Category Archives: Individual Freedom

What Chuck Schumer is revealing out in the open

What Chuck Schumer is revealing out in the open

by Jon Rappoport

April 26, 2017

Senator Chuck Schumer on MSNBC (via ZeroHedge): “We’re no longer fact-based. The founding fathers created a country based on fact. We don’t have a fact base. If Breitbart News and the New York Times are regarded with equal credibility, you worry about this democracy.”

First of all, in Schumer’s opening sentence, who is this “we”? There is an implication that the “we” is somehow monolithic and centralized. But people have been in disagreement about facts and what they mean since the dawn of time. People have rejected centralized sources of facts, from kings and queens and priests, to newspapers and television news.

In the same way that 99% of economists assume society must be planned and centralized, Schumer and “the people in power” assume media must operate as a centralized force—as if it’s a natural law.

They just assume it, because until recently, it was the case, it was cozy and easy. But not now. And they’re angry and shocked. They see their foundation of propaganda and mind control slipping away.

You must appreciate how secure they used to feel. It was a cake walk, a picnic in the park. The definition of “fact” was: whatever centralized media said it was. What could be simpler? And to them, that was “democracy.”

Feed the people lies, hide deeper truth, slam dunk.

Then along came independent media.

Boom.

It turned out millions of people were interested.

The cat jumped out of the bag.

I know about this. I’ve been letting cats out of bags since 1982.

That’s longer than some of my readers have been alive.

I also know about censorship, because almost from the beginning of my work as a reporter, I had stories turned down by major media outlets and even alternative outlets. I saw the handwriting on the wall.

Chuck Schumer is echoing what many of his colleagues—and far more powerful people—are worrying about. Their vaunted mouthpieces, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc., are failing. They can’t carry the same old freight with impunity.

So Schumer “worries about the future of democracy.” What he’s actually worried about has nothing to do with democracy, and it certainly has nothing to do with a Republic, which was the form of this nation from the beginning.

Schumer is worried about decentralization.

He’s worried that people are defecting from the authoritarian arrogant Castle of Truth.

And, given his position, he should be worried.

We are at a tipping point. Needless to say—but I will say it—independent media need your support. Your choice about where you obtain your news makes a difference.

Until a few years ago, I never considered that I was relentless. I was just doing my work. But as I saw the counter-efforts of major media, social media, government, Globalists, and other players, as they tried to reassert their primacy, I found a deeper level of commitment. A person can find many reasons to stop what he is doing. Every person eventually realizes that. But will he give in? Or will he decide to keep going? My choice is reflected on these pages, where I write every day.

Many of my colleagues have made the same choice. As for myself, I take the long, long view. Whatever befalls this civilization, the individual survives. He cannot be erased. I know that as surely as I know I am sitting here.

People like Chuck Schumer are living on a foundation of sand. Their power depends on obfuscation and deception and exchanging favors. When they feel the ground shifting under their feet, they growl and accuse and declaim and resort to fake ideals. If they see their con isn’t working and isn’t selling, then they panic.

Which is a good sign.

Many, many years ago, I had a good relationship with a media outlet. Then one day, the man in charge told me I was “positioning myself” outside the scope of his audience. I was speaking to “different people,” and therefore I should “go my own way.” I could tell he wasn’t happy about saying this, because he thought of himself as an independent, but there it was. He was bending to the demands of “his people.” So we parted company.

I was now further “out there” than I had been before. I was “independent of an ‘independent’ media outlet.” It took me about five minutes to see the joke. A good and useful joke.

As the years rolled on, I kept finding myself in a more independent position, which meant I was writing what I wanted to write, and in the process I was discovering deeper levels of what I wanted to write.

Understanding this changed my political view. If I didn’t stand for the free and independent individual, what did I stand for? If I didn’t keep coming back to THAT, what could I come back to?

It made sense to me then, and it makes sense to me now.

This is why I keep writing about collective, the group, the mass, and the generality, those fake representations of life.

The individual is always free, whether he knows it or not. And therefore, he can choose.

This is what the Chuck Schumers of this world vaguely apprehend on the horizon. They can’t believe what they’re seeing; it’s too horrible a prospect. They reject it as a fantasy. A random nightmare.

But it isn’t a random nightmare.

It’s the potential for an open future.

Decentralized.

Alive.

Back from obscurity.

Back from the late 18th century, when the ideas embedded in the Constitution reflected the desire to unleash the free and independent individual and afford him protection from the powers-that-be.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside 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 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Ann Coulter UC Berkeley clash reveals massive covert op

Ann Coulter UC Berkeley clash reveals massive covert op

by Jon Rappoport

April 25, 2017

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter’s scheduled speech at the U of California Berkeley is off, it’s on, it’s been delayed, the student groups sponsoring her appearance are suing the University, she’ll speak indoors, she’ll speak outdoors, and on it goes.

University officials have said they can’t guarantee Coulter’s security, unless, apparently, she gives her speech during the week in the afternoon while most students are studying for their final exams. Why don’t they schedule her talk somewhere in Alaska at three in the morning? That’ll work, and free speech will emerge victorious.

Aside from paid agitators brought in from the outside by George Soros money, the student body at the University is opposed to Coulter speaking, or they’re too passive to care, or they’re too cowed to step up and demand she has the right to air her ideas.

Here is the op: the University bosses have brought all this on themselves. Their claim that they can’t protect Coulter may be true, but that’s because, for decades, professors have been teaching crap and pap and programmatic socialism and various forms of collectivism, and they have purposely neglected the Bill of Rights and individual freedom.

University bosses have been seeding departments with teachers who are so far to the Left they can’t get dressed in the morning without government aid. And the radical Left is all about debate only in the sense that they want to curtail it, shut it down, destroy dissident voices, and thereby save the world.

So naturally, in the fullness of time, students are going to follow suit and get in line. Rational discussion of opposing ideas? Never heard of it. Why in the world would they allow Ann Coulter on campus to spread dangerous thoughts?

Dangerous=someone somehow might start to think on his/her own, against the prevailing tide.

There is no room for this at UC Berkeley.

Behind this buzzing swarming cloud of totalitarian policy, there are, of course, genuine issues students could be investigating. But that must not happen. I’m talking about money, as in: who is sponsoring research projects at Berkeley? Projects related to the war machine; psychiatric “mental health” toxic-drug research; GMO research; and other mega-corporate favorites.

For example, the book, “Engineering and War: Militarism, Ethics, Institutions, Alternatives,” mentions a $70 million program that links no less than 200 US colleges in a Homeland Security program, to establish a DHS “center of excellence.” “Experts” from UC Berkeley are involved. What’s that all about? Colleges all over the US are cooperating and collaborating.

“Well, let’s keep that project quiet. Instead, let’s have students protesting and rioting against free speech. Let’s have them feeling triggered and demanding safe spaces where they can drink hot chocolate and play with model trains and dolls.”

For many decades, US colleges have been feeding from a federal money trench to aid and abet the national security state. That would include expanding surveillance on American citizens, profiling, and various forms of propaganda, for starters. If you factor in DARPA, the research arm of the Pentagon, you would be talking about research on the brain and cutting edge mind control.

But instead, no, don’t look there; keep Ann Coulter from speaking at Berkeley. Save humanity.

As I reported several months ago, 25% of US college students, last year, were diagnosed or treated for a mental disorder. Let’s not have students thinking about that. Let’s not have them thinking about the toxic effects of the psychiatric drugs. No. Let’s not have them realize they’re guinea pigs in an unending op to addle their brains.

Instead, let’s have them keep Ann Coulter from speaking at Berkeley.

And certainly, as colleges and universities across the US raise their tuition and matriculating costs to the sky—BECAUSE the federal government has a deep-pockets student loan program—let’s not make that connection. Instead, let’s saddle college graduates with massive debt.

As they walk off campus for the last time, contemplating their future of trying to pay down that debt, they can congratulate themselves, because they kept Ann Coulter from coming to Berkeley.

And thus saved the world.

“What did you do at college, Daddy?”

“You mean way back when, before I went on Welfare? I kept a fascist from giving a speech. I can’t remember her name now. But she was a threat, believe me. We had guts. It took a few thousand of us to keep her away. There were rumors she was bringing a few tanks and weaponized anthrax with her…”

Exit From the Matrix

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

Trump: the man vs. his ideas

Trump: the man vs. his ideas

by Jon Rappoport

April 23, 2017

“Well, my hero failed to live up to his promises. He has feet of clay. So why should I care about his ideas? They’re unimportant. All I really wanted in the first place was a hero. That was the only dream that mattered.”

In past articles, I’ve praised Trump and criticized him. Here I want to make a few remarks about his best effects and the ripples that have spread from his words—but not necessarily from his present and future actions.

Why do I make that distinction?

Because I’m far more interested in the millions of people who decided to support Trump than I am in Trump himself. Those millions will carry freight in the years to come, here in the US and in other countries. If they turn passive, the so-called populist movement will die on the vine.

Trump has raised the issue of Globalism as no other modern president has. Specifically, he’s spoken about the horrendous consequences of: shipping jobs overseas, throwing huge numbers of willing domestic workers on to unemployment lines; and failing to lay on tariffs when corporations who have gone overseas send their products back here for sale.

He’s pointed to Globalist trade treaties as the source of this calamity, and he has killed the TPP treaty.

More generally, he’s spoken about Globalism vs. Nationalism; i.e., solving problems at home vs. trying to incorporate America into an international framework of governance.

His words have helped stimulate, confirm, and support the Brexit decision in the UK, and the rise of pro-nationalism anti-EU movements in Europe.

Trump has attacked the prime source of fake news, major media, as no other president ever has. Time and time again, he has gone after these scurrilous creatures as liars and purveyors of false realities. In this effort, he has lent a considerable hand to the expansion of independent media.

From the inception of major media here in America and other countries, their news has functioned as the eyes, ears, mouths, and brains for the public. How can authentic change for the better occur as long as this preposterous proxy-condition persists?

Trump has planted seeds for a revolutionary shift in foreign policy, based on non-interference in the affairs of other nations. Regardless of how far he moves in the opposite direction (e.g., Syria, Russia), his initial position on non-interference acknowledged untold numbers of people in many countries who have been waiting to hear that message.

To say, because Trump abandoned that stance, his proclamation against Empire-building was wrong is a fool’s errand. In the same way, people have claimed that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are meaningless because some of the Framers owned slaves.

Failing to distinguish between ideas and the people who espouse them is a sign of the lowest possible level of intelligence.

The mainstream press displays that level every day.

Trump has pointed out, over and over, that an open borders immigration policy is madness. The financial burden it imposes; the open invitation it offers to immigrants, to take advantage of free government services (never before the intent of any US immigration program); the seeding of communities with immigrants who have no intention of becoming part of American society; the indifference toward crimes and terrorist acts that result from non-vetting; these and other factors demand a change of approach.

For the so-called political Left, a sense of idealism implies there will never be a ceiling on immigration. It is unlimited and forever. Separate nations are a fiction. The world is One Nation. These sentiments are, in fact, Globalism’s wet dream, which by the way has nothing to do with kindness and sharing. It has to do with top-down control of civilization, from one end of the planet to the other.

Trump has built strong pillars with his words.

He has confirmed what untold numbers of people in many nations believe and want.

There is every danger that, if Trump fails to live up to what he has said, these people, many of them, will decide his words mean nothing. His ideas mean nothing.

Again, that is because they can’t distinguish between ideas and the individuals who espouse them. They have neither the capacity nor the desire. They’re trapped along a fault-line of their own cynicism; they’re looking for a reason to say destiny is doom.

This attitude has plagued humanity since the beginning. Those who championed freedom and the individual have fought against it.

“Well, my hero failed to live up to his promises. He has feet of clay. So why should I care about his ideas? They’re unimportant. All I really wanted in the first place was a hero. That was the only dream that mattered.”

Really?

Those are the words of a disappointed child.

Exit From the Matrix

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

It all started with Barbra Streisand: people who need people

It all started with Barbra Streisand: people who need people

The revolution—backwards.

by Jon Rappoport

April 3, 2017

A cultural turning point.

The 1964 song, People Who Need People, composed by Jule Styne and Bob Merrill, made Barbra Streisand a star.

I remember radio stations playing the tune day after day. The sentiment of the lyric had people saying YES as they wiped their tears away. It was as if a repressed universal idea had suddenly emerged out of the subconscious of America, forming a new national anthem:

People who need people.

I couldn’t make head or tail of it. I felt like I’d suddenly moved to Mars.

But there it was: “People who need people are the luckiest people in the world.”

What?

Of course, the song moved on to talk about love and finding one very special person—sure, everybody was on board with love and romance—but even then we were told: “first be a person who needs people.” As if that were the pre-requisite for love.

People who NEED people. The stunner. The need was suddenly a marvelous plus. It wasn’t a problem. No, it was good.

Need is something that eats away at you. But don’t worry. Give in to the need. Be the need.

There is the implication that people who don’t need people are very unlucky. They might WANT the friendship and love of others, but that’s not enough. No, they have to need.

Need means “can’t do without.” If you thought that was a negative, you were wrong. Need is compulsion. But the “compulsion for other people” makes you exceedingly lucky. You just won the jackpot.

And how about this line from the song: “We’re children, needing other children.”

That’s the dead giveaway. Adults are trapped. You can’t be an adult and live your life with happiness. No. You’re really a child, and you have to admit it.

We’re all children, we’re needy children. Let’s all regress. Let’s have a society of needy children. Let’s be “dependent on our needs.”

Years later, we were given other messages that flowed from the song: It takes a village. Inner child.

People who want people, or people who love people—those lines wouldn’t have worked in the song. To hit the sweet spot, it had to be people who need people. That would create a sense of victimhood.

A new revelation. We’re victims. And that’s good. It leads us to love. That’s how we get there.

And since we’re all children needing other children, we need…parents. Isn’t that the implication? Doesn’t that follow? Who will be our parents? Certainly not the adults who raised us. That’s boring. That’s old hat. No, the parents will be some other Gentle Force.

The State.

As long as it’s a good State. And the only way we can guarantee that is by giving our consent to a government who does, in fact, see us as children, who knows we’re children (victims) with needs, and who will satisfy those needs.

Individual self-reliance, independence, determination, will power, creative force, accountability? Those are illusions. Old illusions. We use them to cover up our true condition as yearning children who need and must have other children. We’re “letting our grown-up pride hide all the need inside,” as the song goes. Aha. See a therapist today. Unload all that pride and bring out the inner child.

Of course, self-reliance, independence, determination, will power, and accountability, plus a boatload of talent, is how Barbra Streisand made it, how she became a smashing success. But with that song, she turned around and became the prophet of need for everyone else.

The 1964 tune that made her famous was a tremor in the culture. From that point on, it became fashionable and correct and even “psychologically accurate” for people to conceive of themselves as victorious victims.

Recall the key statement Karl Marx made popular (1875): “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” What could be clearer? I doubt Marx had a sense of humor, but had he been alive in 1964 and witnessed the reaction to Streisand’s People Who Need People, he surely would have cracked a smile, realizing that a schmaltzy lyric was raising from the depths, across America, the essence of his cruel philosophy, dripping like tears from a heretofore undiscovered infantile audience longing for a playpen utopia.

People
People who need people
Are the luckiest people in the world,
We’re children, needing other children
And yet letting our grown-up pride
Hide all the need inside,
Acting more like children
Than children.
Lovers are very special people,
They’re the luckiest people
In the world.
With one person, one very special person
A feeling deep in your soul
Says you were half,
Now you’re whole.
No more hunger and thirst
But first be a person
Who needs people.
People who need people
Are the luckiest people
In the world!

With one person, one very special person
A feeling deep in your soul
Says you were half,
Now you’re whole.
No more hunger and thirst
But first be a person
Who needs people.

People who need people
Are the luckiest people
In the world!

Exit From the Matrix

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

Nationalism, Globalism, Empire, and the vision of self-sufficiency

Nationalism, Globalism, Empire, and the vision of self-sufficiency

by Jon Rappoport

January 24, 2017

Nationalism is not Empire. Nationalism is solving problems at home.

Globalism is the non-partisan effort to immerse nations in a regional and planetary management system; mega-corporations and banks steer the ship.

Freedom includes the ability to choose between Nationalism and Globalism.

Globalism is not an organic grass-roots movement. It is imposed from above. (See my work on the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission to gain a view of “above.”)

Empire here implies the effort by a government (e.g., the US, China) to extend its control over other nations and peoples. It is not an intrinsic part of Nationalism. Dick Cheney was intent on building an American Empire. A factory worker in Ohio isn’t.

Nationalism doesn’t mean the government is running a vast Welfare State. It isn’t running a charity without limits. It isn’t promising a utopia based on “share and care.”

Solving problems at home implies restoring jobs stolen by corporations who left the country and set up shop in foreign lands. They committed this deed under terms of Globalist trade treaties. The corporations weren’t exercising freedom. They were navigating loopholes designed by their friends in high places. The major loophole was:

“You can manufacture your products in a hell hole overseas with slave labor, and then you can export those products back to your former home country and sell them without paying a tariff.”

Solving problems at home implies the robust expansion of independent media, who become a watchdog on government, corporations, and major media.

Solving problems at home implies the eradication of a Surveillance State which, under the cover of protecting the citizenry against terrorism, is actually collecting massive amounts of information on all citizens.

Solving problems at home implies eliminating gangs who are holding millions of citizens in inner cities hostage in their own residences.

Solving problems at home implies securing the nation’s borders against incursion by people intent on committing crimes, collecting free money and services from the government, and subverting freedom.

Solving problems at home implies doing whatever can be done to encourage a culture in which individual freedom and vision and power motivates as many people as possible to invent their own futures, in order to fulfill their most profound desires.

Solving problems at home implies prosecuting, to the fullest extent of the law, companies that pollute and poison the land, sea, and air with their “by-products.” This effort does not require a return to some universal Pagan religion of Nature.

Solving problems at home implies prosecuting, to the fullest extent of the law, companies who manufacture and sell compounds that purport to cure disease, but actually destroy health and life.

Historically, the first time a banker or corporate leader was discovered to have financed an American war on both sides, he should have been tried and convicted of treason. That would have sent a suitable message.

And so forth and so on.

This is all common sense.

It is obscured by waves of mouthy propaganda, featuring high-flying generalities and ideals, which turn into demands and vicious attacks: “Everybody has to love one another right now and share everything for free, and if they don’t, we’ll blast them into the stratosphere.”

These waves are planned, organized, and funded by people like George Soros, and they are meant to disrupt nations and push them into the arms of the Globalist agenda.

The number of unconscious dupes and pawns in this operation is legion.

In his 1796 Farewell Address, President George Washington provided exceptional recommendations about nationalism:

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…”

“But even our commercial [trade] policy [with foreign nations] should hold an equal and impartial hand…diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing…constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character…There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.”

“…Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest…?”

“With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.”

Whenever Washington mentions Europe, he is essentially referring to any foreign country.

Nationalism: stay at home. Strengthen the home country. No Empire. No entangling alliances.

And certainly, no Globalism, which amounts to surrender of the home country to foreign interests.

What is wrong with George Washington’s policy? Nothing.

The policy has been called isolationism, which, via propaganda, has been given a nasty edge. It has no edge. It has concern for America.

Every country could learn from George Washington’s wisdom.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Utopian dreams aside, no country’s history is pure. Its governments and leaders have committed terrible crimes. But that fact doesn’t imply that the country should be destroyed or dismantled, or attached to some deceptive supra-national program of “harmony for all.”

Nationalism, in George Washington’s description of it, is a practical vision for realizing a degree of self-sufficiency no modern country has ever achieved.

The vision is still there to be pursued.

It has always been there, since the ancient nomads first settled down in sunlit valleys and began to grow their crops.

Self-sufficiency, freedom, prosperity.

Advanced technology has complicated matters. I’m not talking about instant communication among all points on Earth. I’m talking about a surfeit of weapons which can destroy life at the push of a button. But even there, leaders will be far more likely to negotiate and talk in good faith if they have the genuine interest of their own people at heart, where they live, in their home nations.

In a half-sane world, there would be, by now, courses in taught in every school, on the meaning of greed, avarice, meddling, and the obsession for minding everyone else’s business…

Jon Rappoport

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

The Individual vs. Globalism

The Individual vs. Globalism

by Jon Rappoport

January 23, 2017

“Global solution” means the individual is cut out of the equation, he doesn’t count, he doesn’t mean anything in the larger scheme of things, he’s just another pawn and cipher to move around on the board.

And as more duped and deluded people sign on to this agenda, the whole concept of the individual shrinks and becomes irrelevant.

This is purposeful.

This is the script for the future: create problems whose only solution appears to be collective.

Psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually divert the individual’s attention from his own vision, his own profound desires, his own imagination—and place it within The Group (“all of humanity”).

Propagandize the idea that, if the individual concerns himself with anything other than The Group, he is selfish, greedy, inhumane. He is a criminal.

More and more, this is how the young are being trained these days.

The grand “we” is being sold to them like a cheap street drug. They buy in. They believe this “we” is real, instead of a hollow con designed to drag them into a Globalist framework owned and operated by mega-corporations, banks, foundations, governments, and ubiquitous Rockefeller interests.

And what of the individual, his mind, his unique perception, his independent ideas, his originality, his life-force?

Swept away in the rush toward “a better world.”

I have breaking news. Earth is not a spaceship and we are not crew members. If Earth is a spaceship, it has serious design flaws, because it keeps making the same trip around the same sun every year.

Each one of us does not have a specified function, as a crew member would.

Going back as far as you want to in history, shortage and scarcity in the world that engendered a crisis was either created by some elite or maintained by them, for the purpose of eradicating dissent and fomenting a collectivist solution. Meaning a solution that came from the top. Meaning a solution that reduced individual freedom.

In recent human history, a different idea emerged: establish severely hamstrung government, in order to protect the individual against it.

This idea has had a very tough time. Collectivists have fought it every step of the way.

But regardless of circumstances, the individual can author his own freedom and what it implies. He can discover, within himself, extraordinary possibilities. He can contemplate what it means to create reality that expresses his most profound desires.

And then he can begin a voyage that no one and no group can stop.

Civilizations come and go, rise and fall; the individual remains.

The word “imagination,” when properly understood, indicates that the individual can envision and then create futures that never were, and never would be, unless he invented them.

Imagination is the opposite of “provincial,” “restricted,” “well-known,” “familiar,” “accepted.”

That is its challenge to the status quo.

That is the true threat the individual poses to all predictive systems.

Therefore, “it’s all just information” is a psyop code-phrase. Ideas, thoughts—nothing is original, nothing is new; we all “share” information floating in the collective consciousness; the individual invents nothing.

Which is the opposite of the truth. The individual invents everything.

He can’t be predicted when he is himself. He is not a pattern. He is not a system.

He is not anyone else.

He thrives on his own inspiration.

He is the ultimate riverboat gambler. He bets the house on his own as-yet uncreated future.

He is not a piece of universe.

He is not a humble servant of Order.

He invents the space and time of his own time to come.

Exit From the Matrix

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

As early as 1961, a brilliant healer, Richard Jenkins, whom I write about in my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies, explained what was to come. He wrote me a note, which I’m paraphrasing from memory: “People are confusing their own empathy for others with some overblown idea about group-identity. They aren’t the same. People are becoming afraid of their own unique and distinct existence. This is a social fear. A new social contract is being foisted on the population. Either you belong, or you have no rights. This is a totalitarian concept. It’s coming in through the back door.”

Well, now, it’s right there at the front door.

The individual still has a choice. But he has to make it.

Explore his own power, or give it away for nothing more than an illusion of belonging.

Stoke the fires within, or form a diluted image of self, and bow down to The Group.

The “I” is not isolated. He can reach out to others whenever and however he wants to. The question is, is he moving on the ground of his own independence, or is he searching for a group life raft, to which he will attach himself without thought or hesitation?

Beyond economics or politics, Globalism is a system that offers a life raft which is heading toward a machine-future. Disembark and find the great We, a construct of integrated parts, each of which is an individual, in a state of spiritual amnesia.

Happiness there is function and sedation, immortal and shadowless, wiped clean of distinctions.

This is the elitist end game of social justice and equality.

Jon Rappoport

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

The psyop to neuter The Rebel

The psyop to neuter The Rebel

Notes on the evolution of caricatures

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2017

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

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

The objective is to equate “rebel” with a whole host of qualities—e.g., runaway self-serving paranoia; random destruction; out-of-control drug use; generalized hatred; the commission of crimes…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so forth and so on. All these incarnations of The Rebel were artificially created and sustained as psyops. At bottom, the idea was to discredit the Individual, in favor of The Group.

Now, in our collectivist society of 2016, The Group, as a rapidly expanding victim class, is the government’s number one project. It’s a straight con. “We’re here to make you worse off while we lift you up.”

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

These days, the ultimate rebels, the media would have you believe, are “gun-toting racist bitter clingers who have religion.” Another attempt to shape a distorted unflattering portrait

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exit From the Matrix

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

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

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

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

“Why not stop diddling around and just make the whole thing over? Why not reshape humans?”

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

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

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

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

Programming is someone else’s idea of who and what you should be.

It is never your idea.

Your idea is where the power is.

Jon Rappoport

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

The individual vs. the staged collective

The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

by Jon Rappoport

December 26, 2016

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

WE.

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

There are denizens among us.

They present themselves as the Normals.

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

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

I don’t call William Thompson an unsullied hero. Far from it. He lied, he committed fraud, he hid the fraud for 10 years, he buried evidence that the MMR vaccine increased the risk of autism in children, and finally, perhaps because he was caught in his own web, he confessed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This usage reflects an unending psyop.

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

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

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

The goal? Submerge the individual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That starts a cacophony of howling.

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

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

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

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

Exit From the Matrix

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

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

Going back is the psyop.

The intended psyop.

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

Someone shouts: WHAT IS WE?

Others pick up the shout.

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

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

The delusion, in pieces, is drifting away…

The cover: gone.

Behind it is The Individual.

What will he do now?

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

Will he?

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Collective consciousness: the individual is gone

Collective consciousness: the individual is gone

by Jon Rappoport

October 24, 2016

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

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

Individual power. Your power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And in this case, the standard is INDIVIDUAL POWER.

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

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

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

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

He laughed nervously.

Then he stopped laughing.

He said, “This isn’t what we do.”

For him, I was suddenly radioactive.

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

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

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

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

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

If that isn’t mind control, nothing is.

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

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

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

That is a towering assemblage of bullshit.

“Everyone succeeds when the group succeeds.” You could use that quote on the back cover of Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley’s Brave New World. Everyone does not succeed—because the individual never finds out what he can do on his own. That avenue is cut off. He only knows what he can achieve in combination with others. He only knows what he can understand when he borrows from others. He may never glimpse what he truly wants to do in life.

Exit From the Matrix

This is a tragic situation, but the tragedy is concealed, because the memory of shifting from individual independence to group dependence is gone. There is no such memory. A child is brought up without independence. Therefore, how can he recall losing it?

He only knows the group and the team and the participation and the praise. He only knows the organizing of his life within a synthetically produced context.

He is taught that this is good and necessary.

So, one day, when a bolt comes out of the blue and he recognizes he is himself, what will he use to grasp that revelation and build on it?

Yes, there are productive groups and teams, and one is always working with others, to some degree. But the core and the starting point is one’s self. That is where the insight and the magic begin. That is where the great decisions and commitments are made. That is where the world is born, every day.

I see no end of writing about this magic, because civilization has been turned upside down by treacherous people who have been fabricating a counter-tradition that will sink the ship.

Jon Rappoport

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

A world hangs in the balance

A world hangs in the balance

by Jon Rappoport

September 16, 2016

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

The overwhelming number of well-funded groups “fighting for change” in this world are misdirected. Intentionally so.

These groups are designed to go off track, eliminate freedom, and produce answers that bring about more top-down control.

I can’t emphasize that strongly enough:

—The use of dupes and pawns, organized into groups, which cause more chaos and try to demoralize and box in THE INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL.

But the independent individual must survive, because he is where civilization begins.

The independent individual must understand this: his rational powers, and his imagination and creative impulse, are the foundation of anything that could be called civilization.

He can sacrifice these abilities on some altar of expediency or fear, but if he does, his light goes out.

Virtually ALL well-funded groups in the world who opt for change and betterment, under the banner of “greatest good for everyone,” are controlled.

They are paid for and run as fronts for global takeover. Their workers on the ground are clueless.

The elites we call the Globalists are basically promoting the following message: “If consent is withdrawn from our brilliant structure, life will go down the drain. We must have more groups who support our structure.”

Who basically withdraws consent? THE INDIVIDUAL.

Those individuals who sacrifice their own rational power and imagination are, in effect, consenting to the Globalist takeover.

That takeover is not civilization in any meaningful sense of the word.

It is tyranny.

Tyranny takes everything from the independent individual, and gives it to the permanently dependent individual.

And then, as the vortex spins deeper, more people become dependent, and the tyrants allow them just enough to survive on the margins.

Every sane person wants a better world, but most sane people don’t yet recognize how that impulse can be twisted against them. Do you believe power-elites would promote their vision under the banner of “a police state” or “dictatorship, poverty, and loss of hope for all”?

They must paint a glorious future with generalities that, superficially, many people agree to.

—It takes a village. We’re all in this together. Hope and change. Equality for all. Justice. Freedom from oppression. Unity.

But as usual, the devil is in the details.

The fall from the “grace” of promises and slogans is rapid. People wake up one day and find their lives are more troubled and perilous. What happened to the better world and the glimpse of utopia?

Ask some of the Russians who were around during the early years of the USSR. They’ll tell you.

These days, the m.o. is “kinder and gentler.” The clamp-down is slower. But it’s heading in the same direction.

Groups clamor for help, for fairness, for liberation. They’re entering the gates of misery. But they don’t know it.

So-called social justice warriors are already finding themselves out in the cold. They’re waking up to the Big Con. It all started for them with a vision they bought into. It wasn’t their own. Not really. They boarded a bus to nowhere. Their ticket was a victim-story.

They thought they were working with the government. But the government was working them.

Their one hope is to come back to themselves as individuals, to recover what they sacrificed.

Exit From the Matrix

The uniformed and naïve want to lay on a new interpretation of history. They want to claim that no real progress was ever made by men who were flawed. If a man wasn’t wholly pure, nothing he did was of value.

On that basis, for example the American Constitution has been rejected as “unworthy.”

We have come this far, however, because of a protracted struggle for individual freedom and, thus, independence. Until recently, that was the arc of history.

Now we return to the battle, because it must always be engaged, and because the understanding of freedom is slipping away.

The world hangs in the balance.

Jon Rappoport

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