WATCH OUT, AFRICA! MELINDA’S COMING FOR YOU!

 

WATCH OUT, AFRICA! MELINDA’S COMING FOR YOU!

By Jon Rappoport

July 13, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Melinda Gates has just unrolled her new program to reduce population in Africa and South Asia. Speaking at the Family Planning Summit in London, the other half of the Gates-Messiah operation pledged to bring contraception to millions of women and girls in the Third World.

 

Flying under the radar, however, is the partnership between The Gates Foundation and drug giant, Pfizer, and therein lies the dirty little secret.

 

The method of choice to prevent births? Injectable Depo-Provera (Medroxyprogesterone), long known as a highly dangerous drug. It actually carries a black-box warning on its label, stating that severe bone loss is a consequence of its use. It also thins the vaginal lining, and research is ongoing to investigate the possibility that it increases the risk of breast cancer.

 

Here is the relevant black-box quote: “Women who use Depro-Provera Contraceptive Injection may lose significant bone mineral density. Bone loss is greater with increased duration of use and may not be completely reversible.”

 

Change.org and several other groups are petitioning the US Congress to cut all federal funding for Depo-Provera.

 

Despite cheerful PR about education of women on the benefits of contraception, and the need for informed consent, these programs have a way of turning into something else out in the field, where the needle meets the body.

 

Depo-Provera also happens to be a drug of choice for the “chemical castration” of male sex offenders. That fact testifies to its powerful impact on the body.

 

Nobody at the London Family Planning Summit was talking about Depo-Provera and its severe effects. The conference sponsors, the UN Population Fund, the USAID, and The Gates Foundation, are far more interested in population control.

 

If millions of girls and women in Africa and South Asia are crippled by the Depo-Provera injections, well, that’s just collateral damage. Several years from now, we’ll no doubt see studies claiming an unexplained epidemic of osteoporosis in the Third World, which will lead to the application of some other highly toxic drug as the treatment of choice.

 

Pfizer, the maker of Depo-Provera, happens to make such a drug: Fablyn (Lasofoxifene). So far, the FDA has withheld approval, but the EU gave it the green light in 2009. Fablyn has a serious problem. It causes blood clots in veins, which can be life-threatening.

 

Watch out, Africa. Melinda’s coming with Pfizer. You should ask her why she doesn’t supply money to clean up contaminated water supplies, install rudimentary sanitation, provide real nutrition, and help restore stolen fertile land to local farmers.

 

But you see, those actions aren’t in line with the elite agenda. They make things better. The agenda is dedicated to Worse.

 

Jon Rappoport

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

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

YOUR PLANE’S LATE? YOU’RE A TERRORIST!

 

YOUR PLANE’S DELAYED FOR FOUR HOURS? YOU’RE A TERRORIST!

By Jon Rappoport

July 12, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Picture this. You’re sitting in an airport and they’ve just announced your plane’s departure has been delayed for the third time. You feel your blood boil. You want to strangle somebody. Of course, you’re not going to do that, but your adrenaline is spiking big-time.

 

You feel a gloved hand on your shoulder. You look up. Three DHS agents are surrounding you.

 

Come with us, sir. We need to put you in a holding room. Now.”

 

Boom. You’re a potential terrorist.

 

In a year or two, airports will be deploying small, mobile, laser-based, molecular scanners. Developed by Genia Photonics, which in turn was funded by In-Q-Tel, the notorious CIA company that invests in cutting-edge technologies, this device measures, well, everything, including your adrenaline levels. And it does it in real time.

 

The scanner can read a tiny grain of marijuana on your person (even if you stepped on a roach in the airport bathroom). It can read what you ate at your last meal. It can read gunpowder residue, so don’t drive to the airport right after practicing at the range.

 

These scanners don’t touch you. They operate from 164 feet away.

 

DHS is drooling.

 

The comedy version of this technological breakthrough is that, at any given moment, half the people at any airport in the world are experiencing elevated adrenaline levels, for one reason or another—including the invasive actions of TSA employees. The serious version is if it’s you, you could wind up having to explain yourself to a DHS/TSA agent who’s several sandwiches short of a picnic.

 

Your feelings and your endocrine levels are now part of the “official record.” This makes Orwell’s 1984 look like Sunday school.

 

Obviously, the DHS won’t stop at using these portable scanners in airports. Think roving cars and vans, traffic stops, shopping malls, parks, hotels, community meetings, sports events, concerts…

 

This is the heaven the surveillance state has been waiting for.

 

It’s also a significant prelude to Brave New World, where all citizens are expected to be happy and nice and polite all the time in their genetically modified utopia. Grievances against the government or predatory corporations? Arguments with friends and family? Simply having a bad day? Blogging with a sense of outrage? NOT PERMITTED. Your adrenaline indicators are over the permitted threshold. You need “treatment.”

 

Studies will be done to redefine Oppositional Defiance Disorder, linking it to endocrine output, and depending on the government’s disfavored groups of the moment, remedial steps will be taken.

 

The only silver lining in all this is: heralded technological breakthroughs often don’t work. The manufacturers hype them as they test them, but when they leave the lab and go into the field, sudden problems arise. Let’s hope that’s the case here.

 

The other prospect involves the true number of disgruntled and angry people walking around in the world. The scanners might be overwhelmed.

 

If you thought simple x-ray scanners in airports were invasive, now they’re going after your internal processes. The obvious step is to deploy these laser devices along with the grope-and-scope as you head through security to your gate.

 

Sorry, sir. You can’t fly today. You’re a bit too…edgy. An agent will take you to Room 101 for questioning.”

 

Scan this!!

 

See, they’ve got me already.

 

Jon Rappoport

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

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

A MESSAGE TO MY READERS

 

A MESSAGE TO MY READERS

(SURPASSING THE MATRIX, PART 1)

by Jon Rappoport

July 10, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Ultimately, why do I write these articles? Why do I maintain my site?

 

My plan has always involved breaking out of The Matrix on every level. This is not an avoidance of reality; quite to the contrary, it has everything to do with what consensus reality is and how to establish a stable beachhead beyond it.

 

And when I say “consensus reality,” I’m not only taking about social, political, economic, and cultural spheres.

 

Physics has been nibbling at the edges of the space-time continuum, speculating that it has certain illusory aspects, speculating that there are other universes, speculating that this universe is actually a hologram, a projection of information inscribed on a two-dimensional surface.

 

Lab researchers have conducted paranormal experiments which show that certain volunteers can violate the accepted rules of physical reality.

 

These are merely preludes to the main event. They are dabblings and close-to-the-vest explorations within a context of what I would call armchair entertainment. Interesting to contemplate, stimulating, but so what?

 

There is so much more to discover and experience.

 

Cultural norms and ideas have caused most people to place themselves within a ridiculously narrow context. Within those walls, they look and peer at What Might Be True

 

But eventually, unless people actually break through the walls, their “far-out” musings become masturbatory.

 

The more physics analyzes each of its primary concepts—space, time, energy, and matter—the more illusory each one of them appears. Yet, for us, who are not analyzing, but living, the continuum is as real as real gets.

 

Why is there a disconnect between the analysis of physics and the experience of humankind?

 

The answer lies in our minds and bodies. We perceive and contact the world as a key enters a lock. The fit is perfect. There are no rough edges or fuzzy borders. There are no mistakes. We don’t wake up on a Saturday morning and find the bureau in the corner of the bedroom turned upside down or fading away. We exist in a steady state.

 

This perfect fit is a cardinal aspect of The Matrix.

 

To guarantee the interlock and the steady-state perception, there is the grim prospect of being called insane if we did suddenly see the bureau floating upside down in the bedroom.

 

If we shifted gears and used the bureau as a metaphor, we could apply this “standard of insanity” to other areas of life. For example, what happens to a person who grows up in a bedrock family that has voted straight Republican or Democrat for a century, when he announces at dinner that the two-party system of politics is a racket created to foster an illusory difference between conspiring mobsters and thieves?

 

What happens is some form of excommunication.

 

On the stark level of physical reality, however, the penalty is much more severe. Whereas you might not mind the occasional singularity of an upside down bureau, you would certainly object to many, many objects in the landscape fading out without prior notice. You would object to your perception of one hour turning out to be three days for everyone else. You would object to exerting the usual amount of energetic pressure on your doorknob, only to find that the whole door smashes through its frame and falls to pieces on the front walk.

 

We would all prefer to maintain the consensus effect of predictable living. In this venue, the answer to “can’t we all just get along” is a resounding yes. “Do you see that hole in space where the shopping mall used to be” isn’t a question we want to pose to friends and neighbors, when what they see is a one-block tower of concrete, glass, and steel.

 

No one is looking forward to unhinging his own perception when the result is sheer disorientation and a padded cell.

 

Although the prospect of levitating a hundred feet in the air might be appealing, you would probably have second thoughts if you were doing it at high noon in Times Square or on the lawn of the White House.

 

I bring all this up, because there is a confusion about what it would mean to break through the inhibiting limits of the PHYSICAL Matrix. In some ways we want to say yes, and in other ways we want to say no.

 

It’s interesting to observe two concurrent trends vis-a-vis the space-time continuum. While physics has been breaking down the reliable density of matter, the authority of time measured by clocks, and the geometric shape of space, a whole new secular pop-religion has been gaining power.

 

The religion of The Universe. As if to counter the discoveries of physicists and bolster our metaphysical comfort level, wise and smiling academic baby-boomers teach us a whole list of scriptural slogans:

 

The Universe is good. The Universe wants us to be happy. The Universe is the source of our very existence and consciousness. The Universe is there to fulfill our desires. If we pursue a goal and don’t arrive at our hoped-for destination, it’s all right, because the Universe decided it wasn’t meant to be.

 

And more vaguely: The Universe speaks through us; The Universe is waiting for us; The Universe is our home; The Universe is the ultimate spiritual master; The Universe is Life.

 

I’ll stop there. If I went on to consider the sub-category of Universe known as Nature, we could be here for three weeks reciting all the religious catch-phrases

 

As physics has forwarded ideas that challenge the security and the reliability of The Matrix, humans have filled in the blanks with quasi-religious language and thought, whose effect has been to re-define the same old Matrix and re-establish the Troops of Consensus Reality.

 

We are also told, by many scholars, that Events are on the horizon, transforming events that, without any effort on our part, herald a new existence for all of us. These coming happenings are further proof that life and Matrix are out of our hands, and our only job is to understand the forces that will bring us closer to illuminated spiritual communion with our destiny.

 

In show-biz terms, this used to be called Fill. When you have blanks in a story, you fill. You insert plot line. You work on the gaps in the machine so new parts appear and mesh with the overall design.

 

In the Matrix movie franchise, the endless flying combat scenes obscured the need to determine just how reality would look and feel once the grid pattern was destroyed. When the master computer that spooled out consensus was shut down, how would the population experience experience? What would change?

 

This is the subject I want to approach now in a series of articles.

 

My work of the past ten years has been collected and expanded greatly in the collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED. I hope you will consider ordering it. Your purchases support my research and writing. THE MATRIX REVEALED lays out the nuts and bolts and the layers and bridgework and struts and foundations of key aspects of the created Matrix.

 

Jon Rappoport

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

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

COLLECTIVISM AND THE LIMITS OF UNDERSTANDING IN THE MATRIX

 

COLLECTIVISM, AND THE LIMITS OF UNDERSTANDING IN THE MATRIX

THE TWO-PARTY NIGHTMARE

by Jon Rappoport

July 6, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Fifty years from now, if nothing is done to stop it, all food grown on planet Earth will be genetically modified. And children growing up in that era won’t be able to imagine food ever existed in another form.

 

In America, people think of the two-party system of politics in the same way. How else can you do business? It has to be candidate A versus candidate B. Sure, you can spin off small parties and people can run as Independents, but it never works, so why try? Get real. It’s Democrat or Republican. Choose one side. If you have to, hold your nose and pick the lesser of two evils. That’s life. That’s reality.

 

Even if choosing A or B is like choosing between the Corleone and the Barzini crime families, it’s all we have. Get used to it. Nothing else works. Nothing else stands a chance.

 

The inevitable is the inevitable.

 

However, suppose voting for Obama or Romney AND THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEY REPRESENT really IS like choosing between Corleone and Barzini. Is that choice, by any reasonable measure, sane?

 

Actually, it’s madness, and once you can accept that, certain strategies open up and become available.

 

If Ron Paul had been fully willing to look at the two dominant political parties FOR WHAT THEY ARE, he could have, as a maneuver, begun his run for the presidency as a Republican, and then, when it became apparent the GOP was trying to steal Iowa and Maine from him, he could have used that occasion to bolt and declare himself an Independent candidate.

 

Then he could have gone on the attack, full-bore, by which I mean he could have begun talking to the American people about the deep and intrinsic and terminal corruption of the Democratic and the Republican parties.

 

Then, instead of talking to crowds of five or 10 thousand people, he would have ended up in stadiums talking to 50,000 people.

 

Some analysts and historians actually presume that the checks and balances instituted in the Constitution, to keep the central government weak, were also supported, for the same checks-and-balance purpose, by the evolution of the two dominant political parties.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

These two parties do NOT have the primary function of creating gridlock or canceling out each other’s excesses. That’s not the game.

 

The Republican and Democratic parties, as they have existed for a very long time, actually ensure the prolongation of a vast criminal enterprise, in which the creation of an illusion of difference is foisted on the American people.

 

It’s rather easy to see how that happened. The generations of leaders of both parties quickly realized that this illusion of difference could define, in the public’s mind, what Democracy was supposed to be all about. And under that cover, money, property, freedom, and lives could be stolen.

 

And the size of government itself could expand voraciously, because when you own a criminal organization, don’t you want to rule more territory? Isn’t that your objective?

 

Ask Al Capone. Ask Meyer Lansky or Sam Giancana or Santo Trafficante.

 

When you own the whole game through a phony two-party apparatus, you have a license to steal.

 

Now, the bigger this two-party mob becomes, the more obvious it is that a line of propaganda is needed to explain the bigness. You have to explain that BIGNESS OF GOVERNMENT is a good thing. You must. Otherwise, people will catch on. So you say: “the greatest good for the greatest number.” You say: “We’re helping everybody.” You say: “We’re fulfilling needs.” You say: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

 

Now you have Collectivism.

 

THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM WAS ALWAYS POINTED TOWARD COLLECTIVISM, FROM THE BEGINNING.

 

COLLECTIVISM WAS ITS DESTINY.

 

COLLECTIVISM WAS ITS NECESSITY.

 

THE COLLECTIVIST PROPAGANDA WAS THE MEANS BY WHICH THE MOB GAINED CREDIBILITY, SUPPORT, AND SYMPATHY.

 

THE FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL WAS ALWAYS THE TARGET THAT NEEDED TO BE DESTROYED.

 

The two-party system as “the lifeblood of politics?” A giant steaming pile of propaganda.

 

The two-party system as “the only way to get things done in this country?” Another giant steaming pile.

 

The two-party system as “a proper reflection of the conscience of the people?” One more pile.

 

Whenever someone challenges the two-party apparatus, he is told about governments that have sixteen parties and the unworkability and corruption of that system. As if anyone in his right mind would suggest that more parties is the solution to two parties. It isn’t.

 

The solution to the two-party Collectivist concept is:

 

INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES RUNNING ON WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

 

INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES OPENLY AND HONESTLY DECLARING WHAT THEY BELIEVE.

 

CANDIDATES AFFILIATED WITH NO PARTIES.

 

INDIVIDUALS.

 

And the whole reason know-it-all high-IQ idiots will tell you this won’t ever work is because they no longer know what a free individual is. And when they vaguely sniff out a free individual, they recoil in horror.

 

That’s the bottom line.

 

If what I’m proposing seems unworkable or absurd or naïve, it’s because the two-party system has buried the American people under a low ceiling of Collectivist thought.

 

In order to run for office and win, you have to be affiliated with one of the two political parties.”

 

Translation: “You have to pledge allegiance to the political mafia, not the United States.”

 

If Ron Paul had declared himself a total and complete and absolute Independent, and if he had exposed to the hilt both parties, and explained what their game really is, he would have acquired at least 20 times the number of supporters he presently has.

 

But Ron thought he could be in and be out at the same time.

 

That was his problem. It still is his problem.

 

Imagine what America would have been like if, after the Constitution was ratified, NO POLITICAL PARTIES EMERGED AND ONLY INDIVIDUALS EMERGED AS CANDIDATES.

 

THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM WAS NEVER REALLY HEADING TOWARD INCREASED COMPETITION. IT WAS ALWAYS HEADING TOWARD COLLECTIVISM.

 

John Adams, in the early days of the Republic, saw it correctly and saw it exactly:

 

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting [organizing] measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble opinion, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

 

Even more tellingly, George Washington laid the system bare as he struggled to extricate himself from it: “…party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through which channel to seek it [truth]. This difficulty, to one [a person], who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented.”

 

Thomas Jefferson, who on a number of occasions registered his acceptance of political parties as inevitable and natural, broke ranks in this very personal assessment: “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men…where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction [to a party] is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go at all.”

 

Here is another myth: if all candidates for the presidency and the Congress were individuals and there were no parties, the range of opinion would be so great that nothing would ever get done in government.

 

I suppose that’s true IF the reference point of the Constitution is ignored. But it’s far more likely that 535 independent representatives and an an independent president would remember the Constitution.

 

Assessing the damage to liberty, private property, individual security, the honest prosecution of criminals at all levels, how has the two-party system fared? How has that system performed?

 

All major media outlets, and a surprising number of alternative outlets, will not declare the two-party system a hoax. People want to hold on hard to “reality.”

 

The philosophical underpinning of this “reality” is Collectivism itself. Specifically, it is collectivist perception, the means by which “everybody knows” becomes the consensus.

 

The primary feature of The Group is: its members look at events indirectly; they look at events in accordance with what they think other members are seeing; they don’t look at or judge an event through their own eyes or minds.

 

This method of seeing is, in fact, empty. It’s a fantasy. It’s like passing around an unknown object, from hand to hand, and describing it as you believe everyone else will describe it.

 

You are always listening for “an echo effect” before it happens.

 

And you claim the echo effect is what you perceive.

 

It’s a rank absurdity.

 

On the basis of this absurdity, people say the two-party system of politics is unshakable.

 

What they really mean, or should mean, is: the two-party system is an illusion, a zero.

 

Living on the foundation of such zeroes, in all areas of human life, and asserting they are obvious and factual, is the hallmark of The Matrix.

 

Jon Rappoport

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

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

QUOTES FROM A VICIOUS TERRORIST

 

QUOTES FROM A VICIOUS TERRORIST

NUMBER ONE ON THE MOST-WANTED LIST

by Jon Rappoport

July 4, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Paul Watson, writing at Infowars, cites a new DHS-sponsored that profiles homegrown terrorists as “suspicious of centralized federal authority” and “reverent of individual liberty.”

 

This seems reasonable and right, doesn’t it? Therefore, to do my duty and say something after seeing something, I’m presenting quotes from a wanton thug who has, for a long time, escaped the clutches of authorities.

 

Warrants are unnecessary. Just raid his home. Put him in chains. Beyond all doubt, he’s a dangerous terrorist, and he incites others to his cause. Here is the volatile evidence, from his own writings. His words should never have seen the light of day. Shield your mind from them:

 

Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness…The first a patron, the last a punisher.”

 

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil…”

 

Freedom hath been hunted around the globe…Europe regards her like a stranger and England hath given her warning to depart.”

 

…though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire.”

 

We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live.”

 

Man is not the enemy of man, but through the medium of a false system of government.”

 

Men who are sincere in defending their freedom will always feel concern at every circumstance which seems to make against them…But the dejection lasts only for a moment; they soon rise out of it with additional vigor; the glow of hope, courage and fortitude will, in a little time, supply the place of every inferior passion, and kindle the whole heart into heroism.”

 

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.”

 

Arrest this man, take him into custody, and find out where he obtained his pernicious ideas! Shut his mouth! He is a threat to the Homeland! Arrest Thomas Paine!

 

Jon Rappoport

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

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

THE HIVE, COLLECTIVISM, AND DELUSION IN THE MATRIX

 

THE HIVE, COLLECTIVISM, ENDLESS NEED, AND THE BIG CON

by Jon Rappoport

June 29, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

(First, the article I just sent out by mass email to my list, HOW MEDICAL CRIMINALS FAKE MEDICAL REALITY EVERY DAY, was cut off half-way through, in transmission. I have no idea why. It’s there in full, from the same file, at my blog at nomorefakenews.com. So you can go there and read the rest.)

 

Okay. Here we go.

 

When NEED becomes the centerpiece of policy, you soon discover it is endless. That’s Real Politics 101.

 

Endless need slowly eats up everybody. If it isn’t stopped it becomes a fungus sporting a banner of humanitarianism.

 

People who don’t grasp that have no business trying to clarify politics. They should play checkers or golf or go into psychiatry.

 

Endless need creates a hive and a hive-consciousness. Surprising numbers of people like this. They want to live and think in a hive. They want to take their strength from the hive.

 

That is Collectivism on every level of life and experience and feeling.

 

The kicker is, this hive is always constructed by those who live outside it. Yes. The “leaders” who live outside it use the hive for their own ends. They care about the hive in the same way the moon cares about the New York Times. The people behind the curtain who created the hive fill it with platitudes, and these platitudes are gobbled up by the hive members like gifts from heaven. The hive is a religion and its followers worship it as the highest form of human experience, consciousness, love, and thought.

 

As time passes, the most ridiculous “fulfillments of need” are considered wonderful by the hive members. If a man who can’t see needs an elephant to lead him into a restaurant, the hive politicians will jump to it and pass a law requiring every roadside cafe to keep a ton of elephant food and four paid elephant-shit sweepers on board at all times, just in case.

 

And this is considered progress. For the collective, the whole, the All.

 

Hive members ARE EXPECTED TO BE DISABLED. It’s a requirement. The disability can come in many forms, not the least of which is “being human,” a condition celebrated as a death sentence in slow motion. Artists are expected to do their part in presenting images of humans as basically hopeless. Heroes are derided as cartoons.

 

Hive members share. If one or two members somehow rise to a level of prosperity that exceeds the norm, they must give away their excess to the rest, plus penalties. And that rule is, in many forms, enacted into laws backed up by force. This is the paradise of the Collective.

 

People are expected to be Nice, Nice, Nice, all the time, unless one of their members cracks through the ceiling of the Norm. Then the teeth are bared and the long knives come out.

 

The most complex operation a hive member undertakes during his life is the lowering of his own intelligence. He must do this. He must become a glazed apple. He must be able to grasp THOUGHT in very small pieces and BELIEVE he is seeing the whole picture.

 

Meanwhile, the men behind the curtain are manipulating the hive and extracting from it all the honey they can.

 

If hive members become aware of these men, they are duty-bound to complain and whine and never take action to leave the hive. They must stay and weep. They must stay and grumble.

 

If, by chance, members occasionally grab hold of a new idea, they must pursue it as if it is a new religion, a new revelation descended from the skies. That way, they will remain, at the core, passive receivers.

 

Most importantly, the hive members must NEVER see an externally imposed act of great kindness as a fake, a con, a gimmick, a ruse, a piece of fascism wrapped in lies. No, no, no, no. That is treason. That is a sign of a mental disorder.

 

Be simple like a child. When a gift is given, rejoice.

 

Welcome to Obamacare.

 

Welcome to the hive.

 

Jon Rappoport

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

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

FIDDLING SINCERELY WHILE ROME BURNS

 

FIDDLING SINCERELY WHILE ROME BURNS

by Jon Rappoport

June 24, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

“I don’t doubt the sincerity of my Democratic friends. And they should not doubt ours.” — John McCain

 

“Never try to look into both eyes at the same time. Switch your gaze from one eye to the other. That signals warmth and sincerity.’ — Dorothy Sarnoff

 

“In acting, sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” — George Burns

 

 

This is about the oh-so sincere illusion of TWO when there is really only ONE. The public wants TWO. Two Parties. Two earnest candidates. Two ideas in opposition. Two debaters. Two warriors going up against each other in the arena. Two answers, one true and one false. A test. Can you choose the right answer?

 

Actually, there are an infinity of choices, but the ONE controlling elite presents TWO. Night or day. Coke or Pepsi. That’s what the public wants. Two is good. It’s simple. It’s Yin versus Yang. It’s two teams battling it out on the football field. Who do you root for? The Patriots or the Giants? Boil it down to two. It focuses the attention. Either-or. Item 1 or item 2. That’s reality.

 

Hey,” the Reality Designers say, as they put together The Matrix, “this is a great idea. Let’s give these human creatures A or B. Get it? They’ll think they HAVE TO take A or B. No other options. We’ll weave this duality and simple-minded opposition into The Matrix. We’ll make it seem like it’s always THIS OR THAT. It’s a winner. When they believe they have to go with A or B, their intelligence plummets. Their perception narrows down. Their minds shrink. It’s perfect!”

 

Let’s start here with a recent example of political sincerity.

 

Apparently, Obama and Eric Holder thought the ATF was writing a review of the movie, Fast and Furious—not some insane murderous operation in which the ATF sold thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels.

 

That must be the reason why Obama has asserted Executive Privilege and is withholding F and F documents from the Congress. He doesn’t want the movie review made public. He sincerely wants to protect the public from a bad movie review.

 

A new (questionable) Bloomberg poll shows Obama, at 55%, leading Romney by 13 points. However, 60% of the people polled said, simultaneously, “the nation [under Obama] is headed down the wrong track.”

 

Hmm. So this means Obama is wrong but Romney would be wronger?

 

Who to vote for? Wrong or wronger?

 

What about neither of the above? Can that be written in on ballots? “In a startling development, a candidate named ‘neither of the above’ is carrying thirty-seven states.”

 

The Bloomberg poll also revealed that 55% of the respondents believe “Mr. Romney is more out of touch with average Americans [than Obama].”

 

Subtle. The people polled weren’t asked what they thought. They were (sort of) asked what they thought “average Americans” thought.

 

It’s an interesting idea. The corollary would be: don’t vote for the candidate you prefer. Vote for the man you think nameless faceless average otherbodies prefer.

 

In which case, let the ballots reflect the real situation. We should have this sentence in bold black letters at the top of every paper ballot and touch-screen: WHO DO YOU THINK WILL WIN? INDICATE YOUR CHOICE BELOW. And this is how elections would be run.

 

Tautological headline in the NY Times: CANDIDATE MOST AMERICANS THOUGHT WOULD WIN DID WIN.

 

Of course, “neither of the above” is far better. He’s a candidate I can really get behind. I admire him. He has principles. He doesn’t mess around. He doesn’t make false promises. He isn’t a tool (as far as I can tell) of the Globalist criminals.

 

When “neither of the above” walks into the Oval Office to take up the mantle of president, I’ll be a happy man. I’ll be happy day after day. Can you imagine a presidency in which zero-lies emanate from the White House? People will die from the shock, but every revolution spawns collateral damage.

 

Here’s how I see the current campaign. In the middle of 2005, four guys whose names we’ll never know sat in a bunker below a farm in Virginia. The chief honcho said, “Okay, we know this character Obama will be the next president in 2008. That’s settled. We have to start thinking about 2012, because we want to push racial tensions to a new height, as a viable distraction, while on the side we steal everything we can from the American people. We need a real whitebread candidate to run against Obama. You know, white versus black. It has to be an extreme contrast. Gingrich is out. He’s mainly viewed as a talker. Perry can’t get a word out of his mouth. Santorum is a schmuck. That’s his distinguishing characteristic. But Romney. He’s a white android. He’s stiff. He’s Leave It To Beaver. He’s perfect. Let’s go with him. Make sure whenever he’s photographed without his jacket on, he’s wearing a blinding white shirt…”

 

Of course, both Obama and Romney are Globalists. Their main job is to mention the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, the North American Union, and free trade as few times as possible. So far, they’re doing fine.

 

So fine, in fact, that “the lesser of two evils” doesn’t apply to either of them. They’re in the same Globalist Club. Conservative Republicans don’t care about the Club, because when they look at Globalism, they mistakenly see American empire, and they like that. Democrats look at Globalism and see Fulfilling Needs of the Downtrodden, another complete delusion, a goal that isn’t in the Globalist playbook at all.

 

Coming down both sides of the aisle, it’s the march of the idiots, against which “neither of the above” looks very, very good.

 

In a letter to Jonathan Jackson, written on October 2, 1789, John Adams stated: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

 

In my experience, most people who say they are voting for the lesser of two evils are secretly in love with their “lesser.” They have a puerile adoration for a stereotype. They religiously believe. They look through a vision of a filter of a lens, and they melt hope into fact.

 

When I stack that up against “neither of the above,” it’s no contest. It’s as obvious as walking away from a conversation at a picnic where two people are earnestly discussing Oprah vs. Ellen, Maury vs. Jerry Springer.

 

Who do you want to captain the bureaucratically engorged ship of state? Obama or Romney? Is that really a question? Does it make any sense? How much externally and internally applied brainwashing does it take to believe it’s a choice? Tons and tons.

 

Yet, millions of Americans will gladly and sincerely and fiercely and selfishly and altruistically make that choice in November. Many of them will think they’re smart in doing so. And (paraphrasing George Carlin) they would tell me I’m forfeiting my right to complain after the election, because I didn’t vote. No, that’s backwards.

 

They are choosing to support the rotting gangrenous burning vessel that is moving in slow circles on the water. I’m not.

 

People are afraid of not voting. It makes them feel guilty. I suspect it comes from the same impulse that causes them to meddle. You know, “Someone somewhere may be making a mistake and I have to find him and make sure that doesn’t happen.”

 

If you draw it out far enough, the ultimate conclusion to meddling-thinking IS Globalism. The overarching plan. The Good for All. The single brilliant system that will include everybody. It’s a ruse, a con. It’s invented to diminish everybody.

 

When you approach the subject of choosing between two destructive alternatives, you’re brushing up against Matrix thinking. Matrix thinking is obsessively incremental. People believe they’re making an intelligent choice based on the assessment of consequences and so on, but really they’re in the swamp. They’re carrying out a line of reasoning based on false choices, bad choices, horrible competing premises. And why do so many people fall for this? Because they’re engaged on the level of systems. They believe in systems beyond the point of sanity. They are swimming and floundering in systematic thought-patterns, and they need to follow that course to its bitter end. And they do.

 

Colleges and universities are loaded with obsessive incremental thinkers. They are a sub-department of The Matrix. They live inside systems and they play those systems out, one drop and drip at a time. Eventually, they make their maze so complex no one can find a way out by following the accepted rules.

 

The ability to cast a vote of no-confidence (“neither of the above”) would have a tonic effect. It would start the adrenaline flowing.

 

In America, this amounts to treason, because we have to believe that one of the appointed leaders is right; otherwise nothing is right. That’s a hell of a precept. It was cut off at the knees once upon a time, when the Colonies created a limited government, a very small government, and within certain limitations tried to enshrine freedom, which meant that every person could make up his mind about most of the important issues. But somewhere along the line, America was bamboozled into giving up on that. Instead, it adopted leadership as the sacred object.

 

One of these morons/criminals running for president has to be right, and the other moron has to be wrong. One has to be the lesser evil. One has to be the greater evil.

 

But Obama was a disaster. Romney, if elected, will be a disaster.

 

You want to know how easy it is to co-opt either of these “opposites” into the Globalist Club? You tell one man Globalism is all about increasing the power of central government, so it can repair past inequities. You tell the other one Globalism is all about the right of big corporations to prosper and engage the free market. That’s it.

 

What you don’t say is that both routes are paved with bad intentions. Along both routes there is a funnel that sucks up populations (and national governments) into an overarching structure of global control, operated by men who care nothing about repairing inequities or engaging the free market.

 

By the time the presidential winner realizes what’s happening, his dissolute personality/character takes over, and he’s just another bad actor doing bad things in the parade. The vetting process that allows a man to win the nomination of one of the two political behemoths, in the first place, guarantees you’re going to have a pretty slimy creature out front carrying the banner.

 

Truth be told, he already suspected the political game, at the highest level, was a ruse, because he knows how to work a ruse. He knows. He’s already a gimcrack con artist. And the grooming period, if he had any doubts, let him know what was expected of him: to be an agent of the destruction of individual freedom.

 

This is where we are. A vote for Romney or a vote for Obama amounts to the same thing. You may feel more revulsion for one man than the other. That’s fine. But deploying that emotion in the service of accomplishing something good is a pipe dream of a very high order. It makes you a victim of your own irrational predisposition.

 

I believe millions of people know this, and they would exercise the “neither of the above” option if they had the chance. In fact, it would be sweet revenge.

 

Well, we do have that option. We may not be able to register it at the polls on election day, but we can stay home and make the point that way. We can abstain from the circus. We can even point out the insanity of voting for Slug One or Slug Two.

 

I know, it’s a long road to victory this way. Well, the road that got us to where we are now was long, too.

 

Ever since 1968, when I began paying attention to presidential elections and speeches, I was aware I was listening to two liars playing games every four years. At first, it was so obvious I imagined someone somehow would step into the fray and interrupt the charade and make arrests. Eventually, I put up with the cartoons.

 

Now, millions of us are aware that these campaign shows are cartoons. The actual human connection that flows from Obama/Romney to The People is sheer fantasy. Even if these two men were sincere, the distance at which they’re operating is too great to make a difference. They’re stereotypes spouting stereotypes to stereotypes. They’re outright frauds, down to their toes. One is pretending he’s a messiah; the other is pretending he’s a champion of freedom.

 

Which fraud is your fraud?

 

The tattered messiah, or the whitebread champion of liberty, whose coat would be tattered a year after he stepped into the Oval Office?

 

In The Matrix, when a person suddenly realizes he’s accepted the burden of choosing between two lies, a bit of an explosion occurs and he wakes up a little. It’s a start. The political arena is not a bad place to have one of those satori moments.

 

Bush-Gore. Bush-Kerry. McCain-Obama. Obama-Romney. Yin-Yang.

 

I’ll tell you a secret about political Yin-Yang. Merging the two opposing semicircles into a Whole isn’t the solution. No, the real answer comes from staring at the locked semicircles until, like a pricked balloon, the whole sphere blows up. Then you know something. Then you realize something. Then you feel a surge of freedom.

 

As I say, it’s a start. Politics 101, American style.

 

Jon Rappoport

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

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Why I produced “The Matrix Revealed”

Why I produced “The Matrix Revealed”

by Jon Rappoport

June 20, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

My new collection, The Matrix Revealed, was assembled on the same basis as the suggestion that “None Of The Above” should be placed on all ballots at election polls.

The more you understand about how the Matrix is put together, the nuts and bolts of it, the closer you approach the decision that you want none of it.

And then you begin to think about and imagine and enact true alternatives.

It’s as if you enter a huge factory where machines run night and day, and you examine the highly complex operation at close range. The more details that emerge to your eye and mind, the fuller your penetration of the inescapable conclusion that all this activity is generated to fabricate an illusion:

An illusion that this is the only possible Reality.

That’s the objective of Matrix.

My objective is to explode that myth through 1) detailed knowledge of how Matrix is built and 2) the ascension of individual creative power to invent new realities.

With that in mind, here is an interview with my late colleague and friend, Jack True. Jack was a most brilliant and innovative hypnotherapist who eventually stopped using hypnosis in his practice. (I interview him 43 times in THE MATRIX REVEALED; 320 pages.) Jack developed extraordinary methods for waking people up beyond a point that is normally considered possible. I’ve published this interview before. Since then, I’ve found additional notes from the conversation and added them.


Before the interview, I want to say a relevant few words about the animated videos I’ve been making with my colleague, Theo Wesson. You can see them at www.youtube.com/jonrappoport. There’s a new one, just out, on the Obama/Romney debates. We make these animations because the viewer has a chance to have a unique experience for a few minutes, where ordinary reality is blown apart.

Aside from all the usual reasons for making a cartoon, you can expose the lies of ordinary reality. People, whether they admit it or not, want a unique moment. A moment where the rules are suspended. The machine of ordinary reality-manufacture stops.


This is what Jack True is talking about in this interview. As a hypnotherapist, he was particularly adept at putting people in a light trance. Their minds would be open to new experience, but they wouldn’t be suggestible. That was the trick. To relax the mind and eliminate, for the moment, the clutter and the internal dialogue and the push-pull of competing automatic thoughts. Finding that sweet spot, Jack was then able to have his patients achieve some remarkable things, things they wouldn’t be able to do in their ordinary state of consciousness.

This is important to understand. When Jack talks about a patient being able “to conceive of something,” it might, on the surface, not sound so important. But Jack wasn’t working on the surface. The patient, conceiving of something in a light trance, was operating in a whole different theater of experience. The impact was magnified many times.


The Matrix Revealed


Okay, here we go.

Q: You’ve talked about “the habitual mind.” What do you mean?

A: It’s a mind that can’t get enough of predictability. It’s addicted to seeing the same thing over and over.

Q: Even if it doesn’t see it?

A: (laughs) That’s right. It will invent it.

Q: Why?

A: Because it’s avoiding something. It’s avoiding the possibility of a unique experience.

Q: Again, why?

A: Because a unique experience would open the door to the possibility that all the systems the mind has built up are insufficient or lacking.

Q: Why is it important to allow your patients to see “beyond ordinary reality?”

A: The answer to that is, of course, obvious. But I’ll try to give you a slightly different slant on it. You could say that everything a person believes or is conditioned to believe is held in place, held in one place, like a corral. The sheep in the corral are all his beliefs, and they stand there. There is a fence around the corral, and the gate is locked by the way he views reality. As long as he views reality in the same way, the gate is going to be locked. And his beliefs are going remain there. They’re not going to change. But if, for some reason, he begins to see reality in a new way, the lock on the gate is going to spring open, and the beliefs are going to scatter and disperse.

Q: So, in hypnotherapy, you try to get patients to–

A: Not through suggestions, but by other strategies.

Q: For example?

A: With certain patients who I feel are up to to it, I bring in the idea of a unique object. A singular object.

Q: What’s that?

A: A unique object, for my purposes, is a one-of-a-kind thing that never existed before and will never exist again. It could be anything.

Q: There are lots of unique objects.

A: Depends on how you look at that meaning. I’m talking about a thing that isn’t composed of whatever everything else is composed of. So a unique object isn’t made out of atoms. It’s different.

Q: Like a very strange chair?

A: Why not? It could be anything. But it’s utterly unlike anything else.

Q: Not sure I follow you.

A: I put a patient in a light trance. That means he’s aware, and it also means he can focus. His mind is, for the moment, uncluttered. He’s not thinking fifteen thoughts. He’s in a sort of zero state. Calm. He can think and he can respond, but he’s not distracted. His consciousness is relaxed and open. He’s not overly receptive to suggestions. He’s not in a Pavlovian condition. He’s in the moment.

Q: Okay. Then what?

A: Then I describe, in general terms, what a unique object is. And I ask him to conceive of one.

Q: Does he?

A: It varies. Some people work at it but they don’t come up with anything. Other people give me lots of objects, but nothing much happens. In some cases, though, a very interesting thing occurs. The patient begins to see or imagine or think about a truly unique thing. An object of great significance to him. It’s not me who is telling him the object has great meaning. He comes upon that by himself. It’s all subjective. You see? I give him the general idea of what a unique object is, and then he takes it from there. And what he describes to me isn’t a startling revelation, in terms of the object itself. It’s how he sees it and how he feels about it. It’s like trying to catch lightning in a bottle. When it happens, the patient experiences a change in perception. Right away.

Q: Because he feels he’s really seeing something unique.

A: That’s right. He feels that. You know, people go through their lives and they see all sorts of things, and nothing much registers with any great impact. It’s often just cultural responses, like, “Well, I’m standing here on top of a mountain, and I’m supposed to be enthralled, so I’ll act like I am.” Or “I’m walking through a forest and I’m supposed to feel the majesty of the tall trees, so I will.” My idea is to have a patient actually experience something in a spontaneous way.

Q: Give me an example.

A: One patient was quiet for a long time. Then he began talking slowly about…it seemed to be a musical instrument. He got this look in his eye, as if he was feeling something he had never felt before. As if he was making a real discovery. As if this object wasn’t part of the known world.

Q: And then what?

A: The next day, he told me his blood pressure, which had been high, was down to normal levels. His low-level chronic headache was gone. He didn’t need his glasses.

Q: Was this change permanent?

A: The blood pressure never went all the way back to the high level. For about a week, he didn’t need his glasses. The chronic headache eventually became a once-a-month headache. But he also began to see his life differently. His marriage really underwent a revolution. He reconciled with his wife, and they became much happier. His overall mood changed.

Q: All from…

A: From that experience.

Q: And you would say his beliefs changed.

A: Absolutely. Until that point, he had a very restricted view of his possibilities. That all shifted.

Q: Because he glimpsed a unique object.

A: It sounds strange, doesn’t it. But yes. It was a moment in a session. The “gap” between what he believed and what he could see just…fell apart. Here’s how I would characterize it. Perception is often an apparatus where you have whole strings of things that are deemed to be similar. The person sees A and subconsciously thinks, “Well, A is like B and B is like C and C is like D…” He’s not really seeing A. He’s linking A to other things he’s seen or heard about. It’s not true vivid perception. It’s perception plus memory and thought. It’s a hybrid. And it’s dull. It’s really uninteresting. Which has emotional implications. The person’s level of feeling becomes dull, too. So what happened in this case with the patient was, that whole pattern was broken. For a few minutes, the perception, the seeing was direct. He saw a unique object. Or to put it differently, he saw uniquely.

Q: And what caused his beliefs to change?

A: Well, if perception is dull, feeling is dull. If feeling is dull, then a person begins to adopt beliefs that will go along with that level of dull feeling. Limited beliefs. Limited ideas about the possibility of his life and even existence itself. So when that whole pattern broke apart, the sun came through. He perceived uniquely. He did it himself. Not through my suggestions. Not through drugs. He did it. And so, automatically, his dull beliefs began to slip away, because there was nothing to hold them in the corral.

Q: He perceived uniquely, so he felt uniquely, and then his beliefs, which were based on, as you say, dull feelings, were unsupported.

A: Right. Life tends to form into an un-unique pattern. That’s what characterizes it. The un-uniqueness is the glue that holds the pattern together. When you melt that glue, you get a chance at liberation.

Q: This reminds me of preconceived knowing. A person has a set of assumptions, and then anything he comes across—information, ideas, concepts—he fits them into the assumptions he already has and…grinds out a conclusion about whether these ideas are of value or not.

A: Yes, it’s the same thing, but what I do with patients relates to direct perception. Direct spontaneous experience.

[At this point, we took a long break. When we came back, we continued the conversation. Jack reiterated some of things he’d been saying, adding a few twists.]

Q: You were talking about political structures.

A: Yes. They are built in relation to public blindness.

Q: What does that mean?

A: To the degree that people think they are blind to what is going on in the world, the political structures that act on their behalf become larger.

Q: Governments are people’s eyes?

A: Absolutely. So the more complex the world becomes, the more people think they are blind, and they allow governments to expand. The formula works from both ends. Government is an apparatus of perception.

Q: Of course, what governments “see” is colored by their agendas.

A: Sure. I didn’t say the government is a reliable set of eyes. I just said it substitutes for people’s blindness. It’s second-hand perception. But I bring it up because it’s very much like what happens within an individual.

Q: How so?

A: A person tends to believe he can’t see what’s really going on, in front of his own eyes. This comes about because of disappointments the person suffers. He sees something and he wants it, and he tries, but he doesn’t get it. So he begins to believe there is something wrong with the way he sees.

Q: That’s a strange idea.

A: Yes, but it’s true. People start out with a simple formula—if I can see it and I want it, I can get it. When that formula doesn’t work enough times, the person begins to believe he isn’t seeing correctly. So he enters into a complex process with his mind, where he appoints a structure, an internal structure to see for him.

Q: A proxy.

A: Yes. And this structure is based on comparisons. A is like B, and B is like C, and C is like D. A person begins to see in categories. He doesn’t perceive directly. Instead of seeing A directly and uniquely, he sees the things A is compared to. He sees a concept. And he gets into cultural norms, seeing what the culture tells him he is supposed to see.

Q: You’re talking about a habit.

A: A deeply ingrained habit.

Q: Aside from your technique of “the unique object,” how would it be broken?

A: You’re the one who told me how.

Q: Through imagination.

A: Yes. Because imagination throws a monkey wrench into the apparatus of second-hand perception. It doesn’t go along with A is like B and B is like C. It comes from a different place. I once did an experiment with ink blots. You know, the ink blot test psychologists use. I took a small group of people and told them I wanted them to look at a few cards with ink blots on them and write down what they could imagine when they saw them. It was all imagination. The people knew that. So first, they wrote down a number, before they looked at any of the cards. The number represented their estimate of their “feeling of well-being” at that moment. It was a scale from 1 to 20, with 20 being highest. Then, after I showed them the cards, and they spent about an hour writing down what they imagined…they wrote down another number—their state of well-being at THAT moment. And in all cases, the second number was higher than the first. The well-being index. (laughs) Imagination raises the level of emotion. It raises energy. But it also creates perception. That’s the most important thing. So, essentially, imagination shreds the apparatus of second-hand perception by creating new perception.

Q: The culture isn’t set up to accommodate that.

A: The culture is all about showing people what they’re supposed to see, through sets of definitions and categorizations. That’s what a culture IS. An apparatus of perception. Imagination works at cross purposes to that.

Q: Because imagination doesn’t care what the culture says or thinks.

A: When you imagine something, you see it or feel it right away. You see what you imagine. Your perceive THAT. So it’s a different way of seeing.

Q: And it only applies to the individual.

A: Of course. As soon as it becomes a group enterprise, you’re building a culture. You’re building another second-hand perception apparatus.

Q: With this patient you were talking about, you asked him to conceive of a unique object. What do you think that meant to him

A: Well, it was a puzzle to start with. He didn’t know exactly what to do. The gears of his ordinary mind stopped working in the usual way. See, I wasn’t asking him to remember his Social Security number. I wasn’t asking him to tell me what he thought about the weather or his trip to the Greek islands or some article in the Times. He knew how to come up with answers to those things. I was asking him to come up with something completely new and different.

Q: Very Zen.

A: You could say that, yes.

Q: So how did he do it?

A: I’m sure he scoured his memory. But there was no map. He had to come to grips with the idea that there was some other way to proceed, some way he wasn’t used to. He had to think in a different way.

Q: Suppose he couldn’t?

A: But he could. That’s the thing. You see? It’s possible. There is a way to get past all the usual categories of perception. It’s as if you’re walking down a street and everywhere you look there are gates. You can walk through the gates, but if you do, you’re going to come into territory you’re already familiar with. You’ve been through all those gates before, thousands of times. So you don’t do that. You look for something else. You don’t know what it is, but you look.

Q: Are you saying this is a natural process? Are you saying that the gates and the categories are unnatural?

A: The gates and the territories and the rest of it are the result of conditioning. A lot of the conditioning comes into us from the outside, but we also condition ourselves. When you look for a unique object, you’re going past the programming in a very direct way.

Q: Somehow, energy plays a role here.

A: When you come upon a unique object, energy is released. It’s not the usual pedestrian plodding energy.

Q: You’re talking about inspiration.

A: Yes, in a way. But the energy is also a kind of signal. It’s communicating to you. It’s telling you that you just “climbed the mountain.” You climbed the mountain and you floated off the top. That energy, that signal also is transmitted to the body. Your body is alerted to a new dimension of experience. The body responds.

Q: How?

A: It generates a new energy field. A more alive field. Endorphin release also occurs. But the energy field goes beyond that. Your ordinary categories of thought and perception, the normal associations you make…all this is plugged into processes of the body, and the body takes its cues from that grid. But when you supersede all this, as with the perception of a unique object, the old grid isn’t in the seat of control anymore. It isn’t the absolute dictator.

Q: With patients where you’ve been successful with this, I assume there’s no predicting what unique object they’ll come up with.

A: That’s the whole point. If the unique object were the same for everyone, it wouldn’t be unique. People get nervous about this idea. They want to know right away what the object would be. They want a plan. A pattern.

Q: They want a system.

A: “Yes, class, here is the unique object. Now everybody focus on it.” This is exactly what mysticism and religion give you. They tell you up front what the unique object is, because they know that’s what the majority of people want.

Q: And focus isn’t the issue, is it?

A: No, this has nothing to do with focus or concentration. And it certainly has nothing to do with repetition. It’s all about finding or inventing a unique object. Look, what I’m talking about here isn’t for the masses. The masses want symbols they can hang on to. They want symbols that seem to promise them rescue.

Q: You’re saying that all conditioning and programming have to do with sameness.

A: That’s what’s programmed into people. Do A and then A and then A and then A over and over again. People program themselves this way. So their perception of reality becomes stagnant. On one level, it really doesn’t matter how people program themselves. It’s the fact of the programming that’s important, because all conditioning has this feature. It repeats. It spits out the same answer every time. It has the same solutions, to the point where you don’t think any other solution is possible. The strategy of the unique object works in exactly the opposite direction. And in my clinical experience, when it works, it’s extraordinary what happens. One search, one finding of one unique object, and you get a shift. The programming begins to split open.

Q: Before we sat down to talk, you said something about second-hand existence.

A: People look at something or read something and right away they’re experts. They’re experts on what other people will think about it. So you show them something and they judge it by what they think other people will think about it. So they’re not looking at it for themselves. Their perception is geared to a category called “what other people will think.” Except those other people will do the same thing. They’ll look at it and decide its value on the basis of what still OTHER people will think about it. So you get this complete absurdity.

Q: Whereas when a patient of yours conceives of a unique object?

A: As you can see, it’s hard to describe that experience.

Q: Well, you can’t relate it to any system.

A: That’s the point. You have somebody who’s lived for fifty years without ever having considered the idea that there is a unique object. The whole premise seems ridiculous or trivial. But then one day in my office, he does it. He’s in a light trance, and he comes up with a unique object. When he does, there is no system. There is no conditioned apparatus for perceiving. He breaks through that. He’s in a space that is free in a way he’s never experienced freedom before. He’s “off the grid.” He feels like a combination of a treasure hunter who’s just arrived in the cave and opened the box full of gold and jewels, after tracking the place for a long time—and an artist who just made something on a canvas that was completely spontaneous and new and alive. That’s a transcendent moment. It’s his own experience. He did it.

Most of the time we operate inside the grid. Everything happens there, or we think so. Some things we like and some we don’t. We assemble all sorts of concepts and preferences and ideas to justify why we should be doing what we’re doing. But there is a whole universe of experience that lies outside this grid.

[A few comments. Later in his career, Jack True developed many other methods for achieving the kind of breakthrough he explains in this interview. In our many conversations, I also began to develop exercises and techniques for such breakthroughs. The starting point for gaining a grasp on this work is The Matrix Revealed, followed by my audio seminars, MIND CONTROL, MIND FREEDOM, and THE TRANSFORMATIONS incorporated into Exit From The Matrix.]

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

A TIDAL WAVE OF POLITICAL LIARS LYING

A tidal wave of political liars lying

by Jon Rappoport

June 18, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Political liars lie because they’re forwarding secret agendas and don’t want us to catch on. They also lie because they’re tailoring their messages to what they think we want to hear. We know that. Everybody knows that.

But if everybody knows that, why do so many people act as if they don’t know it? It’s a strange phenomenon.

If you had a friend who talked to you every day in a way you knew was disingenuous, if he said things obviously intended to cater to your opinions and beliefs, at some point wouldn’t you hold up your hand and say STOP? It would be maddening, wouldn’t it? It would be like eating too much molasses.

Sure, we like to have people agree with us, but there is a limit. There is especially a limit when we know they’re pretending to agree with us. There is REALLY a limit when we know they’re agreeing with us because they want something from us.

Of course, the “science” of PR makes no distinction between the truth and a lie. PR is based on the notion that you say things only and always to engender the effect you’re looking for (while concealing your true intent). And now much of the world runs on PR. That’s the engine. This is essentially what campaign advisers are there for: to show their candidates how to lie, how to get away with it, and how to make people like the lies.

The question for a politician is: how well am I lying; not, what am I lying about.

Nixon was a bad liar. He even seemed like a liar when he was saying what he really thought. He was basically trapped in being a liar at the core. He made you think a PR agent had created him whole out of cardboard and glue.

Reagan was a somewhat better liar, but still, when you got past his best moments, he was grossly inept.

Gerald Ford was a surprisingly good liar. He seemed to be a simple fool who actually believed what he said. That’s an art.

Jimmy Carter was a good liar and then a not-so-good liar. He had his good days and bad days.

George Bush I was an awkward liar. He was like Nixon in many respects. Put him behind a microphone and everything out of his mouth came across like a lie. Ditto for his son.

Bill Clinton was, all said and done, like Carter. Good days and bad days—until Monica. After that, he was Bubba, the prime Grade A non-stop bullshitter.

Obama, when the high oratory of his early days melted away, played it so close to the vest he entered a neutral zone where what he said carried neither the impression of being true nor false. It was dead fish. Unless you actually listened, and then you heard chains and chains of Chicago-baked prevarications

I’m talking about style here, not content. And style, for these men, is an artifact of PR. “Can I tell a good lie?” “Can I get over?” “Can I make it seem real?”

We’ve come so far in the cartoon world of political PR that John Q Public tends to judge politicians on the basis of how well they’re lying.

He makes it seem he’s telling the truth. I like that. He’s doing well.”

He’s an intelligent liar. He knows his facts and he can juggle them and manipulate them. That’s good.”

Then you have liars like Henry Waxman. (I ran against him in 1994 for a Congressional seat.) Waxman is a pretty good liar. He does it with a chip on his shoulder, with some anger, as if he’s outraged at his enemies. He can do earnest. Like many other politicians, he can actually keep himself from knowing the kind of truth that would expose himself to himself as a liar. That’s an art.

Some of you might remember Everett Dirksen. He served in Congress from 1933 to 1969. He’d still be there if he wasn’t dead. Ev was not just a liar, he was a pop star of lying. When he spoke publicly, he was so over the top, with his super-syrupy baritone and his sing-song jive, he made your eyes water. He was like a 50-foot painted cement dinosaur suddenly showing up as you were driving down an empty highway. He was the cartoon of cartoons of American politics, and for that his colleagues named a senate building after him when he died. They sat around like a bunch of snake oil and shoe salesmen and told stories about the great Ev. The press called Ev “The Wizard of Ooze.”

Bill Gates is a combination of the old TV puppet Howdy Doody, Donald Duck, and Mad Comics’ Alfred E Newman. With real malice aforethought. In recent years, he’s slipped into the role of The Great Educator and the technocrat with all the answers for the “brilliant future of planet Earth.” Bill’s lies come across like much of fake science: earnest, insistent, impatient, authoritative, confident.

The current political system of the United States is built on so many false flags, hidden agendas, crimes, and cover-ups, the intensity and quantity of lies has escalated to keep pace.

In key ways, the coming lie-fest between Obama and Romney falls into neat compartments. On one side, we have the cracker-barrel old fashioned white-bread-crust android Romney. And on the other side, we have the hip knowing forward-looking hero-of-the-downtrodden personable alert utopian Obama. Two fronts, two poses, two roles, two acts, two liars. They’re really clones of Globalism.

But they’ll play out the drama, and they’ll rivet the public attention with the lies they’re telling, and more importantly, the way they’re telling them.

PR specialists have discovered that people like their lies cooked differently. Some groups want Denny’s-type lies. Others want McDonalds or Burger King. Subtle differences. The amount of grease is important. Then there are organic-greens lies. There are home-cooked meat-and-potatoes lies. There are rib-shack lies. There are all sorts of flavorings.

The public is so used to lies-as-lies they become connoisseurs. It’s not whether the politician is lying, it’s the brand and feel and sensation and attitude of the lies as they fall on the palate.

Some people prefer the Don Rumsfeld approach: “Of course I’m lying, we all are, but I’m giving you my crap straight from the shoulder and I don’t care whether or not you believe me.” Others like Dick Cheney’s attitude: “I can lie until the sun goes down but I have the power to make it stick and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

On the other side of the aisle, you have Nancy Pelosi: “I lie with anger and outrage and a dismissive twitch. I lie because women need to be able to lie as well as men can. It’s a social movement.” Or there is Harry Reid: “My lies come out of a hole in the wall at the baseboard where I’m sitting like a mouse. But watch out. I have an army of mice behind me. We look weak, but we can eat up your whole kitchen.” Chris Dodd was a guru: “I lie with a blizzard of facts and the hard-nosed experience to back it up. My lies look exactly like the truth, if anyone around here were speaking the truth.”

The four-cornered feedback loop among PR-schooled politicians, PR advisers, the press, and the public is so busy that the public is now sitting like panel judges on a show called The Liars Club, deciding which are the best lies and liars. The public is honored to be there.

However, as successive waves of alternative deeper online news and research are drenching the public, the confusion is building. Could the truth really work? Is that possible? If the lies stopped, would the entire economy and political apparatus of the country go down overnight? Are we that entrenched? We’re going to find out.

In 1956, author Eugene Burdick, who would go on to write The Ugly American and Fail-Safe, published his first novel, the quickly forgotten The Ninth Wave. Two young friends, Mike and Hank, explore the emerging culture of California. Mike, however, discovers he has a knack for politics, and he quickly graduates up the ladder to boy-genius kingmaker. Using polls and surveys in a unique fashion, pinpointing voters’ hopes and fears and hatreds, Mike becomes a supreme and successful election manipulator. His friend Hank, who basically stands for truth and justice, is horrified. He realizes Mike may have to leave this Earth abruptly and violently if America itself is to be saved from The Attack of Public Relations.

We’ve come a long way, baby, since 1956. The novel’s theme seems completely absurd now. Of course political advisers (and their candidates) give up all principles in order to win. Of course polls and surveys are used to prey on voters’ emotions. Of course such calculations are the (vampiric) lifeblood of politics. Of course lies and counter-lies cover hidden agendas. Of course politicians are bought and paid for. Of course only the cynical and the venal survive in Washington. Of course the lamp is lit for the winners and doused for the losers. Of course they survey you and then feed you back your own preferences as if they’re their preferences, too.

You’ve got voters who are willing to trudge into rooms and take part in focus groups, where they watch political debates and push buttons to signify their reactions to individual sentences, phrases, single words. Lambs to the slaughter.

All this is business as usual.

But new winds are blowing stronger. People are beginning to think there may be something out there on the far side of all this lying, something we lost and could get back. No, it wouldn’t look like Leave It To Beaver, it would look, perhaps, like people do when they’re hearing the kind of joke that makes them fall off their chair and roll on the floor. I’ve often wondered what might happen, if, in the middle of a nationally televised presidential debate, the audience just started howling with laughter at both candidates and couldn’t stop.

That would be an interesting beginning, a kickoff, you might say, a spark that lights a fuse that results in an explosion that has nothing to do with terrorism. It would be on the order of a play that opens on Broadway, and by universal acclaim closes down after one night, because it’s so absurdly and preposterously pathetic—to which the only response is laughter.

And then, of course, other things would follow. But that would be a start: Romney and Obama, two clowns trying to act straight, two chronic hypocrites and liars peddling their sop and crap and shell game and fake differences, rushing offstage to escape the massive waves of laughter pouring over them, as the panicked networks cut to commercials for floor wax and Lipitor.

You Ron Paul delegates attending the GOP convention in Tampa? Don’t try to sink a plank in the Republican platform, don’t sit on your hands, don’t fidget, don’t boo, do something real. If your heads are on straight and you’re looking at the scene for what it really is, you WILL start LAUGHING at Romney, without even trying. Give your Democrat counterparts something to think about, when Obama begins yapping in Charlotte about the economy coming back strong and his great vision for a better tomorrow and how much help he needs in the fourth quarter as he’s trying to get free to sink the three-pointer at the buzzer.

Obama and Romney are both laughing up their sleeves at us. I think it’s time we return the favor. With a vengeance.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fx-oapl1nw&w=415&h=241]

As HL Mencken wrote, “One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent.”

Jon Rappoport

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

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

A CARTOON: NSA AND GOOGLE EMBRACE

 

A CARTOON: NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY AND GOOGLE

by Jon Rappoport

June 16, 2012

 

This article is about a cartoon I produced with Theo Wesson. I’m now in the animation business. Videos. I write the scripts and Theo does the visuals.

 

We’ve produced four cartoons so far, and in the last three days they’ve suddenly taken off on my YouTube channel. The total views for the four went from about 700 to 12,000.

 

You’ve all read the news stories about Google and NSA teaming up to…oh, that’s right, they don’t have to say what they’re doing together. They’re allowed to keep it a secret. Maybe they’re selling toasters or opening car washes. But my guess is it has something to do with information. Just a thought.

 

Immensely powerful US-based multinational corporations, which owe no allegiance to any nation, are in the business of global conquest. It stands to reason that, on some level, the NSA, which is also in the business of global conquest, shares part of what it learns about American citizens every day with those corporations.

 

Therefore, what looks on the surface like an enormous and illegal invasion of our privacy on behalf of some concocted agenda about US national security is, at the margins, about globalism—a program to bring planet Earth under the control of an elite management system.

 

The cartoon is about what NSA and Google could cook up together.

 

You can view it at www.youtube.com/jonrappoport or embedded here:

 

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMIcTiOG4UU&w=415&h=241]

 


It’s my considered observation that we live in a social, political, economic, and cultural cartoon. And I also conclude that many people sense this but don’t articulate it. Now, a cartoon can contain suffering. Just because it’s animated doesn’t mean the people living in it don’t experience pain.

 

And I think many of us love cartoons because they indeed reflect our awareness that life is, in certain major respects, a cartoon.

 

Also, animations suggest there are other possible realities that operate according to different principles. We want some of those realities. We want to experience them. Unfortunately, a whole lot of people believe such experience only occurs after death. I say it can happen right here, right now.

 

Frost’s line, “And the work is play for mortal stakes,” comes to mind. Part of the operation of The Matrix is to make us serious in the same way The Matrix is serious. We risk becoming too tight to win, too closed off to our own energies, too stultified to imagine how we can emerge victorious over Matrix systems and structures.

 

The Matrix is a cartoon. We can dismantle it in pieces, and we can also proliferate our own cartoons that rocket us past the illusions we’re being sold in the bazaar of daily experience.

 

Really? Our imaginations are that powerful?

 

You have no idea. Or maybe you do.

 

I hope you enjoy our cartoon and pass it along.

 

Jon Rappoport

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

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com