Official magic for the walking dead soul

Official magic for the walking dead soul

by Jon Rappoport

May 29, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

“The State, with all its people, all its bureaucracies, is working a kind of magic. It’s a desolate magic. It actively conjures up blank spaces and blank minds to convince people that Blank is the meaning of Normal. It’s a ceremony of emptiness. A ritual of nothing and nowhere. And then, out of the void, it brings into being a salvation Machine that will do the right thing. It hails the Machine that can only do the right thing.” — (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

The State’s magic is by reduction. Reduce all live fertile thought and feeling, and keep reducing until you arrive at a tiny point of gray dead light. Then pass that light from hand to hand, until all the workers inside the fortress possess it and cherish it.

The State’s obsession is with systems. It dreams of building a Control Center and hooking the whole population up to it.

This is the triumph of the prosaic. This is non-personality at the apex of its performance.

If you have a bigger and bigger class of people who only do the protecting, you eventually have to think of everyone else as the enemy. That becomes a closed system. And the minds operating that system, the managers, have to color their thoughts with constant, invented, official paranoia. So you get television shows and movies that reflect this state of mind. Enemies everywhere. It’s a self-feeding cafeteria.

Society and civilization are based on a limited range of emotions, which is the glue that builds the consensus and holds things together. What is held together is a smaller and smaller space, in which people operate. They come to see this space as The Central Space. That’s a lie. It’s an illusion.

You isolate 15 emotions. You label them and you describe them. You claim this is the full human range. You see that, if people accept these 15 as ‘all there is,’ you can manipulate those 15, you can focus on them, you can play them like an orchestra. It becomes a game. You develop various strategies to make that music. The goal is control. But the whole program and its success rely on the underlying assumption that there is this limited range and that’s all there is. If people were experiencing 150 emotions on a regular basis, and you tried to manipulate them by focusing on 15, what would happen? You would fail.


power outside the matrix


Society has initiation rituals, which are designed to bring people into Organization and Function. The counter-initiation, which is supposed to act as the resistance, champions better organization and better function. The vapid soul of this “resistance,” called technocracy, is really the apotheosis of the ritual—mystical, God-from-the-machine, and humans as electronic receivers of vetted official data.

To make sure humans are, in fact, consenting to the meaning of official data, the Surveillance State is conjured up. This is a public works program. “A job for anyone who wants to spy.”

Priest-class magic was always about control. A pipeline to salvation was offered to the population. Now the magic is about merging with the Machine.

Ablutions: for that day, the human must undergo preparatory exercises, to cleanse his psyche of idiosyncrasy, to attain uniformity preceding the initiation.

To establish a clear channel, so he can receive.

So he can receive the direct opposite of a galvanizing creative life, so he can receive the downloaded zero of empty magic.

Jon Rappoport

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

The basis of mass mind control

The basis of mass mind control

by Jon Rappoport

May 23, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

“Aliens visiting Earth would report back to their superiors: ‘It’s quite amazing, those people worship images. They know it and they pretend not to know it.’” — Hypnotherapist Jack True.

This is a backgrounder for my mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, which contains many exercises designed to liberate an individual from the standardized perception of reality—and usher in his own creative reality.

Mass mind control focuses on two elements: image and feeling.

By linking the two primary elements, it is possible to short-circuit thought and “cut to the chase,” when it comes to enlisting the allegiance of huge populations.

Two seemingly unrelated events spurred my interest in mass mind control.

On the evening of April 12, 1945, I listened to a radio report on the death of Franklin D Roosevelt. I was seven years old.

I became upset. I didn’t know why. I was angry at my own reaction.

Forty years later, I pulled into a gas station near my apartment in West Los Angeles. I got out of my car and took the cap off my gas tank. I looked to my right and saw Tony Curtis sitting in his car. I was shocked.

A few days later, I began making notes under the heading of “image-emotion cues.” At the time, I was working as a reporter, writing articles for LA Weekly. I knew next to nothing about mind control, MKULTRA, Soviet psychiatric gulags, Chinese re-education programs, or US psychological warfare operations.

But because I had been painting for 25 years, I knew something about the power of images.

I remembered my first exhibition of paintings in LA, at my friend Hadidjah Lamas’ house. We had hung my work in her large living room and dining room. Hadidjah had enlisted the services of a friend who had videotaped me painting in my studio, and at the exhibition she set up a television set out on her patio and continuously played the videocassette.

People came through her front door, almost automatically walked through the house to the patio, as if guided by an unseen hand, and watched the video; then they came back inside and looked at the paintings.

They would stop at a painting and say: “That picture was in the video!” It excited them.

My first note on “image-emotion cues” was, “Investing an image with importance. Projecting emotion into an image.”

Projecting emotion into a newspaper image of the president, FDR. Projecting emotion into the screen image of Tony Curtis. Projecting emotion into a video of a painter working in his studio.

When people encounter an image, when they invest it with importance, they project feeling into the image—and this all happens in a private sphere, a private space.

If this didn’t happen, there would be no way to control populations through images. It wouldn’t work. It all starts with a person setting up his own personal feedback loop that travels from him to an image and back again.

Coming out of World War 2, US psychological warfare operatives knew they could turn their skills to political purposes. They had just succeeded in making Americans believe that all Japanese and German people were horribly evil. They had been able to manipulate imagery successfully in that area. Why couldn’t they shape America’s view of a whole planet that lay beyond personal experience?

They could and they did. But the power to do that emanated from the fact that every person invests images with feeling. That’s where it really starts.

I had seen the 1957 film, Sweet Smell of Success, a number of times. I admired it. Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis gave tremendous performances. When, decades later, I saw Curtis sitting in his car at that gas station, I was “working from” the emotion I had invested in his onscreen image. It produced a sense of shock and paralysis for a few seconds.

Other people might have rushed up to Curtis and asked for his autograph. With me, it was shock, cognitive dissonance. Ditto for the death of FDR. I was working off newspaper pictures I’d seen of him, and the feeling I’d invested in those presidential images. Other people, when FDR died, went out into the street and hugged their neighbors and wept openly. For me, it was upset and shock and anger.

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with investing emotion in images. It can be exhilarating. It can be uplifting. As a painter, I know this in spades. Putting emotion into images can, in fact, vault you into a different perception of reality.

But on the downside, it can also take you into lockstep with what media/propaganda operatives want you to experience, second-hand.

We focus to such a degree on how we are being manipulated that we don’t stop to consider how we are participating in the operation. And our own role is clear and stark: we invest images with feeling.

So how does one individual’s projection of feeling into an image become a uniform projection of the same feeling into one image, by millions of people? How does what one person invests privately become mass mind control?

Through external instruction or cues. And also, by engendering the idea that there is only a limited palette of emotions to work with in the first place.

Why do millions of people fall into line?

Because they don’t realize they started the whole ball rolling themselves. All they know is: images are connected to feelings.

If they knew they were the real power in the whole operation, if they knew they were investing feelings into images all day long, if they could actually slow down enough to see how they do this….then they would be far less prone to taking instruction about what feelings they “ought to” invest in second-hand images.

Hypnotherapist Jack True unceremoniously put it to me this way: “If a dog could analyze how he got from eating meat to drooling at the sound of a bell that came at feeding time, he could stop drooling.”

(If Chris Matthews could analyze how his own voluntary investment of feeling in the image of Barack Obama sends a tingle up his leg, he could stop tingling.)

We see images of people rioting all over the Middle East. We see burning flags and crowds outside embassies. We’re supposed to invest our own anger and resentment into those images. Unless we’re suddenly told those rioters are actually “the good rebels,” in which case we’re supposed to invest our joy in the images.

We see a picture of miles of flat farmland and (GMO) corn waving in the breeze. We’re supposed to invest that image with feelings of happiness and pride.

Nowhere are we told we can back up a step and realize that we are the ones who begin the whole process, by projecting feelings into images. Any images.


When I was 19, I was sent to a trained expert in New York to take a Rorschach (ink-blot) Test. I was displaying signs of what would now be called Oppositional Defiance Disorder.

The expert said he wanted me to tell him everything I saw in each ink-blot. I took him at his word.

An hour later, I was still working on the first blot. I was describing everything from bats and owls and chickens to space ships and buckets of hidden treasure in caves.

Well, I was cheating a little. I wasn’t really describing what I saw. I was imagining. I was taking off from what was on the page and improvising. This was outside the bounds of the Test.

The expert was seething. He was sweating, because he had many other blots to show me, and it was late in the afternoon, and he was looking at spending the entire evening with me. Finally, he held up his hand and put an end to the Test.

I wasn’t playing his game. Among other sins, I wasn’t investing a limited palette of feelings in the images. Therefore, my choices of “what to see” in the blots expanded greatly.

When I go to a museum, I like to watch people stand in front of abstract paintings. Many of them are stumped. They’re trying to figure out what feelings they “are supposed to” project into the painting. They’re looking for “instruction,” and there isn’t any. They’re asking for mind control, and they’re not getting it.


Exit From the Matrix


Fanaticism of any kind begins with individuals projecting feelings into images. This is harnessed by leaders, who then choose the images and direct which feelings are permitted. The tempting prospect for the follower is: participation in a drama that goes beyond what he would ordinarily experience in life. This is bolstered by the idea that what he is doing is moral.

In an election season, people on the left are urged to project messianic feelings into images of X. People on the right are cued to invest feelings of pride, hope, and “tradition” into images of Y. The real candidates aren’t actually experienced.

Since Vietnam, shooting wars have been more difficult to sustain among soldiers. “In the old days,” feelings of hatred could be projected into images of enemies that included civilians, so overtly killing everybody on foreign soil was easier to accept. Now, soldiers are taught “enemy combatant” and “civilian” are two different images that require the injection of two different feelings.

Here at home, police and military are taught, more and more, to invest feelings of suspicion into images of American civilians. This is an acceleration of mass mind control for law enforcement.

The astonishing number of civilians who participate in government and corporate surveillance of the public, through technological means, learn to invest “dead empty feelings” into images of citizens, as if these targets are nothing more than ciphers, units.

Bizarre instances of police detaining and questioning parents who allow their children to play unsupervised reveal another accelerating trend. These confrontations start with neighbors snitching on the parents. The neighbors have learned to invest feelings of panic, suspicion, and anger in images of “free children.”

In all these cases, there is no real experience. It’s all second-hand. It’s all feeling-projected-into-image.

In the medical arena, countless advertisements and news stories are geared to convince people to invest feelings of trust in images of doctors. The suggestion, “Ask your doctor if X is right for you,” is framed as the solution to a little problem. The problem is set this way: Drug X is wonderful; drug X has serious adverse effects; what to do? Solution: ask your doctor; trust him; he knows.

As the class of victims in society has grown by leaps and bounds, including any group that can organize and promote itself as needing help or justice—going miles beyond the people who really do need assistance—citizens have been trained to invest feelings of sympathy and concern for all images of victims everywhere, real or imagined. This, too, is mass mind control.

Pick an image; invest feelings in it. Facts don’t matter. Evidence doesn’t matter.

You’ve heard people say, So-and-so (a celebrity) has become a caricature of himself. Well, that’s what it means. The celebrity has projected massive feelings of approval into a concocted, cartoonish image of himself.

As a society, we can go on this way until we become a horrific cartoon of a cartoon (well, we’re already there), or we can step back and discover how we invest emotion into images, and then use that process to pour feelings into visions of our own choosing and invent better futures.

Since the dawn of time, leaders have portrayed themselves as gods. They’ve assembled teams to promote that image, so their followers could project powerful emotion into the image and thereby cement the leaders’ control and power.

The game isn’t new. Understanding the roots of it within each individual could, however, break the trance of mass mind control.

During the first West Nile fake outbreak of 1999, I spoke with a student who had just dropped out of medical school. He told me he’d been looking at electron-microscope photos of the West Nile Virus, and he suddenly realized he was “supposed to” invest feelings of “great concern” in those images.

Somehow, he broke free from the image-feeling link. He was rather stunned at the experience. His entire conditioning as a medical student evaporated.

Parents all over the world are having the same experience vis-a-vis vaccines. They realize they’re supposed to invest fear in images of germs and disease, and they’re also supposed to invest feelings of hope and confidence in images of needles and vaccines. They see the game. They’re supposed to remain victims of mass mind control.

But they’ve awakened.


We’ve all been taught that what we feel is always and everywhere out of our control. These feelings are simply part of us, and we have to act on them. The alternative would be to sit on them and repress them and turn into androids, robots.

This is simply not true. There are an infinite number of feelings, and as strange as it may sound, we can literally invent them.

This, it is said, is inhuman. It’s a bad idea. It’s wrong. It would lead us to “deserting the human community.”

Nonsense. That’s part of the propaganda of mind control. If the controllers can convince us that we’re working from a limited map of emotions and we have to stay within that territory, they can manipulate that limited set of feelings and trap us.

The power of art is that it shows us there are so many more emotions than we had previously imagined. We can be much freer than we supposed.

The synthetic world of mind control and the handful of feelings that are linked to images is what keeps us in thrall.

The world—the world of what we can be—is so much wider and more thrilling and revealing.

Jon Rappoport

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

Brave New Mind Control: everyone belongs to everyone else

Brave New Mind Control: everyone belongs to everyone else

by Jon Rappoport

March 28, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

From my work-in-progress, The Magician Awakes, here is a relevant quote:

“The modern assumption is, each person’s consciousness is connected to every other person’s consciousness. And following from that, enlightenment comes from seeing the connection and surrendering to it.

“The truth is, we are talking about theater. You can take on a role, you can ‘become’ someone else, just as an actor slips into character in a play. But you can also put aside that role. There is nothing final about it.

“On a political level, the idea that we are all one unity is just another corrupt piece of propaganda, intentionally promoted to convince people that their individual independence is a delusion.

“And on a personal level, many, many people are all too eager to lay down their own power, to stop exploring what that power is really capable of, to short-circuit that power and instead join up with an Image of ‘all consciousness.’”

“Every one belongs to every one else” is a quote from Huxley’s novel, Brave New World. Is this slogan a genuine humanitarian effort on the part of the State, or a weapon directed at the individual?

The answer in the novel is given by the characterof the “Director”:

“…at last the child’s mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child’s mind. And not the child’s mind only. The adult’s mind too—all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides—made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!”

The State is the shaper, the groomer, the proponent of all-encompassing mind control.

In our time, such phrases as “it takes a village,” “you didn’t build that,” and “we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to their communities” are suggestions pumped out by the State and its allies.

There are millions of people who resemble the naïve citizens of Brave New World, who accept the above communitarian sentiments as genuine and true and even messianic.

The State (and its media fronts), in our time, wants to impart a “spiritual tone” to its pronouncements. This comes in two basic forms. One, we are holy crusaders who must drop bombs on those who refuse to accept our traditional religion (Bush). And two, we are a single unified consciousness who must diminish the notion of the independent individual (Obama).

Coming from the State and its minions, these are straight cons.

They carry the moral weight of a mafia rep who promises a grocery-store owner protection for a weekly cut of his income.

A common theme runs through Orwell’s 1984, Huxley’s Brave New World, and Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange: there is an overwhelming problem that must be solved for the benefit of all humanity.

The problem could be described as poverty or suffering or irrational resistance to leadership or crime. The solution, though, always produces something far worse than the problem.

And the solution always involves mind control, thought control, conditioning, programming.

There was a reason Edward Bernays, the father of modern public relations wrote, “It is sometimes possible to change the attitudes of millions but impossible to change the attitude of one man.”

Mind control is directed at the mass, the group, the collective, the community, the population.

Bernays also wrote, “The three main elements of public relations are practically as old as society: informing people, persuading people, or integrating people with people.”

Integrating people with people. In other words, to make mind control propaganda work, people must cease thinking of themselves as independent individuals. That’s the key. They must think of themselves, first and foremost, as part of a group. Then the propaganda works beautifully.

Therefore, the first order of business, for propaganda, is launching suggestion after suggestion that “we’re all together.”

This “meta-suggestion” must appear to be made with the greatest sincerity and concern for the general good.

Mustapha Mond, the World Controller of Western Europe in Brave New World, comments: “Sleep teaching was actually prohibited in England…Parliament, if you know what that was, passed a law against it. The records survive. Speeches about liberty of the subject [individual person]. [Which was really] Liberty to be inefficient and miserable. Freedom to be a round peg in a square hole.”

In the novel, sleep teaching was a series of vocal repetitions, thousands of them, which added up to the insertion of State-sponsored thought in the mind of the sleeper.

Mustapha Mond is reflecting on the old world. He’s linking the ancient concept of freedom to inevitable consequences of inefficiency, suffering, and isolation. And of course the State solves all these conditions by reshaping the minds of the people, engineering them in the womb, treating them with a drug, called Soma, which relieves and banishes unhappiness, and teaching (hypnotizing) them in their sleep.

“Every one works for every one else. We can’t do without any one…for I am you and you are I.” These are the sentiments of the Brave New World. These are the thoughts produced by sleep teaching. These are the utopian principles. This is mind control.


The Matrix Revealed


Exit From the Matrix


These principles cut far deeper than, say, worker-owned businesses or intentional communities. They seek to eliminate the individual’s consciousness that he is an independent individual. In fact, they seek to cause confusion whenever an individual does consider the possibility that he is independent.

Another character in Brave new World, Bernard Marx, expresses this confusion: “How is it that I can’t, or rather—because I know quite well why I can’t—what would it be like if I could, if I were free—not enslaved by my conditioning.”

He can’t conceive what his own freedom would be.

Another Brave New World slogan capsulizes the threat freedom poses: “When the individual feels, the community reels.”

Mond, the Controller, describes the essence of Brave New World. Ask yourself how many people would opt for this kind of life, if they could have it now:

“…you’re so conditioned that you can’t help doing what you ought to do. And what you ought to do is on the whole so pleasant, so many of the natural impulses are allowed free play, that there really aren’t any temptations to resist. And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there’s always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there’s always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your morality about in a bottle…”

And how about this feature of the New World? “Men and women must have their adrenals stimulated from time to time…It’s one of the conditions of perfect health. That’s why we’ve made the V.P.S. treatments compulsory…Violent Passion Surrogate. Regularly once a month. We flood the whole system with adrenalin. It’s the complete physiological equivalent of fear and rage. All the tonic effects of murdering Desdemona and being murdered by Othello, without any of the inconveniences.” (Video games, anyone?)

Every day, week, month, year, more people are coming around to a preference for a synthetic mind-controlled “utopia,” even if they don’t realize it. They would take the Brave New World existence if it were offered to them.

And if the price to pay was the acceptance of conditioning? “Everyone belongs to everyone else”? Oh well, why not?

It’s highly significant that, in Brave New World, even with every fetus subjected to genetic engineering, there was still a need to condition people, through repetitive sleep learning, to accept The Group as all and everything.

That’s how deep the idea of the independent individual goes.

That’s The Problem for the controllers. And no matter what they try, they will never solve it with finality.

Everyone doesn’t belong to everyone else. The individual is irreducible.

He has the power to invent new reality. He has the power to join with others—without invoking mind control—to outdistance the reality of the State.

Jon Rappoport

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

A Clockwork Orange, Eden, guilt, sin, mind control

A Clockwork Orange, Eden, guilt, sin, mind control

by Jon Rappoport

March 26, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Here’s a short quote from my unfinished manuscript, The Magician Awakes:

“How do you view a single life? Is it a platform from which a human launches his future, or must he double back and find out what is wrong with him?

“Is he compelled, through social training, to think of himself as flawed? Is that what we’re all coming to? Three or four generations from now, will everyone automatically see their lives as a mistake that demands correction?”

Whether it’s the administration of toxic psychiatric drugs; experiments in changing thought and behavior through electromagnetic transmissions to the brain; genetic modifications, transhuman hook-ups between humans and machines; or other forms of operant conditioning; the message from corporations and government and society is clear:

Something is basically faulty with human beings, and it needs to be remedied.

It’s the modern version of Original Sin and redemption, via science.

Both Orwell and Huxley covered the subject in their novels, 1984 and Brave New World.

The 1962 novel, by Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange, takes up the same assumption. Its young, violent, vicious criminal is put through aversion therapy as a cure—not only for him, but also, potentially, for society.

Here are several key quotes from Burgess’ novel:

“We’re not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime—and…with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He will be your true Christian: ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the very heart at the thought even of killing a fly! Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it works.”

“Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses to be bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him?”

“He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice.”

And then from the 1971 film, A Clockwork Orange, written and directed by Stanley Kubrick:

“Our subject [the criminal] is impelled towards the good by paradoxically being impelled towards evil. The intention to act violently is accompanied by strong feelings of physical distress [during aversion therapy]. To counter these [feelings of distress], the subject has to switch to a diametrically opposed attitude. Any questions?”

There are many questions, and too few people who, now, want to think about them seriously.

Slogans, political correctness, turning to The Group for all answers, denying the existence of the individual—these are all signs that Guilt is still being used as the impetus for building the society of the future.

Laid on top of that grid is the program to “enhance” humans. Those who can afford it will undergo genetic alteration, and poof, they will suddenly have talents they only could dream of before.

This is the modern version of buying indulgences from the Roman Church to gain a place in heaven.

And it is just as fanciful.

People are being educated to believe that standing out from The Group is a crime. They must not reveal themselves in that way. Achievement is wrong. It makes The Group look small.

Much better to huddle in a mass, dependent on mind control—and our leaders will determine the form and content of that new programming.

Forget about freedom. It’s an illusion. Confess that we are all fatally misshapen. Submit to “aversion therapy.” In that way, we’ll be restored.


The Matrix Revealed


In one way or another, these propaganda operations are all versions of the Garden of Eden story. But I take the fable this way:

In the Garden, Adam and Eve were delighted with each other and with all they saw. They woke up every morning without a stain of regret or remorse. When the mind-control operative, the serpent, came along, he said:

“You don’t understand. I have other knowledge for you. There are other people over the hill. I’ll take you to them. They’re all suffering.

“And you, Adam and Eve, are the cause of that suffering, because you set yourselves apart from them. As long as you are different, they are trapped. But if you join them, and experience what they experience, you’ll change the nature of life. All of you will wait together, and a new program of existence will be given to you.”

That was the con, and it worked. The snake led Adam and Eve out of the Garden, and they joined The Group.

But everyone over the hill, huddled in a quivering mass, had once been an Adam and Eve. Everyone.

And all those Adams and Eves had once lived in a Garden. And the snake had come to all of them and told them the same story.

And they had fallen for it. Fallen.

As for the very first Adam and the first Eve, when the snake had taken them over the hill, he said: “You see, there is Nothing there. No one is there. And that Nothing is intolerable.

“There must be rules. There must be regulations. There must be boundaries. Otherwise, how will you know how to live?

“So you will stay here and suffer. Because suffering is the way to reach out and ask for rules that will save you. And after a time, those rules will be delivered to you. They’ll be printed in your minds.”


Exit From the Matrix


How many people would consider the possibility that, without mind control and without rules and without propaganda and without a priest class, they already know how to live, they already know how to invent their own realities?

How many people would believe they are already artists of great power?

How many would believe they can invent endlessly, from Nothing?

Versus: how many people would rather embed and embroil themselves in The Group, to suffer there, to scheme and connive and submit, to make war, to demand relief from pain, to wait…

Until leaders with grand solutions come along and program them to live “the life of goodness.”

This is what society is being led to. The principle that so-called goodness must be programmed into people. They can’t choose. There is no choice. There is only the mind control.

Jon Rappoport

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

Guns, schools, mind control, revolution

Guns, schools, mind control, revolution

by Jon Rappoport

March 4, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

“Padre, these are subtleties. We’re not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime–and. . .with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He will be your true Christian: ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the very heart at the thought even of killing a fly! Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it works.” — A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Burgess, 1962.

Fingers pointed like a gun. A pop tart chewed into the shape of a gun. A toy gun.

All over America, schools are exercising what they call zero tolerance policy to suspend young children packing “suggestions of guns.”

Behind this practice is the idea that populations can be conditioned against owning real guns. Start early, indoctrinate the kids, and society will change.

In turn, such thinking rests on the premise that human beings are Pavlovian dogs. Programmed biological machines. If the program currently running is faulty, and fails to obey the mandate of “greatest good for the greatest number,” change the program.

If the brain reveals a chemical imbalance (although no research has even established a baseline for normal balance), insert psychiatric drugs and correct the problem.

Maintain surveillance on the entire population, thus convincing millions they may be potential law-breakers…and they will modify their behavior, they will toe the line, they will march straight ahead and keep their mouths shut.

As this sort of flawed reasoning expands and spreads, people begin to believe that a model of radical reconstruction is viable and good.

For instance, how many people would now respond favorably to the idea that “everyone can be programmed to forget guns even exist”?

How many people would agree to a program that “guaranteed” racial prejudice would be wiped from human memory?

How many people would happily respond to the notion that environmental destruction, as an impulse, could be removed from the brain?

How many of these people would even notice that such programs were eliminating freedom? And if they did notice, how many would care?

Operant conditioning and mind control could have side effects? What does that mean, if freedom was never real in the first place?

A recent opinion piece in the Harvard Crimson, by student Sandra YL Korn, was subtitled: “Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice.” Korn asserted that academic research promoting “oppression” should be stopped. Perhaps you can imagine what a university council, convened to define and rule on “justice,” would look and sound like.

(Question for consideration by the Committee: should University funds for African-American left-handed lesbians supersede monies devoted to correcting unequal treatment of differently-abled wheelchair-bound Hispanic immigrants whose parents descend from bloodlines of Spanish conquistadors in the New World?)

The idea that you can obliterate “bad parts” of the brain and preserve the good parts is now embedded in standard science. It is childish, absurd, and dangerous to the extreme.

Brain researchers are, on the whole, disinterested in the law. They aim to create a new species for whom no laws will be needed. People will do the right thing, because their upgraded brains tell them to.

If these researchers and their allies succeed, what we are now calling revolutions will be as pop tarts are to ICBMs. We’ll have mass uprisings that will shake the Earth.

Because when freedom is slipping away, is actually being drained away, and when people know it, in their bones, when they can no longer deny it or sleep through it, they will show exactly how important they think it is.

They will no longer believe that all this programming and brain research are aimed at curing illness. They will understand the madness being visited on them.

Jon Rappoport

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

The voice of mind control

The voice of mind control

by Jon Rappoport

March 4, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Every civilization and every generation has their defining voices.

The voice does two things. It tells the story of the times; and it injects the telltale emotions, moods, and attitudes of that story.

The public swallows the tale with all its lies and omissions, and accepts the way in which the whole act is spooled out by the sound of the narrative voice.

The tone of the story creates a trance.

Different societies are vulnerable to different styles of story-telling.

Americans on this side of the Atlantic, listening to the radio speeches of Hitler delivered with staccato militant force, thought the German people were clearly crazy to go along.

It never occurred to the Americans, glued to their radios listening to President Roosevelt, that many Germans would think the sing-song pseudo-British style of the aristocratic FDR was a transparent joke.

I’ll take my hypnosis on rye with mustard.” “I’ll have mine on a bun with mayo.”

It’s assumed that, because Hitler and Mussolini were cementing their control through mass arrests and overt shows of force, they could get away with vocal displays of shouting and intimidation. Otherwise, the people would have turned away from them in disgust.

That’s not the whole picture, by any means. Large numbers of people in Germany and Italy responded enthusiastically to the voices of Hitler and Mussolini.

The trance they entered, as a result, wasn’t a passive narcosis. It was a kind of hysteria that demanded action.

If, down the road, America is put under an openly declared state of martial law, with all the bells and whistles attached, elite television anchors, like Brian Williams and Scott Pelley, will tell that story—not as Mussolini would—but as our anchors always do; in measured, “responsible, objective” tones. It will be “grave and sober.” The voices will suggest a dollop of alarm, but…everything is under control.

That’s the way modern Americans want to hear The Voice narrate the story of the times.

And the president of the moment? He will deploy those same tones. He won’t be standing on the balcony of a building shouting and waving his arms.

But the result will be the same.

In the wake of post-WW2 America, as the feisty combative Harry Truman exited the White House, the bland-egg Eisenhower took up residency. He was always calm and under control. He was the modest hero. He was what you’d call, in his speeches, a Grade B anchor. Not good, but not the worst.

At the same time, American television news was coming into being. Douglas Edwards, one of the first elite anchors, was a smoother, better-trained-for-television Eisenhower. Ed Murrow, who had been narrating the war from London, added his “pregnant-with-meaning” ominous tone to US news broadcasting.

The narrative style of the American voice was under construction.

Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, along with Walter Cronkite, moved in to put their ineradicable stamp on the sound of our civilization. They were a step up from Doug Edwards. They could crystallize a tight range of repressed feelings in every sentence they uttered. They were coming out of literary traditions: Hemingway, Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett.

Tough guy with a warm edge.

America loved it. Those new voices enabled every kind of con, six ways from Sunday, to be visited on an adoring public.

Flash forward to 1968. Despite the revolution of the 60s, more than half of voting America still wanted the whitebread, big-bullshit, used-car-salesman nostalgia of the previous decade. So Richard Nixon, a man who couldn’t open his lips without lying on several simultaneous levels, waltzed into the White House.

After the hopeless Gerald Ford stood in for Nixon, a cartoon of a cartoon was needed; a peacemaker; a man “of the cloth.” Sold out to David Rockefeller down to his jockstrap, Jimmy Carter came to the presidency to heal the nation from Watergate. He was the new voice silkily twanging the American story, a respite from Nixon.

Then, out of Hollywood, appeared an actor who, despite a wretched history in films, could sell a cartoon of “the shining city on the hill.” Ronald Reagan. America wanted a redux of the freedom story, and he supplied it, as the invasive federal government nevertheless continue to burgeon from its every rotting pore.

And on it went. Presidents and anchors on television conspired to deliver a two-dimensional fairy tale, in a country where an accelerated androidal conformity was beginning to dominate the landscape.

Television was the mutual electronic feeding trough for the Great Voices and the public. They mixed and matched and swam in convenient concert, through gray offal.

Talent spotters at the networks and inside the major political parties knew what to look for. They knew how the voices needed to sound. They knew the game.

Slightly more progressive and hip for the boomers? Bill Clinton.

Shit-kicker John Wayne retro? GW Bush.

A new interplanetary sun-god messiah? Obama.

A Hemingway knockoff with an edge in his voice? Dan Rather.

Smooth-groomed high IQ macaque? Brian Williams.

Might turn in his mother to the cops? Scott Pelley.

Drooling sad-eyed swan imported from the Morning Show? Diane Sawyer.

Sacrifice the mind on the altar of cosmically oozing sentimentality, tricked out as New Age news? Oprah.

Floating blithely in an ocean of high-level corporate-government-banking crimes, Americans can choose their favorite voice to obscure the truth and tell a very, very tall tale.

That’s what people want, and that’s what they get.

Will any of these elite voices ever upset a serious apple cart? Not on your life.

If America really wanted a Hitler to stand in the middle of the Rose Bowl, surrounded by perfect columns of ramrod soldiers, and lay out the next hundred years of triumph of the will, do you think the television networks would find one?

Are you kidding? In a New York minute.

But Americans want their fascism soft-boiled. Americans want gradualism. They don’t want a coup in the middle of the night. They want to watch the leaves fall off the tree of freedom one branch at a time.

When the Republicans ran Mitt Romney against Barack Obama, they were banking on the premise that somehow, somewhere, the majority of the public desired a retro Wonder Bread hero. But that voice and that tone and that mood didn’t fit. It didn’t carry the day.

Interestingly, there was an enormous groundswell for a man who had no voice at all, in the media sense.

But the Republican door was firmly closed to him, because of his ideas, but also because he wasn’t a typical anchor.

Ron Paul.

You can take this to the bank. If Ron Paul ever became the voice of our times, reality itself as most people accept it would crack under their feet, and they would fall into black space screaming.

One reason? Paul isn’t spinning a story with the impressive rhythms and tones and segueways of a media pro. Therefore, you actually have to pay attention to the content of his words. That alone is enough to give most people strokes, blood clots, and titanic neurological chaos.

The US government is loathe to legislate mandatory television-news-watching to every American. It leaves that aspect of the fascist agenda to its corporate partners and their advertising agencies.

And little boys and girls dream of growing up and becoming finely coiffed and perfumed anchors and pundits.

A precious few will make it. They’ll tell tales of the adored Matrix. They’ll carve their names in the fake book of chords and melodies. They’ll stir the appropriate sentiments. They’ll deliver the news every night. They’ll present every half-cocked limited hangout and define every outrageous set of straitjacket parameters to a prepared audience.

You’re an aspiring anchor? Come on down. Some day you might be the chosen one. You might become the messenger, the talent turned out by the royal court, to ring the bells and sing the songs. If you’re lucky, and you sing on key, you may have five or 10 years before the next up-and-coming voice edges you out.

You might be assigned to bring mind control to your generation. You might be the one to obscure and conceal the real Fed Reserve, the crimes of the medical cartel, the Globalist agenda, the theft of trillions of dollars, the Collectivist framework, and the death of individual freedom.

Doesn’t that sound like a great job? And you can call it responsible journalism.

Jon Rappoport

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

Mind control research and freedom

Mind control research and freedom

by Jon Rappoport

February 12, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

There is a whole brand of mind control that is little more than torture.

In other words, by inflicting duress, coercion, making threats, causing pain and disorientation, an “expert” can make a victim do and say many things. That’s no secret. There are obviously drugs and hypnotic techniques that will soften up a person and/or put him into tremendous confusion, where he is pliable. And microwaves create pain.

One of the foremost lunatic practitioners of torture was world-famous Canadian psychiatrist, Ewen Cameron, who carried out experiments on unwitting patients during the 1950s. Partially funded by a CIA front, Cameron’s method was called psychic driving.

After horrendous electric shocks, very heavy drugs were given to place patients in days of prolonged sleep. Cameron then subjected them to audio tapes he made, in which he repeated phrases thousands of times, in order to produce “new personalities” for them.

This is murderous coercion. There is nothing sophisticated about it.

A 2012 lawsuit filed by veterans’ groups, against the CIA and the DOD, refers to Cameron’s methods. The suit also states that two researchers, Dr. Louis West and Dr. Jose Delgado, working together under the early CIA MKULTRA subproject 95, utilized two protocols: brain implants (“stimoceivers”) and RHIC-EDOM to program the minds of victims. RHIC-EDOM stands for Radio Hypnotic Intracerebral Control-Electronic Dissolution of Memory.

Translation: bury memory, and insert new data. But here again, burying memory, the first phase, is achieved through force. The force of subjecting the brain to massive electromagnetic disruption.

Later and more sophisticated means of mind control can utilize loops, during which a person’s own brainwaves are fed back to him, along with suggestions.

But different people have different degrees of consciousness about their own thoughts and feelings.

No system exists which would make every person believe a thought planted in his brain is his own thought.

There is another gap. Just because certain naturally occurring brain waves can be read and recorded, this does not mean that feeding back those waves will result in “perfect reception” and integration by every person.

The third gap can be enormous, depending on the person. Thought in its basic form isn’t a product of the brain at all. The brain REFLECTS thought that is created by the person in a non-material space.

People who are aware of this wouldn’t fooled by brainwaves fed to them with suggestions.

As I’ve written before, the entire obsession with the brain is misplaced. If this organ is viewed as the fountainhead of all thought, then there is no such thing as freedom. Why? Because the brain, like every material object, is made up of tiny particles or waves that move according to physical laws—in which case the brain is just “another object” where the particles aggregate and mix and match.

There is absolutely nothing inherent in sub-atomic particles that would lead to a notion of free will.

The existence of freedom (choice) directly implies a non-material space. And a non-material individual who is inhabiting a physical form.

Mind control is most successful when inflicted on people who ALREADY have trouble making the distinction between what they think and believe, and what other people around them think and believe.


The Matrix Revealed


Ongoing research to take real-time pictures of brain activity is likely to focus on two major targets: people who hold very strong individualistic beliefs and those who are intensely creative.

The aim here is to introduce new brain activity that will cumulatively erode “the determination to believe” and the commitment to create. Why? Because those are distinct threats to a controlled status quo.

This research direction parallels a social propaganda campaign to eliminate the whole concept of “will power.” That phrase has become passe. It is now viewed by many people as a negative and essentially meaningless notion. In its place? Genetic determinism. DNA rules all. A person is what a person is because of his genes, and that’s the beginning and end of the story.

Never mind the fact that research along these lines has turned up precious little to explain human behavior. It’s a propagated myth of “science.” And it’s promoted for its social impact: “you can’t change what you are.”

It has always been true, since the dawn of time, that one person can force another person to take certain actions. But this is no mystery.

These days, with the use, say, of acoustic weapons or other forms of wave-disruption broadcasting, criminals can make people sick, make them feel pain or anger or fatigue—but this is really on the level of an electromagnetic “fist” to the head. Is it dangerous? Of course. But so is a concussion or a heavy blow to the gut or a bullet to the leg.

The people at the CIA, the Pentagon, DARPA, and other agencies, who are trying to change thought and behavior, are even crazier than they appear to be. They assume that the process of thought is so directly a product of the brain that they can make Thought A turn into Thought B with the flip of a switch. They have many surprises in store for them.

The major problem for humanity, vis-a-vis mind control, is the large number of people who already are only dimly aware of what they’re thinking and feeling. They can be manipulated with relative ease. But that is no surprise.

Nor is it a shock when people who are members of a cult do something horrendous to others or themselves. They’ve been subjected to social conditioning every day. They’ve bought the package. They’ve sworn allegiance to a leader. It takes relatively little to push them over the edge.

The SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, etc.) are themselves a form of mind control. They elicit, in some people, suicide and homicide. But this isn’t a precise process of switching off one thought and inserting another. This is the creation of a wholesale brain storm, in which neurotransmitters go haywire and scramble the brain and the nervous system. The person is literally being tortured, and he responds with violence.

The bottom-line issue in all these heinous methods is freedom of the individual. Freedom to think his thoughts, act on the basis of his chosen goals. Mind control advocates and researchers deny such freedom exists. For them, it’s just a matter of replacing one piece of equipment for another in what they believe humans are: biological machines.

It’s the end-game of philosophic Materialism.

See that. Know that. Understand it.

(See Scott Noble’s film Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century (posted at YouTube)).

Jon Rappoport

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

Mind control and mind chaos: the troll and the non sequitur

Mind control and mind chaos: the troll and the non sequitur

by Jon Rappoport

February 10, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

On a mass level, one of the most efficient methods of mind control is the creation of the non sequitur.

Non sequitur is Latin for “it does not follow.” In logic, this is a statement that doesn’t validly flow from previous assertions.

Example: “All presidents are crazy.” “Sam is crazy.” “Therefore, Sam is a president.”

Wrong. The final “Sam is a president” is a non sequitur.

In an education system where logic is absent, the student has no center. He drifts. He comes to rely on what other people tell him. He can’t think and reason for himself. He opts for ideas that seem superficially attractive.

In ordinary usage, this could be an exaggerated non sequitur: you’re parked in a lot outside a market, and a car hits you from behind. You get out and walk over to the driver and say, “Hey, you hit me.” And he says, “My sister was tested for tuberculosis and she’s clean.”

Or you write a piece about a medical drug recall, and a reader responds, “Jesus is the light of the world.”

These days, more and more people believe information is something you’re supposed to plug into at any level…and respond to with whatever comes to mind. This is the new logic.

As in the last example, non sequitur can issue forth from people who have an overwhelming agenda they refer to, no matter what the situation.

Example: “A last second-shot saved the LA Lakers from going down to another defeat.” And the response is, “When humanity rejects Islam, we will finally find peace.”

An online troll (see many comments sections all over the Net) has an overwhelming agenda or is being paid to distract people and lead them off course.

An example of this last might be: After an article about fraud at the Federal Reserve and several relevant comments, there suddenly comes, “All you conspiracy theorists are crazy Ron Paul followers. Money is money. Get over yourselves. Try leaving your mother’s basement.”

The troll hopes he’ll stir up enough animosity to take people away from the issue of fraud at the Fed, while painting Ron Paul as a nutcase.

If, in any situation, you take the bait and try to reason with a person who is entrenched in non sequitur, you waste your time and energy. It won’t work.

In Washington, non sequitur is SOP.

Senator, we’re still waiting for answers about what really happened in Benghazi.”

My boy, the whole Middle East and North Africa are tied together in age-old conflicts. It’s our job to untangle that mess, sort it out, and establish beachheads of Democracy.”

Say what??

In casual conversation at a party, where six or seven people are all talking at once and laughing, non sequitur is a hell of a lot of fun. But when it comes to grasping information, it’s about as useful as a spavined horse in the Preakness.

To which someone will reply, in perfect non sequitur, “Horses should never run at racetracks. It’s cruel.”


The Matrix Revealed


I once gave a talk about methods of analyzing information. I used, as an example, the Oklahoma Bombing case (1995). The responses from the audience were all opinions about the Bombing case. The people failed to connect with the real subject of the lecture because they weren’t aware there was such a thing as logic. For them, that was just some inexplicable icing on the cake.

They were products of the American educational system.

Television news is perfect non sequitur, in the sense that the anchor is paid to provide smooth transitions from one story to another unrelated story: “In the Middle East today, peace talks broke down again…a St. Louis housewife was shot in a drive-by…and did you know that some clothes dryers may not be safe…a body was found in a row boat off the coast of Virginia…it’s snowing in Florida…”

Turn a mind into a universal magnet that randomly picks up iron, wood, bits of paper, cigarette butts, orange peels, leaves, sand, mice, sugar, and shoes, it doesn’t matter what questions you present. The answers will be irrelevant.

This is a unique form of control.

Jon Rappoport

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

Technocracy is failed mind control

Technocracy is failed mind control

by Jon Rappoport

December 3, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Whether we know it or not, like it or not, want it or not, we are engaged in a struggle, and that struggle concerns the human spirit—understanding it, experiencing it, defending it against attacks.

The spirit isn’t some vague ghost or apparition. It’s front and center, even in this blind world. It animates action. It has great power. It defies reduction.

The spirit proliferates thought and vision. It doesn’t settle for simplistic harmonies that short-circuit its inventions. It isn’t a happy-happy rainbow. It isn’t a child’s fairy tale.

In articles about my collection, The Matrix Revealed, I’ve stressed, over and over, that human thought originates in a non-material sphere. A sphere outside conventional energy and space and time.

That means the brain isn’t thinking. It’s performing calculations directed by ideas that are far more than chemical/biological reflexes.

Technocracy and its utopian fantasies provide a perfect negative example.

Addled researchers look forward to the day when your brain, connected to a massive computer that is “a super brain,” will have instant access to so much information it will ascend to a new level of knowledge and power…and then Greater Reality will emerge.

But on what assumptions is this fantasy based?

First, you can “download” information from the super brain. You can perceive it all and somehow incorporate it. Translation: the super brain will impose itself on you. This is called mind control, plain and simple.

You’ll be able to “think with the super brain,” which directs your thought patterns and your conclusions. Again, mind control.

The super brain is like a very, very wise parent who gives you “best information and best conclusions.” You will obey, because the parent is right, correct, and is looking out for your best interests.

As if that isn’t enough, you’ll also be able “gain new insights,” because your brain and the super brain (computer) are in sync. But none of this really involves active thought, because what the two brains are doing is automatic.

So insights, whatever they may consist of, are programmed into you. If that sounds like freedom, Pavlov was Thomas Paine.

Brain activity on any level, whether biological or chemical or machine, isn’t about freedom. It’s about carrying out directives that originate in free choice.

Actual thought is based in freedom. You think, which is to say, you make inquiries and decisions and conclusions outside the automatic venue of chemical and biological activity. You do that.

You aren’t your brain.

If you were your brain, freedom wouldn’t exist and we could all pack it up and go home and forget about life and the future.

Therefore, no super brain computer is going to supply you with freedom. It’s going to enforce automatic reflexes based on somebody’s algorithms.

How did we get into this mess? The answer is simple. We forgot about what freedom is. For decades, we’ve taken it for granted. We’ve overlooked the study of freedom and its implications.

If you develop a vision about the future you want, that’s thought taking place in a sphere outside the automatic chemical/ biological reflexes and processes of the brain. That’s you thinking, freely.

Technocracy is all about “best answer.” It’s a fairy tale in which all humans go along with a master plan.

And as for the nuts and bolts…do you really believe that if you have access to a program that teaches a foreign language, you’ll instantly be able to speak in that language?

If the super brain gives you a one-second blast of information about automotive repair, do you really think you’ll be able to open the hood of your car and fix it?

Do you really believe you’ll be able to plug into a reservoir of data about playing the piano and immediately sit down and roll out Chopin and Beethoven?

Take chess. We’ve already seen that big computers can defeat human chess champions. Does that mean you can plug into the computer’s programs and become Bobby Fisher? Having access and actually doing something with that access are two very different things.

Doing something means you are making choices and decisions, freely. It doesn’t mean you’re submitting to a mechanical pattern.


The Matrix Revealed


Technocracy is the latest piece of insanity derived from the notion that you can have everything you want handed to you on a silver platter. I have news. At bottom, people don’t want that silver platter. They want the fruits of their own efforts. They want the joy that comes from those efforts and freely made choices.

Technocracy is the latest effort to explain “the genius mystery.” It offers the lunatic notion that genius is a mere program that can be loaded into a brain.

That’s called a metaphor, but it’s being taken seriously as a literal explanation.

Talent, achievement, and creative imagination are far more interesting and marvelous than programs. They originate in non-material spaces where the individual invents thought and energy.

The Matrix is the sum total of efforts to deny and bury that fact.

This is why I do the work I do.

Back in the late 1980s, when I met a brilliant hypnotherapist named Jack True, I changed my focus. Jack told me a simple thing: “I stopped doing hypnosis because I realized new patients who were walking into my office were already hypnotized.”

He didn’t mean they were in a zombie-like trance. He meant that their ceaseless activity covered a core place in their consciousness that was asleep.

In this core, people are submitting to a program about how to perceive reality. This complex program is devised to hide their basic non-material power to change reality, to invent new reality on a radical scale.

Because that is how the projection of mass reality is achieved: by spreading amnesia about the capacity of every individual human to create without limit.

Technocracy is a mirror of that amnesia.

Technocracy is a surrender to that amnesia. It’s a blockbuster movie loaded with special effects that hide its paucity of real ideas. It’s lack of free thought parading as advanced thinking. It’s simplistic plot operating like junk food—pleasant impact followed by vacuum and blank stare.

Before you can figure out all the lies, we’ll have you trapped in a new system.”

That’s the challenge hurled at us. How we respond will decide the future of life on planet Earth.

Our response depends on our understanding and conviction about what we are. Free and intensely creative beings, or sub-machines connected to the Big Machine.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Propaganda mind control: turning truth backwards

by Jon Rappoport

September 25, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Now and then, if you take a popular advertising or PR slogan and turn it backwards, you get something more interesting.

Remember GE’s “Progress is our most important product”? Try “Product is our most important progress.”

Or “There’s no I in team” becomes “There’s no team in I.”

More esoteric? If you have a little surrealism in your blood, you can do a Zen koan with “Think outside the box,” making it, “Box outside the think.”

Propaganda mainly exists to put the truth backwards, because for some reason people like it that way.

The Vatican has some high-level propaganda pros working for it. They float the idea that in-house pedophiles are just occasional wanderers from the ethical status quo.

Whereas the priesthood is closer to an ad for men who like little boys.

You can wear an official robe and we’ll protect you. If you get caught, we’ll move you around from diocese to diocese until you disappear, and you’ll never have to serve a day in jail or pay a fine. Ask yourself if this profession is right for you…”

The government wants us to believe that alternatives to oil are extremely difficult to come by (except for nuke reactors that can destroy life on Earth).

Presidents will always pay lip service to gaining independence from foreign oil.

But this is all backwards propaganda. The truth runs more like this: “We want to fight wars and control land and kill people and blow up whatever we can. We need a reason to do that. So, when we talk to influential corporate types and insiders, we focus on energy. We say we have to keep the oil flowing, that’s why we go in there and destabilize countries and set up new puppets and kill, kill, kill.”

What? Energy isn’t the real reason?

No it isn’t. The real reason is lunatics want to kill people and control land.


The Matrix Revealed


Exit From the Matrix


Here’s how you make energy. You turn a wheel. Call it a turbine. Set up the wheel in conjunction with magnetic fields, and you can produce energy. Electricity.

Those huge dams? Those nuke plants? They end up turning wheels. Water, steam. They spin the wheel.

Well, there is this thing called the ocean. You may have heard of it. And then there are smaller narrower versions called rivers.

The water moves. It flows. It’s strong. Small turbines in rivers and larger ones in coastal inlets, where the ocean tide varies from quite high to low—and you can turn the wheel.

It’s not that perplexing.

If you want to get fancy, you can build plants offshore and split water into hydrogen and oxygen and use the hydrogen for energy.

Here’s where the domeheads enter the scene and exclaim this is all about “cost-effectiveness.”

No it isn’t.

If you need to, check out the history of government subsidies and loopholes that exist for people who make oil in the ground into energy and nuke factories hum.

Do you think these industries survive on pure free-market capitalism? Kidding? They’re supported. All sorts of deals shore up their back-end.

So, on a far, far lesser scale, ocean/river turbines and hydrogen from sea water might need a subsidy boost, but compared to oil and nukes, we’re talking pennies on the dollar.

Energy independence has been there for us, for a long time, but that isn’t the point. The military industrial complex doesn’t want it. They want to fight wars, and they need a reason they can give to “people in the know”: oil.

It’s all backwards.

The propaganda is enormous. It includes numerous psyops designed to make the public believe in energy shortages, as well as “necessary wars.”

These people and their allies are inventing, day by day, a reality that implies the need for war.

Read “The Dream of Passamaquoddy,” the story of the Maine tidal electricity project JFK supported for many years. It’s a prime illustration of how a feasible source of energy was stalled, deflected, wrapped in red tape, politicized, and undermined.

To understand war, start with the psychology of the men who make it happen. They may talk about geopolitics and energy, but they’re obsessed with attacking, destroying, and killing.

They’re Attila the Hun in suits and military uniforms.

In the delusion called consensus reality, whole populations admire these gangsters, who represent the generalized desire for some kind of revenge against life-as-it-is.

Okay, boys, all of us in this room here are on the same page. We can let down our guard. We know we love to kill and maim and bomb and enslave and take over land. That’s what we live for. So we need to ID some valuable thing we say is very, very scarce, without which life as we know it wouldn’t exist. Get it? And we privately tell Presidents and legislators and heavy hitters we have to go to war to safeguard this very scarce thing and make sure we can still obtain it. Ha-ha. And for our purposes, the thing is ENERGY. Right? We do whatever it takes to make everybody believe energy is scarce and hard to come by and limited and so on, and war is okay because we fight to make sure we have access to energy. It’s all backwards…but who cares?”

WE NEED TO FIGHT WARS TO SECURE ENERGY SOURCES is really WE NEED ENERGY TO FIGHT WARS BECAUSE WE WANT TO FIGHT WARS.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com