Category Archives: Paranormal

Three paranormal experiences

Three paranormal experiences

by Jon Rappoport

January 5, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

A healer of enormous capability, Hadidjah Lamas, worked with me in the 1970s, in Los Angeles.

Once, during a session, while I was lying on the table, something happened I was completely unprepared for. I saw, quite clearly, a dark metal mask sitting a foot or so above me in the air. It began to spin, and then it moved across the space of the room, sped up, and exited.

A few moments later, my space was flooded with blue and gold particles. They effervesced for several minutes. When I stood up, I felt as if I’d just taken a two-week vacation in the South Pacific.

As a painter, I had several interesting experiences in the mid-1990s, while I was working in my studio in Santa Monica. One day, I painted improvised black shapes on large pieces of cardboard. When I was done, I leaned the pictures against the far wall, lay down on my bed, and looked at them for several minutes.

I imagined the shapes were letters or words in a language. All of a sudden, the shapes transmitted something. For a few seconds, what was coming at me was more than I was imagining, as if a gate had opened.

The language of the shapes wasn’t in words, as we understand words. It was all motion and sensation. I understood it perfectly. It was about the exhilaration of flying, and the feelings were ecstatic, but this particular range of ecstasy was entirely new to me. It was as if the new language was expressing a higher cloud-layer of emotions, a whole series of them, from a space we could all reach, if we put aside our ordinary preconceptions.

I was so moved by this, I embarked on a 15-year period of painting what I called forgotten or imagined languages.

These glimpses and sudden revelations are indicative of what lies outside the boundaries of our culturally indoctrinated perception.

A baby learning to speak his native language cannot be explained in any normal systematic way. It isn’t a series of steps smoothly taken. It isn’t done through a graduated lesson plan. Every day, the baby makes leaps and experiences wholesale revelation.

When an actor takes on a role in a play, likewise there is no way to chart his progress in getting into character. There are key jumps of comprehension that exceed explanation.

Finding a new and genuine solution to a problem can’t be mapped out. There is always that jump into the answer. A rigid cause-and-effect chain fails to describe the process. And to assume the brain is originating breakthroughs is speculative and unsupported pseudoscience.

To use the word “paranormal” is really to talk about magic. And on this planet, there is a taboo about that. It cuts deep. The taboo implies that the act of doing real magic exceeds what is permitted to human beings.

And to explore magic or actually DO it, or even notice it when others do it, is shameful and should be accompanied by massive guilt.

Because, as the story goes, God doesn’t want humans to have too much power. What better tale to illustrate that than The Fall. The Eden myth. There in the Garden, Eve succumbed to persuasion, and she and Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Bang. Retribution, suffering, shame, guilt, excommunication.

The Roman Church (empire through mind control) capitalized on that story, dressed it up, and sold it over and over.

This is one reason why, on Earth, people who make magic fail to see it themselves, and those who would otherwise observe the magic also fail to notice it. Taboo.

If you dispassionately read the Old Testament, you could infer that the God described was, in fact, a kind of magician who decided that he wanted a territory of his own where the only magic allowed would be his.

What he was after was control of the paranormal. Exclusive ownership. So he did everything he could to “cast a blanket or a field over the planet” that would exclude others from doing what he could do.

It could then follow that a relatively few humans on Earth, somehow managing to make magic on their own, would ironically be blind to it. And people seeing it happen (objects spontaneously disappearing, other objects appearing, etc.) would likewise see nothing.

From this state of affairs, you get the blind leading the blind.

As a painter, I have thought that, walking through a museum, I’m seeing magic displayed on the paintings on the walls. Why shouldn’t these works be seen as just as real as the walls and the floors and and ceilings and spaces of the museum rooms?

Many years ago, I was sitting in a theater watching a swashbuckling sword-swinging costume drama starring Elizabeth Taylor and Stewart Granger. In one scene, they were sitting close to each other, deep in conversation.

For some reason, I decided to suspend the idea I was watching a movie. Instead, I concentrated on Taylor and Granger talking to each other. A minute or two passed.

Suddenly, I was in a new space.

These fully dressed characters receded. I was watching two people talk. It was quite startling.

This wasn’t an intellectual experience. I had blown through the “space of the movie” and I was THERE, and I was seeing directly into the two people up on the screen. They were unmasked. I had let myself into the space behind the space.

There was no movie, no artifice, no story, no background, no acting. All that was gone. I remember a thought drifting through my mind:

IS THIS LEGAL?

Taboo.

I was in a kind of space I had never known existed. I was no longer “keeping a distance.”

I was, so to speak, in the room with these two people, and I was watching them talk to each other. The utter immediacy of it was shocking. There was no acting at all. That was gone.

But it was a movie, wasn’t it? Apparently, only on one level was it a movie. That is how we conveniently see it. On another far more compelling level, it was a doorway into reality-plus.

The Matrix Revealed

We hear all sorts of technology talk about how movie makers are going to erase distance and immerse people in their films, to give them a living experience. Well, I can testify there is a much shorter route to that goal. The thing is, it destroys old taboos.

Because we have the capability to be in any space we want to be in, whenever we want to be in it. And when we get there, we experience, first-hand, how we’ve crossed the threshold between manufactured consent and ecstatic, unique, individual perception.

Was what I encountered when I penetrated the fourth wall of the theater what everyone would encounter? Or was the movie, the illusion a gateway into many possible deeper spaces?

That would be a question to discuss when we went there and came back.

I fully understand that people could call these three paranormal experiences nothing more than imagination. And if that’s the “worst-case scenario?” That’s saying imagination creates reality. Which puts us in paranormal territory of unbounded dimensions.

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

Life outside this continuum, archetypes, and the Zodiac

Meta-life outside this continuum, archetypes, and the Zodiac

by Jon Rappoport

January 2, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The most profound inner goals of the individual, and how those goals are pursued, out of view, are ignored by science, philosophy, and psychology. These goals are, most often, ignored even by the individual himself, who isn’t aware of them.

Here are my notes from a 1992 conversation with hypnotherapist Jack True. Colleague and friend, Jack spent his career devising ways to wake up people who, as he put it, were “already in a state of hypnosis”:

You can take any object, event, or structure and look at it as the end result of a cause-and-effect chain, or you can see it as a spontaneous creation/presence in this very moment.

The first way is a pattern that gives rise to societies, civilizations, and history.

To see an object, structure, or event as a spontaneous creation of this very moment, however, is something else again. This perception has vastly different “production values.” For example, the pen sitting on your desk ceases to be merely something that is born out of the causative action of tiny particles in motion or a manufacturing process. Instead, it is a vivid and instantaneous presence which has no reference to time.

And although modern science departed from this path, there is another kind of possible science. It is a subjective approach, whereby machines and devices and technologies are invented that operate FOR THE INVENTOR and for the inventor alone.

He is no longer trying to unearth what is possible within the constraints of the so-called objective continuum. He is building vehicles for himself.

The universe can function as a service provider to the scientist of imagination. It can feed into his personal theater. It can eagerly do so, as if it has been waiting for such a moment to show this aspect.

Who knows? If we had 100,000 truly subjective scientists on this planet, brilliant and tireless improvisers, we might see changes in the continuum. The energies liberated in the process would consign the precious Law of Conservation of Energy to a shelf in a small-town museum of curios.

“If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise.” — William Blake

Rather than accepting the proposition that the observer changes what he’s observing—a passive formulation—opt for this: the inventor changes what he invents. He spontaneously accommodates it to himself.

Time is a like a May pole, its many decorations streaming from the central column. It holds together all the artifacts of Universe. However, it is eventually seen as a pretender. It maintains its position by implying that, without it, everything would spin into chaos. On closer examination, it turns out that serial time is a convenience for a style of communication and perception—a style to which we are all accustomed.

But whether we know it or not, each one of us branches off and explores dimensions in which this time is absent. We do it every day, albeit briefly.

An archetype is an immense island in the sea. It readily acknowledges the size of the individual soul, the YOU—even if a great deal of the soul, as it lives out this life here, is submerged under the social fabric. All archetypes engage the subject of time in their own ways.

The archetype of the Zodiac itself is built on time. Time of the year, of course, but more than that. The array of astrological signs (archetypes) is, in a sense, ABOUT time.

The Zodiac revolves around a central core of time, and as such actually stands outside the flow of events.

In that case, every sign of the Zodiac, when accessed deeply enough, would contain a soul-strategy for dealing with time. For entering into and exiting from time.

Our culture does not deal with such matters at all.

But the individual soul does. The soul WANTS to be able to move in and out of time and understand time and become a master of time.

Simultaneously, the soul wants to experience life within the serial flow of events. And having moved inside that sphere, it wants to work with time in the same way a sculptor works with clay.

The soul wants to come into time, work with time, and leave time. Not just once, but in many, many periods and moments of existence.

As an aside, the major fascination with movies has to do with the obvious ability of the film maker to organize, disorganize, arrange, and cut up time. In movies, the soul recognizes its own capacity to do these things.

Certain British novelists have dealt with the whole notion of time. CS Lewis, in his Narnia Chronicles, depicts how time passes differently in Narnia, how years and years amount to only moments on Earth. And Lewis acknowledged a deep debt to David Lindsay, who wrote the staggering Voyage to Arcturus, in which almost every episode takes place in its own unique dimension—where time passes in its own way…

We have almost no language to express the different possible ways in which we—individually and uniquely—experience time. In the absence of that language, we assume we all live in the same identically conceived and felt time.

Superficially, we share time as a “common cause.” We want its passage and events to be shared. We want to hold time together, as it were.

In truth, each one of us is on the road toward destroying the time prison, and this particular revolt against the empire has consequences that are bringing us closer and closer to the return of an era of Magic:

The waterfall with no source except spontaneous creation…you walk down a dim staircase with a key to a door that will open into a state of affairs light years beyond any conception of ordinary time…a zero point where everything stops and Consecutive Events are revealed as an illusion…the simultaneous ability to take the whole universe and put it in the palm of your hand and also live in a small cottage outside a village that is outside a town that is outside a city that is on a planet on a remote edge of a galaxy…

Multiple cascades of desire and fulfillment—mixing, mixing, mixing together, effervescing and radiating, beyond the goonish strictures of minds proud of limits…

A future in which the energies of desire and the energies of fulfillment-of-desire are One. Everything is fulfillment. Every action is elastic and far-reaching and yet self-reflexive. The soul, at every moment, feels the light of desire and realization of desire.

It is no longer necessary to want something. Everything is wanting and everything is having. Desire and fulfillment arc and surge into each other and become, again, the basic Substance. The old categories are destroyed. The old teachings are swept away. The deceptive paths and ways are toppled, crumble, and fall into the waves.

The society in which we live doesn’t begin to touch these realities. It is organized to exclude them. And we, the actors, pretend we don’t understand them. That is why archetypes persist. They are touchstones. They remind us that, subconsciously, we are working out our futures on an entirely different level.

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.

Movies were originally dreams put up on the screen. The new medium was quite naturally conceived of as an opportunity to show super-real events to ourselves that paralleled our sleeping dreams. Sudden shifts of venue, broken plot lines, conversations pregnant with layers of meaning, disappearing objects, levitation, threat, disaster, ecstasy, the rules of entrainment and normalcy destroyed.

Release from the serial time prison.

Yet, soon enough, movies were brought to heel. They spooled out stories for the masses that stimulated gross sticky sentimentality. They defined the so-called human condition. They played up disasters and wars. They eventually utilized new technologies to create various dark apocalyptic scenarios. They assessed audience common denominators and focused on box office numbers above all.

Instead of reflecting our desire to go beyond this continuum as individuals, movies give us claustrophobic threats to the normal average life. In doing so, they try to shut more doors to liberation. They present two options: destruction, or “the joy” of living as worker bees in a collectivist society.

All this propagandizing provides the strongest clue that we, as individuals, want to escape from the chains of limited perception. Otherwise, why bother trying to push these limits on us?

But the propaganda will not stand. The future we desire will come to pass. Because we make it. No matter how long it takes, we will come to the place where our own imagination overtakes the reality that has been painted for us on the cave wall.

This isn’t, as some fearful people believe, about a religious dichotomy featuring the Devil and God. It isn’t about sitting in a room and hoping we don’t succumb to some “evil influence.” That’s just more propaganda. It’s built to hem us in. It’s one more fairy tale in the pantheon of constructed stories aimed at keeping us rigid and small. It’s a joke.

The evil in the world is patent. It’s there for anyone who wants to look and see it. It comes from people. They do evil. By choice. One of the cardinal precepts of any society dedicated to justice is stopping and curtailing evil.

There is light at the end of the tunnel. Because we invent that light and make it real.

What we call the universe is our picture of it. The universe and its laws are how we define ourselves as inhabitants of a fixed reality. We can proudly take that picture to our graves and beyond, or we can explore our existence outside this space-time-energy construct.

The latter course is the one taken by true artists and true inventors. It always has been. It has no boundaries.

This isn’t secret-society stuff. It isn’t about overthrowing morality. Secret societies do all their hogwash and gobbledygook and ritual because they lack the one element that really makes a difference: the individual creating new realities. Instead, secret societies opt for license (not freedom), hoping this will open ultimate doors. They’re wrong.

It is healthy and good to discover deeper levels of deception around us in the world IF, at the same time, we are inventing our most profound desires as fact in the world.

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

PARANORMAL POWER, AN INTERVIEW

 

PARANORMAL POWER: INTERVIEW WITH A VOLUNTEER IN A LABORATORY STUDY

 

by Jon Rappoport

May 8, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A: I’ve experimented.

 

Q: For example?

 

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

 

Q: What do you mean by “energetic?”

 

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

 

Q: Are you saying you created consciousness?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Q: And it worked.

 

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

 

Q: What conclusions do you draw from this experience?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Q: Explain this “common consensus.”

 

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

 

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

 

A: That’s my view, yes.

 

Q: How would we do that?

 

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

 

Q: And why would we do that?

 

A: For the sake of predictability and stability.

 

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

 

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

 

Q: You like upsetting apple carts.

 

A: Perhaps so, yes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A: No.

 

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

 

A: I like it.

 

Q: It feels powerful?

 

A: Not “bad powerful.”

 

Q: Does it feel creative?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Q: It’s not abstract.

 

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

 

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

 

A: Yes.

 

Q: So a person can actually change physical space.

 

A: Yes.

 

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

 

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

 

Q: And we prefer this.

 

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

 

Q: But you don’t.

 

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

 

Q: What do you want to sound like?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Q: Meaning what?

 

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

 

Q: And if we hadn’t?

 

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

 

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

 

A: I really do.

 

Q: Why?

 

A: It makes a kind of grid.

 

Q: It locks us in?

 

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

 

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

 

A: All together, or individually?

 

Q: Individually.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Q: You mean your field could be measured.

 

A: It would be interesting to find out.

 

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

 

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

 

Q: Do you see your ability as natural?

 

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

 

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

 

A: Sure.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A: Individuals are contributing to it.

 

Q: Everybody is subconsciously joining in.

 

A: That’s the way it seems.

 

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

 

A: Right.

 

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

 

A: It’s ridiculous.

 

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

 

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

 

Q: Why?

 

A: Because of that common consensus.

 

Q: It [the space] would revert back.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Q: You mean they’re alive?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Q: You feel that?

 

A: Sometimes I can sense it.

 

Q: So it [the cup] is flexible.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A: We do that.

 

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

 

A: About sixty.

 

Q: Why so low?

 

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

 

Q: A slice of it.

 

A: Yes.

 

Q: What’s the rest like?

 

A: I don’t know. I want to find out.

 

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

 

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

 

Q: By putting a new desire in it.

 

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

 

End of interview

 

My comments:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jon Rappoport

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

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

PARANORMAL NORMAL

 

PARANORMAL NORMAL

 

by Jon Rappoport

February 14, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

 

Consider any action you would call paranormal.

 

For instance:

 

In this average/normal/conventional/consensus-bound/lowest-common-denominator civilization, the idea that you can actually project energy across space without the use of machines or technology is viewed as impossible, fanciful, and meaningless.

 

Which is why we live in a society that is, increasingly, ruled by technology.

 

It’s also why we’re moving closer to the time when people will submit themselves wholly to technology.

 

People tend to assume the following: they can think about energy; they can study energy equations; they can help design or build machines that produce energy; they can rely on the automatic energy systems of the body—–but actually taking energy and PROJECTING it across space? Out of the question.

 

Well, it isn’t out of the question.

 

If you project energy across space (a so-called paranormal action), you’re exercising a capability you were built to exhibit. AND IN DOING SO, YOUR MIND TAKES ON A NEW ASPECT THAT WAS HIDING IN THE SHADOWS.

 

Your mind becomes healthier. It begins to shake off debris. It gains new strength. It is no longer constrained think solely in terms of what it can accomplish within the rules and setting of the continuum.

 

To put this another way, the adaptation of your mind to the constraints of the continuum is AN ARTIFICAL SITUATION.

 

When the mind becomes healthier, the body tends to follow. The cells of the body are waiting to be enlisted in functions and processes and actions that exceed the conventional boundaries of space, time, and energy, and when that happens, new types of energy circulate in the body, increasing its health.

 

Fifteen years ago, I interviewed people who had taken part in paranormal lab experiments, people who had scored exceptionally well and demonstrated abilities that aren’t supposed to exist.

 

One test involved the distribution of balls sent out of a funnel at the top of a large case. The balls would fall and settle into holes in a board. Drawing a vertical line down the center of the case, statistical probability dictates that about half the balls will fall into holes to the left of that line, and half to the right. The volunteer, positioned in front of the case, tries to influence probability with his mind and send more balls to the right or left.

 

One star volunteer I interviewed had obviously exceeded the expected 50-50 split. I asked him how he did it.

 

He said, “In the past, I tried meditating quietly on a chosen outcome. Then I tried visualizing the end result I wanted. Those [strategies] didn’t work for me. So I started sending energy directly at the case, to push the balls to one side as they came out of the funnel. It worked.”

 

One of the (false) assumptions of matrix reality is that this is impossible. Humans can’t project energy across space and alter the flow of events. Humans don’t have that power.

 

But they do.

 

It’s interesting to talk to psychologists about this. Several of them told me that, if such a thing were possible, it would raise all sorts of moral questions. Suppose, for example, a person used his power to control others? It would be dangerous.

 

Well, this precisely mirrors the kind of matrix-thinking that people engage in to stop themselves from exceeding the rules of the continuum. Better to be weak, better for everyone to be weak.

 

Think about various institutions humans and human elites have invented to run their societies, and how those institutions encourage dependence (weakness).

 

“Power? Let us take care of that for you. We know how to use it judiciously. If you had it, you might do something harmful. We’re the experts. We can exercise restraint. We can keep everybody functioning at more or less the same level. We can define the limits of freedom. We promote ideas [myths] that benefit everyone…”

 

Really? How well has that been working out? In the course of human history, how many thousands of wars have people suffered through under the control of their leaders?

 

Fifty years ago, when I started painting in New York, I experienced a great deal of paranormal activity, and without thinking about it much, I began, in various ways, to project energy. A few decades later, I developed energy-projection exercises (see my audio seminars, Mind Control, Mind Freedom, and The Transformations, as well as The Matrix Revealed). Many people have used the exercises with benefit.

 

One side effect: you begin to realize, through first-hand experience, that you actually invent energy. You aren’t simply borrowing it or redirecting it from a place where it already exists.

 

If you care to think about that, you’ll see far-reaching implications. For instance, we aren’t really living in a world or universe where all the energy there is a given. That’s not the way it works. The assumption that energy can’t be gained or lost is false. In physics, when you operate at a simplistic level, the conservation of energy is a useful principle, but once you exit that level, the basic premise no longer applies. It shatters.

 

Jon Rappoport

qjrconsulting@gmail.com