Category Archives: Mind control

The trick behind occult systems

The trick behind occult systems

by Jon Rappoport

September 7, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

It should be obvious to readers who’ve been with me for a while that I attack delusion in more than one place. Political systems, medical systems…and so-called spiritual systems.

That’s because I happen to believe in legitimate limited government, healing, and the unbounded life of the individual spiritual being.

Occult systems, which propose they have a hidden secret at the core, which will be revealed after a long and exhaustive search, are, at best, deluded, because they are concealing CONTENT.

By content, I mean information, knowledge, pattern, some facet of what already exists. This is a dead-end.

There is nothing wrong with truthful information. But….

Suppose we had a secret society called The Inner Core Flame X42. And we sold our members on the idea that, after a series of ascending initiations, they would arrive at the X, the secret of secrets.

Well, what could X be? Some nugget of information, some formula or phrase or fact or made-up fact about existence that is supposed to solve problems and enlighten consciousness.

But consciousness is dynamic. It isn’t a key looking for a lock.

Consciousness is dynamic because it creates. It creates new realities.

It isn’t primarily a container for What Is, for what already exists.

If there is a secret about consciousness, that’s it. IT CREATES.

The Matrix Revealed

So no matter what X we cooked up, it would become obsolete, of minor value.

Humans are ripe for buying an X because they are trained, and train themselves, to place the highest value on What Already Exists.

That’s mind control par excellence.

Occult systems deliver what controlled minds expect, and that’s why they’ve flourished. That’s the only reason why.

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

The landscape of the mind and mind control

The landscape of the mind and mind control

by Jon Rappoport

September 6, 2013

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

Three important elements of mind control are: causing automatic responses to stimuli; loading the mind with false information; and propagandizing the idea that mental disorders are actual entities that exist in the mind.

I’ve written extensively about these three elements. They conspire to produce many false realities.

I’ve also refuted the notion that the mind is nothing more than the brain. If mind and brain were identical, there would be no meaning, understanding, or freedom.

The brain is made of up of the same microparticles that constitute rocks and chairs. No matter how these particles are configured in the brain, they do not equip a person to understand words on a page, or any other type of communication. Nor do they lead to the ability to make free choices.

(This, by the way, is what the whole scandal at TED talks is all about. They’ve suppressed talks by Hancock and Sheldrake, who discuss consciousness apart from the brain.)

Even when we shift focus from brain to mind, there is the myth that mind has a particular landscape. It is a territory that can be mapped. This is false.

Let’s instead call mind consciousness, which is a better term, because it implies awareness, which is dynamic and alive.

Imagine, invent, and create: beyond analyzing, this is what consciousness does. It can do it offstage, so to speak, or with the knowledge of the person.

People are educated to believe that it takes special, inborn talent to imagine and create. That is one incredibly destructive teaching. It stunts natural development to the point where passivity becomes the order of the day—and of a life.

So we have a society where a small fraction of the population ever considers that being an artist is within their grasp.

Creating art is alchemical, in the sense that it takes feeling, thought, experience and transforms them into raw fuel for the fire.

In that very immediate sense, consciousness is no longer anything that could be called static and unchanging. It moves. It creates. And it transmutes experience.

exit from the matrix

Many myths of the past suggest there is a line, a threshold, which when crossed, changes perception forever and introduces the seeker to “great mysteries.” These stories more basically are describing a change from passivity to the creative life.

The “knight errant” on his journey comes to a point where he realizes that things as they are, are never going reveal secrets of the psyche, no matter how deeply he probes them. Instead, tapping into imagination and creating that which was never there before is the key.

That is the great change. That is the threshold that is crossed.

Mind control in all its forms is designed to prevent this insight. It turns out that the vast majority of such control is self-induced. Although outside influences are involved, finally it is the person himself who consigns himself to a repetitive future of passive acceptance of things as they are.

If we look around us, we see multiple ways in which the world is being manipulated by elites. This is one layer or one path in the maze. On another path, the individual is bottling up his own power by denying and rationalizing away his imagination and inventive force.

I am talking here about the difference between living a life that eventually dumps a person into a dead-end, and living a life in the open sky of imagination.

This is exactly why I put together my two collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix. I invite you to explore them.

Jon Rappoport

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

Mind control, the shell game, and the stealth gods

Mind control, the shell game, and the stealth gods

by Jon Rappoport

April 8, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Of the many definitions of collectivism, this simple one is my favorite: “The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.”

When I was starting out as a reporter 30 years ago, one of my first editors sat down with me and said, “In America, collectivism is what the government does to people to make them deaf, dumb, and blind, so the corporations can steal everything from them.”

He went on to tell me, off the record, that his paper wasn’t interested in collectivism, only the corporations. That was his line in the sand.

An early assignment was interviewing a congressman. As I sat in a tony cafe with him, an idea kept buzzing in my head: he was giving things away that weren’t his to begin with.

I couldn’t make that idea sharper. It was a stray thought, and it kept nagging at me, long after the interview was done. It somehow reminded me of the classic shell game. Three shells, one pea. Guess which shell is hiding the pea. What if the pea isn’t there at all?

I realized I was trying to understand something about collectivism, the psychology of it. Another image struck me: the old telephone game, where one person whispers a phrase to another, and that person passes it on, until the last person announces what he’s heard; and of course now it bears no resemblance to the original message.

How about starting the game with no message at all? You just make a kind of hissing mumble. And the last person in the circle emerges with “life is good.”

That’s a metaphor for collectivism.

Collectivism is a system by which people give each other what they don’t have.

If this seems like a magic trick, it is. It’s magic founded in mind control.

Collectivism is rife with contradictions. That’s why it bedevils the incurious mind and comes to dominate it.

People who don’t have freedom, because they renounced it, somehow give it to each other. People who don’t have money give it to each other. People who don’t have power give it to each other.

This is a perverse ritual, aimed at conjuring what has been forsaken and reinstating it in a mob.

The mob, in turn, maintains strength by destroying thought, language, and meaning: Freedom and money and power and equality become senseless grunts that translate into: “we have It.” “It” is never defined. It is felt, like an approaching wave of sudden gifts out of nowhere.

The mob is told that what they feel is, indeed, a harbinger of the Good, is a sign that their rights are being served. Justice has finally arrived.

Of course, such manipulations do not simply appear out of a void. As George Orwell wrote in 1944, “It cannot be said too often…that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of.”

The tyrannical minority, posing as benefactors, use their elite status to work over the mob like a chunk of soft dough, shaping it to their ends.

In our time, these elitists are called Globalists.

The term “collectivism” has been dropped out of the public vocabulary. It has been made into a joke by pundits and academics, who treat it like a misbegotten child of bygone Cold War paranoids.

Now, just as Orwell predicted, we have the word “freedom” twisted to mean a property or quality of the group, as if there was never really any freedom of the individual; as if freedom was merely a construct invented to allow heinous criminals to run wild.

Interesting, because the true heinous criminals are the very ones who have reformed the language to conceal their own intentions.

Now they give us “the greater good,” “we’re all in this together,” “we have to work together to make freedom mean something.” These empty perversions ring hollow to anyone who is awake, but to the mob they signal the elevation of disability to paradise.

This is an extremely bizarre psychology. It is formulated on the basis of “give to everyone what you’ve forsaken for yourself,” “transfer every positive aspect of the individual—aspects which never actually existed—to the homogenous group.”

There is enough illogic there to submerge a rational mind.

But if you put every politician in Washington in a bag, from the lowest -ranking bureaucrat in some obscure federal agency all the way up to the president, shook the bag, and pulled out any dozen of the species, chances are quite good you would come up with men and women who are automatic living, breathing, and talking end-products of this through-the-looking-glass philosophy.

You could do the same bag trick with academics, and obtain the same result. These creatures are sniffing dogs with good radar. They sense which way the culture-winds are blowing, and they invent collectivist attitudes and words to make hay for themselves in their mad circuses.

Inside colleges and universities, there are, of course, hard-core collectivist minders and operators, who are straight-out sociopaths. They keep the dogs in line. They set the tone. They know how to work the levers and intimidate the fence-sitters.

In Hollywood and other venues of celebrity, the stars are mere dupes who can exercise their penchant for making humanitarian gestures and thereby contribute to the overall cause, because…

Collectivism is couched entirely in humanitarian terms. It’s all about help, it’s all about assistance for the needy, it’s all about leveling the playing field. And, at the upper levels of the op, far beyond the celebrities, it’s all for show. Nothing is genuine. Nothing is honest.

Collectivism is all about replacing I with We. Whatever contributes to that infernal substitution will receive support.

Starting in the early 1960s, the spiritual component of collectivism was drawn into the West from ancient Asian practices, distorted selectively, and redesigned to produce a picture of enlightenment, in which the individual soul would ascend to universal homogenous consciousness. The One vaporized into the All.

Popular books and teachers preached a doctrine in which greater attainment was defined as merging with a Whole.

“As long as you are you, you are never what you really are.”

This was the essence. The individual is an illusion. The illusion can only be shattered by enlisting in the cosmic collective.

Then came the radical environmentalists. Their leaders and investors were vastly rich men, who cared about the environment only as their private preserve, who pursued depopulation as their holy grail, who bankrolled a philosophy of interconnectedness. Nature was one interlocked system, of which humans were a minor component, with no more status than that of a germ.

Humans, therefore, needed to sustain Nature by submitting to it, by becoming a worshiping biological corpuscle in the Great Body.

Stop pollution? Clean the rivers? Find new renewable sources of energy? Not enough. Not nearly enough.

Crowd more and more people into vertical cities? Leave millions and millions of acres of land under the stewardship of the “wiser, better” government? Smash the small farmer and replace him with titanic tracts of chemical/genetic pseudo-food? Yes, but more was required. The individual and his own mind must disappear into a mystical ecological network.

And now, the technocrats. These rootless nomads of the machine promise to cull, out of electronic soup, a parallel brain, a thing far more powerful than what resides in the human skull; and in order to gain intelligence and avoid hopelessly falling behind, we have to attach ourselves to master computers and access the wisdom of right decisions.

An ultimate super-brain will supply such decisions for us, to achieve our apotheosis. No longer individuals, we will jump the track and make our home, all of us, inside the new mathematical Oversoul.

The hive, the nest, the colony, the collective.

The Matrix Revealed

Exit From the Matrix

Knowing the agenda, the stakes, the battle, the war, we can forfeit to the default, we can finesse and tap dance and take the road to a false dead-end unity, or we can disengage from the program.

Stepping back from the enormous babble of collectivism, we hear a silence that reveals no one is there to tell us what to do. Each one of us must use and invent enough freedom for that choice.

And then make it. And then act on it.

Collectivism means everyone will share equally. Since this is both a theoretical and practical impossibility, the leaders of the pack, and their leaders, decide on the terms of the contract. No matter how much is given to whom, or how little, every particle of every gift is defined as a thing of beauty.

It is all coming from some dispensing god, who has thrown off selfish pride and instead is making offerings from the heart.

These invisible collectivist Royals are humbly bringing manna.

That’s the projected image.

“Who was I to think I could create abundance? No, it comes from above. I bend to the wheel and make my small contribution to the Whole. That is all. This should be the source of my contentment.”

If this sounds like religious speech, it is, adjusted to the philosophy of our time. Collectivism always was a religion. It was launched in ancient eras, by men who perceived that minds could be led and shaped by certain ideas. How better to build the future than by codifying those ideas in the center of a great crime and using them to recast the criminal enterprise as the highest Good?

What could possibly achieve more success than that?

On the receiving end, the bedazzled and bewildered soul, the individual, is driven to discard his every idea and thought and impulse and desire, thus achieving supreme emptiness, a condition longed-for by seekers of peace.

Triumph.

Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery.

Lord Acton, who coined the universally quoted maxim about power and corruption, also wrote:

“By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion.”

Acton assumed that the State might be willing, in the long run, to protect the individual against the influence of authority—when the State is that authority.

Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman and self-educated author of The True Believer, cut closer to the bone: “Of what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual? We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, ‘to be free from freedom.'”

Collectivism is the last refuge of the tyrant, the mob, and also the individual who refuses to discover his own strength. The outline of the true conspiracy includes all three participants. To try to excuse any one of these is an error.

It is also the result of intentional blindness.

People like to make a distinction between the criminal lunatics who launch war after war of government-corporate imperial conquest, those “run amok capitalists,” and the government leaders who, instead, want to “share and care and give for the sake of equality and justice.” The truth is, they are both on the same side. They and their banker-betters are engaged in an age-old operation of subduing the populace and bringing in a collectivist equality that labels every human with the same zero.

If we are blind to that as well, we will take the bait and enroll on the side of the angels, and there will be no angels.

My old editor was right in a way. The government uses collectivism to make people deaf, dumb, and blind to what is going on. And believing in what the government is dispensing to them, the people fail to notice that corporations, in concert with government, are stealing and poisoning their way to a level of control that would have made the ancient pharaohs stand back in awe.

“The individual is nothing. The group is everything.”

But it turns out that, under collectivism, the group is nothing, too. That’s the final turn of the card in the magic trick.

All the “humanitarian giving”, all the so-called justice, all the sharing and caring, all the sympathy; they’re props in a stage play invented to create a giant ant colony.

Back in the 1980s, I interviewed a Catholic priest for an article that was never published. I asked him about a recent Church scandal in Italy that involved the Vatican bank, a giant construction company, Immobiliare, and the P-2 Masonic lodge.

“Mistakes were made,” he said.

“Yes,” I said, “but all that money originally came from church collection plates, didn’t it? Don’t you owe your ‘shareholders’ a coherent accounting?”

“Our work,” he said, “is to provide our people with a way to God.”

“What about the doctrine that everyone is equal before God?”

He smiled. “You’re not the first person to make this argument, you know. I suppose you’re going to say we, the priests, give ourselves special dispensation to be the guides, the conduits.”

“Yes. And you would say you’re providing the only connection possible. That’s quite an elite point of view.”

He said, “There are numerous references in religious speech to a flock and a shepherd. Think of the flock as a collective. They need a voice.”

“What about a direct phone call to the Higher Power?”

“Things don’t operate that way.”

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

When dreaming breaks through the chains of mind control

When dreaming breaks the chains of mind control

by Jon Rappoport

December 22, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

This article is based on many interviews I did with the late hypnotherapist Jack True. Jack was my friend and colleague. He helped me publish my first book, AIDS INC. We later worked together to research dimensions of mind control.

Jack invented a number of brilliant techniques he used with his patients. He stopped doing traditional hypnotherapy when, as he put it, he realized patients “were already in a hypnotic state when they first walked through the door.”

So Jack was in the business of de-hypnosis. How incredibly different this was from diagnosing people with fiction mental disorders and then dispensing toxic drugs to them.

One of Jack’s most powerful techniques involved having patients, after they were in a light neutral trance, invent dreams.

“They already do it while they’re sleeping, “ he said. “Why not have them do it when they’re awake?”

Dreaming while asleep is one of those times when people can break the chains of their internal programming.

People see reality through filters. They automatically and subconsciously use feelings, ideas, preconceptions to perceive reality. This is programming.

Utilizing such filters, people construct “story lines” to describe reality. These stories tend to follow well-worn paths. They repeat.

People become bored. They look for a new surprise to give them a jolt of adrenaline that will carry them past their old stories.

Dreams crack the egg of familiar stories. Dreams don’t have to obey any normal notions of plot line. A dream can cut off a developing story and jump to an entirely different scene. It can break the laws of physics. It can bring in new characters from nowhere. It can contradict itself.

Our dreams let us know that we want to liberate ourselves from familiar and well-worn and ordinary and tiresome patterns. But in dreams, we don’t simple think about liberation. We experience it. We escape the matrix.

Unfortunately, people are often so predisposed to interpret their dreams that they miss the essence of them: a dream is an adventure; it’s a ride out beyond the structures that narrow life.

Dreaming is also a clue that we have the inherent power to move beyond our programming, our filters, our artificially chronic perception of reality.

A few of Jack’s patients, the ones he had invent dozens and even hundreds of dreams in his office, experienced what people like to call paranormal phenomena. Jack didn’t use that label. He said it implied an “extra talent.”

“Everybody can ‘do paranormal’ because it’s part of what we are,” he said.

One patient he worked with for six months, a dyed-in-the-wool engineer, discovered he had a “peculiar knack.” Among his wide circle of friends, several were suffering from arthritis. He could “focus on them” and alleviate their symptoms, to the point where two of them stopping taking medications.

Through interviews, I verified this was so.

The Matrix Revealed

JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet, is featured in THE MATRIX REVEALED. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages. That is just a faction of what THE MATRIX REVEALED has to offer.

I asked Jack’s patient how he did this.

“I found I could ‘see into space,’” he said. “I could look into what seemed like a series of different spaces in their bodies. It made no rational sense to me, but I went with it. In these spaces, there were various colors. I began to sort them out. Certain shades of color were signs of debilitation. So I homed in on them and found threads that were wrapped in knots. I undid the knots.”

Needless to say, this analysis of disease doesn’t match any conventional picture. But the Jack’s patient was motivated to follow his intuition, and it bore fruit.

He told me, “The idea of overlapping spaces was something I’d tried to toy with as an engineer. But I couldn’t get anywhere. I couldn’t find the mathematics or the experiments to make any progress. The idea that I could actually see these spaces was something that never entered my mind. When all of a sudden I could see them, I rejected the whole thing at first. But I went back to it. I decided it was legitimate.

“The spaces looked like overlaid pieces of film. Eventually, I could see them separately. That’s when the colors showed up.

“Occasionally, when I’m sitting in my office looking out the window, the scene out there separates into different spaces. It’s as if the space we all recognize is actually composed of elements. We settle on the resolution of those elements and see it as one [continuous] thing.”

Much like projecting separate frames of a film transmits the impression of continuous motion?

“Not exactly,” he said. “It would be more like projecting a dozen separate films, one on top of another, at the same time, on to a screen. The audience sees, somehow, one resolution produced by all the films.”

A hologram?

“If a hologram,” he said, “is essentially a lot of information that generates a three or four dimensional coherent picture, then what I’m describing is not quite the same thing.”

I told him about a drawing I once did. In my studio, on a table, I had a sheet of white paper. Whenever I did ink drawings, I laid a new sheet over that basic sheet, which stayed there for several months.

One day, I looked at the “under-sheet,” and I saw three faces. They were composed, as it were, of leftover marks that had bled through from all the drawings I’d been doing. The faces were floating among hundreds of other ink-marks.

At first, I thought the three faces weren’t real. I was just “making them up.” So I took a large marker pen and filled in everything on the under-sheet except those three quite detailed faces.

Lo and behold, the faces were there. They were very distinct. I showed them to several friends and they saw them immediately.

Jack’s patient said, “Yes. That would be more like it. The drawings you’d been doing were ‘other spaces.’ They overlapped on that one under-sheet. And then you had three faces, you had a resolution created by many different overlapping spaces. That’s a pretty good analogy.” [A better analogy these days would be image layering, using computers.]

I asked him why he thought Jack’s technique had enabled him to sprout this new capacity to see separate spaces and help several people with arthritis.

“Jack had me invent dreams. All sorts of dreams. I created the dreams myself. Jack wasn’t making suggestions. After a couple of months, I began to believe in what I was doing.”

Believe?

“I felt my own creative power,” he said. “And the reality of what I was creating, the dreams, looked to me like they were worlds of their own. Something clicked. I felt a shift. When I was motivated to help my friends, I found I could.”

There is a connection here to an ancient Tibetan practice, in which the student is directed to make a very specific “mental image” of a character and hold it in place for a long time. That’s a shorthand description of the practice.

The student may work many months or even years on this project. If he succeeds, he becomes aware that the physical universe is a product of mind, at which point he is able to change reality (AKA telekinesis, manifestation).

Jack’s patient was aware of this Tibetan practice. “I thought of it as a legend, a myth. I don’t think of it that way anymore.”

Jon Rappoport

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

September 18, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

It’s so simple. And everybody knows it.

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 had just started 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!” “ You see that one? It was in his studio!”

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 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.

Why does this work? 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.”

I would add: 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’re now seeing images of people rioting all over the Middle East. We’re seeing burning flags and crowds outside embassies. We’re supposed to invest our own anger into those images. Outrage.

We see an image of miles of flat farmland and wheat 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.

Imagine a thought-experiment. You’re watching your computer screen. It holds an image of a tall blue vase. With purpose, you project the feeling of joy into the vase. Then you project the feeling of disgust. Then, fear. Then, worry. Then, pleasure…on purpose.

The objective is to gain some measure of consciousness about an unconscious process.

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 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.

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 this election season, people on the left are urged to project messianic feelings into images of Barack Obama. People on the right are cued to invest feelings of pride, hope, and “tradition” into images of Mitt Romney. On both sides, it is principally images that are presented. 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 a 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.

The recent 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.

We shouldn’t leave out a peculiar twist on the feeling-image op. The very people who are portrayed, image-wise, as objects for us to invest feelings into, take their cues from this game as well: doctors act like the doctors on television; gangsters acts like gangsters on television; FBI agents and cops act like law-enforcement officers on television. They’re roped in, just like everyone else.

You’ve heard people say, So-and-so has become a caricature of himself. Well, that’s what it means. The person has projected massive feelings of approval into an image of himself—often an image shown on television.

As a society, we can go on this way until we become a horrific cartoon of ourselves (some people believe we’re already there), or we can step back and discover how we invest emotion into images, and then use that process to pour feeling 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 “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 fear 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 ignore evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. 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 natural world—the world of what we can be—is so much wider and more thrilling and revealing.

Jon Rappoport

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

www.nomorefakenews.com

NANOCHIPS/MIND CONTROL THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY

 

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

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

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com