HYPNOSIS FOR THE MASSES, AND MAGIC

(an excerpt, edited from The Magician Awakes)

By Jon Rappoport

June 5, 2012

This is not an easy subject to describe, because it is shot through with so many contradictions and subtle shades of deception. But if we’re to understand anything about magic in the true sense, we need to explore it from several angles.

Let’s start here: For many reasons, the window of history on The Individual is closing. One can view this with melancholy, or it can be the opportunity to stake out a new, stronger, uncompromising position on Self.

For centuries, humankind has been bombarded and caressed with the idea that everything good and important has a SOURCE somewhere ELSE.

This has attained truly hypnotic proportions.

I’m thinking of a group that currently preaches and teaches, perversely, that The Individual’s imagination and creative power emanate, like some steady-state hum, like some radio broadcast from The Universe. This balderdash sells very well, because people simply don’t have the confidence to declare what is already and inherently theirs. No, they need what is theirs to come from a mysterious and wonderful Otherness. They need that. They have to curl up in it like a cat in a blanket. Otherwise, they wouldn’t experience the hypnotic comfort they so desperately long for.

People refuse to believe they are strong enough or powerful enough or worthy enough to move through life without a Greater Principle feeding them metaphysical and spiritual chocolates every day in every way. This mindset is Hypnosis 101 personified.

I really don’t care what people believe. However, when I see so many people using their beliefs to submit to an Otherness so intensely and completely, I call it what it is: hypnosis.

A person, for example, can believe and surrender so fully to some Active and Dynamic Principle that he becomes passive! That’s right. It becomes a drug. And, of course, a complete contradiction.

Every deep belief has a symbolic component. In that sense, the substance and content of the belief matter less than the energy a person derives from it. So I’m not arguing here so much about content of belief, but only about the way a person uses it. And if we look around us, we see androids-of-belief, people who use their convictions to stay passive.

Earth changes.

It’s all going to happen TO us, not FROM us.

December 2012.

We’ll automatically enter a new age.

DNA changes.

Just wait a few minutes and your DNA will change and then everything will be better and different.

And so forth and so on.

Passivity.

Hypnosis.

MAGIC IS AN ACTIVE PRINCIPLE, NOT A PASSIVE ONE.

Of course, whatever is deemed passive AND good is far more popular than what is deemed active, because active means you actually have to DO something.

PEOPLE WILL ADOPT BELIEFS AND USE THEM ON THE BASIS OF HOW MUCH self-generated action VERSUS passivity THEY WANT.

Think about that one because it’s a key.

Jack True, the brilliant hypnotherapist I interview 43 times in my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, eventually stopped using hypnosis altogether, because he realized the people coming to his office were already, “in a core part of their consciousness, hypnotized.”

Jack had many things to say about beliefs, based on his clinical experience. Here is a quote:

“When I put people in a light trance, I would have them ‘travel’ to a place where they kept their beliefs, as if it were a landscape. When they arrived, I’d have them describe what they saw. The majority of my patients saw their own beliefs in one of two ways.

“They saw dead energy, energy that had been used over and over until it had become like sludge. Or they saw their beliefs as engines of a kind, except the engines weren’t putting out energy, they were taking it in. Sucking it in. On closer examination, this ‘taking in’ proved to be un-dynamic. It was, in a real sense, sleep-inducing.”

Historically, we can see the evolution of a similar phenomenon. As the buttoned up era of the 1950s gave way to the turbulent 1960s, people all over the world began to believe that better times were coming. In fact, the future was here, and it was much happier. It was a New Age. Fueled by drugs and the fear of dying in a war in Vietnam, young people became active, quite active.

But once the war was over, there was a remarkable and sudden shift. Those very beliefs, as we entered the middle 1970s, developed a passive hue. They accumulated sludge. They took in energy, but not for dynamic use. Rather, the energy was “laid back.” Soporific. The New Age was still coming, but it was going to descend on us like an all-embracing rainbow delivered by a Disneyesque cosmos.

Magic isn’t sociological. It doesn’t depend on trendiness, on this era or that era. It isn’t an offshoot of a commonly held consensus. Therefore, real magic isn’t very popular. It has everything to do with stepping outside that consensus on many, many levels.

It has everything to do with the free individual, with dynamic self.

The dynamic and free individual, whether he is aware of it or not, begins to invent space and time. And energy.

And that is, for the individual, why magic surpasses history. Psychologically, history is over. The past is over. The serial cause-and-effect chain that is viewed as time begins to disintegrate. However, instead of leaving a passive vacuum in its place, what comes into play is creative and far-reaching inventing by the individual.

This is alchemical. The individual can tap into and use and transform energies, spaces, times, ideas, concepts, the past, the future as fuel for his creative fire.

I’ve told this story before, but I’ll tell it again here and place it in a slightly different context. Think of it as a living metaphor for what I’m discussing:

In the early 1980s, in the Lincoln Heights section of Los Angeles, an entrepreneur bought up a few acres of land and structures that had been a large facility of the Pabst corporation. Pabst had made beer there. There were small sheds and a few larger buildings.

One day, Pabst had shut the whole place down and walked away.

This entrepreneur came in and recast all the spaces as artists’ studios/living lofts. About 70 of them. All sizes and shapes. Old Pabst offices became studios. Tiny offices, large offices. Factory spaces with loading docks became studios. The corrugated sheds became studios. The place was now widely called The Brewery.

Artists moved in and quickly transformed those spaces in their highly individual ways.

And in an empty area between buildings, there was a chaotic mountain of disassembled metal parts from Pabst machines. Garbage.

Well, once the artists settled into their studios, they began to visit this mountain and look it over. They sifted through it. They took away pieces and used them in their work. They transformed them.

A year or so later, the mountain was almost gone. It was now part of hundreds of sculptures, assemblages.

The garbage bins on the property began to accumulate debris and leftovers, deposited by the artists—the useless aftermath of their production.

And they began to visit the bins and see what was there, and they found, in one another’s refuse, materials they could use again and transform in their new work again.

And so forth and so on.

I had a few friends who were living and working in one of the corrugated sheds. These spacious sheds had upper-floor lofts for sleeping. The ground floors were for work.

The day arrived when many of the artists opened their doors for a massive group show, for the public.

I put several of my paintings on display in my friends’ shed. So I was there, when about 1500 people showed up from all over the city and took The Brewery tour of 70 studios.

I took the tour, too.

On the basis of variety alone, it was absolutely staggering. Every living and working space was unique, to say nothing of the art. I called it an interplanetary excursion, because that’s what it felt like. By comparison, your normal gated apartment complex would be in the android-robot realm.

I remember two comments friends made to me that day.

One said, “I feel like I’ve been visiting science labs. It’s as if a company hired a bunch of maverick researchers and just set them loose in their own labs, to experiment, to push the frontiers in all directions…”

And the other comment: “If this kind of thing took hold and spread out over the whole city, if people just started creating art in spaces like this, everything would change. The way people think, what they do, what they say to one another, the way they relate, the way they see…”

Their beliefs, their energy, their imagination would change.

The artists at the Pabst nexus in Lincoln Heights weren’t waiting for a new reality to descend on them like a cloud. They weren’t passive. They weren’t relying on some Otherness. They weren’t stalling at the gate of a new life.

There is a line you cross with invention, with imagination, with creative power. And once you cross the line with enough intensity, you find yourself in a different world.

I know that world.

It’s actual magic. The real thing. Undiluted.

The vast organizing and controlling of society and its parts is, from that perspective, simply a postponement of a true Day One. It’s hypnotic absurdity.

EVERY human activity and endeavor can undergo this radical transformation. The potential exists. And once you see it and experience it and make it happen, you can look around and grasp what the term hypnosis really means.

We live in a number of spaces, and many of them are half-created possible-could-be futures. They came from people who started to innovate and then stopped. These spaces move. They float. They contain what might have been, but when seen head-on they are actually more real, even in their fragmentary form, than the consensus reality that passes for Reality.

Magic is invented. Paranormal phenomena are invented, created. Realities are imagined. The universe is one work of art out of a possible infinite number of works of art.

Loyalty to WHAT IS or even to a SUPER WHAT IS is misplaced. It’s a self-generated and self-induced trance.

Magic is its opposite.

How far can magic go? What is the limit on the ability of imagination to create new realities?

There is no limit. As Western history emerged from the Middle Ages, an unfolding of thought and action gradually took hold, and that unfolding, which was generated by individuals, was all about personal freedom from oppressive structures. Freedom from oppressive leaders who built those structures.

Then there was a counter-revolution. Its real leaders were and are secretive men who play with injecting chaos into the order they have championed. They build oppression and they then they tear it down. This whiplash effect is aimed at engendering the perceived need for a super-order, far more confining than what has gone before.

But, under the surface, what is this perverted game really all about? It’s about FEAR of what the free individual can CREATE. It’s about this inherent force in the free individual to imagine, invent, build, create, innovate ideas and realities that not only upset the established order, but reveal it for the stage-set it is.

Passively accepted reality ALWAYS amounts to a stage-set. Space is restricted, time is restricted, energy is restricted. These are all hallmarks of The Group, not the free individual.

When you live through and by imagination long enough and intensely enough, when you work to create new realities that reflect your most profound desires, on and on and on, you attain “escape velocity.” You move into a different state of mind. A state of mind that burns up hypnotic debris.

There are many pundits and ‘spiritual teachers’ who can’t abide this. And there are elites who are terrified of this, because they have tried to kill it in themselves, and they don’t want to be reminded that it still exists. When people say elites have gone over to “the dark side,” this is what it really means.

But magic is open and is infinitely wide and high and deep. It has no boundaries composed of programming. This is the space and the promise of the great journey. It has always existed and it will always will.

For those who want it, who want it ENOUGH.

Jon Rappoport

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

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

THE UNIVERSE OF CHEATING, LYING, AND STEALING

Jun4

WHAT MAKES A MARKET A MARKET?

THE ANSWER: CIGARETTE BUTTS!

By Jon Rappoport

June 4, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

“One of the primary missions of public relations is convincing people that very large organizations are absolutely essential to maintaining order. Without these gigantic structures, we would all perish. The obvious corollary? Everyone is small, the structures are big. What a fabulous ruse.” — Ellis Medavoy, retired propaganda operative

In THE MATRIX REVEALED, I interview a former financial insider, Richard Bell (pseudonym), who spent many years on Wall Street as an analyst and trader.

This article is based on our conversations, and on my own research into various kinds of political/economic manipulation.

The major term I want to introduce here is Richard’s Organizational Threshold (OT). It is his assessment of how growth brings on insider criminal activity. I’ll take you through it.

A major obsession of human beings—organizing anything that moves—accelerated to an enormous degree in the 20^th century. This trend obviously employs three strategies: building strength through sheer numbers (of people); structuring those people in compartments, by function, by importance, with managers overseeing their efforts; and coordinating compartments/managers to produce a desired overall outcome.

The OT is reached when it becomes apparent to many people within an organization that there is, in fact, an overarching system. The system can be understood, it can be seen, it can be described.

This perception is compelling. It is often more compelling than perception of the actual products an organization is making and selling.

“What do you know? I’m working in a system. I’m right here, in this spot, and I can view the whole structure around me, below me, above me. I can see it all. Fantastic. I may be a cog in the machine, but now I understand the machine.”

At this point, a certain significant percentage of people will turn their attention to gaming the system, the organization. It becomes their number-one goal. In their eyes, this is their best choice, their best option.

As Richard Bell put it to me: “Build any organization big enough, and you’ll exponentially increase lying and cheating and theft. It works every time. When people get a good look at the size and shape of the organization they’re in [or the market they’re trading in], ethics tend to go out the window. People feel trapped inside a giant structure, so they learn about that structure in order to take covert action against it and extract juice for themselves. Plot out this trend over time, and you get serious trouble. You get the decay, the end of whole empires.”

Of course, when it comes to highly organized trading markets, there are already powerful insiders who have been gaming the system since the beginning. They may have created aspects of the market for that very purpose. But now, many more people climb on board with the same motive.

Therefore, the original kernel of usefulness of that market or organization begins to turn sour and is lost. As more and more people try to game a system, a self-reflexive behavior emerges as the cardinal activity.

“Now that I see the whole structure, I want to work it to my advantage. I don’t care about anything else.”

Consider commodity futures trading. It was once advertised as a way farmers could try to protect themselves against crop losses incurred through acts of Nature. Eventually, it was overwhelmed by speculators, who were simply trying to work the framework and loopholes of the system, the organization.

Interestingly, this speculative approach only sustains itself if various traders, large and small, develop competing strategies, because for each buy order there must be a sell order. If every person working the system had the same strategy, the market would collapse. Buy and sell orders would routinely hang out to dry with no takers. Therefore, whether you want to ascribe conscious intent or human nature as the cause, it benefits the survival of the system if many competing investing strategies are promoted as “the answer.” I’ll revisit this in a moment.

An intelligent investor has to ask himself, “Do I want to trade in a market where the vast majority of people are thinking about what I’m thinking, and I’m thinking about what they’re thinking?”

Here’s a related question: “Do I want to guess what enormous investors with very deep pockets are thinking?”

Because now that’s what the system requires. Everybody is trying to game it. That’s become the whole nature of the enterprise.

And once that’s the case, any item under the sun is tradable, because all that matters is what people are scheming about.

I have a theoretical tray full of cigarette butts, and people and groups from New York to Hong Kong are willing to buy and sell it, because it’s there and it’s in the system and it’s for sale—and all people care about is gaming the system. The system, the market has become nothing more than the game of gaming.

From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, this creates danger. First, you risk exposure through an emperor-has-no-clothes revelation about cigarette butts, sparking great hand-wringing about the butts themselves.

And second, you are now in constantly shifting seas. Buying and selling are determined through estimates of what other people are thinking about buying and selling. We take this for granted these days, but it’s a still a prime concern.

And then there is this high strangeness. You can walk into a market and buy cigarettes. Poverty-stricken people living in cardboard boxes can trade and sell cigarette butts with a bit of tobacco left in them. And millions of people can buy and sell derivatives of cigarette butts worth tens of billions of dollars every day. (For cigarette butts, substitute mortgage-backed derivatives, based on huge numbers of mortgages that never had a chance of being paid off.)

When a whole society crosses the Organizational Threshold by miles, the society changes. It is craftier. It is far less ethical. It is delusional, too, because you are competing against other people who are trying to do nothing more than game what you’re gaming. (Successive generations of children grow up taking this for granted. It’s SOP.)

The upside of all this is that people who see the whole system they’re in can leave the system. That’s the natural response. Intelligence should breed such a response. Make the system more sane or leave it.

To what degree did any of the Facebook IPO buyers care about Facebook itself? It was simply one more “vehicle” for making profit. Facebook could have been cigarette butts. It could have been a word representing nothing. It could have been a garble of incomprehensible symbols. But it was “in play.” And it was the subject of much PR.

Gordon Gekko, in Money Never Sleeps, offers this (probably apocryphal, but nevertheless highly significant) description of trading madness: “Back in the 1600s, the Dutch, they got speculation fever to the point that you could buy a beautiful house on a canal in Amsterdam for the price of one [tulip] bulb. They called it Tulip Mania. Then it collapsed. You could buy ten bulbs for two dollars. People got wiped out, but who remembers?”

In the case of Facebook, we could still see a hidden aspect of the game: the downturn after the opening was part of a shakeout, and the shocked buyers who sold their shares (to smarter insiders) will watch the stock price move up (taken up) to yield major profits. But not for them.

Perception of the shape of organization doesn’t always reveal the true nature of the game, but it does reveal how the game can be narrowly looked at, in order to try to gain an advantage, to win.

That is what the father of modern PR, Edward Bernays, saw when he looked at the whole of modern society. Not the true nature of civilization, but a way to manipulate it for gain, and in the process pervert commerce in all its forms.

“We are governed,” Bernays wrote, “our minds are governed, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”

Apparently, “smooth function” was Bernay’s ultimate rationalization for his innovations in operant conditioning: if we don’t plant the same ideas and images in millions of minds, chaos will ensue.

It turns out that every fascist views the masses with the same disdain and horror, and envisions installing an overarching order of conformity, achieved in one way or another, as the only solution.

What is never calculated, however, is the response to such a program. People at large figure out the system and apparatus of mind control. They see how it is organized, and seeing it, a significant number of them decide to game what is being done to them.

“They cheat; so I’ll cheat. That’s all work really is: a con.”

Now the society spirals to a new low.

Here is a far more important Bernays observation, the ultimate glimpse of danger for any manipulator. And it holds a key for us:

“It is sometimes possible to change the attitude of millions but impossible to change the attitude of one man.”

In the end, it is the individual who counts; the resistant independent alive individual who sees a different set of meanings for himself. An individual who isn’t blinded by belonging to a group that promulgates one-mindset-fits-all.

That is where the buck stops.

Returning to something I touched on earlier, Richard Bell told me, “To understand markets, you need a starting point or a question that really leads you to a deeper level of analysis, as opposed to a maze that takes you around and around. One of those questions is: what would happen if every investor used the same precise system to rate stocks? Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it? The whole mechanism of gambling on the market would dissolve, because every order [to a broker] needs, somewhere, its opposite.

“From this you can deduce that misinformation and misdirection are keynotes to maintaining the whole charade. It’s called ‘advice,’ but it’s really PR. It’s varieties of opposing PR, in which yes and no are declared about the very same item. Yes and no. Buy this. No, sell this. No, stand aside. Or, buy this because of X. No, buy this because of Y.

“Confusion. That’s the sine qua non of markets. Churn the PR. Flood the field with contradictory nonsense. Can you imagine what would happen if wars were fought on the basis of battlefield intelligence like this? Armies would end up killing their own civilian populations in great numbers.

“Sun Tzu wrote, ‘Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections.’ Do you see? Float various strategies and advice, for investing, that will fit what investors are able to discern, given their state of mind. You’ll end up making the market, because from this come both buyers and sellers of the same item. And this is what you must have.

“This is what makes a market. This is all that makes a market.”

The primary deception derives from keeping alive the basic goose that lays golden egg after golden egg. To do that, you must spread around enough PR (advice) that will appeal to investors who approach the table with different and conflicting mindsets and preconceptions. Having achieved that, the market will flourish.

As fewer individuals choose to invest in stocks and commodities, and as the field is dominated, more and more, by investing institutions and groups, it becomes obvious that these institutions must be convinced to approach buying and selling in opposing ways,

according to different outlooks and “philosophies.” So the PR reaches higher on the food chain. It targets these groups.

This must continue to happen, to allow every buy order to have a corresponding sell order, to keep the goose alive and healthy.

Of course, the definition of health, in this case, is entirely perverse.

Richard concluded our initial conversation with this: “All right, so now I’ve given you enough so you can see the basic underlying structure, the system, the organizing principle of trading markets. You can see it. Do you choose to walk away, or do you say, ‘Wow, now I can start figuring out a way to cheat the cheaters.’ That’s the fork in the road. Not just for markets, but for society. How do you respond?”

I told him I would interview him as many times as he would sit down with me.

At our next conversation, Richard laid out a formula for destruction: “Think about government debt. This is the hammer. Tremendous amounts of PR are being launched to convince everyone that the function of government is to ‘take care’ of populations, from cradle to grave. This is called humanitarianism. This is called social justice. The point is, it [the PR] has a covert motive: leading governments over the edge into bankruptcy. What I’m saying is, the PR is intentional. It’s a campaign to lead governments to ruin. That’s the real intent. But because so many people are already devoted to gaming the system, they support this PR and these government benefits. They look at the benefits as personal victories in a war to ‘cheat the cheaters.’ You can make a formula out of this. Step one: build organizations to such great size that people who work inside them decide their most important objective is cheating the system. Step two: Offer these cheaters more and more benefits. Step three: The cheaters will naturally accept the benefits because they’re already in a criminal mindset. Step four: Governments providing the benefits go off the cliff into deeper and deeper bankruptcy. Step five: Rescue the governments by putting them under a more severe globalist system of supra-control. Step six: Now, through globalism, the most important organizations are far larger than they ever were before. The people who work within them are further motivated to cheat, lie, and rob…”

Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

PART 2, THE FOUNDATION OF MAGIC

Jun2

PART 2, THE FOUNDATION OF MAGIC AND POWER

NOTES FROM THE MAGICIAN AWAKES
(unpublished)

by Jon Rappoport

June 2, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

How many times do we wish we had followed a glimpse, a dream?

How many times have we wished we could stop looking at reality through a set of categories that played out long ago and became useless?

How many times have we wished we could see reality anew, as if for the first time?

These wishes can’t be fulfilled by joining groups that appear to have our dreams engraved in their bylaws.

Magic begins with the independent individual.

Here is a quote from the brilliant hypnotherapist Jack True, whom I interview 43 times (320 pages) in THE MATRIX REVEALED:

“Why are dreams, when we sleep, episodic and nonlinear? Because we’re searching for something else, a different way of approaching reality. In these dreams, we KNOW the space-time complex is an illusion. We know we’re escaping from prison.

“All the major myths of humanity, since the beginning, have been ORGANIZED out of dreams. They’ve been tailored and reworked to have a cause-and-effect relationship among their parts. So we’re right back where we started, at zero. We’re trying to break through the linear quality, but we’re reconstructing these dreams to take the spontaneity out of them.

“Look at the ancient Greek apparatus of gods. As usual, there was a top persona. There was a hierarchy. This is nonsense. This is all a rearrangement of dreams. Each god is given various magic powers. It’s childish. It’s like doling out Christmas presents under the tree. This is your present, and this is your sister’s present. It’s a fool’s errand.

“Magic is fluid. Yes, it can be performed, but really it involves the whole being of a person. It comes out of the wellsprings of desire. Deep desire.

“We dream the way we do because it’s natural, and because something about the day is exhausting. The structure and organization of the day saps our energy, because when we live in a linear fashion, we don’t have that much available energy to begin with. We’re only tapping into a relatively small amount. So it drains away inside the structure. We have so much more energy deep-down, but it’s ‘nonlinear energy,’ it thrives on seeing and creating and living and knowing in a completely different way.

“Sure, there are a lot better ways to organize this world, but that doesn’t solve the most basic problem for anyone. Magic, as much as it’s been defamed, is the solution, and magic operates in simultaneously multiple and nonlinear ways.”

Here is Jack again:

“People sometimes think I’m advocating chaos. I’m not. But they think so because they can’t imagine the world [reality] could be fundamentally any different than it is now without descending into total confusion. Putting nonlinear thought into the world is doable, though. That’s the next stage of evolution. Imagination isn’t just coming up with a better screwdriver. It isn’t just solving what we can only see as a problem begging for an answer. Seeing problems everywhere isn’t a function of reality itself. It’s the way we approach and filter reality and organize it. That’s why we think civilization is the end result of solving a whole string of problems sitting on the back of prior problems. We think man discovered fire as the solution to the problem of being cold. On one level of perception, that’s true. But on another level, discovering fire had everything to do with imagining fire. Dreaming fire.”

Movies began as nonlinear excursions on the screen. Many of the early movies were very much like dreams, or like interruptions in the smooth flow of time. Movies were an escape hatch from linear organization. In that sense, they were a reflection of a different kind of consciousness.

When we talk about ruling elites, we’re really talking about men who are obsessed with organizing things. We think they want to organize society down to the last detail because that makes it possible for them to control us, but that’s only part of the story. These men are frightened of dreams and dreaming. They are frightened by their own deeper minds. They can’t face that. That’s why they have to organize everything they touch.

Over the years, I’ve had many questions from readers that boil down to one question: “If I were using my imagination to the fullest, what would I see that I don’t see now?”

That’s a very interesting question, because it puts the cart a few thousand miles ahead of the horse. I don’t know what you would see, because it’s your imagination. Not mine. That’s the whole point.

I’m not trying to organize anyone’s reality. I have no interest in that.

But I do know that if you were using the power of your imagination, your whole approach to consensus reality would change. That much I do know.

Consider two types of people. The first type firmly believes that all progress and all good things come from strengthening the consensus among larger and larger numbers of humans.

The second type believes this leads, inevitably, to a form of slavery. Even if the consensus started out with mass devotion to a high ideal, somewhere along the line the ideal would sink below the waves and something unpalatable would emerge in its place. Why? Because tighter and tighter consensus about reality, no matter what that reality is, always brings about a shrinking of individual power.

Consensus, beyond a point of common sense, is grossly inhibiting, is in fact self-induced mind control.

Imagination, which moves away from consensus, is an active force. It is woven with creating. You imagine and create. You aren’t passive. You’re the furthest thing from passive.

Mass education is, for the most part, an effort to convince students that they should use their imaginations to create greater consensus. If schooling doesn’t accomplish that job fully, then certainly on-the-job training finishes it.

The idea of “finding answers” that apply to everyone is a very limited operation from the start. Of course we share certain similarities, but the differences, in the long run, are far more important.

This idea is unsettling to most people. They don’t understand it and they don’t want to understand it. At best, they pay lip service to it.

Society is organized around the concept of organization. That’s what society is doing.

The liberated individual doesn’t live that way.

[For those people who find these ideas interesting, important, attractive, I would suggest ordering and working with the following, in this sequence: THE MATRIX REVEALED; THE SECRET BEHIND SECRET SOCIETIES; MIND CONTROL, MIND FREEDOM; THE TRANSFORMATIONS; THE MYSTERY AND MAGIC OF DIALOGUE. They are available at my site store at www.nomorefakenews.com]

The so-called “eternal questions” humanity has been grappling with since the dawn of time are offshoots of questions about imagination and magic. However, when the questions drop below the threshold of imagination, when the questions are asking for mechanical answers, then imagination is automatically excluded. This, obviously, becomes unworkable. Imagination is not mechanical; it isn’t a system.

It is free.

So we have here a wider meaning of freedom. A meaning that goes beyond systems.

Again, people want to know, “What would I see and know, if I could get beyond systems?” The whole point is, there is no pat answer to that question. Imagination, though, is the way to find out what the individual would see and find.

Imagination is the place in consciousness where we put those things, ideas, events that we consider impossible or incomprehensible. But when we live through and by imagination, the whole ball of consensus reality begins to come apart. Then we experience deeper energies and deeper power.

Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

EXPOSING THE MATRIX

May31

WAKE UP OR SLEEP ON…

EXPOSING THE MATRIX

by Jon Rappoport

May 31, 2012

I fully realize I’m not writing in a way that pigeonholes me in some easy category. This has been the way since the beginning of this site. And there is a reason why. I was a painter for many years before I began working as a reporter. From painting, I saw that magic was real and it was powerful. I experienced it. I also saw that there was an operation underway to bury the individual—and worse, to eradicate the memory of the idea of the individual.

Real magic is the territory of the individual, not the group.

Individual power is the target of the globalists.

So I work both sides of the street, so to speak. I don’t exclude subjects simply because it puts some puzzlement in the minds of my readers. I want to shake things up. I want individuals to take full advantage of the fact that there is much, much more to life than is usually advertised. That’s why I put together THE MATRIX REVEALED. I thought it was time to lay it all out on the table.

Real magic isn’t something that takes place in dark rooms with symbols and rituals and costumes and robot followers. It isn’t a code word for Satanic. It has nothing to do with all that garbage. Real magic has everything to do with the innate ability of the individual. It has to do with breaking through the illusion that the space-time continuum rules and limits our lives. This isn’t a voyage everybody wants to embark on. But it’s a journey some people have been waiting their whole lives to take, because they realize there is something phony inherent in the reality we accept as final.

Reality isn’t only what elites are doing to the global population. It’s also about what we do to restrict our own individual power, and I’d be a liar if I didn’t point that out.

1) Introduction

You can pose a problem to a person that pits one of his emotions against another. It’s a clever strategy. In fact, it’s more than clever. It’s ingenious. For example, you hogtie him by balancing his desire for freedom against his desire to serve, to be liked.

This is no small thing. The person can’t wrap his mind around such a paradox. He feels like a steel ball in a pinball machine. He wants to be free and independent and strong, but at the same time, he wants praise and he wants to be known as “good.”

This problem, over time, if not resolved, acts like a drug on consciousness. It produces a state of narcosis. Which is another way of saying: surrender.

Surrender is a close cousin to sacrifice. Here is a quote from the Edward Bernays of fiction, the fat little manipulator, Ellsworth Toohey, a pivotal character in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead:

“Every system of ethics that preached sacrifice grew into a world power and ruled millions of men.”

These days, millions of young students all over the world are being conditioned to support a new world in which the sacrifice and lessening of the individual are sacred virtues.

The students approve and join ranks, because they have nothing else to live for. They can’t think for themselves, they can’t imagine the other option, which is individualism. For them, individualism is degraded and stands for nothing more than unattractive unbridled greed and petty materialism. So they’re trapped.

The truth is they shouldn’t be in college at all. They should be living in the world and discovering for themselves the meaning of their lives. They should be free to make mistakes, to fail, to start over, to test themselves against group consciousness and rise above it or submit to it and experience fascism first-hand.

The famous mind-control doctor, Jose Delgado, who worked out of Yale, once wrote, “Man does not have the right to develop his own mind…” That’s precisely the position of the guardians of the Matrix.

They seek the Landru, which was the name given to a computer-simulated dictator that ruled a planet in a Star Trek episode. The population is kept subservient by this machine—all for the sake of peace and the end of violent conflict.

Well, everyone wants peace. So on one level, this radical Landru solution seems reasonable. But the price to be paid is the liberty of every person.

The aim of mind control is the use of universal ideals as the lever to push populations into a diminished state of power. “You want X, don’t you? Of course you do. You can have it, if you’re willing to make a sacrifice.”

And what is that sacrifice?

Self.

So you get this paradox, for example. “All selves want peace. Here is peace. Just give up self.”

A careful reading of the Bhagavad Gita, the famous battlefield conversation between Krishna and Prince Arjuna, reveals that Self is presented as a shifting ground of meaning. One the one hand, Self is distinct and individually immortal. On the other hand, Self is a piece of a larger Being, a piece of cheese in the Big Cosmic Cheese.

This latter version is important as one instance among thousands, historically, in which we’re told that Self should be splendidly sacrificed—after all, it is an illusion that walls us off from “greater enlightened consciousness.” But the illusion is not self; it is actually the fabrication of the Big Cheese. That is the principle that enabled the ancient caste system—and it is being repeated today, as individuals are enlisted in the Larger Cause of “humanity.”

Here is the problem. If distinct and individual self is defined as petty and grasping and shallow and arrogant and even “mentally disordered,” then when a person considers the possibility of rejecting the Big Cheese of “higher collective consciousness,” the alternative (individuality) seems unpleasant, to say the least.

And that is why I have been writing on these pages for the past ten years.

Because there is a way to see the individual as great and free and powerful and creative, possessed of an infinite quality called imagination. And when that view comes to the foreground, the world (and the Matrix) are turned upside down. Forever.

All spiritual systems are false. They either teach individual absorption into some greater whole, or they teach freedom while organizing that freedom under the banner of authority, which is no freedom at all.

2) Notes on the Foundation of Magic

Magic rests on the ability to set aside the personal conviction that physical reality flows always and only as we experience it every day.

There are an infinite number of possible magics, which is to say, one can come at magic from an infinite number of paths. They are not rote copies of someone else’s system. And by system, I mean something divorced from self, divorced from one’s own desires.

As an analogy, consider the following: you read a book containing a hundred short stories. In each of these stories, there is a person who does magic. Each person does magic in a different way. You discover that, in one of the stories, the way a person is doing magic has a particular resonance, a particular closeness for you. Would you try to do magic by using the other 99 approaches, or would you go to the one that has strong appeal first?

Magic works changes in the space-time continuum. Magic overrides or replaces or supersedes the normal actions of the continuum.

Trying to explain how magic works by citing principles, methods, laws, and systems of the continuum is not informative.

The continuum can be likened to a machine that makes drip-coffee, one drip at a time. Serial time and serial chains of cause and effect are the patterns. Magic does not operate in that fashion.

The stories and sustaining myths we tell ourselves over and over, the stories to which we return, again and again, are capsules in which we float; and we sense that, if we can extend those tales, take them further than we have ever taken them before, we might emerge into the realm where we can do magic. This is called escape from the labyrinth.

Certainly, our state of mind, when we try to do magic, is important. If we are carrying too much baggage, if we feel burdened by our situation in life, we reduce our chance of success.

Magic has been called manifestation, and it is that. But the idea that one can start from zero and achieve manifestation in five minutes is a product of our warped desire to have everything we want all at once. It is a first cousin to entitlement.

The road to magic begins with imagination, which is the capacity to create realities that do not exist in the continuum.

The Matrix is the sum of things that keep us from doing magic. One of those things is continuing to perceive reality as we always have. Imagination is more powerful than perception.

Emotional magic begins with imagining what you desire. It is the first step. Living with and around and inside the imagining is the next step.

Trying to do magic out of an abject sense of desperation is asking for disappointment. Magic isn’t about failing to live in this world. It isn’t about mere escape. It isn’t about the overwhelming nostalgia that accompanies trying to regain something from the past that was lost. It isn’t about excusing a lack of success.

Achieving what is called the paranormal isn’t about trying to cut one’s self off from the world.

Doing magic isn’t merely substituting manifestation for hard work. A person who shrinks away from hard work shouldn’t go anywhere near magic.

A person who conceives of his own desires in some superficial flattened form needs to revolutionize and deepen his outlook. Is the absolute upper limit of what he desires a Rolex?

Wanting to help others isn’t a sign of weakness. But buying into a system that preaches and teaches helping others, while actually using that impulse to control massive populations is illusory and anti-magic.

A person who has gone beyond basing his ideas on mere feedback signals from the world and his own body, who has gone beyond seeing everything under the sun as a problem that needs to be solved, who has glimpsed the wider meaning of living a truly creative life has taken his first steps on the road to magic.

Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

BREAKING….FDA AWARE OF ITS CRIMES!

May16

ANIMATION/FINANCIAL MELTDOWN/SHRINK FRAUD

by Jon Rappoport

May 15, 2012

Breaking News: Click here to access all the articles on this FDA Genocide Murder news story.

19 May 2012 Update:

* To listen to my discussion of this breaking news with Robert Scott Bell, click here to access the podcast — and, see also this article.

* To hear my discussion of this breaking news with Alex Jones, click here to access the video — and, see also this article.

I have to insert this breaking story first….it’s a page on the FDA official website that describes that the FDA DOES, in fact, know about the horrific effects of the drugs they’ve been certifying as safe and effective!! Click here to see the FDA’s page.

The page is titled: WHY LEARN ABOUT ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS?

It’s a header for a seminar of some kind, a module that is now a dead link.

And here is what the FDA confesses to on this page at their own site!!

* Over 2 million serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) a year in the US.

* 100,000 deaths yearly from medical drugs.

* ADRs are the fourth leading cause of death in the US, ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile deaths.

(Note: At the bottom of this FDA page, it says “Page Last Updated: 02/03/2010”)

For years, I’ve been presenting these figures, and I’ve said the FDA has to know about them. But here is the smoking gun!!

THEY KNOW. Yet, the FDA takes no responsibility for certifying and okaying the drugs that are killing and maiming people!!

This is astounding. This is mind-boggling.

Copy this link and save the page. It may disappear without warning from the FDA site.

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/DrugInteractionsLabeling/ucm114848.htm

Okay.

Today, I have several topics.

First: ANIMATION.

I’m now, together with my colleague, Theo, creating cartoons. It’s quite an interesting medium. We’ve released two:

Nancy Pelosi Exposes Obamacare

Obama Speaks About Race and Color

Or you can just Google “Jon Rappoport YouTube” and you’ll see them.

There are more in the works.

Since, in certain key respects, we’re all living in a cartoon, the animation medium delivers some rather powerful resonances and reminders.

Topic two, HOW AMERICA CAN COPY GREECE’S MELTDOWN.

The blueprint is easy. Even the man on the street can understand it.

The government overspends. Then it overspends a lot more, and a lot more. Then it invests in worthless junk, which blows up in its face.

That’s the sketch, and Greece has performed admirably.

America is on the road. It just needs to keep going.

Senator Jeff Sessions recently ordered a report on the federal government’s unfunded liability stemming from Obamacare. “Unfunded liability,” translated, means:

“We will have to pay for it but we have no idea where we’re going to get the money, and even printing it out of thin air has to stop somewhere…”

Here is the cost for Obamacare, over the next 75 years. Remember, this is not the total plan, it’s just the unfunded-liability piece. Ready?

Seventeen trillion dollars.

Mainly, that 17 trillion will represent the feds subsidizing (paying for) health insurance premiums and (the feds paying for) increased numbers of people on Medicaid.

But wait, there’s more. During the next 75 years, the federal government will also incur a few more expenses that are dangling out there in the wind. Unavoidable expenses:

Social Security: $7 trillion.

Medicare: $38 trillion.

Medicaid: $20 trillion (in addition to the trillions of $$ it’ll take to deal with all the new people on the Medicaid program mentioned above).

Current federal debt: $17 trillion.

You add it all up and you get $97 trillion.

This isn’t the total of the federal budget. Not by a long shot.

But WE HAVE TO SPEND ALL THIS MONEY.

WE REALLY HAVE TO.

Why?

BECAUSE WE HAVE TO.

This is what collectivism gives you. This is what it costs. This is what it takes to make it work. This is Utopia, remember? This is the longed-for end product of courting votes—excuse me, I meant creating paradise.

What’s the obvious conclusion, aside from just melting down? We have to change the money system, right? Since the system we have can’t sustain such gargantuan outlays, we need to go on a different course.

Perhaps, we could have units called ALTRUSIM MONEY. These would be handsome certificates, suitable for framing, that would be given out as paychecks to those people who are designated as CARE GIVERS. You know, COLLECTIVIST contributors to the GENERAL WELFARE OF THE NATION.

And these caregivers, who by the way would number in the MILLIONS, would live in huge apartment complexes in cities, in tiny one-room apartments. Doctors, nurses, bus drivers, government bureaucrats. Firemen, cops, FBI, paramedics, military and ex-military. Street sweepers, teachers, hospital employees, community organizers. You get the idea.

With ALTRUISM MONEY, they would be permitted to obtain the essentials of survival from a government depot. And that would be their lives, the sum total of their assets. Period.

All for the common good, of course.

And the doctor who is performing emergency surgery on your brain after a car accident, who is wearing the same smock day after day, who earns the equivalent of a thousand dollars a month, will certainly do his very best to re-wire your synapses in this, his sixth operation of the day…

You bet.

And finally, the third topic of the day: SHRINK FRAUD.

The New York Times is running an an article about the soon-to-be-released fifth edition of the bible of the psychiatric profession, the DSM.

The DSM lists all the official mental disorders (over 300) which shrinks can bill insurance companies for, when they treat patients. It’s also “the best thinking” of the shrink world. It’s a dud and a hoax, of course, as I’ve been documenting rather relentlessly. There is no blood or urine test or any other kind of physical test that confirms a diagnosis of ANY of these mental disorders.

This fifth edition of the DSM will greatly expand the “mental disorder” called “addiction.” All sorts of new addictions will be officially labeled disorders, and therefore the pharmaceutical industry can develop and sell more and more (toxic) drugs to treat patients.

At this pace, most human behavior will end up in the DSM as disorders. Which is the whole point.

The public will buy into these diagnoses.

Somewhere, somehow, I believe Hillary Clinton sees herself as the Queen overseeing a planet where all 10 billion people are diagnosed as mentally disordered and receiving treatment. Just a thought.

Or a new cartoon.

Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

WORSHIP OF THE ELITE HAS MANY FACES

May15

PETER KEATING AND THE FALSE GODS

by Jon Rappoport

May 15, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

“Once you realize the free individual can create with power, you’re immediately confronted with the question of how far that power can go. You’re dealing with assumptions of limit that have been plaguing the human race since the beginning. Remember, there is a vested interest behind every theory about restraining power.”

Jon Rappoport, The Magician Awakes (unpublished)

They come from every corner and stratum of life. Some use religion, some use economics, some use their own artificial sense of deprivation, some even use science. But they all want the same thing:

exoneration of lives lived in a sea of lies.

Most of all, they don’t want anyone to stand out from the group, the mass, the swamp, the collective. Because that presence of someone who is so separate from them could trigger alarm bells and confirm their deepest fear:

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

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

Or, to put it another way, you’ll have a grand case of amnesia, narcosis.

So go ahead, join the club, join the Matrix. Membership is free. At first. Then you have to surrender up everything you have, everything you are, everything you could be.

In their ritual of joining, people present a sword on which is inscribed: I’M NOT VERY MUCH.

Just that little phrase can open the door into the Collective, can give you entrance into the Matrix of the common consensus.

In The Fountainhead (1943), architect Peter Keating swung that sword. And on the other side of it, there was a second matching inscription:

I AM GREAT BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE THINK SO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The very people who launched attack after attack at Rand, for pawning off such preposterous characters as real, were boiling inside, as they viewed themselves on the screen of her imagination and in the pages of her novel.

How dare she claim that ideals exist beyond the automatic reach of the wealthy!

Money is proof of value, whether it is inherited, stolen, or coerced!

The avid socialist who owns six houses and a fleet of servants must have special knowledge of what the world needs, because he is rich!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now, a sharp turn in the road…

WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF INDIVIDUAL POWER?

The Matrix is every form and fashion and venue of mass consensus, extending from social relationships to the very primacy of the so-called laws of the space-time continuum. It is all hypnotic. It is all fiercely defended.

At the same time Rand was writing Atlas Shrugged, the New York painters known as Abstract Expressionists were watching their public fame diminish. These artists (whom Rand would have hated had she paid them any attention) were riverboat gamblers out on the edge, who declared in their own way that space was a malleable invention. They weren’t challenging physicists to a duel, but they were asserting a freedom that was unnerving to the rulers of the art world.

The amusing and absurd thing was, for centuries painters had known about space. They had experienced the effects of manufacturing it on the canvas. They understood a psychology of creation that was too extreme and heretical to voice. Sumerian artists and Egyptian artists and Greek artists and African artists and Persian artists understood it.

And if painters had experienced their own invention of space, what about architects, sculptors, choreographers, stage directors, conductors?

For a very long time, percolating under the surface of art, there has been a growing consciousness that The One Space and The One Time are fictions. We can detail The One and study it and generate workable equations and formulas about it, but that doesn’t make it supreme.

“Many worlds, not one.”

Who really wants to enter this discussion, though?

Well, I’ve been carrying on my side of it for some years now, and I claim that, for a fuller understanding of The Matrix, you need to engage this subject and pursue it wherever it leads.

The very same dedication to, and acceptance of, the elite that Peter Keating lived for is applicable to the elite One Space and One Time formulation of this universe. The mindless cocktail parties at which Keating worked the room and made new friends is, to a startling degree, the chatter and movement of chunks of matter in outer space, in whose presence we seek some strange sort of redemption.

“We worship The One Space and The One Time of the Universe. All hail!”

Whereas the free individual with power can and does exceed those space-time walls.

The free individual with power who creates is working with forces that go beyond the Continuum. His own forces.

The hypnotic apparatus that weaves itself into the Matrix is there to convince us that all human creation takes places inside this Continuum.

We have been led to believe that, if individuals can create spaces and times and energies that are beyond this Continuum, we will be forced to accept some hazy mystical explanation for it. We’ll be back in times of gross superstition.

That belief is incorrect. It stems from fundamental misconceptions about what the individual is, as distinct from the group, and how distinct from the group the individual can actually become.

Not as a cold lifeless being, but as a dynamic powerhouse pursuing his creative goals.

The truth, if we could see it that way, is that such individuals gain a new relationship to the world. They bring energy to it, they bring innovative ideas and inventions and new startling kinds of beauty. Not because they are in thrall to humanity, not because they feel compelled to serve, not because they need to satisfy others, but because in the natural course of things, what they invent spills over its borders and ignites the imaginations of those ready and able to respond.

The myth of Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods, was mollified to make it acceptable to the citizenry. In fact, he committed this act because it fulfilled him, and incidentally the energy/fire he brought back to Earth benefited others. Much later, that myth was further distorted to turn Prometheus into Lucifer, the light-bearer, who broke the pact with God and thus became Devil, the personification of evil. The Lucifer story was told and promoted to build a false puerile ceiling on individual power.

There is no ceiling.

Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Ellis Medavoy on NATO Summit Psyop

May10

by Jon Rappoport

May 10, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

It’s rare, these days, for me to get messages from retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy. He’s always been a difficult man. Now, he’s even tougher to coax out of his cave.

Nevertheless, because I’m persistent, I interview Ellis 28 times (290 pages) in my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED. The quality of his information on the nuts and bolts of The Matrix is priceless.

Today, I’m presenting a one-way conversation, in which Ellis begins by discussing the upcoming May 20-21 NATO Summit in Chicago. It’s the jumping-off point for one of his fantastic voyages. Then he and I go into Q&A format. Eventually, the conversation gets a bit contentious. I’m used to that with Ellis. He isn’t a drink that goes down easy, like chocolate milk. He’s like a few shots of gin.

ELLIS 1: Chicago. No-fly zone. Shoot down planes. Shut businesses. Station troops. Lock down apartment buildings. Tell business employees to dress like protestors to avoid assaults. Project evacuations.

Most observers looking at the Summit are missing the boat. There is NO consensus for a gigantic protest filled with violence in Chicago.

In the US, people have no particular opinion about NATO. It’s not G-8 or WTO. What NATO has actually been doing, covertly, for decades, in war zones, has occurred under the radar.

Reports out of Chicago are claiming the crowds of protestors are going to be much smaller than predicted.

Organizers are straining to get their people to march in the streets.

The G-8 conference was supposed to take place at the same time as the NATO Summit, which would have attracted big numbers of protestors to Chicago, but then Obama moved the G-8 to Camp David.

Michelle Obama will be hosting a few events for NATO spouses, and the president will show up in town. So what?

So that leaves three possibilities, all of which are psy-ops.

One, the crowds will be small, but the military/police/DHS and various other agencies will have a chance to do a live drill and see how their systems work and mesh…while scaring the citizenry of the city.

Two, related to One, this kind of gigantic military and law-enforcement presence (with accompanying media coverage) further conditions the population of America to martial-law conditions.

Or Three, behind the scenes, a violent op is being mounted by the very people who are pushing martial law. This incident will spark sufficient chaos to maintain the idea of “imminent and continuing threat to the Homeland” and justify crushing action by troops and cops. For example, these lunatic martial-law pushers might be putting together a threat against the president or the first lady. If so, and assuming the threat is contained, this will be a ploy to gain support for Obama’s re-election campaign. “Embattled heroic president vows to never surrender to terrorism…”

Unless protest organizers can manage to invent a march out of nothing, involving large numbers of people, most of whom will have virtually no idea what they’re doing in Chicago, you’re looking at the three scenarios above.

The NATO Summit jitters are a synthetic creation. As far as genuine public awareness of NATO is concerned, it provokes no images stronger than a march against Velveeta.

So this is all psy-op. It STARTED with announcements in the press about security measures that would be taken in the city. Get it? That’s where it STARTED. Those stories were planted. All of a sudden, before anyone cared about the Summit, we were told that security would be overwhelming. The security is really the only story.

They didn’t even fake a possible threat. They just said, “We’re going to blanket the city with security.”

This is also a covert announcement to potential protestors. The message is:

GET ORGANIZED. MARCH IN THE STREETS. DO SOMETHING BIG. WE WANT YOU TO DO SOMETHING BIG. GET YOUR BUTTS IN GEAR. WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? YOU’RE LAGGING BEHIND. IF WE’RE GOING TO LOCK DOWN CHICAGO, YOU HAVE TO PLAY YOUR ROLE. YOU CAN’T JUST BRING OUT THREE HUNDRED PEOPLE. THAT WOULD BE AN EMBARRASSMENT. IF WE’RE SHUTTING DOWN CHICAGO, THERE MUST BE A GOOD REASON FOR IT. YOU’RE THE REASON, IF YOU SHOW UP IN HUGE NUMBERS. SO BE THAT REASON. THIS IS A GOLD-PLATED INVITATION TO YOU FROM US. MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN. DON’T LET US DOWN.

It’s backwards, sure. Many ops are backwards.

The press will never cover a psy-op because the press are part of that psy-op. The tool in the master’s hand doesn’t turn around and bite the master. THE PRESS EXISTS MAINLY TO PROMOTE PSY-OPS.

ELLIS 2: “Defense of the nation” is a much larger psy-op designed to convince the masses that there IS a nation, when in fact it has been stolen out from under them, and all that is left of any significant size is the partnership between huge corporations, banks, and government. Government is rapidly being assimilated into a globalist scheme and pattern of management. These are cartels.

You have to understand the mental and emotional quality of people who are hired to deliver the news. They’re basically dolts. But they’re a particular kind of dolt. They’re bright in certain ways. They’re quick on their feet. BUT they can’t grasp the possibility that the information being presented to them, the information they pass on to the public, is twisted at the source. They just can’t imagine that. They know about lies, sure. But the real nature and scope of a psy-op evades them. They are information hounds, you might say, and they NEED a reputable source for that information. They’re addicted to information and for them there has to be a constant stream of it, or they would go crazy. They have to fill their minds with news and pass on that news. That’s their itch and they have scratch it. So they need a place to go to get the information and they have to trust it. They need a place where the news pours out to them all the time. They have to have that. Their primary source is government. They rely on it. They accept it. If not, they would be at a loss, psychologically. They would have to start vetting every piece of news and that would take too much time. There wouldn’t be enough news. It’s exactly the situation a drug addict finds himself in. He has to have a dealer he trusts to be there, to have a supply of the drug.

The quality of the information or news or drugs is of secondary importance to the addict. I’ve known many newsmen and women in my time, and they mostly start out with their addiction when they are young. They’re fixated on the flow. They’re tied with a chain and anchor to the flow of news. They eat it up. They remember it. They are married to it.

Therefore, the very idea that most of the news they’re reporting has an agenda is anathema to them. They reject that proposition violently. Put a newsman on a desert island and he would go crazy. He’d start broadcasting to the bushes or the sand.

So if a particular stream of news comes into him about heavy, heavy security in Chicago for the NATO Summit, that’s a very good thing in itself. That’s information. He never questions WHY this news has no foundation. He never asks why Chicago is being targeted. That would be like a drug addict asking why the flow of heroin is suddenly picking up on the street. Would never happen.

Just as the audience for news has to be able to replace one story with the next, the newsman has to be able to do the same thing. When you stop to consider this ability, it’s again like the drug addict. It isn’t yesterday’s fix that’s important, it’s what’s going to happen right now.

All newspeople are dedicated to The Story, but they have to believe the stories are factual. If they started to realize they’re reporting fiction, they’d come apart at the seams. Their lives and their minds are founded on the idea of facts. It doesn’t really matter that the facts are fictions—the newspeople believe they’re facts. This is a very strong belief. It’s religious.

When you step back and think about this, it’s strange. Reporters want to have a death-grip on facts. Information is their addiction; pretended facts are their religion. Where do these people come from? What breeds them to be the way they are? They’re dysfunctional in a deep sense. From an early age, they’re mesmerized by “knowing what’s going on.” They’re the “know-what’s-going-on” people. It’s absolutely vital to them.

They’re perfect, perfect dupes.

Q & A with Ellis Medavoy:

Q (Jon): So the job of the propagandist is to make fiction look and feel like fact.

A (Ellis): Propagandists know who they’re feeding, and they know what morsel will be snapped up by these newspeople. They know how to shape the morsel and color it and flavor it so that it becomes a drug.

Q: The memories of these newspeople…

A: Are data banks. Their memories are all data all the time. The memories form their reality. INTERRUPTION of reality is the primary sin. It can’t be tolerated.

Q: What do you mean by interruption?

A: A place in the mind where a corrosive question or doubt is inserted about the nature or character of a fact. For the regular human, this can be dealt with, at least to some degree. For the newsman, this is like a hammer blowing time to pieces. The flow is interrupted. It would be like one of those old stock brokers, when he followed the second-to-second transmission of stock prices by looking at a narrow piece of paper tape. He’d hold the tape in his hands and read it as it came through, yards and yards of it. But suppose the tape came out of the machine blank for a few minutes. This is why some people can’t meditate. They’re instinctively afraid they might come upon a silent moment where thought stops.

Q: So to ask your own question back to you, where DO these newspeople come from?

A: They, at an early age, see power as the capacity to know “what’s going on.” They plug into that kind of power.

Q: It’s strange.

A: It’s superficial. It’s all about surface flow of information. They stick to the surface. What they’re looking at, what they’re fascinated by is a kind of theater. They’re looking at theater. I’ve known that for a long time. It was part of my job to know it, because then I could present stories that would get through to reporters in a form that would have that theatrical feel.

Q: The players know their roles.

A: The reporters know, their editors know, their reliable sources know, and people like me, who feed those reliable sources, are like directors. It’s hard to describe this, but there is a certain pulse and pace and feel to the way you should supply stories to sources or reporters or editors. You know when to go fast and when to go slow. You know how to plug into their sense of theater. Their need for theater.

Q: So the addiction of these newspeople has a theatrical dimension to it.

A: Have you ever seen a junkie operate? A great deal of his action and talk is theater. He presents theater and he wants theater back. The newsman confuses theater with facts. It’s all rolled up into a big space. I’ve sold stories to reporters based purely on the theatricality of my presentation. See, let me tell you something. When I talk to a reporter, I know I’m walking into a theater where the play is ALREADY underway. It never stops for a reporter. So I hit the ground running. I enter the scene mid-stream. I don’t think, “Now, I’m starting to pitch my lines, now the scene is beginning.” No. I’m intuiting and seeing where he [the reporter] is right now, in the middle of one of his scenes, so to speak, and I plug directly into that place, that moment. Do you understand? This is the subtlety of the art.

Q: You understand his psychology.

A: Yes, and I understand his flow. I read the signals. Oh, this is Death of a Salesman or Streetcar Named Desire, or Hamlet, and they just shoved me out on the stage, and I have to know how to match the emotions of the moment, where the scene has already been going on for five minutes. It sounds a little odd, but that’s how you play the game if you want to win. It could be a very quiet moment in the scene, and then I need to talk in a whisper. It could be the peak of the scene, where the emotions are running high, and I have to drive right in and be there for it, with my feelings turned on high, too.

Q: But behind that, you were doing something quite different.

A: Of course. I had my marching orders and my agenda.

Q: You know, it’s almost like you’re talking about frequencies.

A: I am. Propaganda runs on carrier waves. What are you using to transmit messages? What wave? I knew my targets: reporters and editors and their reliable sources. So I had to understand and tune into the frequencies they would accept. If you watch the best television news anchors, you see they’re adopting several tight emotional frequencies, and they use them to transmit, with their voices and demeanor, the news to the public. They use a nearly perfect imitation of several things: concern, objectivity, dignity, intelligence, with a bit of a rosy glow of sincerity and humanity. That’s the recipe.

Q: Imitation, you say.

A: Yes. They’re a cartoon. They create a cartoon persona. A very well crafted one. And the audience is a cartoon, too.

Q: Why is the audience a cartoon?

A: Because, underneath it all, they know they’re being conned. At some level, they realize it’s a show. So they pretend, and they do it well. They pretend they’re very involved.

Q: You can see that?

A: See it? I lived by it for many years. I staked my reputation on all of this, on everything I’m talking about here. It wasn’t just theory. I went into the trenches with my understanding, and I made it succeed.

Q: You’re talking about using your skills on people who report the news, who tell the public what’s going on.

A: As I just said, it’s all a cartoon. On both sides. Broadcasters and audience. You may not like it that I take a hard line on the audience, but too bad. The audience is faking it just as much as the newscasters. You have to admit there are levels to the mind.

Q: Meaning?

A: On one level, the audience appears to accept what the mainstream news is telling them. But on another level, as I’m saying for the third time, the audience knows it’s a fake. And why don’t they admit it? Why don’t they say, ‘I’m sitting here at night buying what I know is fake. I’m watching the screen and the anchor is giving me the news and I know it’s cooked.’ Why don’t people do that? Because they refuse to look at their own little drama of stimulation, in which they are titillated by what the newspeople are giving them. They don’t want that professionally produced titillation to go away.

Q: You may have heard of something called the Internet. It’s changing things.

A: Sounds vaguely familiar. Yes. The ground is splitting beneath the audience’s feet. I’m not a praying man, but I do something close to that every day, as regards The New York Times and NBC. I ask for them to go bankrupt. The Times is on the road to perdition and insolvency. If they go, it will make an interesting sound.

Q: Is your blood pressure okay? You’re a retired senior citizen.

A: I think I can hold my own.

Q: If you need to take a break, we can do that.

A: (laughs) Everybody needs to take his medicine.

Q: I can think of two or three meanings for that sentence.

A: See, I’m a little sick of people saying that the great unwashed masses of very fine people are being fooled and duped by the big bad controllers. It’s a mutual dance. I knew that thirty years ago. Everybody has to own up to his part in the cartoon, in the theatrical presentation. I know the difference between real victims and fake victims.

Q: What is that difference?

A: The real victims, in certain countries, are being taken out by massive corporations with their assisting government troops and all sorts of other support. The fake victims are sitting in front of television sets eating sugar and tuning right into the frequencies of the presentation of the news. They’re frequency addicts, and I’m very serious about that. This is exactly what they’re hooked on. Why do you think all this research on the brain is being done? To home in on the best frequencies for the insertion of information. That’s what we’re discussing here. But good newspeople already understand the frequency game. Intuitively. They understand it better than the brain researchers. And the audience needs that human face and voice to transmit the addicting frequencies to them. It isn’t just the old flicker rate of the TV or the frames per second or the illuminated screen. It’s the person delivering the news. He’s the prime force. He’s addicted to the frequencies he’s using! He’s addicted, too, and he’s transmitting and sharing his addiction with the audience.

Q: And what’s the cure for this addiction?

A: The world is resonating every day with what humans want. Here is what they want: they want to ingratiate themselves with each other. Ingratiation. Acceptance. Those are the frequencies. That’s the theme of the play. Those are the resonating frequencies. That’s how information is built and fabricated to invoke belief and faith. That’s the carrier wave, the resonance.

Q: When did you realize this?

A: When I was nine. But that’s a whole other story. Realizing it pushed me into the work I did. It also rescued me from continuing to do that work. I got out. You know what getting out means? It means I don’t any longer accept what I was doing, AND I refuse to accept the conditions that made it possible to do that work. I didn’t just get out part way. I got out all the way. I don’t buy the basic theme of the play or the ingratiating resonance anymore. I offloaded the whole thing. You know what? Tomorrow, if I wanted to, I could start a new religion. And it wouldn’t really involve any of the factual deceptions I used to use in my work. I could start a non-denominational religion based, say, entirely on charity. That’s all. And it would look like a very good thing. But I WOULD be using my ability to put out my messages on frequencies and resonances that would attract people. See? That’s how I’d build my audience. And I won’t do that. I know how to do it very, very well, but I won’t do that. That’s what getting out all the way means.

Q: You know—

A: I know a few solid truths. You can get people to sleepwalk from “bad things” to “good things” and they’re still sleepwalking. And that’s the real problem. That’s one element of The Matrix.

Q: Scientists tend to believe in operant conditioning. They believe people think and act according to one type of operant conditioning or another, and there are no other choices.

A: That’s right. That’s the problem. Waking up from the frequency game altogether is the real goal.

Jon Rappoport

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

PARANORMAL POWER, AN INTERVIEW

May9

PARANORMAL POWER: INTERVIEW WITH A VOLUNTEER IN A LABORATORY STUDY

by Jon Rappoport

May 8, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derived from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness.” — Max Planck, Nobel Laureate, Physics, 1918.

A great chasm is being bridged. Hard-line scientists are admitting that matter and conventional energy are far from the whole story of the universe.

Indeed, as you can see from the Max Planck quote above, this counter-movement began a long time ago. It found its inspiration in the fact that, as the mysteries of the atom and the cosmos were coming under more intense scrutiny, as breakthroughs were being made, the expectations of scientists, vis-a-vis Life, were disappointed.

Here’s a statement attributed to another Nobel Laureate, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (1937): “In my search for the secret of life, I have ended up with atoms and electrons which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am retracing my steps…”

Into the vacuum of disappointment came spokespeople offering myriad solutions, answers, and possible futures. As usual, the capability and power of the individual were not high on the list of clues to Life Itself.

For a long while, I’ve been looking at The Matrix as a kind of sea from which, from time to time, individuals emerge, from which many more individuals could emerge.

Fifteen years ago, I delved into laboratory paranormal experiments. I ended up interviewing a few people who had done very well, beyond expectations, in these controlled tests. Here is a 2002 interview with one such volunteer.

He participated in a “psychokinesis ball-drop” study, in which balls are dropped down from a funnel into a case with holes and pegs in it. Probability dictates that about half the balls will fall into holes to the right of vertical center, and half will fall into holes to the left of center.

Volunteers are tasked with trying to mentally influence the distribution of the balls, so that more of them settle into holes to the right or left of center.

This volunteer significantly exceeded statistical expectations. As you’ll see, the conversation moved into some very interesting areas. My comments come at the end of the interview.

Q: So did you have a method? Or is this “natural” for you?

A: I’ve experimented.

Q: For example?

A: I tried visualizing the end result I wanted. That didn’t work. I tried putting energy into the balls. That worked a little better. Then I found I could create a field around the balls. The field was very energetic.

Q: What do you mean by “energetic?”

A: The field has many, many particles in it. The particles are invested with consciousness.

Q: Are you saying you created consciousness?

A: As far as I’m concerned, we create new consciousness all the time. We may not be aware we’re doing it, but we are.

Q: And this field somehow moved the balls to the left side of the board?

A: That was the “motive” in the field. It was a dynamic motive.

Q: And it worked.

A: I’ve had it work a number of times.

Q: What conclusions do you draw from this experience?

A: Quite a few, actually. Chance, or probability, is a human consensus. It’s not, strictly speaking, built into the universe. It’s not a physical fact. The universe favors 50-50 distribution of matter and energy? That never made sense to me.

Q: So from your perspective, what exactly did you accomplish [in the study]?

A: I “broke the rule” of common consensus, the rule that would have landed half the balls to the right and half to the left.

Q: Explain this “common consensus.”

A: I don’t see the universe as a remote thing. I think we influence it all the time. We have certain convictions that we all share and we “program” the universe with them.

Q: So for example, we program the universe with the idea that statistical probability—the 50-50 split—is the way things are?

A: That’s my view, yes.

Q: How would we do that?

A: I can’t give you a blow-by-blow account, but we do it subconsciously.

Q: And why would we do that?

A: For the sake of predictability and stability.

Q: But you don’t want stability? You said you broke “the rule of the shared consensus.”

A: Perhaps I’m a little more adventurous than the average person.

Q: You like upsetting apple carts.

A: Perhaps so, yes.

Q: When you put this “field” around the balls in the experiment, were you thinking about breaking the common consensus?

A: Sometimes. But mostly, I’m just doing what I do. I like being able to take things and move them off course.

Q: There’s nothing in your history, your past that would explain your ability?

A: Nothing that comes to mind. I didn’t have an accident where I hit my head and suddenly discovered I had a new talent.

Q: Can you do other things? Can you read the numbers on cards without seeing them? Can you read people’s thoughts?

A: No.

Q: When you put this field around the balls, do you feel anything?

A: I like it.

Q: It feels powerful?

A: Not “bad powerful.”

Q: Does it feel creative?

A: Definitely. In a unique sort of way, because nobody else is doing it exactly the way I am.

Q: You must have some sense of space when you’re doing it. You’re reaching out and placing this field there, around the balls?

A: Yes. It’s very spatial. Space is a palpable thing to me. I see it, but I also feel it.

Q: It’s not abstract.

A: Not at all. I’m not just thinking. I feel like I’m affecting physical space. I’m adding something to it. I’m almost replacing the type of space that was there with new space.

Q: And since you’re having a real effect on what’s in the space [the balls in the experiment], you’re changing physical space?

A: Yes.

Q: So a person can actually change physical space.

A: Yes.

Q: Ordinary space is filled with this “common consensus?”

A: Space is molded by it, so that events that happen [in it] are guided by the principle of neutrality, where statistical probability is the outcome.

Q: And we prefer this.

A: We make space conform to that [statistical probability].

Q: But you don’t.

A: I don’t want to sound like an outlaw.

Q: What do you want to sound like?

A: I’m just doing something that puts alteration into space.

Q: So you’re not acting directly on the balls as they drop down through the case.

A: No. I’m setting up the conditions for change.

Q: Do you feel, in any way, that you’re violating a rule or a law?

A: At first, I had a few reservations about that. But then I decided that the violations had already happened.

Q: Meaning what?

A: Well, all of us already influenced space by our common consensus. This has already happened. We programmed space to be “neutral.”

Q: And if we hadn’t?

A: I don’t know what space would be like. It would be a lot easier to change. I’m sure of that.

Q: Do you think there’s something wrong with this common consensus?

A: I really do.

Q: Why?

A: It makes a kind of grid.

Q: It locks us in?

A: That’s right. It keeps us in check.

Q: Whereas, if we were exerting our full power?

A: All together, or individually?

Q: Individually.

A: Life would be a lot more dynamic. People feel there are certain things they can do, and everything else is left to chance, or fate, or some idea of a remote force.

Q: Do you “remain anonymous” about what you can do?

A: I don’t perform at parties, if that’s what you mean.

Q: What about, say, at your place of work?

A: I’m an analyst. That’s all anybody knows. I keep it that way.

Q: Have you ever had a conversation where you told somebody what you’ve done, and he rejected it?

A: That’s how I learned my lesson. People want to believe this is nonsense.

Q: What about the research scientists who run the paranormal experiments?

A: I’m not sure. I feel they concentrate more on the results as an overall number, from all the volunteers, rather than focusing on what any one person can do.

Q: They want to prove that the paranormal is scientific.

A: But it isn’t. You have people [volunteers in the experiments] doing it, achieving the results. I don’t see how you can really put a number on it. I understand the theory. They [the researchers] want to tally up how everybody did, all together. Because that’s how they’re supposed to investigate. But the volunteers who do well in the studies aren’t statistics. It’s like a race. The 100-meter race. Do you add up the times of all the runners at the end? Would that show anything?

Q: What about your future? Do you have plans?

A: No decisions yet. I understand the [popular version of the] Observer Effect. If people change what they’re looking at, then what about changing things by consciously putting something there. Maybe that could be measured.

Q: You mean your field could be measured.

A: It would be interesting to find out.

Q: Do you think you could create fields that would move more than the balls in the experiment?

A: I haven’t tried, but maybe I could.

Q: Do you see your ability as natural?

A: I think it is. As I said at the beginning, I tried several ways to influence the distribution of the balls. I experimented. I think more people should experiment.

Q: So it’s occurred to you that people aren’t using the full range of their capabilities.

A: Sure.

Q: It’s been my contention that people are seeking some kind of average or normal level…

A: I think we give all the wrong names to things. Psychic ability, psychokinesis, paranormal—they imply either something mystical or something scientific. I don’t believe either category fits. It’s something else. I don’t have a name for it.

Q: This idea of a common consensus. Doesn’t that suggest a group consciousness?

A: Individuals are contributing to it.

Q: Everybody is subconsciously joining in.

A: That’s the way it seems.

Q: Like a shared secret, through which we settle for being average.

A: Right.

Q: I see this average being applied in more and more situations in life. It’s an agenda. To be average.

A: It’s ridiculous.

Q: You said that by creating a field you’re changing space. Do you think you could change “a piece of space” permanently?

A: I’ve never thought about it. The space I changed would probably snap back to being what it was before.

Q: Why?

A: Because of that common consensus.

Q: It [the space] would revert back.

A: But you know, suppose you could create a field around a garden? The motive you put in the field would be for flowers to grow bigger. Then a few years later, you look at the other gardens in the neighborhood, and you see your garden is healthier. It’s still healthier. That probably does happen. People do that.

Q: You bring up an interesting point. In the study you volunteered for, you were working with inanimate objects. Not flowers.

A: When those balls are dropping down and landing in the holes, they don’t quite seem inanimate.

Q: You mean they’re alive?

A: Not exactly that either. It’s as if I put a certain desire in them and they do what that desire wants. They’re enhanced.

Q: This cup on the table here. Would you say it has a desire?

A: Yes. It has a desire to be where it is.

Q: You feel that?

A: Sometimes I can sense it.

Q: So it [the cup] is flexible.

A: Wherever it is, it has the desire to be there. Objects are accommodating. They have the desire to be where they are or to move where they’re going. But if their position is changed, so does their desire.

Q: That sounds like a different formulation of the law of inertia.

A: To remain at rest or to continue in motion. The law of inertia is close to the idea that objects have desire.

Q: Have you seen the [1999 movie] The Matrix?

A: Yes. It was very interesting. But I see this “program of reality” in two ways. It’s like looking at the same geographic location from two different angles. From one angle, it looks like our reality has been programmed and set in place by an external force. From another angle, it looks like we ourselves did it. We did the programming.

Q: This unconscious collective consensus that establishes statistical probability and the 50-50 rule…

A: We do that.

Q: On a scale from zero to a hundred, where a hundred is sheer ecstasy and zero is boredom, where would you rate your own feeling about what you can do in influencing matter and space?

A: About sixty.

Q: Why so low?

A: Because I think there’s a lot more that’s possible. I’m only using part of my potential.

Q: A slice of it.

A: Yes.

Q: What’s the rest like?

A: I don’t know. I want to find out.

Q: Back to your idea that objects have desires in them. It reminds me also of certain Medieval points of view.

A: But I’m saying that people can change the desire of an object.

Q: By putting a new desire in it.

A: If I could really put a desire to fly in a book, it would jump off the shelf.

End of interview

My comments:

Paranormal ability is a fact. The implications of this fact are staggering: space-time is not impenetrable or fixed or final. Space-time isn’t some entity we, at best, can understand. We can affect it directly. The individual can do this.

Therefore, to the degree that the Continuum appears to us as an unshakable foundation, we are dealing with a delusion.

But this is a particular kind of delusion. It isn’t something we replace with a more profound grasp of a better alternative. We, as individuals, are the better alternative.

About a dozen years ago, I did an interview with Dean Radin, the author of The Conscious Universe. During an academic career as a paranormal researcher, Radin undertook a comprehensive and exhaustive review of well-formed (published) studies of various types of paranormal experiments, and he concluded that the evidence shows, overall, that statistical probability was exceeded in these studies, that paranormal ability is real.

The Matrix, the actual one, not the movie, involves the common shared conviction that human capability is limited. The idea that a person can change matter and space is largely rejected as fantasy. If Radin is correct in his assessment, however, and I think he is, the mainstream evidence shows that paranormal abilities are authentic.

I also agree with the volunteer I interviewed that academic scientific investigation of the paranormal is catering to methods that are misleading. Overall performance of volunteers across a broad spectrum of studies masks what key individuals are doing—the individuals who clearly perform beyond expectation.

This is important. These days, the emphasis is on what the group can do collectively. But what if group numbers conceal what key individuals in the group are making happen?

For example, experiments have been done in which random number generators, placed in various locations, suddenly depart from their typical randomness just before momentous global events that many people are focused on. This change in the generators’ pattern is attributed to collective reaction. Again, suppose the change is primarily being caused by a much smaller number of individuals, acting or reacting on their own?

The conviction that matter and space follow their course without interruption, according to immutable laws, is a major element of the Matrix. It works very well where technology is concerned, but that doesn’t mean humans must go along for the ride.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism states that man derives the thrust of his power from exercising reason. Yet in The Fountainhead, her hero, Howard Roark, is an innovative architect. He is creating his buildings. Does reason explain his actions? If so, and if reason runs strictly according to the principles of logic, then why don’t his buildings absolutely derive from that logic?

This is not to demean logic. It is a vital discipline. But all around us, we also see the results of imagination in action. In fact, if you reread the volunteer’s comments on the field he used to influence the direction of the dropping balls, you can see he is talking about creation. In other words, he wasn’t utilizing some field that was already there. He was inventing that field.

The Matrix is formed to convince us of its monopoly on What Is. Imagination, creation, and invention cut across that grain. They produce realities that are new, that owe nothing to Matrix.

Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

https://marketplace.mybigcommerce.com/the-matrix-revealed/

NANOCHIPS/MIND CONTROL THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY

May7

NANOCHIPS, AND, MIND CONTROL — THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY

by Jon Rappoport

May 7, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

PART ONE: NANOCHIPS

Linked at infowars.com, the Business Insider has the story:

The US Military Wants To ‘Microchip’ Troops — by Robert Johnson

“DARPA is at it again. This time, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has announced plans to create nanochips for monitoring troops’ health on the battlefield.”

Those who criticize the plan point out that gradually accustoming people to the insertion of chips will eventually lead to mass chipping throughout society.

Yes, true. But there is another op, too, and you need to know about it.

Further down in the Business Insider article, we have this official explanation for the chipping of soldiers: “…the sensors are targeted at preventing illness and disease [as opposed to reporting wounds], the two causes of most troops medical evacuation.”

Did you catch that? Apparently, the implanted nanochips are going to relay soldiers’ physical symptoms back to base in real time.

Now we are talking about something quite ominous: the capacity to use chips to relay hard data to authorities, who can then make off-the-shelf diagnoses of particular illnesses.

The troops are a test run. The actual op, up the line a few years, is to outfit private citizens with those nanochips, so medical analysts can present patients with rapid-fire and peremptory diagnoses, leading to drug treatments.

You can call this a high-tech version of what Obamacare is ultimately designed to do. Under the new federally controlled health insurance plan, a complete list of diseases and disorders will be assembled by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, as well as the only permitted treatments for each diagnosis.

This is the wet dream of the pharmaceutical industry, and the Army is running a live test with nanochips to test the logistics of a high-tech application. It’s a closed system. No outside (alternative) diagnoses or treatments allowed.

Should I draw a picture?

A person is walking down the street on his way to work, with his nanochip in his arm. The tiny computer is silently running, recording metabolic parameters and changes. Suddenly, it pings. The man on the street doesn’t hear that sound from his arm, but a computer located in a facility ten miles (or 6000 miles) away does.

The data from the chip are flagged and shunted to another automatic processor which, depending on the severity of the diagnosis, electronically issues an appointment slip to the walking patient. For the clinic. He’d better show up, too, or else he can be judged a public health threat.

He receives a nudge from his cell phone, reads the appointment info, and confirms.

He will see a doctor, he will be handed a diagnosis, and he will take a drug. He’s in the system.

Eventually, the doctor in most cases won’t be necessary. The electronic message will spell out the diagnosis, direct the patient to the nearest pharmacy, where the prescription will be filled.

Of course, the fact that the diagnosis may be shortsighted or completely off-base is irrelevant. It’s ironclad: symptoms A,B,C, and D add up to diagnosis X, which means take drug Y.

End of story.

Toxic effects from the drug? Never discussed. Irrelevant.

The published studies reporting the clinical trials of the drug were altered, on behalf of the drug company? The drug was actually ineffective and grossly dangerous? Who cares? It’s in the book. It’s official.

Welcome to tomorrow.

For those of you who want to probe a little deeper (and you should want to), here is a brief example of something that can go terribly wrong in this chipped version of healthcare. I spell it out at great length in my book, AIDS INC., which is included my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED.

Antibody tests. These are widely used assays to determine what disease a person may have contracted. When the test reads positive, the patient is said to have the disease for which the antibody test is custom-designed. And from that flows the diagnosis and drug treatment.

Why? Because, starting in the early 1980s, something astonishing happened to antibody tests. The analysis of their results was turned upside down. Before then, the presence of antibodies to a particular germ was taken as a good sign. It meant the immune system had reacted well and forcefully to the germ-intrusion. But with the new interpretation, a positive test was taken to be a bad sign. The patient was at risk. In fact, he might already be ill.

So there you are with a nanochip in your arm, and you’re sitting in your backyard with your family, and the chip, every so often, is running routine antibody tests through indirect access to your blood indicators.

Ping. At four in the afternoon, it suddenly develops that you have Hepatitis. You receive an appointment slip on your cell phone.

BUT you have no such disease. Not even close. You’re actually suffering from a piece of medical-research insanity that has turned antibody tests on their heads.

However, there is no court of first or last resort. You’re going to the doctor, and he’s going to give you a powerful and toxic drug, and you’re going to take it. If you don’t, your chip will report the non-compliance to authorities.

And for those of you who were quite sure that Obama was signaling you that alternative natural health practitioners were going to be protected under Obamacare, you were hallucinating. Sorry.

You may also doubt that computers housed in nanochips can carry out far-reaching analyses of various body indicators. Direct analysis isn’t necessary. In the same way that computer models built on a foundation of sand can assert manmade warming is real, medical models based on all sorts of indirect and abstract computations can deliver instant assessments of “physical aberrations from the norm.”

Again, welcome to tomorrow.

PART TWO: MIND CONTROL THE OLD FASHIONED WAY

Tiresome for some, confusing for others. I’m talking about the subject of 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.

If not, what difference does freedom make? If the individual is fundamentally weak and mentally circumscribed in a small area of operation, who really cares whether he makes his own choices and decisions or lets the Big Daddy State handle his life for him?

With that brief prelude, consider this: since individual power, based on freedom, was what the founding of this nation was FOR, then 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 off the chair 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 a course was 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.

However, the mind control goes deeper. As a former philosophy student, I can assure you that a survey of the traditionally touted Western philosophers, from Socrates and Plato, all the through to Kant and Hegel, yields up virtually nothing direct and explicit on the subject of individual power.

At my college, nobody minded; nobody cared; nobody realized this bizarre fact; no one complained.

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

It’s hard to find an analogy adequate to such a mind-boggling state of affairs. But I’ll try.

Suppose that for a hundred years, every car mechanic was trained to repair every part of a car except the engine. The engine was never mentioned. The word “engine” was considered profane. A taboo.

Therefore, whenever a car owner pulled into a service garage, the mechanic would work on everything except the engine. If, as a result, the car wouldn’t make it back out on to the street, the owner would be told he needed to buy a new one.

And after a hundred years, people got used to this. Everyone accepted the situation. Everybody lived with it.

And then somebody came along and said: ENGINE.

People looked at each other with question marks hanging over their heads. What? Did he just say the forbidden word? Nobody is supposed to mention the you-know-what. Besides, what does en***e have to do with cars, or anything else?

That’s where we are.

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. Your brain needs medical drugs. You’re quite possibly a thought-criminal.

Because I’ve done research on, and reported on, all sorts of mind control, I know that people favor material about trauma-based CIA MKULTRA-type experiments. This is supposedly what “real” mind control is.

So let me put that one to bed. By far, the most insidious and invidious forms of mind control emanate from the educational system and the media. That’s where you go, if you want to find the most effective operant conditioning.

However, in order to spot the deepest versions of brainwashing, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME STANDARD AGAINST WHICH YOU CAN COMPARE WHAT IS COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE INTO THE BRAINS OF THE PUBLIC.

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.

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 was a pro and 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.”

He really meant: “If you want to get back in my good graces, you’ll go away and come back with a story we can print. You’ll do that four or five times, and then MAYBE I’ll trust you again.”

For him, I was suddenly radioactive. I was dangerous.

It was one of those, “Jon, I thought I knew you. Obviously, I was mistaken.”

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.

He launched a lecture, the essence of which was I should consider seeing a mental-health professional.

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 of imagination, that universe where individual power is supreme.

But when it comes to “real” life, imagination 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 learns how the game is played. 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.

And this whole operation isn’t mind control?

Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

HIDDEN POWER AND THE MATRIX

May5

HIDDEN POWER AND THE MATRIX

by Jon Rappoport

May 5, 2012

“We the People…”

Underneath that formulation is the Individual.

“The people” is a convenient term for “every INDIVIDUAL.”

This has been lost in translation. It has been garbled, distorted, just as the proprietor of an old-fashioned carnival shell game distorts the audience’s perception with sleight of hand.

Are “the people” a group? Are we all crew members, tasked with designated functions, wearing uniforms, working on a space ship? Well, that’s the ultimate Globalist formulation.

However, from the point of view of the free individual, things are upside down. It is HIS power that is primary, not the state’s, not the government’s, not the group’s.

From his point of view, what does the social landscape look like?

The most significant factor is: THE OBSESSION TO ORGANIZE.

I’m not talking about organizations that actually produce something. I’m talking about organizations that PLAN MORE ORGANIZATION OF LIFE.

If you want to spend a disturbing afternoon, read through (and try to fathom) the bewildering blizzard of sub-organizations that make up the European Union. I did. And I emerged with a new definition of insanity. OTO. The Obsession to Organize.

OTO speaks of a bottomless fear that somewhere, someone might be living free.

Jack True, the groundbreaking hypnotherapist I interview in THE MATRIX REVEALED, had a few things to say about this “mental disorder”:

“If you put a few dozen colored blocks on a table in front of an adult, he might arrange them in patterns and structures. But some adults would prefer to form a committee to study how the blocks could be arranged, and a committee to evaluate the first committee.

“That’s a joke, but it’s based on reality. I’ve had patients who are constantly looking for ways to fend off life through organization. Their psychological filters are so fine almost nothing gets in.

“In a light trance, without any suggestions from me, they begin categorizing. Everything in its place, everything with a name and a label and a defined connection to other labels. It’s quite fantastic.

“On some level, these people actually believe a tree thinks of itself as a tree and an ant thinks of itself as an ant. You know, with the LABEL.

“It’s not an accident that elite groups like the British Royal Institute [of International Affairs] are kissing cousins of the British biologists who spend years and years devising more precise definitions of sub-sub-sub species.

“When people like this gain political and economic power, they look at the world and see large areas of ‘unorganized threat.’ Whatever is unorganized is, for them, by definition, a threat.

“Once in a great while, when you can shake one of these obsessives out of his habit, when you can get him to perceive reality more directly, he feels like he’s come out of a dream. I mean that literally. He was in a dream.

“You can see this dream operating when the task forces of psychiatrists get together to form new definitions of mental disorders. They’re splitting hairs of hairs that don’t even exist. But they think they do [exist], because without them they’d feel lost…”

THE JOURNEY TO GREATER INDIVIDUAL POWER IS ABOUT: ERASING THE SEPARATE INTERNAL COMPARTMENTS OF ENERGY THE PERSON HIMSELF HAS ORGANIZED.

I had early experiences of this when I began painting in 1962. The walls and compartments collapsed. Energies that had been kept apart flowed together. Lakes and rivers joined the ocean, finally.

The effect of this was enormous. I experienced a power that had been hidden from me.

I was suddenly an individual sprung from the group. Problems I had been puzzling over dissolved and disappeared.

Becoming joined with my own power was fluid. It came through to me as almost a physical process.

The trigger for all this was painting spontaneously in my studio, in somewhat the same way Asian Zen painters had been working for centuries.

Looking back on it now, it’s obvious that one of the effects of painting was: un-organizing a learned synthesis I’d acquired. I was offloading a “comprehensive mental strategy” tied to the way language was supposed to construct reality.

Perception of your own increased power is a function of cracking open the egg of your old, habitual, subconscious world-view. Your own fixed abstraction of reality.

These aren’t theoretical matters. They’re more real than the sensation of driving a car at 150mph on the highway. They’re more immediate than the taste of food or walking in a hurricane or trading punches in a boxing ring.

Flashing forward to 2001, when I began writing on the Web, I found myself joining together 1) everything I was learning about the Matrix with 2) my work and experience as a painter. One side was the vast organization-operation of the elite global planners, the nuts and bolts of which were being described to me by former insiders who had contacted me; and on the other side was individual power as it can actually exist, beyond the structures and shapes of that Matrix.

I wanted to explain the process of Matrix-building, so my readers could understand it at the level of engineering. And I wanted to reveal how individual power could reconnect walled-off interior energies and thereby exceed the influence of the Matrix.

Current technological civilization depends on fixed structures and forms and ideas and methods and systems. It succeeds brilliantly. But the side effect is a tendency to view reality through those lenses. And in the process of doing that, a person, as Jack True expressed it, “unconsciously invents a huge cabinet of drawers, and he puts what he labels as various kinds of energies into those separate closed compartments. This is draining. This cuts him off from power. This inhibits him from expressing power.”

Ellis Medavoy, retired propaganda insider and operative, whom I also interview in THE MATRIX REVEALED, explained it from his side of the Grand Game: “ALL propaganda, in one way or another, is aimed at prolonging amnesia in individuals about their own power. It’s much easier to do this when the individual has ALREADY put himself in a dream. The dream is: ‘I don’t have Mississippi Rivers of energy, I don’t really have power that amounts to anything, I don’t understand what power means.’”

People tend to think their own power is either a delusion or some sort of abstraction that’s never really EXPERIENCED. So when the subject is broached, it goes nowhere. It fizzles out. It garners shrugs and looks of confusion. Power? Are you talking about the ability to lift weights?

And therefore, the whole notion of freedom makes a very small impression, because without power, what’s the message of freedom? A person can choose vanilla or chocolate? He can watch Law&Order or CSI? He can buy a Buick or a Honda? He can take a trip to Yosemite or Disney World? He can pack a lunch or eat out at a restaurant? He can ask for a raise or apply for a better job with another company? That’s it? He can swim in his pool or work out at the gym?

Mostly, as the years roll by, he opts for more cynicism and tries to become a “smarter realist.” And that is how he closes the book on his life.

Or, if he is attracted to some form of self-improvement, it’s a matter of choosing between cliches. Which cliché sounds better? Which cliché seems to offer more hope for less effort? Which cliché will connect him to people who accept the same cliché?

And then there is this one: many people believe power is a monolithic force like a tsunami rolling over everything in its destructive path; therefore, who would want it?

Every which way power can be discredited or misunderstood…people will discredit it and misunderstand it.

Freedom in the political sphere assists the possibility of freedom in the individual sphere, and that second freedom is so poorly appreciated that it’s rejected as an illusion.

I’m saying there are whole universes of freedom. (And none of them have to do with The Group.)

The first real painting I ever made, in the summer of 1962, in a loft on 19^th Street in Manhattan, relayed a message back to me: THIS painting is a world you want to exist; this is a world you’ve been unable to describe or explain—and now you don’t have to explain it because it’s there on the canvas. That was an electric jolt. I had never experienced that kind of feedback before. It changed my whole outlook on my life in a few minutes.

What happened there? The feedback was:

“This is a new world you just made because you want it. LOOK AT IT. This is all your energy coming together. You’re using it to make a world that exceeds language, that breaks out beyond the ceiling of what language can produce.”

Whereas, on the other hand, the Matrix is a closed circus. Lots of tricks, lots of injections of “reality.”

Then, on top of that, we seem to be closed off from the circus! That’s right. Elites plot and plan and execute to make us think we can’t even get a ticket to the circus, so we naturally strain harder to sneak in and stay there, because if somebody tells us we’re not allowed in, we assume it must be important and desirable. The con of cons.

And eventually, we’re in the circus so long we can’t conceive of another reality. This circus must be It. This must be the only reality. How could I ever have thought there would be another one?

And now all psychological and physiological and mental and physical and emotional and perceptual and hormonal processes undergo a major shift, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE US TO THIS ONE AND ONLY REALITY. IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT, YES, THIS IS THE ONLY REALITY THAT COULD EXIST.

And perhaps, in the circus, I’m the master with the whip and you’re the elephant, or you’re the master and I’m the elephant, and we switch back and forth, and we’re both trying to figure out what permanent, yes, permanent role we want to have in the circus. We’re jockeying for that role. That’s how we use our freedom.

Yes, this is pretty far-out stuff. I know that. So be it.

Language accomplishes wonderful and astonishing things. But it also shapes our view and understanding of reality. It limits that view. It hardens it over time.

Language is far more than a set of symbols. It’s the girders and beams and struts and floors and roofs and walls of the reality we accept. It’s the multi-faceted instrument we use to organize and over-organize our perception of reality. It’s the ultimate means of organization.

I’m not preaching a message about destroying language. That would be absurd. I’m indicating that it’s possible to break through to a place that is outside language. And that place is where we no longer have separate compartments of energy and power. The separate compartments are gone. Freedom and power take on a whole new significance.

As I continued painting in the summer and fall of 1962, I found myself in a state of mind I’d never experienced before. I no longer had a stake in the old game. Therefore, I could deal with that game and the people in it with an unexpected level of confidence.

I felt like an explorer who was going out every day into new worlds (that I was making in the studio)…and then at night, I would come back, and what I was coming back to was wonderful as well.

Decades later, when I began interviewing “Matrix insiders” who had defected from their work, I could approach these conversations as if I were talking to builders and architects and artists. In these interviews, the insiders saw and understood more about what they’d been doing than they knew before, because I knew they had hitched their wagons to a perverse version of art. I knew that in my bones, and I could talk to them on that level. I could get them to explain their nuts-and-bolts work in the same way an architect would describe a building he was designing.

We are all designing our lives as architecture, and in the process we are over-organizing them. We’re putting our energy and power into separate compartments. We think we’re missing details of our master plans, but actually we’re putting too many details into the plans. We’re falling into mechanical strategies that align us with the Matrix.

However, the more we understand the Matrix, the more we see how we’re cooperating with it, and then we can move away from that basis of operation.

The other half of my work involves developing techniques that put us in a direct uninterrupted line of access to our own power. Not the fragmented walled-off territories of that power. The whole unending ocean of it.

Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Matrix Revealed

HYPNOSIS FOR THE MASSES, AND MAGIC

THE UNIVERSE OF CHEATING, LYING, AND STEALING

PART 2, THE FOUNDATION OF MAGIC

EXPOSING THE MATRIX

BREAKING….FDA AWARE OF ITS CRIMES!

WORSHIP OF THE ELITE HAS MANY FACES

Ellis Medavoy on NATO Summit Psyop

PARANORMAL POWER, AN INTERVIEW

NANOCHIPS/MIND CONTROL THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY

HIDDEN POWER AND THE MATRIX