work, the most famous of which is the panel titled, King Solomon Receiving the Queen of Sheba. What does that meeting have to do with the purported journey of the timber on which Jesus hung?

The Roman Church would claim it is symbolic of an archetypal super-event called The Arrival, and refers to the birth of the Messiah or his later entrance into public life as a teacher; or Sheba had precognitive knowledge of the tree whose wood would be used to make the cross. That’s an extraordinary stretch, to say the least. But it’s typical of a strategy down through the ages: when a promoted story line breaks down, invent a way of claiming it’s still coherent.

Buttress conventional story at all costs.

Mechanical minds will always reduce events, data, history, science, etc., to manageable stories.

Oceanic artists go the other way: they proliferate their work beyond any mechanical limit or summarized interpretation.

Why does that matter? Because, for these artists and their committed audiences, routine day-to-day experience is cracked open like an egg, out of which emerge vital energies of concealed dimensions. Life becomes LIFE.

When I was 21, a friend showed me photos of the architectural productions of the Spanish genius, Antoni Gaudi, scattered throughout Barcelona. My first reaction was, these buildings came from another planet. My second reaction: how was he allowed to build these structures?

Gaudi was a technical innovator of the first order. He developed forms and methods of construction that surpassed the engineering rationale of the great cathedrals of Europe. At the same time, he confounded old ideas of space. The experience of seeing or standing in one of his buildings yielded up the sensation of living in a DIFFERENT KIND OF CONTINUUM.

That new continuum disrupts the story line of consciousness by proliferating a new narrative that has no convenient ending. The old way of seeing has been given a bath in some mysterious dynamo and is vitalized.

Habitual categories and compartments of perception have dissolved.

Who would have known this was possible, unless Gaudi (1852-1926) had lived?

Our world, contrary to all consensus, is meant to be revolutionized by art, by imagination, right down to its core.

That this has not happened is no sign that the process is irrelevant. It is only a testament to the collective resistance.

Who knows how many such revolutions have been shunted aside and rejected, in favor of the consensus-shape we now think of as central and eternal?

We are living in a default structure, the one that has been left over after all the prior revolutions have been put to sleep.

Occasionally, an artist will take on the role of actor and performer, in order to deal with the denizens and mental dwarves of ministries of truth. Over the past hundred years, it would be hard to find an artist who carried out such a program with more skill and verve than Salvador Dali.

Let’s start here. To absorb a work of imagination, one has to use his own imagination.

Since this is considered unlikely, pundits earnestly help us with step-down contexts, so we can understand the work in pedestrian terms. In other words, so we can reduce it to nothing.

Salvador Dali was not content to allow this to happen.

The critics would have declared Dali a minor lunatic if he hadn’t possessed 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 accoutrements and assurances of modern comfortable living?

Where was the pleasantly mesmerizing effect of a predictable existence?

Where was a protective class structure that depended on nothing more than money and cultural slogans?

Dali invented vast comedies on canvas. 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. A bewildering mix of attitudes sprang out from the paintings.

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

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?

Critics 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 the situation a comedy (among other things), 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 Dali was playing the media 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 (or selves) 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/realities, more or less occupying the same space.

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 into 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 are offended at Dali’s skill, which matches the best work of the meticulous Dutch Renaissance masters.

They hate the dissonance. They resent Dali’s mordant wit and rankle at the idea that Dali could carry out monstrous jokes in such fierce extended detail.

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

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 scholars 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 bull (shit) rushes of the critics and the historians. They charged at him. He moved with his cape—and stepped 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 recorded 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.

(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. 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 exacting skill, “making subversive photographs come to life.”

That was too much.

But there the paintings are.

Imagination realized.

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.

The pot is boiling. People want out. Even if they don’t know where out is.

Somewhere along the line we have to give the green light to our own creative force. 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. 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 we installed to keep us titillated with dreams that would forever drift out of reach? What if it turns out that we are the perverse ones and a Dali is quite normal?

What if we pop out of the fences of this culture and this continuum and this tired movie called Planet Earth?

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

Jon Rappoport

If the Individual is an Artist of Reality

Jul22

by Jon Rappoport

July 22, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

…Then what are the Illuminati illuminated ABOUT?

They’re illuminated about their own invented narratives and story lines and symbols and ceremonies and rituals—which, when you add them up, result in ART; in that case, perverse art.

Every secret society and organized religion…if you stripped them of their art, what would they have left? About as much hair as Sampson, after Delilah clipped it off.

It’s easy to say, “Oh, but the masses are incapable—one person at a time—of becoming artists who individually invent and shape their own highest realities, so why even bring it up as a possibility? Just forget about it and let life go on as it always has.”

But here is the problem. When the individual believes he is unable to invent his own reality, he accepts what perverse groups design for him. He’s entranced by their symbols and story lines and pretended metaphysical insights and their systems of illumination and their concocted theatrical ceremonies and rituals. He doesn’t see the art and artifice because he doesn’t see art at all.

So he says, “My church, my secret society doesn’t invent anything. My church has DISCOVERED a connection to the ultimate reality, and I’ve joined them.”

It’s the same with the so-called science of virology. “These researchers aren’t inventing fictitious stories about the existence of viruses. They’ve DISCOVERED the viruses. I don’t know anything about that process. How could I? But they’re QUALIFIED. So I accept what they say. If it means I have hide my face with a mask, lock myself up in my home, bankrupt my business…so what? It’s NECESSARY.”

“Inserts in the brain? Nanoparticles as sensors inside the brain, receiving instructions from Control Central? QUALIFIED people would handle that, so let them shape my perception with those inserts. I’m sure it’ll work out well. I mean, SOMEBODY has to be in charge of reality. I’m certainly not. How could I be?”

Huxley, Brave New World: “Hot tunnels alternated with cool tunnels. Coolness was wedded to discomfort in the form of hard X-rays. By the time they were decanted the embryos had a horror of cold. They were predestined to emigrate to the tropics, to be miner and acetate silk spinners and steel workers. Later on their minds would be made to endorse the judgment of their bodies. ‘We condition them to thrive on heat,’ concluded Mr. Foster. ‘Our colleagues upstairs will teach them to love it’.”

Groups, large and small, are made to limit the elasticity of reality.

Here is the kicker. No one knows what any individual, over the course of his life, would invent as HIS OWN reality…but there is a general consensus that it would be too dangerous to find out, to allow such a voyage to take place.

In other words, people, left to their own devices, are threats; so they must be controlled.

In other words, freedom must be chained up.

Of course, it’s not as if we are living in a paradise here and now, with all the restrictions on freedom surrounding us.

THAT experiment is not working out well at all.

Over the long-term, the only way out of the mazes that civilizations create and impose is: individuals need to invent their own realities.

There has to be an understanding of what this means.

No one said improving that understanding would be easy.

It requires a completely different kind of education, from the bottom up.

It requires, for example, an immersion in IMAGINATION. Without it, individuals are going to opt for their smallest and most parochial conceptions of what reality can be. Individuals are going to invent what they’ve been trained to invent, or they’re going to rebel against the training like common criminals.

“Oh, but the kind of educational revolution you’re suggesting would be too difficult. It could never work…”

Newsflash: every radical departure from What Already Exists is a massive challenge.

And just to be clear, here is civilization’s counter-argument: “Reality you say? This is not something that is INVENTED. It’s DISCOVERED. It’s discovered by the people who are trained in that kind of work. What they reveal, we must follow. Because it is the truth.”

There it is, the Big Lie.

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

Jon Rappoport

William Blake: prince of imagination, vision, and faith

Jul21

“If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is: infinite.”

by Jon Rappoport

July 21, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Since I’ve been writing about the individual inventing his own reality, and having posted a piece about Ayn Rand, I now turn to a quite different person of a different time, the poet and artist William Blake (1757-1827). No doubt Blake would take vigorous issue with my simple claim that he created his own reality; nevertheless…

Aside from the fact that Blake mercilessly criticized organized religion, there is no other poet in the English language possessed of greater faith; the form of that faith, and whether it changed substantially over the years are subjects for scholars. I view Blake, first and foremost, as a poet, who set down what he saw, envisioned, imagined, believed, and questioned.

Here is a question (was it rhetorical?) he raised in one of the greatest poems in any language:

Tyger Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies.
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain,
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp,
Dare its deadly terrors clasp!

When the stars threw down their spears
And water’d heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tyger Tyger burning bright,
In the forests of the night:
What immortal hand or eye,
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

Blake also wrote: “And now let me finish with assuring you that, Tho I have been very unhappy, I am so no longer. I am again. Emerged into the light of day; I still & shall to Eternity Embrace Christianity and Adore him who is the Express image of God; but I have travel’d thro’ Perils & Darkness not unlike a Champion. I have Conquer’d, and shall still Go on Conquering. Nothing can withstand the fury of my Course among the Stars of God & in the Abysses of the Accuser. My Enthusiasm is still what it was, only Enlarged and conform’d.”

And he wrote this: “The ancient poets animated all objects with Gods or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged & numerous senses could perceive. And particularly they studied the genius of each city & country, placing it under its mental deity; Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of, & enslav’d the vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the mental deities from their objects: thus began priesthood; Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales. And at length they pronounc’d that the Gods had order’d such things. Thus men forgot that all deities reside in the human breast.”

And this: “It is not because Angels are Holier than Men or Devils that makes them Angels but because they do not Expect Holiness from one another but from God only.”

“Thinking as I do that the Creator of this World is a very Cruel Being & being a Worshipper of Christ, I cannot help saying: ‘the Son, O how unlike the Father!’ First God Almighty comes with a Thump on the Head. Then Jesus Christ comes with a balm to heal it.”

Make of that powerful brew what you will; I just keep reading Blake’s lines of poetry:

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

He who doubts from what he sees
Will ne’er believe, do what you please.
If the sun and moon should doubt
They’d immediately go out.

Love to faults is always blind,
Always is to joys inclined,
Lawless, winged, and unconfined,
And breaks all chains from every mind.

Love seeketh not itself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care,
But for another gives its ease,
And builds a heaven in hell’s despair.

O Rose thou art sick.
The invisible worm,
That flies in the night
In the howling storm:
Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy:
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy.

In every cry of every Man,
In every Infant’s cry of fear,
In every voice, in every ban,
The mind-forg’d manacles I hear.

Blake went to school only until he was ten. He was then educated at home by his mother.

His religious faith was equaled by his faith in imagination. Perhaps to him they were the same.

There is no other voice like his in the history of poetry. It is unique, in part, because he never wavered from his own vision. He took jobs and commissions, but they never distracted him from the ocean of his work.

He had “a genius of the ear.” He could hear a nursery rhyme and then raise it to the door of his heaven without ever dropping back into a trace of syrup or sentimentality.

A hundred years later, Yeats read Blake’s most magic lines and realized that modern poems could be filled with them. Magic? Here is what I mean:

Yeats: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.

Blake: What immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry?

Yeats: Once out of nature I shall never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.

Blake: When the stars threw down their spears
And water’d heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

I mention Yeats for another reason. There is a story told about his marriage. There are several versions. The one I prefer illustrates what I mean when I say: no one can predict what reality an individual will create when left to his own devices, when freed from the restraints of what he is supposed to believe. The story also illustrates the lengths to which individuals will go to forge a unique vision.

For almost 30 years, Yeats pursued the love of his life, Maud Gonne. She refused to marry him. A year after she turned him down for the last time, in 1916, grief-stricken and at the end of his rope, at age 52, he married Georgie Hyde-Lees, who was 25.

Almost immediately, Georgie saw their marriage was doomed to fail. Four days after their wedding, she suddenly told Yeats she could perform automatic writing. “Instructors” dictated highly esoteric texts to her. This intrigued Yeats. Together, they began to work out myriad systems to make metaphysical sense of the huge cascades of strange pages Georgie began setting down—-eventually resulting in the 1925 book, A Vision.

Their marriage endured. They had two children. Yeats dug deeply into the automatic texts and extracted images and phrases which he used and reworked in his late poems.

In my preferred version of this story, Georgie, desperate to hold on to her husband, invented both the pretext of her ability to perform automatic writing AND invented the ensuing mystical texts.

It worked. Once the new alliance with her husband was formed, the marriage survived; and Yeats, his writing up against a brick wall of exhaustion, suddenly found new sources and material and inspiration.

New life, new poetry, new partnership, new love.

Georgie decided to risk everything, and she won.

On the wings of THE INVENTION OF REALITY.

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

Jon Rappoport

The Great Forces within the Individual

Jul20

by Jon Rappoport

July 20, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

From my notes for The Underground: “Whatever the core problem of The Individual might be, DATA is not the answer. A system is not the answer. Neutral sanitized language is not the answer. These modern affectations eat away at the electric forces of the soul…”

THE POWER OF THE INDIVIDUAL, BEYOND ANY MODERN DESCRIPTION…

This is not a power that never existed before. This is not new for the individual. This is what has been sidelined and lost and forgotten and buried miles below the surface.

I’m talking about towering creative power, not “doily power” or “Easter egg decorating power.”

In Jonathan Swift’s novel, Gulliver’s Travels, Gulliver is captured by a tiny race of Lilliputians. In modern society, Gulliver voluntarily shrinks himself down to the size of a Lilliputian.

Contrary to the weak flaccid and madhouse principles of modern psychology, ACTUAL psychology would deal with two towering impulses within the individual:

Creation and destruction. The impulse to create and the impulse to destroy.

Modern civilization has the hidden goal of wiping out both of these impulses; instead, substituting top-down control. CONTROL.

The individual today is viewed by The Manipulators as a social construct, to be profiled, grouped, poked, tested, subjected to stimuli like a dog in a lab, re-engineered.

Indeed, many abject individuals see themselves as cogs in a social apparatus, and approve of the arrangement.

The preeminently successful hundred-year-plus program for embedding control is medical. I have exposed the details of the program for the past 40 years. You could sum it up as toxification and pacification and technological chaining of the body and brain.

CONTROL is the elite solution to the twin impulses of creating and destroying. Wipe them both out. Bury them. “They resist organization. They’re wild cards. They cut through all the rules and regulations of society.”

If you want pictures of creation and destruction in action, above the level of ordinary civilization, look to the stories co-opted by religions; the battles among the ancient Greek gods, the Egyptian gods, the Norse gods, and so on. This is creative and destructive power unleashed, on a grand scale, and at some point it became unacceptable. Instead…

Modern civilization developed. Modern society. Modern culture. Modern behavior. Modern organization.

Submission. Freedom granted by governments as “liberty,” meaning limited freedom within the context and constraints enacted by “the people’s representatives.” A whole host of fictions arose. “Worship the god we tell you to worship.” “Believe only in power that exists ELSEWHERE.”

Consciousness is a placid lake, some theorists claim. Lie on your back, float in the collective infinite. As if THIS would erase the twin towers of creation and destruction in the individual psyche. Pathetic.

Two things are now happening across the whole world. The expansion of top-down brutal control, and the emergence of the destructive impulse coming to the fore like a common currency.

The creative impulse is buried so deep in most individuals, they wouldn’t recognize it if you put it on a plate and served it for supper. They wouldn’t know what you were talking about. They certainly wouldn’t understand that a creative renaissance was absolutely necessary to offset what is happening in the world now.

If you referred them to giants like Michelangelo or Da Vinci or Beethoven or Mahler or Melville or Whitman or Goya or Stravinsky or Charlie Parker, they would think you were reciting the names of creatures from another planet. They might suspect you were trying to tear down God from his throne (the very God organized religions tell you is the True One).

Here is a clue. The most successful entertainment organization in the world, Disney/Marvel, has been producing one epic after another featuring mythological characters come to life as super-heroes and villains engaging in planetary and galactic battles of creation-and-destruction; millions of people watch these special-effect tales on screens, mesmerized and energized by the scale of the conflicts (very much like the Olympic gods at war with one another).

It’s no accident that humans crave these movies. They reflect (however cartoonishly) what is going on in the human psyche; the impulses of creation and destruction. The movies unearth what has been buried.

Under hundreds of layers of conditioning, the real psychology of the individual has everything to do with how these two towering impulses are dealt with BY the individual himself.

“Oh no, I’m not involved with those…impulses. I’m a card-carrying member of society. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m small, I’m trying to fit in, unless I’m against fitting in, in which case I’m dedicated to rejecting the proposal to install a traffic light at the corner of Main and Broadway…”

SMALLNESS is the overriding proposition. Every problem and solution has to be defined and worked out within a shrunken strangulating context.

Therefore, you can see all sorts of grotesquely played-out melodramas that unconsciously give vent to creative-destructive- impulse leaks from the individual.

The bloviating businessman who peddles cheap crap for a living parades around as if he were a living pillar of charity in his community, while he turns the screws on his employees by paying them a bare living wage and, privately, delights in their misfortune. Small stage play of creation and destruction.

Ditto for the grifter-politician who swears dedication to the groups he’s creating for the betterment of his people, knowing these causes will lead to further impoverishment and crime and, ultimately, submission and surrender. Create and destroy.

I could name and describe hundreds of small accommodations and expressions which attempt to mediate between the creating and destroying impulses within the individual.

Their smallness is just a cover for the Niagara-forces these impulses actually embody.

“If I shrink myself down, my impulses will shrink, too.”

It doesn’t work that way.

The impulses never shrink.

This is the problem. The titanic trying to become tiny.

Creation and destruction make up an existential situation within the individual and his psyche. How will he approach the situation? Not with easy answers, I can assure you. Not with a quick 10-minute fix—the favorite remedy-style of the modern age. Not with a pill. Not with grass-fed beef. Not with a medical mask. Not with a fear of germs. Not with meditation. Not with a group. Not with algorithms. Not with computers. Not with a brain-machine interface or nanoparticles or organized human anthills of the 21st century. Not with churches.

With CONTROL taking center stage in new forms, and on the march, the first great undertaking is the recognition that CREATIVE POWER has always existed within the individual. And that power needs expression. On a scale that reflects its magnitude.

Impossible?

Fortunately, in the work of artists I mentioned above, and in the work of many others of the same size, there are worlds to explore. These artists are not dead. Their work isn’t dead…

You want to know the beginning?
You’re sitting on top of a grassy mountain
And you know you could build a city in the valley
You could destroy a city in the valley
You could do both
You know it…like a boiling pepper in the mind, like an ice cube in the liver, like a steamroller, a traitor on trial, a saint in a cave, a god with his sword, a tiger pacing in his cage
You’re going to approach these two forces inside you
You’re going to walk around them and through them and sniff titanic waves and sink to the bottom of lost ships and come up out of the foam
You’re not going to run away into a little box and read the law for the next thousand years and join the society of obedient babbling idiots wearing thin lips
You’re going to burn away the strangulating false fronts
You’re going to know you can invent a city or destroy one
You’re going to come to grips with that
You’re not going to automatically jump ahead and say you’re a citizen of the realm
You’re not going to say there is nothing you want to destroy
You’re not going to remain two-dimensional for the next thousand years

Coming to grips with, and seeing the impulse to destroy within yourself is completely different from giving vent to, and enacting that impulse. The people who go around destroying are not coming to grips with anything.

On the other hand, imagine an innovative architect who is designing buildings no one has ever seen before. In his sketches, in his plans, he creates and destroys. He looks at his work in progress, and he decisively obliterates whole sections that don’t fit his vision and his instincts. He creates new wings of a building in his drawings and wipes some of them out. By the alive process of creating and destroying he arrives at what he wants to make real in the world.

I’ve known many aspiring artists who stall at the gate and never get off the ground, because they’re afraid that, if they put words on the page or shapes on the canvas, those words and shapes will have to remain there forever. To put it another way, they can’t conceive of destroying what they create. They believe “destruction is bad.” So they never create anything.

I’ve known painters who look at what they’ve put on the canvas for days and months; they keep looking; they’re not satisfied; but they’re afraid to wipe out a whole section. They’re afraid because they don’t realize they can create endlessly. They don’t realize that destroying half of a painting will lead to a new painting.

Civilization and society have always tried to define the limits of the creative process, as in: REDUCTION. Boil it down. Make it less. Make it smaller. Hem it in. Summarize it. Claim the individual creator should, first and foremost, be a citizen. A creature inside the system. This is a sick joke. And every artist of reality has rejected the joke with a mere dismissive glance.

The prescribed default position of the modern individual is: “I neither create nor destroy; I’m neutral; I adjust; whatever real power is, it resides outside myself; there is no larger context in which I can conceive of ACTION; if I feel deficient, I join a group.”

And people wonder why they have problems they can’t quite put their finger on. They wonder why their energies seem to be diminishing.

Consider the case of Nikola Tesla. The popularized story has it that he could see, in his imagination, all the complex moving parts of the energy devices he was inventing before he even made a preliminary sketch, much less a working prototype. It was all there in his mind. Magic. Genius.

I guarantee that was the not the whole story. Whether in his mind, on paper, or in prototype, he created and destroyed many models, before he arrived at one he believed would work to unleash and harness awesome amounts of force and energy.

He didn’t have an iota of worry about destroying what was unworkable. He wasn’t looking for a compromise or a shoddy but sellable piece of goods. He was focused on the far shore. Nothing less than the redirecting and transforming of Nature’s Flow.

And with each progressive step, there were spontaneous unexplainable insights that allowed him to move forward. His vision was Promethean. He wasn’t “neutral” or “objectively scientific” like some mechanical-minded little lab researcher trying to squeeze out a tiny extension of what was already known in order to publish a paper and secure a job.

The irony is, if Tesla had produced a working prototype that tapped into the Earth’s power and brought energy to every person on the planet, how many people would have said, “I want to operate and EXPRESS the great forces I have, as Tesla did,” versus…

“Thank you, Nikola, for the free energy. Now I can receive these gifts and sit back and enjoy them…I don’t have to look inside myself and see what is there…”

“I’m a Gulliver who is opting to be a Lilliputian.”

“Does anybody have a drug I can use to forget what I really am? A drug like Alice took to shrink down, outside the little door to Wonderland?”

Yes. It’s called modern civilization. You can go through the Clockwork Orange door. The DARPA mind control door. The medical-drug and vaccine door. The street drug door. The education system door. The media door. The good behavior gold star on the blackboard door…

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

Jon Rappoport

Ayn Rand: a creative vision hated and adored by millions

Jul19

by Jon Rappoport

July 19, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Here I’m republishing my 2014 article because, these days, beyond the manipulation of people and agendas, a few questions are still burned on the sky:

What is freedom?

What is freedom for?

What is justice?

These are not questions for people who believe they already know everything worth knowing.

“Why carry the burden of creating something and then having to stand behind it and be proud of it? Why think and imagine and create your own way into the future of your most profound vision? Why bother? And why, therefore, allow others to do so for themselves and cause disordered, disharmonious ripples in the great silent lake of humanity? Pull them down. Make them equal. Make them empty.” (my notes for The Underground)

The one glaring problem in Ayn Rand’s work is the overall effect of her hammering mercilessly on behalf of freedom and the individual—after 400 pages, her prose takes on a programmatic aspect. It grips the reader with iron. The moral imperative to be free replaces the exhilaration of being free.

On the other hand, she obviously wrote her two great novels in the middle of a feverish exaltation. Every page burned. Most characters went down in flames. A few rose into the sky. She knew she was up against the most powerful forces of society, and she was not going to compromise or relent one inch. She fully intended to destroy collectivism at its root. On the basis of that decision, she refused to suspend her attack, even for a moment.

Most people who brush up against her work can’t stop to consider the depth of her admiration for the independent and powerful and creative individual, or the nature of her aversion to the collectivist who can only borrow from such individuals, and then distort and undermine what they have misappropriated.

She means to be extreme. It is no accident. With no apologies, she splits the world down the middle. In her own way, she is an ultimate riverboat gambler. She shoves in all her chips on the self-appointed task of illuminating the great dichotomy of human history and modern life: the I versus the WE.

On a personal level, she possessed enormous ambition, and she wrote her two novels to achieve deserved recognition. Again, no apologies. She knew she and her work would be attacked by numerous critics who didn’t themselves own a tiny fragment of her talent. So be it.

To say she revealed “a thorny personality” in her relationships would constitute a vast understatement. In her later years, she no doubt contributed to bringing the house down on her head. But by then, her work was over. She stood behind it. She had achieved what she set out to create.

And every cultural messenger of her time reviled her.

“…nearly perfect in its immorality.”
Gore Vidal, reviewing Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

“…shot through with hatred.”
The Saturday Review, on Atlas Shrugged

“…can be called a novel only by devaluing the term.”
The National Review, on Atlas Shrugged

“[The] creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men.”
Howard Roark, the protagonist of The Fountainhead

When people perceive their society is being infiltrated and taken over by collectivism, how should they respond? What is their ultimate fuel in the battle for liberty?

What do they resurrect as the ideal that is being scorched by collectivism?

Yes the Constitution, yes the Bill of Rights, yes the Republic. But what were those documents and that form of government there for in the first place? What WAS the great ideal that lay behind them?

And if very few people can recall the ideal or understand it, what then?

The ideal was and is THE INDIVIDUAL.

But not just the individual.

The FREE INDIVIDUAL.

But not just the free individual.

The FREE AND POWERFUL INDIVIDUAL.

Which is why I’m writing about Ayn Rand.

To grasp her Promethean effort and accomplishment, you have to read her books at least several times, because your own reactions and responses will change. She was attempting to dig a whole civilization out from its smug certainty about the limits of freedom, from its compulsion to borrow and steal worn-out ideas.

I write this because the matrix of modern life has no solution without a frontal exposure of the meaning and reality and sensation and emotion and mind and imagination of INDIVIDUAL POWER.

Ayn Rand, in her unique way, climbed the mountain of power and told about the vista that was then in her sights. She exercised no caution. She knew the consequences would be extraordinary.

The characters she creates who embody power are electric. You experience them beyond mere fiddle-faddle with symbols.

Rand wrote two novels that still reverberate in the minds of millions of people: The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

The books have inspired unalloyed adoration and hatred. They are received as a magnificent tonic or a dose of poison.

Readers who hate Rand’s work hate her for daring to present the power of an individual in full force.

Rand’s major heroes, Howard Roark and John Galt, are artists. Creators. They bow before no one and nothing. They invent. They decide. They imagine. They refuse to compromise. They leave the group and the committee and the bureaucracy and the collective behind them in the dust.

Society is ever more, over time, a mass concept. Society’s leaders, through illegal dictum, deception, and force, define a space in which all life is supposed to occur. That is the “safe zone.” Within it, a person may act with impunity. Outside that space, protection is removed. The protection racket no long applies.

Once a controller owns a space in which others live, he can alter it. He can make it smaller and smaller. He can flood it with caterwauling about “the greatest good for the greatest number,” the slogan of the mob. He can pretend to elevate the mob to the status of a legitimate “democratic majority” who are running things. He can con whole populations.

On the other hand, we are supposed to believe that individual power is a taboo because men like Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Attila, and Alexander once lived. That is the proof. We are supposed to believe individual power is always and everywhere the expression of dominance over others and nothing more.

If we only take into consideration “what is best for everybody,” we will see our way out of the morass. That’s what we’re told.

Civilizations are being made more puerile because it is children who are most vulnerable to the “greatest good for all” maxim. It is children who can be suckered into that ideal overnight. And those adults who buy the maxim do, in fact, revert back in the direction of being children.

At this late date, significant numbers of people are waking up to the fact that “greatest good” is being managed and manipulated by new Stalins and Hitlers, who care about humanity in the same way that a bulldozer cares about the side of a building.

Ayn Rand, after growing up in the USSR, knew something about the paradise of the common man. She saw it play out. She could eventually look back and see, with certainty, that writing her two novels in the Soviet Union would have cost her her life.

She was acutely aware of the nature of compromisers. Such characters, brilliantly and mercilessly drawn, are there in her novels, in the full bloom of decay. Golden boy Peter Keating, the pathetic and agonized architect-hack; Guy Francon, Keating’s boss, a socially connected panderer and promoter of hacks; Jim Taggart, moral coward in extremis; Ellsworth Toohey, prime philosopher of the mob impulse; Robert Sadler, the scientist who sold his soul.

Around us today, we see growing numbers of these very types, peddling their phony idealism over and over. Among them, Barack Obama, promoting class warfare, dependence on government as the source of survival, generalized pretended hatred of the rich, and a phony empty “we are all together” sing-song collective mysticism.

Again, keep in mind that Rand’s two major heroes, Howard Roark and John Galt, were artists. This was no accident. This was the thrust of her main assault. The artist is always, by example, showing the lie of the collective. The artist begins with the assumption that consensus reality is not final. The artist is not satisfied to accommodate himself to What Already Exists.

The dark opposite of that was once told to me by a retired propaganda operative, Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), who freelanced for several elite non-profit foundations:

“What do you think my colleagues and I were doing all those years? What was our purpose? To repudiate the singular in favor of the general. And what does that boil down to? Eradicating the concept of the individual human being. Replacing it with the mass. The mass doesn’t think. There is no such thing as mass thought. There is only mass impulse. And we could administer that. We could move it around like a piece on a board. You see, you don’t hypnotize a person into some deeper region of himself. You hypnotize him OUT of himself into a fiction called The Group…”

Rand was attacking a mass and a collective that had burrowed its way into every corner of life on the planet. If you were going to go to war against THAT, you needed to be fully armed. And she was.

Rand was also prepared to elucidate the physical, mental, and emotional DEPTH of her heroes’ commitment to their own choices, their own work, their own creations. She wasn’t merely dipping her toe in the water of that ocean.

Howard Roark, her protagonist of The Fountainhead, remarks:

“And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows…”

Parasites don’t want anyone to stand out from the group, the swamp. The presence of someone who is so separate from them could trigger alarm bells and confirm their deepest fear:

An individual with power and his own singular creative vision can exist.

Parasites want you to believe you’re just a drop of water in the great ocean, and once you attain “higher consciousness” you’ll give in and float in the sea, and you’ll offload that oh-so primitive concept of yourself as Self. You’ll be One with all the other undifferentiated drops of water.

In their ritual of joining, people are awarded a mantrum: “I’M NOT VERY MUCH.”

Just that little phrase can open the door into the collective.

In The Fountainhead, architect Peter Keating utilized a second assertion as well:

“I AM GREAT BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE THINK SO.”

Keating, the social grasper, finds acceptance from people of influence. They welcome him and reward him with architectural commissions because, well, they think they are supposed to; after all, his name has been bandied about by “those who should know Quality.”

It’s a world in which no standards apply except the opinions of people who carry weight.

And Peter is conventionally handsome, he’s the golden boy, he’s quick, he can design buildings that look like other buildings, he can work with others, he can look like he’s enjoying life, he’s good at parties, he’s congenial.

On what other basis should rewards be handed out? What else exists?

Unfortunately and fatally, Keating knows the real answer to that question, since he’s the boyhood friend of Howard Roark, the architect who does have a singular and astonishing vision, who stands beyond the crowd without trying.

Keating returns to Roark time after time; to insult Roark, to beg him for help, to be in the presence of a Force and breathe clean air.

Not determined enough to be himself, but still possessed of a shred of conscience, Keating is caught in the middle, between the man of vision and power (Roark) and new friends who offer him “the glittering world”—and the grips of this vise are unrelenting.

Adulation, money, success, fame, acceptance…Keating is given all these things, and still he destroys himself.

Here is why The Fountainhead provoked such rage from the self-styled elite: they’re committed to live on an insider’s rotting feast of mutual admiration and support, and in Keating they see themselves reflected with a clarity they’d assumed was impossible to construct. But there it is.

The very people who launched attack after attack at Rand, for “pawning off such preposterous characters as real,” were boiling inside, as they viewed themselves on the screen of her imagination: characters riddled with compromise, bloated with pretension, bereft of integrity.

Keating is eventually reduced to an abject yearning: would that his life had been lived differently, better—yet at the same time he maintains a dedication to hating that better life he might have had. He’s consumed by the contradiction. He sees his own career fall apart, while Roark’s ascends. The tables are turned. Keating has administered a toxin to his own psyche, and the results are all too visibly repellent.

The Keatings of this world carry water for their masters, who in turn find bigger and better manipulators to serve. It’s a cacophony of madness, envy, and immolation posing as success.

The world does not want to watch itself through the eyes of Ayn Rand. It does not want to see the juggernaut of the drama playing out, because, as with Keating, it is too revealing. And yet Rand has been accused, over and over, of being an author of cartoon personae!

She elevates characters and destroys other characters. She picks and chooses according to her own standards and ideals. She never wavers. She passes judgment. She differentiates vividly between the forces and decisions that advance life and those that squash it.

Again and again, she comes back to the fulcrum: the featureless consensus versus unique individual creative power.

Creative power isn’t a shared or borrowed quality. One person doesn’t live in the shadow of another. The creator finds his own way, and if that weren’t the case, there would be no basis for life.

We are supposed to think existence by committee is a viable concept. This is a surpassing fairy tale that assumes the proportions of a cosmic joke.

For those whose minds are already weak, in disarray, unformed, the substitution of the collective for the individual is acceptable. It’s, in fact, rather interesting. It has the kick of novelty. And the strength of hypnotic trance.

The strategy is obliquely described in The Fountainhead by Ellsworth Toohey, a newspaper columnist and philosopher of the collective, a little man who is covertly and diabolically assembling a massive following:

“…if I sold them the idea that you [an ordinary playwright] are just as great as Ibsen—pretty soon they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference…then it wouldn’t matter what they went to see at all. Then nothing would matter—neither the writers nor those for whom they write.”

Reduction to absurdity. An overall grayness called equality.

If the public is told the owner of a business didn’t create that business, but instead the public sector, the collective did, and if this theme is pushed and emphasized by others, eventually the absurd notion will take hold. Then it won’t matter what is done to the independent individual, because he was never really there at all in the first place. He was just an invisible nonentity.

Contrast this treatment of the individual with the stand that Howard Roark takes during his climactic courtroom trial, at the end of The Fountainhead:

“But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought.”

“We inherit the products of the thoughts of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make the cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane…The moving force is the creative faculty which takes product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator.”

“Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible.”

We are now in an age where EVERYTHING BELONGS TO EVERYBODY.

Obama is the latest in a line of demagogues who fully intend to reverse the course of history. That timeline shows us the heroic struggle to replace WE with I.

From the earliest days of our planet, since its habitation by humans, the tribe and the clan and the priest class and the monarchy, all claiming divine right, have enforced the WE. Finally, the I, which was always there, emerged fully enough to overthrow criminals and murderers who were restraining the individual.

But now we are being pulled back into the primitive swamp of the past, through the systematic application of a pseudo-philosophy. The I is turning back into the WE.

To people who carry advanced technological devices around with them wherever they go, which give them the capability to communicate instantaneously with anyone on the planet, this prospect seems harmless or ridiculous or irrelevant or comfortable.

The “I turning back into WE” is happening because IDEAS are slipping away as useful and necessary instruments of survival.

New generations are being raised and schooled in a sulfurous atmosphere of slogans designed to dead-end, from a number of directions, in a foggy “share and care” terminal, where “everything for everybody” and other so-called humanitarian banners wave in the rafters above secular leaders, who speak like priests and assure us that, very soon, the world will be a better place because we, as individuals, are absolving ourselves of the need to think of ourselves as individuals.

O yes, thank God, we are melting down. We are becoming One with All. Why carry the burden of creating something and then having to stand for it and be proud of it? Why think and imagine and create your own way into the future of your best and most profound vision? Why bother? And why, therefore, allow others to do so and cause disordered, disharmonious ripples in the great silent lake of humanity? Pull them down. Make them equal. Make them empty.

Let us, as ancient Greek vandals once did, chop away our most sacred statues, the ones that represent the I, and then let us watch as WE is reinstalled at the entrance to every public building.

Within the WE, individuals can hide and escape and postpone and delay, and imbibe the drug of forgetfulness, and listen to the chimes of paradise.

Roark continues to mount his courtroom speech: “An architect uses steel, glass, and concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass, and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property.”

Obama: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Roark: “Rulers of men…create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving.”

Obama: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Roark: “When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander invented altruism.”

Obama: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Roark: “The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an inessential.”

Obama: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Ayn Rand could be viewed as a tragic figure, but she would deny it, even in her darkest hour, just as her character, Howard Roark, would deny it.

She not only knew where she stood, she fleshed out, to an extraordinary degree, that position, in two astonishing and unique novels. Bolts from the blue.

She and her books were hated and adored, as no other author and no other works of the 20th century.

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

Jon Rappoport

Lockdowns, tracing, testing, vaccinating, and Liberty

Jun17

Liberty: “the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views; the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.”

by Jon Rappoport

June 17, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

These are the days. These are the days when men and women accept draconian measures as if they were trifles.

The nation and the world come grinding to a halt, and it is just another “interruption.”

In 1776, there was a revolution against restraints from a foreign power. Now there is bleating from domestic governors about lockdowns, tracing, testing, vaccinating, and the majority of the populace obeys these tyrants without question. Even with loyalty.

Birthed after blood and sacrifice, national government in the United States was severely hamstrung, in order to prevent abuses of power. But it has become the teat, the Giver and the Taker. The wanton parent.

And now for decades, people have shrugged: “What harm could come from a government giving gifts?”

People say, “What harm could come from schools that don’t teach history? We already have freedom. Who cares how we got it?”

The exalted nature of Liberty has been disposed of in a sea of amnesia.

“Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. It is not for the sake of a good public administration that it is required, but for security in the pursuit of the highest objects of civil society, and of private life.” (Lord Acton, 1877)

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” (John Adams, 1772)

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” (Samuel Adams, 1776)

“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” (Edmund Burke, 1784)

Does none of this matter now? Are pacification and passivity the cardinal virtues? If so, I suggest a new Constitution, where we can enshrine these qualities with official language and be done with it.

BILL OF RIGHTS:

ONE: Shout “this is science!” when anyone threatens the power of government.

TWO: Censor dissent for the sake of public safety, according to guidelines laid down by government and corporations. Disrupt the lives of dissenters.

THREE: Give up Liberty when the authorities demand it.

That is all. Done.

We threw off the King of England so we could have YouTube and Facebook.

Exalted Liberty, tossed overboard into a sea of hypnotic assurance.

“Perhaps the enemies of liberty are such only because they judge it by its loud voice. If they knew its charms, the dignity that accompanies it, how much a free man feels like a king, the perpetual inner light that is produced by decorous self-awareness and realization, perhaps there would be no greater friends of freedom than those who are its worst enemies.” (Jose Marti, 1893)

“What light is to the eyes, what love is to the heart, Liberty is to the soul of man. Without it, there come suffocation, degradation and death.” (Robert G Ingersoll, 1887)

If I had a child, I would home school him, and for a year we would do nothing but delve deeply into these and other remembrances of Liberty, re-establishing its exalted nature. For those of you who do have children, that is what I suggest.

An education of mind, body, heart, and soul.

Where Liberty once was.

That creature called socialism is, in effect, the transfer of any remaining Liberty to government, based on the fatuous hope that giving complete power to a tyrannical force will somehow reform that force and transform it into a messiah. And this is the best formulation. A more realistic appraisal would be: socialism is a notorious promoted enslavement, whereby elite men behind a curtain preach Centralized Authority as Kindness and Fairness, in order to raise an army of idealistic ravening wolves who will dispossess the people of everything they own.

Obviously, in order for this operation to succeed, the people must have forgotten that ANY quality of The Individual could occupy an exalted and eternal position—a quality such as Liberty.

Once upon a time, defiant poetry about Liberty from oppression could move armies. The stakes were as high as they have ever been.

From history.com: “…General George Washington’s troops were encamped at McKonkey’s Ferry on the Delaware River opposite Trenton, New Jersey. In August, they had suffered humiliating defeats and lost New York City to British troops. Between September and December, 11,000 American volunteers gave up the fight and returned to their families. General Washington could foresee the destiny of a rebellion without an army if the rest of his men returned home when their service contracts expired on December 31. He knew that without an upswing in morale and a significant victory, the American Revolution would come to a swift and humiliating end.”

“…[Thomas Paine’s] Common Sense was the clarion call that began the revolution. As Washington’s troops retreated from New York through New Jersey, Paine again rose to the challenge of literary warfare. With another pamphlet] American Crisis, he delivered the words that would salvage the revolution.”

“Washington commanded that the freshly printed pamphlet be read aloud to his dispirited men; the rousing prose had its intended effect. Reciting Paine’s impassioned words, the beleaguered troops mustered their remaining hopes for victory and crossed the icy Delaware River to defeat hung-over Hessians on Christmas night and on January 2, the British army’s best general, Earl Cornwallis, at the Battle of Princeton. With victory in New Jersey, Washington won not only two battles, but also the love and thanks of man and woman.”

Paine’s famous words: “THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

Paine wrote more: “…I have as little superstition in me as any man living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent.”

“Neither have I so much of the infidel in me, as to suppose that He has relinquished the government of the world, and given us up to the care of devils…”

“…in the fourteenth century the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc.”

“…Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it.”

“…Say not that thousands [of soldiers] are gone, turn out your tens of thousands; throw not the burden of the day upon Providence, but ‘show your faith by your works,’ that God may bless you. It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘ Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death….”

The contest is not over. It is never over.

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

Jon Rappoport

Utopian fantasies vs. a better world

Jan9

What happened to the Republic? Democracy happened

by Jon Rappoport

January 9, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

“When you come to the subject of who should ‘fix things,’ the government or private individuals, you could throw up your hands and confess that neither choice works, in which case you’re left with a terminal disease, and a fine excuse for doing nothing; or you could refer back to the principles of the Republic, and understand why the Founders put chains on government, and you might a find a clue for navigating out of the maze.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

This piece is for anyone who can understand it—but it’s also for THE ENTREPRENEUR, who in his soul wants to do something large and bright and radical and successful, to turn the tide of human affairs in an enormously good direction and, yes, still make a substantial profit.

And no, “the universe” doesn’t rule out those two motives existing side by side.

The United States was created as a Republic.

That meant severely limited central government.

Why?

Because the Founders knew the long experience of Europe: overarching tyrannies; bloated kings emboldened with the doctrine of divine right to rule; theocracies; gigantic theft of land; force, coercion; slavery.

The new 18th century American central government, through enumerated powers and checks and balances, had to be limited and even hamstrung.

On that basis, individual freedom would be maximized.

That was the whole point of a Republic.

The individual would be free to do whatever he wanted to, as long as he didn’t interfere with the life and liberty of others.

INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM—THE HALLMARK OF A REPUBLIC.

However, in order for a Republic to have a chance of success, the population would have to remain small. A Republic is not for an enormous population. The people are too remote from the federal center of power.

And there needed to be a population of moral people, who understood basic rights and wrongs, beyond legislation and law.

As the American population swelled, there should have been many Republics founded on this continent. Unfortunately, that never happened.

Instead, men in and around central government conspired to multiply their own power through a variety of means, thus creating monopolies of great strength, in government and business and money.

And gradually, these men and their descendants came to see they could foist a grand illusion on the people: they could promote the idea that “the people’s wishes were paramount” and should be served at all times.

Thus arrived Democracy.

Rule by “everyone.” Rule by “popular decision.” Rule by “meeting needs,” whatever they might be.

Meeting needs, of course, necessitated a more powerful and extensive government—shattering the severe limits originally imposed in the Constitution.

Marry these democratic elements to a decline in general morality—grab whatever you can at the expense of your neighbor—and the fate of the Republic was sealed.

The Republic was never perfect. Far from it. Perfection wasn’t its goal. But it was a noble effort, and the ideas on which it stood still survive.

Particularly, freedom of the individual.

That freedom is the launching pad for everything the individual can imagine and create, in order to build a greater future.

And the rule barring the individual from interfering with the life and liberty of others is still a basic principle.

Democracy cultivates mobs. It embodies the idea that any group which can gain attention must have its purported needs met.

Just one step to the left of that, we find the socialist/Communist maxim: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

What able individuals produce will be taken from them and given to those of “lesser ability.”

Limited government, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights—these are mere pieces of paper, old pamphlets trampled on in the streets by the mobs shouting their endless demands.

If the ancestors of these groups, at one time, had legitimate objections to the way government was being run (against them), now all that is swept away in a sea of base anger and revenge—which turns out to be the elite plan for the end-game…

If the elites can pull it off:

Chaos. Out of which a new level of order will be imposed—which takes us back to the kind of tyranny that existed before the struggle for individual freedom and limited government was won.

And all the while, these elite planners pose as utopian altruists. Socialists.

And yet…as of 2010, there were 27.9 million small businesses in the US.

Somehow, the heritage of the Republic still lives.

Freedom of the individual.

The core idea on which America was founded.

Liberty of the individual is more than an invented “construct.” It’s a reflection of an inherent truth: the individual is at the heart of what life is all about.

A major point needs to be entered into this mix: ABUNDANCE. Planet-wide abundance of resources, technology, and energy.

As Buckminster Fuller made clear 80 years ago, there is “enough for everyone”—which is to say, every person on Earth can have the essentials of survival. Food, clothing, shelter.

However, Fuller (and others) stalled on the vital question: WHO WILL DELIVER THIS ABUNDANCE TO THE GLOBAL POPULATION, AND HOW?

In the arena of fuzzy thinking, the answer is, of course: “the government” will deliver abundance.

This is fatuous, idiotic, and impossible.

“The government” is controlled by men who, amidst their many crimes, have no intention of sharing the wealth of Earth’s resources and technology. I can’t emphasize this fact enough.

The government is there to promote socialism and technocracy as “better-world” answers right around the corner. THIS IS THE MASK.

Behind the mask is cruel top-down scarcity, upheld and maintained, despite the truth that there really IS enough for everyone.

No, government will not be the provider of abundance.

NOR SHOULD IT BE.

That task falls to…wait for it…private business.

What?

Here is the capper: if private businesses—including major corporations—realized they could sell food, clothing, and shelter to the global population for relative pennies—and make more profits than they’re making now—because of the size of that consumer base—they might reassess their position.

They might…but they won’t. Not without our help.

Boiling down the situation: you have the potential consumer base of some eight billion people; you have the means to sell this base the means of survival—food and clothing and shelter—for pennies; you have the technology needed for the job; you have the bright promise of a better future.

And you have the individuals who, armed with this understanding, could create businesses to bring such a vision to fruition.

Actual capitalism is preserved. Free market is preserved. Profit motive is preserved. Doing good is preserved. And all this WITHOUT GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

No one said this job I’m proposing would be easy. Of course it’s not easy.

But, for example, the next generation of techies—after this generation of air heads who seek to worship at the knee of brain-computer mysticism has faded away—the next generation might be persuaded to revisit the core ideas of the Republic and see how free enterprise, freely undertaken, could work a true revolution and distribute abundance to the planet at the same time.

Imagine a near-future corporate boardroom meeting. The CEO stands up and says:

“OK, people, I’ve brought you here because we’re going to try something new and radical. Face it, we’ve been selling crap to our customers for a long, long time and gouging them in the process. Today, that stops. We’re going to shift over to a different theme. Our board will approve, because we’re going to show them this new effort will expand our bottom line. WE’RE GOING MAKE NUTRITIOUS FOOD PACKS AND SELL THEM FOR RELATIVE PENNIES TO A BILLION PEOPLE. That’s the initial goal. We can do it. On another front, we’re going to sell a billion people good clean food seeds for growing food crops. We’re going to buy acres of land in the so-called Third World and then sell parcels, for farming, to the poor for pennies and take a small share of their profits…

“Now, at first, we’ll have to work through a bunch of foreign governments, because they control their people. This is tricky. But if we give these tinpot leaders enough money, they’ll go along….”

Of course, there will be problems. Serious problems. The CIA, for example, which supports government control and scarcity around the world.

That’s where GOOD AND RIGHTEOUS PUBLIC RELATIONS ENTERS THE SCENE. That visionary CEO and his company will have to publicize the hell out of their radical new plan and expose the problems and barriers and ops the old guard throws up against them.

Wake up the people to what is going on.

“Are you kidding? This will never work.”

That’s what was said in the middle of the Dark Ages, when a few people said THE INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE FREE.

“This will never work.”

But it did.

With enough courage and determination and intelligence and vision and work and imagination, over a very long period of time, it did work.

Up against forces of evil and deception, it did work.

And it can work again.

“But this time it’s different. The situation is worse, much worse.”

No it isn’t.

Here’s a clue. It’s always worse. That’s the way it always looks. But it’s always possible.

The free and independent and creative individual has been lulled into thinking that he has to limit his entrepreneurial vision and goals to a few self-contained enterprises in a small corner of a much larger space.

That’s called brainwashing.

He can think and plan and work in as large an arena as he wants to. If he wakes up.

If he’s a rocket ship with a range of 100 light years, and he’s operating on an old route that travels 50 miles, back and forth, something is seriously amiss.

There is much more to say…

But this is an introduction. This is a sketch of the core. This is about the individual unleashed. This is about sacrificing nothing in the pursuit of individual success while making abundance into fact.

This is about wiping away the delusion that “the government will generate a new and better world.”

If you want a better world, if you want abundance, you can choose government or the individual as the carrier. You can put your eggs in either basket. You can analyze both answers and decide.

You can roll the dice on either choice.

You can put aside the mantra of “nothing works” and look into the psychology of the individual and government and find truths.

An analogy: you’ve got a gigantic oil tanker that’s been heading in the wrong direction. You want to turn it around. Who is going to take the helm and do it?

On one side, you have 50 individuals, 47 of whom are corrupt and consumed with criminal greed. The other three are different. They glimpse the possibility of doing the right thing.

On the other side, you have that amorphous swollen blob called government. It’s not only consumed with greed, it preaches The Good as a deceptive front to cover its crimes. A few individuals who might want to do the right thing are laden with connections which command the continuance of crimes.

Your choice.

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

Jon Rappoport

Live in the collective and forget who you are

Dec2

by Jon Rappoport

December 2, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

We are now told it’s selfish and greedy to promote freedom for the individual. It’s old-fashioned. It’s passe. It’s dangerous. It’s nothing more than a ruse floated by the rich to hold down the poor.

Forget about the fact that the next Einstein or Tesla, growing up in what has become a collectivist society, could be slammed with Ritalin, Prozac, and even heavier drugs—because they’re “abnormal.”

Some day, when America has been forgotten, an anthropologist will write a celebrated history of this country, and it’ll be all about cultural trends and group customs, and no one will even remember there was such an idea as The Individual.

By that time, the population of what was once the United States will live in a theocracy dedicated to Mother Earth, and every day for half an hour, the people will kneel and pray, together, from coast to coast, for mercy from this Mother.

And the people will be happy doing it—such as they understand happiness. They will glorify The Group. They will live under the great dome of the Flying Drones and they will rejoice in their solidarity.

They will willingly submit to all forms of surveillance, because it is in the interest of the Whole, the collective, the mass. After all, who would depart from the rules and sentiments of The Group? Only the outcasts. Only those bitter clingers who still believe they are unique individuals and have desires and power. Who needs them? Who wants them? They’re primitive throwbacks. They’re sick and they need treatment.

Be grateful you’re living in the time of the great transition. If you look, you can see the changes taking place right in front of your own eyes. You can see The Individual fading out as a concept. You can see its replacement—the group and its needs—coming on strong. You can know where we’re heading.

One day, you’ll be able to tell your grandchildren there was once a time when there was a completely different conception of existence, and you’ll be able to regale them with stories of the impossible. Stories of individuals.

Of course, they won’t believe you. They won’t be able to fathom what in the world you’re talking about. But that doesn’t matter. They’ll listen in rapt wonder, just as we now admiringly contemplate tales of strange creatures and mountain gods of the ancient Greeks.

It’ll be fun to look back on our time.

Don’t worry. It doesn’t matter. History is merely an anthropological catalog of trends, a series of customs. We pass from one epoch to another. What was true and important in one time becomes meaningless later.

Just “come together for the great healing.” That’s all you need to think about now. It’ll all work out. And if it doesn’t, you won’t remember the failure anyway.

Coda: What’s that? I can’t hear you. Speak a little louder. Oh…I see. You’re saying we the people are getting ripped off by our leaders and their secret controllers. Yes. Well, sure, that’s true.

And yes…if we all came together perhaps we could throw off these controllers and assert our independence once again. Yes.

But then I ask you this:

After we’ve won the great battle, what do we do next? Do we parade around, from town to town, from city to city, a hundred million of us, a great caravan, extolling our group victory? Is that what we do for the rest of eternity?

Or did we fight and win the great battle for another reason?

Did we perhaps fight and win so we could reestablish the individual as the basis and the object of freedom?

Wasn’t that really the reason we were in this fight?

Or are you already too humble and progressive and submissive and enlightened to think so?

If you’re going to fight and fight to win, it helps to know why you’re in the battle, why you’re really in it.

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

Jon Rappoport

The revolution of the individual

Sep4

How long does this revolution last? Think about a nice round figure: the NEXT 10,000 years.

by Jon Rappoport

September 4, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

The revolution of the individual progresses from PROMOTER OF REALITY to CREATOR OF REALITY.

Through vast propaganda and “education” campaigns, the individual is urged and trained to favor and promote particular organizations and structures in society. But outside of this venue, there are individuals who are waking up to the fact that their real job and desire is creating new unprecedented realities.

Historically, this latter outlier trend is not the sole result of some external force; rather, it mainly comes from the individual exploring his own internal capability and power. The accompanying history consists of the formation and founding of nations based on some partial version of individual freedom—even though those liberating mandates have been suppressed and squashed in many ways.

Western philosophy reached a crossroad late in the 19th century: the focus shifted from attempts to describe and impose ultimate reality to attempts to understand how the individual perceives and gains basic knowledge—and this latter inquiry quite naturally evolved into: THE INDIVIDUAL INVENTS REALITIES.

That being the case, why should the individual accept the realities he has already been subconsciously shaping, when instead, he can create new preferable realities.

THAT is the “underground revolution” which has been underway for more than 100 years. It is far from smooth. The revolution experiences many stops and starts, many abandonments, many renewals. No one said it would be easy. It is not a collective group effort. How could it be? It takes place in the private reflections and decisions of individuals.

A formidable barrier to the revolution: societies are based on popular acceptance of what the individual does. Or popular rejection. The individual tends to believe he must create something that will gain group favor. Therefore, he scales down his own imagination and opts for “safe ideas” and safe inventions. He pretends he has less power than he actually has.

He subconsciously returns to the shaping of limited realities. In fact, he carves out metaphysical positions that justify and rationalize his “limited power.” This is called “maturity.”

What inner resources does the individual consult and sift through, in order to shift from passivity to active creation? In a nutshell, the answer is: all his experience, his values, and whatever imagination he can bring to the table. There is no set method or pattern. That is the key. He finds paths, and he follows them. He invents new paths, and he probes their outer reaches and implications. The longer he works, the more imagination comes to the foreground.

It seems that humankind has been committed to trying every conceivable unworkable solution possible. In the fullness of time, every individual will give up the ghost and embark on a new search—based on his answer to the question:

WHAT DO I WANT TO CREATE?

Then a new day dawns.

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

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Individual Freedom

The Future of the Future

Disrupting the story line of the mechanical mind

If the Individual is an Artist of Reality

William Blake: prince of imagination, vision, and faith

The Great Forces within the Individual

Ayn Rand: a creative vision hated and adored by millions

Lockdowns, tracing, testing, vaccinating, and Liberty

Utopian fantasies vs. a better world

Live in the collective and forget who you are

The revolution of the individual