The Individual vs. the fake Collective

The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

by Jon Rappoport

October 17, 2017

Trumpets blare. In the night sky, spotlights roam. A great confusion of smoke and dust and fog, and emerging banners, carrying the single message:

WE.

The great meltdown of all consciousness into a glob of utopian simplicity…

There are denizens among us.

They present themselves as the Normals.

Beyond all political objectives, there is a simple fact: those group-mind addicts who have given up their souls will rage against the faintest appearance of one who tries to keep his. And in this rage, the soulless ones will try to pull the other down to where they live.

And somehow, it all looks normal and proper and rational.

In the 1950s, before television had numbed minds and turned them into jelly, there was a growing sense of: the Individual versus the Corporate State.

Something needed to be done. People were fitting into slots. They were surrendering their lives in increasing numbers. They were carving away their own idiosyncrasies and their independent ideas.

But television, under the control of psyops experts, became, as the 1950s droned on, the facile barrel of a weapon:

“What’s important is the group. Conform. Give in. Bathe in the great belonging…”

Recognize that every message television imparts is a proxy, a fabrication, a simulacrum, an imitation of life one step removed.

When this medium also broadcasts words and images of belonging and the need to belong, it’s engaged in revolutionary social engineering.

Whether it’s the happy-happy suburban-lawn family in an ad for the wonders of a toxic pesticide, or the mob family going to the mattresses to fend off a rival, it’s fantasy time in the land of mind control.

Television has carried its mission forward. The consciousness of the Individual versus the State has turned into: love the State. Love the State as family.

In the only study I have been able to find, Wictionary partially surveys the scripts of all television shows from the year 2006, to analyze the words most frequently broadcast to viewers in America.

Out of 29,713,800 words, including the massively used “a,” “an,” “the,” “you,” “me,” and the like, the word “home” ranks 179 from the top. “Mom” is 218. “Together” is 222. “Family” is 250.

This usage reflects an unending psyop.

Are you with the family or not? Are you with the group, the collective, or not? Those are the blunt parameters.

“When you get right down to it, all you have is family.” “Our team is really a family.” “You’re deserting the family.” “You fight for the guy next to you.” “Our department is like a family.” “Here at Corporation X, we’re a family.”

The committee, the group, the company, the sector, the planet.

The goal? Submerge the individual.

Individual achievement, imagination, creative power? Not on the agenda. Something for the dustbin of history.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World: “‘Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines’! The voice was almost tremulous with enthusiasm. ‘You really know where you are. For the first time in history.’”

George Orwell, 1984: “The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.”

The soap opera is the apotheosis of television. The long-running characters in Anytown are irreversibly enmeshed in one another’s lives. There’s no escape. There is only mind-numbing meddling.

“I’m just trying to help you realize we all love you (in chains).”

“Your father, rest his soul, would never have wanted you to do this to yourself…”

“How dare you set yourself apart from us. Who do you think you are?”

For some people, the collective “WE” has a fragrant scent—until they get down in the trenches with it. There they discover odd odors and postures and mutations. There they discover self-distorted creatures scurrying around celebrating their twistedness.

The night becomes long. The ideals melt. The level of intelligence required to inhabit this cave-like realm is lower than expected, much lower.

Hypnotic perceptions, which are the glue that holds the territory together, begin to crack and fall apart, and all that is left is a grim determination to see things through.

As the night moves into its latter stages, some participants come to know that all their activity is taking place in a chimerical universe.

It is as if reality has been constructed to yield up gibberish.

Whose idea was it to become deaf, dumb, and blind in the first place?

And then perhaps one person in the cave suddenly says: I EXIST.

That starts a cacophony of howling.

In the aftermath of the 1963 assassination of JFK and the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the covert theme was the same: a lone individual did this.

A lone individual, detached from the group, did this. “Lone individuals are people who left the fold. They wandered from the communal hearth. Therefore, they inevitably became killers.”

In 1995, after the Oklahoma City Bombing, President Bill Clinton made a speech to the nation. He rescued his presidency by essentially saying, “Come home to the government. We will protect you and save you.”

He framed the crime in those terms. The individual versus the collective.

The history of human struggle on this planet is about the individual emerging FROM the group, from the tribe, from the clan. The history of struggle is not about the individual surrendering and going back INTO group identity.

Going back is the psyop.

The intended psyop.

As the trumpets blare in the night sky, as the fog-ridden spotlights roam, as the banners emerge carrying the single message, WE, as people below are magnetically drawn to this show, a unpredicted thing happens:

Someone shouts: WHAT IS WE?

Other pick up the shout.

And the banners begin to catch fire and melt. They drip steel and wax and the false grinding of hypnotic dreams breaks its rhythm.

The whole sky-scene stutters like a great weapon losing its capacity to contain heat. The sky itself drips and caves inward and collapses, and the trumpets tail off and there is a new fresh silence.

The delusion, in pieces, is drifting away…

The cover: gone.

Behind it is The Individual.

What will he do now?

Will he seek to find his inherent power, the power he cast aside in his eagerness to join the collective?

Will he?

Or will he search for another staged melodrama designed to absorb him in an all-embracing WE?

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

Jon Rappoport

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

The Individual vs. Globalism

Aug20

The Individual vs. Globalism

by Jon Rappoport

August 20, 2017

“Global solution” means the individual is cut out of the equation, he doesn’t count, he doesn’t mean anything in the larger scheme of things, he’s just another pawn and cipher to move around on the board.

This is purposeful.

This is the script for the future: create problems whose only solution appears to be collective.

Psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually divert the individual’s attention from his own vision, his own profound desires, his own imagination—and place it within The Group (“all of humanity”).

Propagandize the idea that, if the individual concerns himself with anything other than The Group, he is selfish, greedy, inhumane. He is a criminal.

More and more, this is how the young are being trained these days.

The grand “we” is being sold to them like a cheap street drug. They buy in. They believe this “we” is real, instead of a hollow con designed to drag them into a Globalist framework owned and operated by mega-corporations, banks, foundations, governments, and ubiquitous Rockefeller interests.

And what of the individual, his mind, his unique perception, his independent ideas, his originality, his life-force?

Swept away in the rush toward “a better world.”

I have breaking news. Earth is not a spaceship and we are not crew members. If Earth is a spaceship, it has serious design flaws, because it keeps making the same trip around the same sun every year.

Each one of us does not have a specified function, as a crew member would.

Going back as far as you want to in history, shortage and scarcity in the world that engendered a crisis was either created by some elite or maintained by them, for the purpose of eradicating dissent and fomenting a collectivist solution. Meaning a solution that came from the top. Meaning a solution that reduced individual freedom.

In recent human history, a different idea emerged: establish severely hamstrung government, in order to protect the individual against it.

This idea has had a very tough time. Collectivists have fought it every step of the way.

But regardless of circumstances, the individual can author his own freedom and what it implies. He can discover, within himself, extraordinary possibilities. He can contemplate what it means to create reality that expresses his most profound desires.

And then he can begin a voyage that no one and no group can stop.

Civilizations come and go, rise and fall; the individual remains.

The word “imagination,” when properly understood, indicates that the individual can envision and then create futures that never were, and never would be, unless he invented them.

Imagination is the opposite of “provincial,” “restricted,” “well-known,” “familiar,” “accepted.”

That is its challenge to the status quo.

That is the true threat the individual poses to all predictive systems.

Therefore, “it’s all just information” is a psyop code-phrase. Ideas, thoughts—nothing is original, nothing is new; we all “share” information floating in the collective consciousness; the individual invents nothing.

Which is the opposite of the truth. The individual invents everything.

He can’t be predicted when he is himself. He is not a pattern. He is not a system.

He is not anyone else.

He thrives on his own inspiration.

He is the ultimate riverboat gambler. He bets the house on his own as-yet uncreated future.

He is not a piece of universe.

He is not a humble servant of Order.

He invents the space and time of his own time to come.

As early as 1961, a brilliant healer, Richard Jenkins, whom I write about in my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies (part of the Exit From The Matrix collection), explained what was to come. He wrote me a note, which I’m paraphrasing from memory: “People are confusing their own empathy for others with some inflated idea about group-identity. They aren’t the same. People are becoming afraid of their own unique and distinct existence. This is a social fear. A new social contract is being foisted on the population. Either you belong, or you have no rights. This is a totalitarian concept. It’s coming in through the back door.”

Well, now, it’s right there at the front door.

The individual still has a choice. But he has to make it.

Explore his own power, or give it away for nothing more than an illusion of belonging.

Stoke the fires within, or form a diluted image of self, and bow down to The Group.

The “I” is not isolated. He can reach out to others whenever and however he wants to. The question is, is he moving on the ground of his own independence, or is he searching for a group life raft, to which he will attach himself without thought or hesitation?

Beyond economics or politics, Globalism is a system that offers a life raft which is heading toward a machine-future. Disembark and find the great We, a construct of integrated parts, each of which is an individual, in a state of spiritual amnesia.

Happiness there is function and sedation, shadowless, wiped clean of distinctions.

This is the elitist end-game of social justice and equality.

It’s a fake culture.

(A new short story is now up on my other blog OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE entitled “The Cosmic Bathroom.” Click here.)

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

Jon Rappoport

Is choosing to be a victim a taboo subject?

Aug15

Is choosing to be a victim a taboo subject?

by Jon Rappoport

August 15, 2017

Some people apparently think there are no fake victims, only real ones.

They believe that if all the oppression in the world were magically lifted tomorrow, people would suddenly become independent.

This is not my conclusion.

When I went to junior high school (it wasn’t “middle school” then and “junior” wasn’t considered a dangerous pejorative that could ruin young minds), the concept of a victim, as we use it now, didn’t exist.

Can you imagine it? There was no special ed. There were no federal funds paid out for each “specially abled” child. No one used the word “victim.” There was no such thing as ADHD. There was no such thing as a clinically depressed child. There were no shrinks hovering around ready to make diagnoses and dispense drugs.

This junior high had a cross-section of kids from different economic and ethnic backgrounds.

Did cruel things occasionally happen? Were there a few bullies? Yes. Was it paradise every day? No. Were there injustices? Yes. But all in all, it was a good school. Kids learned. Most of the teachers were fair and just.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, more learning took place in that school than in a comparable school today. It wasn’t even close, by any reasonable standard of measurement, like literacy.

And in terms of the kids feeling safe and free (as free as anyone can be in a school), again it was no contest. Things were better then than they are now.

The word victim was never used. Kids didn’t wear victimhood like a badge. It didn’t take a village. We didn’t have the incomparable advantage of knowing we were all on Spaceship Earth, and yet we did well.

We somehow managed to struggle through without being taught about sex in the classroom. No one told us about the need to respect every point of view. In fact, there was no social training at all. We never sat around in class and had group discussions with the teacher.

We all knew the principal was an idiot. We knew who the bad teachers were and who the good teachers were.

No one promoted “sharing and caring.” No one.

By today’s standards, we were living in the Stone Age. Yet, we got through it. We weren’t ever treated as victims, and we didn’t know what victims were. Kids understood they either succeeded or failed. If they failed, they didn’t make it to the next grade. It was stark and simple. No one objected.

Yes, in some respects, school was a real pain in the neck, but we bit the bullet and kept on going.

If someone from the future had showed up and told us about ADHD and what it was, and what the drugs were, we would have called him crazy. We would have laughed him into oblivion.

Flash forward 60 years…

“Oh, but now there are so many more distractions. TV, computers, the Internet, cell phones. And drugs, porn, divorced parents, guns, junk food, advertising. Kids today need more help. They need more caring adults.”

No, actually, kids need schools where the rules are simple and stark. You learn or you don’t learn. You behave or you don’t behave. You aren’t a victim.

Over the last 60 years, a culture of victimhood has become a major industry. This culture, as it turns out, doesn’t really solve very much at all. It engenders more problems. It invents endless excuses. It piles up baloney to the level of every kid’s eyes. It gives a kid an out.

The people who promote victimhood make their living by promoting victimhood. That’s the clue. They’re hustlers.

There are a few fuzzy boundaries when you differentiate between a real victim and a phony one. It isn’t perfect. Nothing is. There is no system that can protect everybody. But, all in all, you’re far better off unloading the victim culture than you are expanding it.

And expanding it is what happens when the pros and hustlers take over. They’re liars right down to their shoes.

Many parents are complicit. They’re looking for an out, too. They want to have outside people make sure their kids are all right.

The federal government and its allies take this point of view: if you don’t go along with the culture of victimhood, you’re a monkey wrench in the machinery of progress. You’re standing up for yourself.

Once upon a time, self-reliance was a given. In order for it to be a given, there had to be a concomitant principle: if you don’t rely on yourself, you’re going to be in trouble. The two ideas go together.

People accepted this.

You pass your courses or you fail and repeat the grade.

That wasn’t considered an onerous burden. It was a fact of life.

Then, there was a change. “I” was replaced by “we.” That was the “new idea.” It sounded good. It sounded interesting. It sounded hopeful.

But it was a con. The “we” was fake. It wasn’t about cooperation in a family or in a real community. It was high-flying and political and vague.

It was an out. It was a way to choose victimhood. In fact, it became, over time, a way for voluntary victims to bond with one another. “We’re in bad shape, and we demand help.”

And help arrived. It arrived, along many fronts, in the form of the removal of the need to be a strong individual.

That was the key in the lock that opened the door, so the old culture of self-reliance could flow into the sea and disappear.

“But there are real victims!” people say. Of course there are. Since there are oppressors, there are victims. But I’m not talking about that. I’m not talking about that at all. I’m talking about choice, about choosing to enter the dim realm of the put-upon.

And if you don’t think many, many people have made that choice, you’re not watching.

When I was in ninth grade, my teacher told us what deus ex machina meant. God from the machine. It was a dramatic device through which, in a play, the characters were rescued from their terrible troubles, at the last minute, from Above. It was a cheap trick.

Well, there are millions of people who, after choosing victimhood, have come to believe in deus ex machina. One way or another, the cavalry will come over the hill. They count on this. The cosmic lottery ticket will turn up.

Just wait long enough, and the payoff will appear.

This has NOTHING to do with cooperation in small groups or families. It has everything to do with a gathering malaise.

This whole culture is designed to provide people with a way to fall back on their weakest instincts. This culture becomes more violent and vicious, because it encourages massive self-esteem based on nothing.

There is a ready excuse for every shortfall, an excuse for every shortcoming and every crime—with parasitic intellectuals inventing newer and newer reasons to exonerate all behaviors everywhere, under the flag of tolerance and understanding and even freedom.

Do we need liberation from actual oppressive criminals and their systems? Of course.

Do we need liberation from people who surrender themselves to victimhood?

More than ever.

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

Jon Rappoport

If the EU goes down, all life ceases to exist

Jul16

If the EU goes down, all life ceases to exist

by Jon Rappoport

July 16, 2017

I’ll get to the European Union in a minute, but first a bit of background.

System building—how do you do it? In particular, how do you build a perverse structure?

There are three sequential steps:

One: Secretly create the system.

Two: Once it’s up and running and established, act as if you’re a mere participant in the system.

Three: Claim that the system is absolutely necessary, and without it, things would collapse.

When those three steps have been accomplished, you can add other flourishes. For example, sometimes you can get away with saying the system was never created at all; it arose organically because there was a need for it. That’s a good one.

THE EU IS SUCH A SYSTEM.

The propaganda: “It wasn’t planned from the top. It came about as a response to the need for peace among nations, the need for a common market and a uniform currency, the need for an end to brutal nationalism, etc.”

Actually, the EU was created as an extension of World War 2 by other means. Hitler’s dream of a united Europe was accomplished, with a reborn Germany as the economic powerhouse. But other key players were involved: the Vatican, the City Of London, Swiss banks, etc. And after 1973, the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission. Globalists all.

The EU’s current support of the migrant flood into Europe is a case of: this is how we erase borders, destroy the traditions of separate cultures, take down separate nations once and for all, and make Europe into a single entity.

Brexit was “a disturbance in The Force,” but it is being used to advantage by the EU. In actual game theory (not the ludicrous version taught in universities), you must have threats to the system, in the wake of which the system survives. This “proves” the structure is sound and necessary, and continues to meet the needs of the people.

The EU is painted as a kind of heroic soldier who has endured many battles. This picture sells.

As time passes, expect more and more news stories featuring the propaganda theme, “The EU is on the comeback, stronger than ever.”

The truth is, the EU could vanish tomorrow, and the individual nations of Europe would find ways to connect, cooperate, and do business.

In fact, one or two adventurous countries could change the face of Europe (which tells you why the EU tries so hard to pass so many binding regulations that apply to all its members). Here is an example:

Suppose one European country decided to cancel all the odious EU regulations restricting the sale and use of nutritional supplements? Suppose the whole area of nutrition was turned over to the free choice of every citizen?

You can bet your bottom franc or pound that this nation would suddenly undergo an economic renaissance. Nutritional companies by the hundreds would set up shop. Citizens from all over Europe would move there. Jobs would multiply. In turn, this country would become a haven for all sorts of natural health practitioners and their clients.

Watching this happen, other European countries would follow suit. Suddenly, health freedom would become an economic tiger.

Big Pharma, one of the driving forces behind the EU, would be exposed as a pernicious monopoly. Never a bad thing.

Who knows how many other areas of the economy (aka free market) would suddenly reappear, free of repressive regulations?

What about GMO crops? From what I can discover, 50 GMO crops are permitted in Europe. A nation can submit a request to the EU to ban a GMO crop, and the EU makes the final decision. Suppose—if the EU vanished—one country stood up on its hind legs and declared: “We are banning ALL GMOs. If you live here, all your food will be non-GMO. That is our commitment.”

Do you think that might result in many people moving to that country?

Do you think the mega-agri GMO corporations favor the EU? Of course they do, because they believe that, in the long run, they can exert sufficient influence to have their way—whereas on a continent of separate and autonomous nations, the risk factor would be higher.

All ruthless mega-corporations embrace the EU. That is their preferred system: predators cooperating with other predators. Eventually, you look at the EU and the worst corporations in Europe, and you can’t tell the difference. They’re blood brothers.

Breaking up and dissolving the EU would smell very much like freedom, if enough citizens could remember the scent.

The EU is betting it can sustain control; its program of opening borders and letting in what amounts to a massive crime wave will somehow be given a pass by Europe’s traditional population. The EU is betting it has reduced the people of the continent to such a degree of passivity that any insult is accepted.

“The people don’t want freedom, they want the system.”

That’s a risky gamble.

The EU is showing its teeth for all to see. It’s essentially assaulting the population and daring it to rise up in rebellion.

Which is another aspect of real game theory: launch a series of insults and challenges and tests to those under your rule and see if you can grind them down further and further.

Europe was the cradle of individual liberty. Not China, not India, not Argentina, not Japan, not Bolivia, not Egypt. Europe. That’s why the Globalist EU has Europe in its sights and wants to flatten it.

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

The biggest systems of control are often built after the biggest wars. Those who engineer and finance those wars, on both sides, understand this. They draw up those systems, in the ashes of the prior conflict. It was always their intention. Just as key members of the Rockefeller Council on Foreign Relations were tasked with designing the Union Nations before World War 2 was finished, key Globalist players were already laying out the roadmap to the European Union at the same time.

You could say World War 2 was instigated and fought for the very purpose of bringing in these huge systems of post-war control.

War creates the perceived need for the systems.

Make no mistake about it, the ultimate plan is to erase all separate nations and turn them into distant memories.

Freedom would be the other distant memory.

Jon Rappoport

Robots are inventing their own languages

Jul14

Robots are inventing their own languages

The programming and design of artificial intelligence

by Jon Rappoport

July 14, 2017

Along with assurances that we’re facing an imminent takeover of industrial production by robots and other artificial intelligence (AI), we’re also being told that AI can develop its own systems of communication and operation, without help from humans.

Here is a sprinkling of quotes from the mainstream and technical press:

The Atlantic, June 15, 2017: “When Facebook designed chatbots to negotiate with one another, the bots made up their own way of communicating.”

Tech Crunch, November 22, 2016: “Google’s AI translation tool seems to have invented its own secret internal language.”

Wired, March 16, 2017: “It Begins: Bots Are Learning to Chat in Their Own Language.”

The suggestion is: AI can innovate. It can size up situations and invent unforeseen and un-programmed strategies, in order to accomplish set goals.

Who benefits from making such suggestions? Those companies and researchers who want to make the public believe AI is quite, quite powerful, and despite the downside risks (AI takes over its own fate), holds great promise for the human race in the immediate future. “Don’t worry, folks, we’ll rein in AI and make it work for us.”

Beyond that, the beneficiaries are technocratic Globalists who are in the process of bringing about a new society in which AI is intelligent and prescient enough to regulate human affairs at all levels. It’s the science fiction “populations ruled by machines” fantasy made into fact.

“AI doesn’t just follow orders. It sees what humans can’t see, and it runs things with greater efficiency.”

Let’s move past the propaganda and state a few facts.

AI is not running its own show.

It isn’t innovating.

It isn’t creating its own languages.

It isn’t doing any of that.

AI operates within the parameters its human inventors establish.

Any honest AI designer will tell you that.

If, for example, an AI system is given a goal and a set of “options” for achieving the goal, AI will select which option is best ACCORDING TO STANDARDS ITS HUMAN OPERATORS HAVE PROGRAMMED INTO THE SYSTEM.

Think of it this way: AI is given a set of options; but it is also given instructions on how to select what is presumably the most effective option. So AI is bounded.

There is no choice. There is no freedom. AI isn’t “jumping ship.”

“We gave our robot Charlie the task of getting from Chicago to New York. The whole plan was laid out as a vast hiking trip, with internal street maps built in. But then Charlie suddenly took a cab to O’Hare and boarded a United jet for JFK…”

No he didn’t.

AI performs as it is programmed to perform, within set parameters.

“We sent Charlie to LA to marry the actress who ordered and paid for him. But then, at the church, Charlie suddenly said, “This is a mistake. You should go back to your first husband. He never had sex with that waitress in St, Louis. She was his sister, and he was trying to help her escape from a terrorist cell. He never told you that because then he would have had to tell you he isn’t a banker, he actually works for the CIA. He’s a good guy. Talk to him. The truth will set you both free…”

Won’t happen.

But this kind of thing will happen: “According to scientists at Blah-Blah University, programmed robots are not only capable of inventing solutions to problems that ‘go beyond their internal software,’ the robots also make choices that benefit people. They’re very similar to people, except they tend to be smarter and invent more effective courses of action…”

Sell it, sell it.

“Alice, a medical technician in Minneapolis, claims her robot saved her life. ‘I was on the verge of swallowing a whole bunch of pills, but Charlie came to the rescue. He showed up in my bathroom and took the pills out of my hand. I learned something important that day. My free choice is important, but kindness and concern are more important. Charlie is the most vital companion in my life…’”

Sell it, sell it.

And of course, we’ll see more debates and court cases featuring questions about robots having rights, “just like humans.”

***Actually, in an entirely illogical fashion, we’ll see more and more “evidence” showing humans don’t have free will, because their brains dictate all thought and action, while robots will be touted as “free and creative.”

Some college professor will argue robots should be granted more “privileges” than humans, because the robots aren’t inherently “prejudiced.”

Another professor will insist that robots must be subjected to committee investigations, to make sure they aren’t “racist.”

“Today, in New York, a former Burger King employee, who is a refugee from Somalia, filed suit against a robot named Charlie, claiming Charlie uttered a racial slur while ordering a cheeseburger for his employer, a wealthy real estate developer…”

Behind all this, the fact remains that, no matter how many complex layers of “decision-making” are programmed into AI, the machine is always acting within rules and guidelines laid out in advance. It is never choosing.

Individual humans are capable of free choice, and are also capable of changing their own rules and standards.

Humans are free to say they aren’t free, as well, if they want to.

Let me make a psychological point here. There are many people who want to dominate relationships. They want to be in charge. They will want robots. They will want sophisticated robots THAT SEEM TO BE CHOOSING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR EVERY WISH AND DEMAND. These people will believe the robots are real and alive and human, in order to fulfill a fantasy in which they have found partners who want to go along with their agenda.

This is a pretty good definition of psychosis.

The AI designers and inventors and technicians tend to have their own bias. They want to believe they are creating life. They don’t want to think they are just putting together machines. That isn’t enough. The technocratic impulse involves faith in MACHINES AS LIVING ENTITIES.

Thus, we arrive at all sorts of myths and fairy tales about humans merging with machines, to arrive at a new frontier, where, for example, human brains hooked up to super-computers will result in higher consciousness and even the invocation of God.

Technocrats will say, do, and believe anything to turn machines into what machines aren’t.

They’ve crucially abandoned THEMSELVES and their own potential; so all they have left is THE MACHINE.

And if you think these technocrats should be allowed within a thousand miles of State power, I have communes for sale on Jupiter. Naturally, these utopias are run from the top by robots. They know what’s best for you.

Finally, understand this about propaganda: Those who control the output of information will admit to problems and mistakes with the issue they are promoting. Such confessions add to the “reality” of the information. And naturally, the propagandists will also claim that the problems can be solved. In the case of robots and AI, the problems are couched in terms of bots taking power into their own hands—but this “unexpected” situation a) demonstrates how capable bots are, and b) the power can be dialed back and modulated. So all is well. The future is bright.

It’s bright, if you want planned societies run by AI, where humans are fitted into slots, and algorithms determine who eats, who doesn’t, who has access to water and who doesn’t, how much energy can be used by each human, and all production and distribution are controlled from a central planning center.

Unless freedom lives—human freedom—you’ll be treated to something like this:

“Today, executives at the North American Union headquarters announced that several key bots broke through their programming and invented a new solution for clean water distribution to the population. This innovation will guarantee a more equitable water supply for millions of citizens. Control over the ‘rebel bots’ has been re-established, and their ‘amazing solution’ will now be incorporated into their standard operating framework. Three polls indicate that a lofty 68% of respondents support the bots in their efforts to better serve us…”

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

Jul9

The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

by Jon Rappoport

July 9, 2017