Category Archives: Perverse Magicians

What is Matrix?

What is Matrix?

by Jon Rappoport

October 7, 2015

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

It’s hard to know what a lock is unless you know what a key is, and how they fit together.

In this case, we can pile up many words to describe the lock: the mass of unceasing propaganda that bombards the population; global elites who fully intend to manage the planet as one integrated entity; the assault of toxic medical drugs and environmental chemicals on the human neurological system; the intentionally vapid and indoctrinating educational apparatus; the money-invention structure of banks; the hidden rules governing who, now and in the future, will eat and who will starve, who will have water and who will go without, who will have money who will not.

And this is just the beginning of the list.

But the key that fits into the lock and brings about a deep acceptance of things as they are…what is that?

It is the human mind. A mind not only conditioned by external factors but programmed by the person himself. A mind that provokes an onrush of emotions that hold a person in place, unable to break out. A mind that fosters false but convincing beliefs about what exists and what doesn’t exist. A mind unprepared to view potential and dormant human capabilities that exceed the physical laws of space and time.

A mind that wants to insert itself into the lock and form a durable partnership with what everyone else assumes reality is.

A mind that wants to function within certain boundaries. A mind that embraces limiting illusions about the so-called human condition.

A mind that, in a significant sense, obsessively copies reality, mirrors reality, becomes “a twin of the physical world.”

The mind seeks The Other, and believes The Other is the “world as it is.”

In order for this strange dynamic to operate, the mind has to believe it is lost and needs to find itself.

The key that fits into the lock is a mind that is waiting at a cosmic train station for the express to arrive. And when it does, the mind climbs on board, as if it has done the deed so many times before. And it has.

This is an old pattern. This is the mind mistaking a labyrinth for the familiar physical world. So the mind enters a maze and becomes wrapped up in a mystery that never ends, while thinking it is home.

This is a form of hypnosis that introduces the mind to increasing levels of complexity, until, exhausted, it gives up the ghost—and wonders why the world, which was so full of hope and warmth and comfort, turned into something else.

So a life is lived. And then another life. And another.

And the mind becomes unable to understand, as the old Tibetans did, that, in a very significant sense, the universe is a product of mind.

The mind becomes unable to understand that actions of both creation and destruction are more than myths depicting ancient gods. These stories are metaphors for how the mind can become brilliantly aware of the alive space(s) beyond mere acceptance and submission and surrender.

the matrix revealed

At the center of all this stands the archetype of The Artist. I mean that in the broadest sense. The Artist brings new realities into being and casts others away. He builds and he tears down. He, like the ancient figure of Hermes, can view the utterly insane joke of erecting and embroidering billions of trappings that define the one space of “things as they are (and must be).”

The overwhelming majority of human beings believe they want that space above all others. They believe that largeness represents a personal danger and smallness confers security.

They believe in the lock, and they struggle to discover a way to insert themselves into it. Permanently. Forever.

And in order to believe this, they exercise the majestic ability to put themselves into a trance state.

Below these issues I am discussing here, far below, is society/civilization and its attendant conflicts and madness. Civilizations come and go, come and go. They purport to be the only show on Earth.

They are window dressing on Matrix.

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.

What you’re supposed to think vs. what you think

What you’re supposed to think vs. what you think

by Jon Rappoport

October 4, 2015

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

I could trace my 30 years of investigative reporting as one long project emanating from what people are supposed to think.

What they’re supposed to think about nuclear weapons, pesticides, medical drugs, vaccines, presidential elections, major media, the CIA, US foreign policy, mega-corporations, brain research, collectivism, surveillance, psychiatry, immigration…

In each case, there are a set of messages broadcast to the population. These messages are projected to replace what people would think on their own, if left to their own devices.

And in many cases, these messages have the same underlying theme: feel unlimited sympathy.

Feel unlimited sympathy or else.

In the area of immigration, for example, people are supposed to welcome endless numbers of refugees to their shores and cities and towns.

If they don’t put out the welcome sign, they’re evil, they’re cold, they’re “capitalists,” they’re unloving, they’re cruel, inhumane.

They’re immune to proper feelings of guilt and shame.

There is also an interesting guilty “we” attached to the issue. “We” invaded other countries, “we” bombed populations, imposed devastating economic sanctions, launched corporate takeovers—and therefore “we” should now open our doors to these refugees.

The government didn’t do these things. The State didn’t do these things. “We” did.

“We” is a very, very popular collectivist concept. It assigns massive guilt, while somehow exonerating the political leaders of the collective.

“We” is a great cheese glob that envelops all of us. “We” is a metaphysical construct that replaces “I.” There is no “I.”

Therefore, what some “deluded individual” might think and decide and determine on his own—which could very well run counter to the “we”—is irrelevant.

When it’s time to undertake wars on a grand scale, there is a George Bush who announces what the “we” wants. And when it’s time for the guilt and the sympathy and the bleeding heart, there is an Obama who announces what the “we” wants.

In general, the “we” is there to convince the individual that he is useless and powerless against the advancing cheese glob. He need not bother thinking what he really thinks, because it would make zero difference. Much better to become part of the “huddled mass,” waiting for instructions on how best to serve humanity.

Logic, rational consideration, the ability to analyze a line of thought and find flaws and gaps and deceptions? An outmoded concept that doesn’t apply to the “we.”

You see, the “we” is something quite different. It proceeds by a) committed aggression or b) endless sympathy, depending on what is called for by our leaders.

It moves like inexorable lava slowly leaking away from a volcano. The glob.

It needs no individual intelligence. Making distinctions is unnecessary.

And, one thinks, perhaps the solution to this wretched state of affairs is finding a different “we” to belong to. That will solve the whole problem.

But the underlying solution, as formidable as it may seem, is: dismantle the whole “we.” Expose it for what it is. And reinstate the individual and what he does think, as opposed to what he should think.

The cheese glob, the lava glob, the advancing fungus is the false construct. It was put there and massaged and stimulated to engage the individual and make him think he was excessively “privileged.” He was an outsider who couldn’t see the need and the joy of “belonging.”

He was behaving like a criminal, even a terrorist. He was detracting from the power and the warmth and the humanity of the collective hearth.

What most people take to be Reality is actually invented for the “we.”

And to take all this a step further, Reality is meant to distract the individual from discovering the depth of his own power, which is to say, creative power.

Every organized religion, every State, every so-called spiritual system and philosophy is built to derail the individual in this way.

exit from the matrix

After all, Reality points to itself. Reality says, “Look at this. Look at me. Understand me. This is what you need to focus on. This is all there is.”

And so it seems the main attribute of the individual is “perceiving what is.” Perceiving Reality.

However, detaching one’s self from that prescription reveals another opportunity, vast in its possibilities:

The ability to analyze the “we” and its many messages and discover what they are and how they are designed—and the capacity to imagine and invent new independent realities without end.

The scope and range of what the individual can do, in this regard, is limited only by: what he can imagine.

The psyop of all psyops seeks to bury this fact.

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.

Migration of populations vs. the individual

Migration of populations vs. the individual

by Jon Rappoport

September 7, 2015

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

We are seeing a flood of population-migration in various parts of the world. The Globalist strategy is obvious:

Make the only solution a global solution.

Instigate the chaos that causes the migrations, and then come in behind that with the answer: “better planning, better organization, international agreements”—in short, a planned society for the borderless world.

Of course, “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 is just another pawn and cipher to move around on the board.

And as more duped and deluded people sign on to this agenda, the whole concept of the individual shrinks and becomes irrelevant.

This is purposeful.

This is the script for the future: in many ways 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 consciousness, 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, every 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 existed in its pristine form for about an hour after the ink dried on the founding documents.

Elites emerged with the realization that they would need to build great wealth for certain men, who would then turn around and use their power to expand government and corporate and banking control, in order to sink the population back into the swamp from which they had just been liberated.

On and on it goes. But regardless of circumstances, the individual can author his own freedom and what it implies. He can discover, within himself, extraordinary possibilities and extraordinary consciousness. 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, but the individual remains.

Behind and below and above all the false prescriptions of the State and its allies, he remains. He is at the core.

But why wait until some distant day to wake up?

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 danger to the status quo.

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

exit from the matrix

The modern State works from the assumption that you are renting your life and your self. It sees itself as the landlord, whose beneficent concern, expressed through “programs,” should direct your behavior and thought.

It is softening 1984 into the effects of Brave New World. Pain is the stick and pleasure is the carrot.

Soon you will see official calculations of “pleasure quotients” for citizens. You will even see promises to “expand” those quotients.

“The greater good of all” will be highlighted.

That is the primary selling point.

Its success depends on the individual ceasing to exist in his own mind. He is The Group.

On the horizon: researchers studying the myriad activities of the brain in real time will claim there is no chemical/biological/electrical basis in the brain for the concept of the individual. The whole notion is an aberration, resulting from an imbalance that can be corrected.

Sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and other charlatans will chime in, pointing to indisputable evidence that, throughout history, it has been the individual who has caused all the trouble. (This propaganda op has been actively underway for a hundred years.)

Yes, the hard scientists, will agree. “But to be more precise, it is the disordered brain that has caused the trouble.”

Yes, my friends, you can be free of the imbalance, and the suffering and turmoil it causes. You can be liberated, and thus discover a new world of pleasure.

“Take the carrot.”

Against all this stands: the individual.

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.

The individual vs. the collective in the Matrix

The individual vs. the collective in the Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

September 5, 2015

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

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.

Collectivism wasn’t merely a Soviet paradigm. It was spreading like a fungus at every level of American life. It might fly a political banner here and there, but on the whole it was a social phenomenon and nightmare.

Television then added fuel to the fire. Under the control of psyops experts, it became, as the 1950s droned on, the facile barrel of a weapon:

“What’s important is the group, the family, peers. 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. It isn’t people talking in a park or on a street corner or in a saloon or a barber shop or a meeting hall or a church.

It’s happening on a screen.

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

The very opposite of living as a strong, independent, and powerful individual is the cloying need to belong. And the latter is what television ceaselessly promotes.

This is no accident. After World War 2, psychological-warfare operatives turned their attention to two long-term strategies: inculcating negative stereotypes of distant populations, to rationalize covert military plans to conquer and build an empire for America; and disseminating the unparalleled joys of disappearing into a group existence.

When, for example, television promotes “family,” it’s all on the level of fictitiously happy, desperate, yearning, last-chance, problem-resolving, melted-down, trance-inducing, gooey family.

This isn’t, by any stretch, an actual human value. Whether it’s the 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.

The political Left of the 1960s, who rioted against Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, at the Century Plaza Hotel, and ended his hopes to run again in 1968…that Left is now all about the State and its glories and gifts. The collective.

A great deal of the television coverage of mass shootings is now dedicated to bringing home the spurious message: we all grieve together and heal together.

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.” “Above all, this is a community.”

The community, the group, the company, the sector, the planet, the family.

The goal? Submerge the individual and tie him inexorably to a group.

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

All you need to do is fall into the arms of a group. After that, everything is settled. You can care exclusively about the collective.

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.”

Television seeks to emphasize one decision: inclusion or exclusion. Exclusion is portrayed as the only condition that is possible if you aren’t part of the group. And exclusion carries the connotation of exile, excommunication, and criminality.

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. And with that comes 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?”

Of the three elite network anchors, the one who fictionally conveyed the sense that “we’re all in this together” was Brian Williams (NBC), before his downfall. He was the number-one-rated anchor on the evening news.

Am I saying that no groups anywhere can achieve important objectives? No. I’m talking about a state of mind wherein the individual surrenders his own life-force.

There is an indissoluble link between the artifact called “we” and “limited context.” This is precisely what television news gives to the public. With each story that fails to explore the deeper elite players and their motives, the news speaks to a collective consciousness, which is to say, the sharing of a fabrication.

What “we” shares is foreshortened perspective, lies, misdirection, and superficial gloss. Those qualities are built for the group, and the group digests them automatically.

For some people, “we” has a fragrant scent, until they get down in the trenches with it. There they discover odd odors and postures and mutations. They find self-distorted creatures running around doing bizarre things with an exhibitionist flair.

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

Perceptions formerly believed to be the glue that holds this 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’s starts a cacophony of howling.

People dimly wonder whether, beyond this night, there is another whole world where individuals live, where individuals finally separate from the sticky substance of coordinated defeat.

The “we” that television gives us is a fiction designed to make the independent individual extinct. That is its job.

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. “See what happens when the group is rejected? Lone individuals are really no different than individuals. They are people who left the fold. They wandered from the communal hearth. They thought for themselves. This is what happens when individuals assert their independent existence. They become killers. They lose their way. They break the sacred bond. They are heretics who fall away from the collective.”

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 strongest argument against the free and independent and powerful individual, and in favor of the collective is, simply: the collective has advanced to such a degree that there is no going back; the individual can’t win; the battle is over.

But the liberation of the individual has existed as an aim since the dawn of time on this planet. That aim will not vanish.

Why? Because underneath all the programs for mind control, there is, obviously, something to control. Otherwise, why bother? The deeper you go in discovering what “must be controlled,” the more freedom and power and imagination you encounter in the individual.

It may not seem so. It may seem that all the propaganda about the inherent weakness and smallness of the human being is accurate. But that is a false dream.

The reality is far different.

A million psyops won’t change that reality.

power outside the matrix

Here is a 1980 quote from author Philip K Dick. He is writing poignantly about another titan of science fiction, Robert Heinlein. The relevance of Phil’s words to the subject of this article? Here are two powerful and independent individuals who, despite all their differences, find a common sharing. This is what that sharing looks like and feels like:

“Several years ago, when I was ill, Heinlein offered his help, anything he could do, and we had never met; he would phone me to cheer me up and see how I was doing. He wanted to buy me an electric typewriter, God bless him—one of the few true gentlemen in this world. I don’t agree with any ideas he puts forth in his writing, but that is neither here nor there. One time when I owed the IRS a lot of money and couldn’t raise it, Heinlein loaned the money to me. I think a great deal of him and his wife; I dedicated a book to them in appreciation. Robert Heinlein is a fine-looking man, very impressive and very military in stance; you can tell he has a military background, even to the haircut. He knows I’m a flipped-out freak and still he helped me and my wife when we were in trouble. That is the best in humanity, there; that is who and what I love.”

Here is one more from Philip Dick. I don’t agree with the “motive” part of the quote, but everything else? Perfect.

“Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups…So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.”

The question is, in gaining freedom from these pseudo-realities, does the process happen for everyone at once, or is it one individual at a time? The answer is clear. It must be one individual at a time—and that tells us a great deal about the illusion of the collective.

The history of human struggle on this planet is about the individual emerging FROM the group, from the tribe, from the clan, from ethnicity and race and skin color and from all outward signs of collective existence.

The history of struggle is not about the individual surrendering and going back into group identity.

That is the psyop.

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.

The collapse of Europe

The collapse of Europe

by Jon Rappoport

August 22, 2015

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

“For a long time, we’ve lived with the delusion that prosperous nations were going to raise the standard of living of poor nations. That was a piece of infernal propaganda. The objective was always the exploitation of those poverty-stricken nations. Their land, their resources, their labor.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Let’s start with this bit of background:

The fear of individuality comes from the apprehension that a human, unchained and alive, might create something that would expose the titanic hoax of the collective and the group; the apprehension that an individual might create something undeniably great and different; and, therefore, put collective human society in its proper perspective.

And so the individual is called upon to sacrifice himself on the altar of the group.

That is the directive.

The counter-force is the individual using his rational mind, his imagination, and his creative force to surpass this societal brainwashing.

The first step is realizing he is not part of the great collective Cheese Glob.

But most people in so-called “democracies” would not see things this way. They would object. They would claim “the needs of all the people” are not being met. They would claim no one has the right to rise above the standards of the masses.

And “the masses” now refer to wide-open borders in Europe and, as in America, the influx of huge numbers of people fleeing from other parts of the world.

Many of these immigrating people hope for, and expect, economic survival in their new homes. They expect government assistance programs. This is no melting pot. This is a vast extension of the Welfare State, in which the concerns of the individual have no place. No place at all.

Stereotypes are the order of the day. “Which group do you belong to? What race are you? What ethnicity? What are your grievances and demands?”

On the surface, this vast program appears to be humanitarian in nature, but nothing could be further from the truth. Sowing chaos in the nations of Europe is the objective.

Why? Because Globalism, like every elite scheme in the history of the planet, lives by the motto, “Order from Chaos.”

Create chaos, then move in with tighter control, to “solve the problem.”

Wall-to-wall surveillance, militarized police, decimation of free speech.

In this atmosphere, it is very easy for the individual to forget and cast aside his own power and his own unique vision of the future, and his own capacity to invent the future.

It is very easy for the individual to forego rationality and logic as useless objects of a bygone era and simply sink to the level of a stimulus-response creature.

But if that happens, what is left?

Nothing.

During centuries of struggle, Europe carved out a mission of individual freedom, against all odds, and there were eventually many victories.

Now, there is the danger of all that going down the drain.

If the liberation of the individual from the State and the Church is now viewed as a mere fantasy, an old dream, an old lie of history, an old delusion, then the future is turned over to Globalist masters and their program of mass control.

There is a joker in the deck. The European mega-corporations, which are part and parcel of the Globalist network, will discover that their consumer base is shrinking. In short, there will come a point at which these corporations can’t expand by selling their products in the marketplace. Too late, the corporations will realize they are expendable in the diabolical Globalist plan.

One of the winners? The Vatican.

The Roman Church has always realized that their best days are those in which poverty escalates. People then return to older forms of hope and desperation. People then grasp at straws.

Make no mistake, the humanitarian pronouncements of this Pope are a cover story that obscures the Church’s true ambition: flourishing in a time of crisis.

The longer the crisis, the better. The vision of widespread poverty as a permanent condition is the Church’s wet dream. It brings back their glory days.

exit from the matrix

At its core, the entire Globalist operation is aimed at making the individual believe he is helpless.

Whether and to what degree this program succeeds is not in the hands of any group. It is in the hands, the soul of the individual himself.

Which is why my work, for the past decade, has focused more and more on the individual, his power, his life-force, his mind, his imagination, his uniqueness.

The future is up for grabs. Will the wide channel of individual freedom and power, which has been dug for centuries, in a great struggle, be the substance of the future, or will the coming century devolve into one great planetary Collective, mindless and begging for scraps?

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.

Proof: the program to erase the individual

England, Australia, Canada, USA: poof

The program to erase the individual

by Jon Rappoport

August 13, 2015

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

“The less government we have, the better, — the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of formal Government [taking more power for itself], is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual.” (Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1844)

“If it were felt that the free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being…there would be no danger that liberty should be undervalued.” (John Stuart Mill, 1859)

“If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” (Henry David Thoreau, 1854)

“Art is individualism, and individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine.” (Oscar Wilde, 1891)

I could have added a number of other countries to those in the title of this article. In those I mentioned, there was once a tradition of the free and independent and unique individual. That tradition has faded like a photo on an old postcard.

The individual is now considered a) a criminal by definition, or b) a member of a group defined solely by ethnicity, color, religion, gender, or c) either in the 1% or the 99%.

But the individual is not considered to be himself/herself. Certainly not. Anything but.

In any of these countries, go back through the speeches of recent presidents and prime ministers and try to find a significant, positive, extensive mention of the individual. Good luck.

These days, mention “private property” and “individual” in the same sentence, and if you’re understood at all, chances are you’ll be labeled with some slur—because public-everything is supposed to be the utopian answer to humankind’s ills.

At one time, it was believed that a centuries-long struggle to liberate the individual from both church and king was meaningful. It was where history was heading. It was about more than economics. Freedom of thought and expression had something to do with it. Of course, the individual had to have an operating mind, if his independent thoughts were to add up to anything.

The power of the individual. That phrase carried a message. It was well-received. The idea that government existed in order to enforce a basic minimum of laws which would support the individual; that idea made sense.

The idea that innovations were made by the individual, not the committee. That notion had currency.

But this trend stalled and reversed.

It reversed, for example, in the hands of people suddenly called social scientists. These were bloviating academic analysts of societies, who were unleashed to pontificate opinions as if they had been confirmed by laboratory experiments.

One of the founders of sociology, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), coined the phrase “collective consciousness.” Durkheim insisted there were “inherent” qualities that existed in society apart from individuals. Exposing his own absurd theory, he went so far as to claim suicide was one of those qualities, as if the “phenomenon” were present beyond any individual choice to end life.

He wrote: “Man is the more vulnerable to self-destruction the more he is detached from any collectivity, that is to say, the more he lives as an egoist.”

In other words, according to Burkheim, the individual who rejects the norms and conformity of society must be wrapped up in himself in some morally repugnant way. There are no other alternatives. He’s either part of the collective or he’s tinged with criminality.

In his book, The Division of Labour in Society (1893) (wikipedia), Burkheim spun moral conscience in the following fashion: “…Make yourself usefully fulfill a determinate function.” He cited this as a kind of command issued by collective consciousness. This is the presentation of the individual human as machine-cog.

From the mud of sociology’s beginnings, the long sordid history of the academic discipline brings us to something like this. Peter Callero, of the department of sociology, Western Oregon University, has written a book titled: The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives (2013, 2nd Ed):

“Most people today believe that an individual is a person with an independent and distinct identification. This, however, is a myth.”

Staggering. But as public relations and propaganda experts have learned, hauling a really huge lie in front of the public gives you a better chance of being believed than telling a small lie does.

When Callero writes “distinct identification,” he isn’t talking about ID cards and Social Security numbers. He’s asserting there is no significant difference between any two people. There aren’t two individuals to begin with. They’re a group.

This downgrading of the individual human spirit is far from accidental. It’s launched as a sustained propaganda campaign, the ultimate purpose of which is top-down control over the population.

Here’s another gem:

“The cold truth is that the individualist creed of everybody for himself and the devil take the hindmost is principally responsible for the distress in which Western civilization finds itself — with investment racketeering at one end and labor racketeering at the other. Whatever merits the creed may have had in the days of primitive agriculture and industry, it is not applicable in an age of technology, science, and rationalized economy. Once useful, it has become a danger to society.” (Charles Beard, 1931)

Beard, a celebrated historian, sees no difference between individual racketeering and the individual freely choosing and living his own life. In making this judgment, he becomes an intellectual/propaganda racketeer of the highest order.

One more:

“British empiricist philosophy is individualist. And it is of course clear that if the only criterion of true and false which a man accepts is that man’s, then he has no base for social agreement. The question of how man ought to behave is a social question, which always involves several people; and if he accepts no evidence and no judgment except his own, he has no tools with which to frame an answer.” (Jacob Bronowski, Science and Human Values, 1956).

Bronowski is quite sure that hearing other people’s evidence and then keeping one’s own counsel is wrong. One has to accept that evidence on its face. This is sheer idiocy. Individuals are capable of deciding, on their own, what social agreements to enter into. They aren’t permanently enmeshed from birth.

Even more to the point, Beard and Bronowski were both high-achieving individuals—who then turned around and celebrated the kind of society that would try to flatten and level the individual to an average.

The world has many such experts. They rise high enough and then they preach collectivism. They become social meddlers. They believe they have the tools to plan what kind of world we should live in—since they are not part of that world anymore.

Freed from the obligations with which they want to bind us, they can scheme and fantasize about social, economic, and political constructs in which The Group is all.

This is elitism par excellence.

What is the primary power of the individual? It is the power to create. If that idea seems shop-worn or vague, it is only because the creative force of the individual has been purposefully downgraded from a hurricane to a drizzle. The force is now viewed with a blank stare of non-recognition—or it has been transferred over to used car salesmen and other hustlers who have rebranded themselves as self-improvement gurus, who reduce their proclamations to the language of infomercials.

Cheapening the most profound human impulses and energies is part and parcel of engendering a civilization that looks, sounds, feels, and tastes like a cartoon. We live in it. It is often vicious and painful for many people, but it is a cartoon. Intellectually, it imitates life with shortened perspectives and short-circuited ideas.

But…the individual does not have to buy any of this. The individual can refuse. He can take up a different position. He can invent from the platform of his own freedom.

He doesn’t have to play the part of idiot or slave.

He can reject the collective and the group. He can pursue the unlimited space that opens up when he is launching his best future.

The tradition of the individual, in the nations where it once existed, where it was fought for, may be dead; but the individual himself is not dead.

He can find his way. He can return to the center. He can live through and by his own imagination, come hell or high water.

He can walk away from every fungus-ridden collectivist scheme and invent his own destiny.

He can stop prostrating himself before the billion possible little phony gods the salesmen are selling.

The endless volleys of contemporary criticism aimed at “the human species” and its desecrations, crimes, and insanities do not distinguish The Group from the individual. They attempt to bury the individual, but they fail.

You are not everyone else, and everyone else is not you. That absurd prescription is glazed, re-fried, many-times-boiled, and sold-on-a-stick “ancient Asian wisdom,” in modern-mall “spiritual centers” of the West. It has been recycled to conceal its collectivist message.

The individual, no matter how hard he tries, can’t rid himself of his independence, creative-force, power, or freedom. He can induce amnesia, but somewhere within himself, he knows what he is doing.

exit from the matrix

Dedicated slaves are a dime a dozen. But there was once a tradition in some nations, and it stood for the unique individual. It was real. It was never perfect; far from it. But it existed. That tradition was hijacked and turned inside out.

As the battle for individual freedom and independence gained ground, education was seen as the means to teach boys and girls what it meant to be a citizen in a limited Republic. That was a major purpose of schooling.

But as education was turned into a quacking duck, as too many students refused to learn, as too many teachers refused to teach, as too many citizens didn’t care, as government slyly expanded its reach and size and control, the public education experiment went down the drain. And so did limited government.

The resurrection of the individual by the individual is now the course. It can only be understood by those who know that “average” and “normal” aren’t the objectives.

There are many, many people who are living half-blind, while believing that they can see clearly, and that everyone else should see on this level. That is another feature of the cartoon.

Don’t buy the cartoon.

The group has no creative power or imagination. It merely pretends it does. It passes a gross imitation from hand to hand…and if it ever stops, it will find dust, only dust…

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.

Why do people think computers will be alive?

Why do people think computers will be alive?

by Jon Rappoport

August 7, 2015

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

“Because, supposedly, one digital processing unit will eventually be able to manipulate zillions of pieces of information at a faster rate than all the human brains on the planet taken together…the result will be…what? And if that digital unit is sitting in The Cloud and every human’s brain is hooked up to it, the result will be…what? A person will be able to master French in five minutes? How does that work? Information can be injected like a drug and produce instant learning? Automatically? Perhaps this is a fantasy hatched at Disney World. Two machines can rapidly exchange data and programmed methods of analysis, but it so happens that humans are not machines, even if they believe they are.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

How do you think a super-brain would be constructed? I’m talking about the technocrats’ dream to build a computer that would rival and surpass the human brain, in terms of “reliable data.” And don’t forget, the plan is to somehow connect brains directly to the super-computer, so data can be downloaded into humans.

And this computer would, technocrats believe, come alive.

Why?

Because a) it can store far more information than the human brain; b) it can choose how to utilize that information to solve problems; c) it can solve those problems at lightning speed; and d) it can work on millions of problems at the same time.

Basically, technocrats believe a super-computer will be alive because it can process enormous amounts of data—as if there is a threshold beyond which the sheer volume of processing triggers an event…birth. What was merely a machine is now something More.

I’ve boiled down the above statement, in order to remove mystical fluff.

The statement looks strange, quite strange.

By way of analogy, if you could outfit a Porsche so it can run at 400mph, without need of a driver; and also view detailed traffic patterns within a radius of a hundred miles, adjusting its trajectory to minute changes; also report weather, stock market moves, headlines, and the moment-to-moment output of home surveillance sensors; also cook soup; acquire hostile targets and fire beam weapons to eliminate them; shop remotely at any of 50,000 stores; interview and pitch prospective customers to win contracts; deliver a haircut, shave, and minor surgery; write your autobiography in 5000 volumes; track ice flows at the North Pole; day-trade stocks and commodities; report the second-to-second movements and conversations of up to 100,000 people; record every event taking place on a million other planets…and do all this simultaneously… at some point the Porsche will cross over and become alive.

I’m afraid not.

It will still be a machine.

For technocrats, “information processing” is basically a religious undertaking. As if it were a form of prayer, a blessing conferred, a ritual connecting the computer to the innards of the universe.

There is no level of complexity beyond which life suddenly occurs. Complexity, in and of itself, does not initiate life.

There is no number of “correct answers” which triggers life.

At bottom, technocracy assumes quite juvenile concepts: accumulation of data automatically imparts learning; the power of information-processing bypasses the problem of false, authority-based data; enough learning eliminates the need for imagination.

Technocrats assume that mysteries about how humans learn can be solved by claiming: “well, the brain is doing something we’ll eventually understand. It’s all happening in the brain because…what else is there?”

There is the individual.

You.

If you are your brain, an ant is a spaceship pilot.

Technocrats are making the brain into a sacred totem, a magic gizmo.

If you’re aware you have a brain, who is being aware? You’re just an artifact fed illusions about self by your brain? You aren’t there at all?

I’m an illusion writing illusions to the illusion called you?

Now, we’re getting to the core of the matter. A great many channels of propaganda, for obvious reasons, are aimed at the eradication of the concept of the individual, of self. It suits the collectivist model.

The assertion that the brain is “all there is” is a piece of political puppetry. It leads directly into the effort to “enhance” (alter, re-program, control) the brain.

The brain is not conscious.

A computer is not conscious.

A brain-computer interface is not conscious.

There is no function or system that equals consciousness.

Individual consciousness comes before any function or system.

The individual is not defined as the passive recipient of signals from the brain. The individual is intensely creative, although for various reasons he can bury that capacity to the point where he will deny he has it.

When the individual expresses his imagination and creative power intensely enough, he surpasses the habitual and passive acceptance of things as they are. And in doing so, his consciousness assumes a different level, and he sees life from a far different perspective. All this does not emanate from the brain.

Theoretically, if one had a super-computer of sufficient power, he could program it to spit out all the paintings in all the museums in the world, and all the music ever composed, and all the poems and novels and plays ever written, plus billions of new paintings and songs and poems. But…

So what?

Does that mean that human imagination is just an illusion?

If a carpenter makes a cabinet, and a computer running a machine produces the same cabinet, does that mean the carpenter is useless, and has gained nothing from his endeavor? Of course not.

Imagination is the source of reality, including the creation of computers.

Imagination is also the means by which an individual can attain a state in which he truly understands that the universe of “rigid natural laws” is actually an infinitely malleable stage play.

Technocrats want to be machines. They aren’t, but they keep trying.

If necessary, let them have their own island, where they can fiddle and diddle to their hearts’ content, without imposing their machinery on the rest of us. Call it an experiment. We run it. We watch what happens to them as they expend titanic effort to be brains and computers. We’ll call the experiment: “A Self-Selecting Cohort of Humans Who Think They’re Machines Attempt to Attain a Lowest-Common-Denominator Default Setting As If It Were Enlightenment.”

In my search for a different approach to the power of individual consciousness, I came upon the history of early Tibet, before the society hardened into a theocracy.

Several sources were particularly helpful. The work of author John Blofeld (The Tantric Mysticism of Tibet), the writings of the intrepid explorer, Alexandra David-Neel, and a quite unconventional healer, Richard Jenkins, with whom I worked in the early 1960s in New York.

Jenkins once wrote to me:

“There are people who want to tell us what consciousness should perceive. They’re blind to the electric, alive, and free nature of awareness. They’re wrapped up in content and addicted to it. Their biggest mistake is omitting the creative nature of human beings…”

That creative nature was the intense focus of the early Tibetans.

These practitioners, teachers, and students, some 1500 years ago, realized that most people viewed consciousness as an accumulator of knowledge. A searching tool, or a receiving apparatus.

Instead, the Tibetans embarked on a far more adventurous course.

Their many images (e.g., mandalas) weren’t meant as depictions of what finally exists in higher realms. Those realms were just as provisional and changeable as the physical world. You might call the multiple locales and dimensions representations of “what humans in certain Asian cultures would expect to encounter in their journeys of spirit.”

In other words, the Tibetans consciously treated their pantheons of gods and semi-gods as convincing illusions.

Several of their key exercises and techniques were all about having students mentally create these illusions in voluminous and meticulous detail. That was difficult enough, to be sure. Far more difficult was the next aspect of their practice: get rid of these creations.

Put them there; destroy them.

The Tibetans were committed to living life on the level of imagination, with all that implied.

And what does it imply?

A new psychology. A psychology of unlimited possibility:

A person’s past, his history, his problems, his relationships are all framed against the wider context of what he can imagine and then invent, create, in the world.

Living through and by imagination long enough, the individual discovers that his prior relationships are transformed. They no longer set themselves up as questions or problems.

He is operating from a platform that affords an utterly different, original, and unexpected outcome.

exit from the matrix

A psychology of possibility not only looks forward to the future, it has a reason to do so. Bringing electricity back into life depends, initially, on viewing possibilities in the space of one’s own imagination.

It may strike you at this point that our current civilization is bent on lowering possibilities; and that is true. That is the psychology of the psyop.

There is a good reason for this programming, as well as the staging of events that seem to give the programming validity. Those who aim to control the destiny of humankind want to shrink the “size of humans.” That is their intent.

A psychology of possibility would reverse that trend and expose it.

To the casual observer, the weight of this civilization and all its accoutrement seems enormous. But the creative potential of the individual outstrips that structure by light years.

How does the individual realize that fact? What is the spark that ignites his understanding? It all begins in imagination, which is the home of possibility.

Against this background, the computer is a drop in the ocean.

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.

Consciousness versus computers

Consciousness versus computers

by Jon Rappoport

August 5, 2015

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

“Technocrats believe all brains can be directly hooked up to a super-computer. They’re looking at humans beings through the wrong end of the telescope. Everything they see about humans is reduced, shrunken, and ‘automatic’. Technocrats are trained to miss the big picture, even though they incessantly talk about it. They’re visionaries who are blind. Thus, they’re in the grand tradition of religious fanatics.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

If you take away a person’s ability to employ logic, and if you also take away his imagination, and thus his capacity to extrapolate and predict what is coming, what you are left with is: eyeballs.

Eyeball perception of what is happening now. And even then, eyeballs are seeing immediate reality through unconscious filters.

The ability to apply reason and to predict are vital components of perception. They are voluntary components. They don’t sweep in like a wave and take over. They are born out of freedom and choice.

So…what is the difference between you moving around on the Internet, reading and researching; versus you with your brain directly connected to some grand computer stacked with trillions of pieces of data?

In the former case, you have freedom. In the latter case, it all happens automatically. You get “the best possible data on any given subject.”

Of course, “best possible” is not your decision or conclusion. It’s someone else’s. Worse, the data are instantly downloaded into your brain (whatever that actually means).

How this deterministic system amounts to a glorious breakthrough of enormous spiritual significance, triggering revelations, is beyond mysterious. In fact, the whole conception is absurd.

If you were a robot operating on an assembly line, and your task could be automatically modulated and adjusted, depending on changing circumstances, then yes, that would be a nice innovation.

But you aren’t a robot. You’re conscious. You have choice. Freedom. You can apply logic. You can conceive of futures, based on your present knowledge.

Contrary to technocratic catechism, computers aren’t conscious. They don’t have freedom. They can be programmed to select conclusions relative to specified objectives and goals, but even then their methods of selection are part of their programming. They don’t suddenly wake up and become alive.

Technocrats tend to believe computers, when developed to a sufficient level of complexity that mirrors what the human brain does, DO come alive.

They believe that information-processing alone is a sign of life. But that’s a self-serving fantasy.

Information-processing is one effect of being alive and conscious. The technocrats have it backwards.

Unfortunately for them and their religion, consciousness isn’t measurable. And that’s a bone stuck in their throat.

Therefore, they need to reduce and reduce the concept of consciousness. So they claim it’s in the brain, and then they say the brain works automatically—and therefore consciousness is simply an aspect of pre-determined function. Consciousness is just a delusion brought on, like an illness, by chemicals and electrical impulses inside the skull.

They say whatever they have to, in order to minimize, degrade, and destroy the idea of consciousness.

To the degree that technocrats are gaining control of society and its future, the human population is at considerable risk. Because these secular-religious fanatics are sniffing and building their way toward a “best possible apparatus.”

And wherever they spot freedom, they try to wipe it out, and then they say it never existed.

Consciousness is not function. Nor is it derived from function.

The foot soldiers of technocracy spend every working day with systems. They become entrained: they see life as systems. Therefore, they presume that awareness must be some sort of structure yet to be mapped out.

This is false. A person can be conscious of a system, but that has nothing to do with what consciousness is.

These distinctions, among the technocratic class, have been lost.

Along similar lines, technocrats believe that a closed and tightly planned society is “scientific” and therefore “advanced.” This is another blunder. You can put a hundred people inside a large cage and regulate their movements. That’s a plan. That’s precise. But it has nothing to do with science.

Technocrats are juggling all sorts of metaphors and comparisons and coming up with wrong answers like clockwork.

On a much higher level, their bosses and leaders are manipulating these notions as a smokescreen, to hide their naked ambition: overt control and dominance of the population.

Regardless of what groups may be able to accomplish to head off the technocratic takeover, there is no victory if the individual doesn’t grasp his own inherent consciousness, which is vastly dynamic, energetic, and creative.

exit from the matrix

Imagination and the creative force are the prow of the present as it becomes the future.

The individual isn’t constrained to act merely from past tradition and experience.

The individual is under no obligation to wait for “everyone else” to wake up.

Consensus reality is: waiting in a defunct railroad station for something to happen. It never does.

As time passes, we are going to see more and more bizarre twists on technocracy; more pseudoscientific pronouncements; more messianic assurances.

It is up to the individual to reject the glare of this Wondrous Collective Tomorrow, and instead, invent his own.

To that, a person might reply, “But all around me, I see people who can’t consciously invent their own future. They’re mired in all sorts of problems.”

Whether these “other people” can or can’t is a subject for a different discussion. They aren’t the measure or the standard. Assessing one’s own ability by referring to others is just a convenient distraction.

In fact, the collective “we” and “everyone” is the target of technocrats, who envision mass solutions to civilization’s problems, through a super-computer’s definitive answers framed as “best available data.”

If this sounds like a con and an approach to humans as if they were non-creative machines, it is. It’s exactly that. Previous efforts at mind control pale by comparison. Technocracy is the wholesale Pavlovian insertion of stimuli, transmitted involuntarily to achieve uniform responses all the way across the board.

Madness? Insanity? Absurdity? Since when has that ever stopped manipulators bent on expanding their power and control? Repeated often enough by the right people, huge lies are always easier to sell than small ones.

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.

The psyop to neuter The Rebel

The psyop to neuter The Rebel

by Jon Rappoport

July 6, 2015

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

If you want to track a civilization as it collapses, watch what happens to the concept of the rebel.

On a profound level, mass shootings and assassinations (whether staged or not) are used to define the ever-present “lone assassin” as the REPRESENTATION AND THE SYMBOL OF WHAT THE INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL IS.

You’re a separate and distinct individual? An outsider? Watch out. Overnight, you could turn into a raging killer.

You happen to know an outsider, a loner? He’s dangerous. He doesn’t live by the rules the rest of us accept. He’s deranged. Stay away from him. Shun him. And if you see the slightest indication of (insert your own term here), report him to the authorities.

“See a rebel, say something,” to paraphrase the DHS motto.

Any human being who has courage, intelligence, eyes to see, and a determination to express his power in uncompromising terms can now be redefined as a potential threat to the stability of society—if he criticizes the prevailing Authority.

From the 1960s onward—starting with Lee Oswald and the assassination of JFK—the whole idea of “the rebel” with power has been sequentially updated and repackaged. This is intentional.

The objective is to equate “rebel” with a whole host of qualities—e.g., runaway self-serving paranoia; random destruction; out-of-control drug use; generalized hatred; the commission of crimes—qualities that defeat the very notion of powerful opposition to fascist authority:

On a lesser, “commercialized” level, the new rebel can define himself by merely showing up at a concert to scream and drink heavily and break something, having already dressed to make a dissident fashion statement. He can take an afternoon off from college classes and have his arms tattooed. All the while, of course, he functions as an avid consumer of mainstream corporate products.

You even have people who, considering themselves rebels of the first order, support a government that spies on its people 24/7, launches military attacks all over the world, and now funds a Manhattan Project to map every move of the 100 billion neurons of the brain, for the ultimate purpose of controlling it.

More than ever, the individual has to explore and discover, with intelligence, a position that is FOR himself and AGAINST the concocted and sustained illusion called consensus reality.

When the individual embarks on this path, the external false definitions of him as rebel or outsider or mentally ill or criminal no longer matter. Instead, what matters is his deepest nature.

Even going back as far as the 1950s, the so-called decade of conformity, psyops professionals sculpted notions of The Rebel: He was the person who didn’t want to take part in the emerging bland corporate culture.

He was imagined and presented as troubled, morose, a wobbly unfocused JD Salinger Holden Caulfield, or a beatnik, a Madison Avenue caricature of somebody who opposed Madison Avenue.

In other words, the people who were shaping the consumer culture were creating the image of the rebel as a cartoon figure who just didn’t want to buy into “the good life.”

Time Magazine ran a cover story on the beatniks, and characterized them as a disaffected trend. Marlon Brando, heading up a bunch of moronic motorcycle riders, invaded a town of pleasant clueless citizens and took it over, wreaking destruction. The 1953 movie was The Wild One. James Dean, who had the same trouble Brando did in articulating a complete sentence, was “the rebel without a cause” in the “iconic film” of the same name. He raced cars toward cliffs because his father couldn’t understand him.

These were all puff pieces designed to make rebels look ridiculous, and they worked. They also functioned to transmit the idea to young people that being a rebel should be a showbiz affectation. That worked, too.

Then the 1960s arrived. Flower children, in part invented by the major media, would surely take over the world and dethrone fascist authority with rainbows. San Francisco was the epicenter. But Haight-Ashbury, where the flowers and the weed were magically growing out of the sidewalks, turned into a speed, acid, and heroin nightmare, a playground for psychopaths to cash in and steal and destroy lives. The CIA, of course, gave the LSD culture a major push.

For all that the anti-war movement eventually accomplished in ending the Vietnam war crime, in the aftermath all those college students who had been in the streets—once the fear of being drafted was gone—scurried into counselors’ offices to see where they might fit into the job market after graduation. The military industrial complex took its profits and moved on, undeterred.

The idea of the rebel was gone. It later resurfaced as The Cocaine Dealer, the archangel of the 1980s.

And so forth and so on. All these incarnations of The Rebel were artificially created and sustained as psyops, for the purpose of deflating attempts at genuine and powerful rebellion. And, at bottom, the idea was to discredit the Individual, in favor of The Group.

Now, in our collectivist society of 2015, The Group, as a rapidly expanding victim class, is the government’s number one project. While extolling this group as heroic and in constant need of help, the government is doing everything it can to crash the economy and widen the population of victims. It’s a straight con. “We’re here to make you worse off while we lift you up.”

In the psyop to demean, distort, and squash the rebel, there is a single obvious common denominator: the establishment media are doing the defining; they are the ones who are setting the parameters and making the descriptions; they are the ones who build the cartoons; looking down their noses, pretending to a degree of sympathy, they paint one unflattering picture after another of what the rebel is and does and says; they have co-opted the whole game.

These days, the ultimate rebels, the media would have you believe, are “the Tea Party and their affiliated gun-toting racist bitter clingers who have religion.” Another distorted unflattering portrait, meant not only to drive people away from the Tea Party, but also to prove the guilt, by association, of any person who says the federal government is unconstitutional and out of control.

“All the fascism is on the political Right. There can be no fascism on the Left.” This is the major domestic policy of this administration—this absurd assertion.

The Rebel is real. He has been covered up by media fabrications and caricatures.

You can take a whole host of political films and television series of the past 50 years, and look at them for signs of the Rebel: Seven Days in May, Advise and Consent, The Candidate, The Seduction of Joe Tynan, Dave, Primary Colors, The Contender, Good Night and Good Luck, The American President, West Wing, Scandal, The Newsroom…

Good acting, bad acting, drama, message—at the end you’re looking for the core. What do the rebel heroes really stand for? What are their principles? It’s all bland. It’s vague. It has the posturing of importance, but little else.

As I was finishing this piece, a friend wrote with a quote attributed to Robert Anton Wilson: “The universe is a war between reality programmers.”

This is exactly where the real rebel enters the scene. He’s not trying to program people. Freedom means cutting loose from programming.

The rebel dismantles inhibiting and artificial structures.

He doesn’t go to the market and choose which reality program he wants. They’re all used up as soon as they come out of the package.

The political fancy or trend or program of the moment is a hardened dream somebody borrowed to make mincemeat out of the population. The rebel has no allegiance to any of this.

Albert Camus one wrote: “The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. It would be easy, however, to destroy that good conscience by shouting to them: if you want the happiness of the people, let them speak out and tell what kind of happiness they want and what kind they don’t want! But, in truth, the very ones who make use of such alibis know they are lies; they leave to their intellectuals on duty the chore of believing in them and of proving that religion, patriotism, and justice need for their survival the sacrifice of freedom.”

“THIS or THAT” is the history of Earth: choose reality program A or B. The choice was always a con.

Exit From the Matrix

We’re well into a time period when the experts and scientific authorities are settling on the human being as a biological machine that can only respond to programming. That’s their view and their default position.

It’s sheer madness, of course, but what else do you expect? We’re in an intense technological age, and people are obsessed with making things run smoother. They treat their precious little algorithms for control like the Crown Jewels. They’re terribly enthusiastic about the problem they’re solving, and that problem is us.

We’re the wild cards, a fact which they take to be result of our improper and incomplete conditioning. They aim to fix that.

There is—and has been, for a long time—a blended sequence in operation: a) observe; b) predict; c) control; d) re-create. “Well, we can see many patterns in this society. So we can make some predictions about what is going to happen. Actually, if we covertly introduce certain elements from the outside, we can control what happens. Why not stop diddling around and just make the whole thing over? Why not reshape humans?”

Having decided that, the battle begins between competing programmers of the mind. Which program for humans is better?

The rebel is against all such programming, no matter how “good and right” it sounds. “Good” and “right” are the traps:

“Well, certainly we could make a list of qualities we want all people to have. You know, the best qualities, like bravery and determination. Who could be against that? So suppose we could actually program such qualities into humans? Wouldn’t that be a fine thing? Then people would just BE that way…”

The ultimate rebellion is against programming, whatever it looks like, wherever it occurs.

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.

The stimulus-response Empire

The stimulus-response Empire

by Jon Rappoport

June 25, 2015

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

“From the moment the first leader of the first clan in human history took charge, he busied himself with this question: ‘What can I say and do that will make my people react the way I want them to.’ He was the first Pavlov. He was the first psychologist, the first propagandist, the first mind-control boss. His was the first little empire. Since then, only the means and methods have changed.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

I’ve spent the past 30 years analyzing, taking apart, and exposing highly centralized structures:

Government, supra-government, corporate, energy, intelligence, education, medical, mind-control, media, organized-religion structures; those are some of the targets.

They all operate on the basis of stimulus-response.

The elite future is stimulus-response. It’s based on the premise that humans are inherently (biologically) programmed to be dangerous and the programming must change. In other words, a better Pavlovian dog must be created.

Stimulus-response has been the guiding principle of elite rule since the dawn of history. The priest-class searches for the most effective inputs it can find, which in turn will produce the desired responses from the population.

Mainstream media, which are actually disseminated propaganda, aim to produce three overall responses to stimuli: a) “conflicts and major problems are never resolved”; b) “I should be afraid”; and c) “this is all too confusing,” which results in viewers and readers sinking into passivity.

For the most part, political leaders have paid no attention to the idea of freedom, regardless of which documents they’ve signed and given lip-service to. Why? Because freedom implies something beyond stimulus-response. Freedom implies action by choice. And politicians know their power depends on managing conditioned response in populations.

In that light, the 20th century was the century of PR, advertising, propaganda, and it was also the launching pad for a number of drugs targeting the brain and its responses.

But now, further technological paths are being followed. The alteration of the human genetic structure. The probing of brains with electronic interventions, so that, for example, it will be possible to insert images directly into the visual cortex, bypassing what humans would ordinarily perceive.

This is called the transhumanist agenda, and it is. But it is also stimulus-response at a more sophisticated level. And it is another way of attempting to eliminate freedom, while never admitting that freedom exists in the first place.

What are the requirements of a future society in which conditioned responses are locked down and pervasive, on chemical, biological, and electronic levels? Well, there is one basic requirement:

The population must believe they are happy.

That’s the end game. That’s the triumph of Brave New World over 1984.

“Happiness” is an elusive word. It can refer to a number of feelings and thoughts.

If you recall, from your childhood, a peak experience, a few moments of sheer ecstasy, you are certainly remembering happiness. But you are also remembering freedom.

That’s not what the elite controllers are aiming to produce as a mass societal effect. No; for them to succeed, they must create, in people, an article of faith:

People must believe that happiness is shallow, tepid, “average.” If they accept that premise, the game is over.

Because, through genetic manipulation, through chemicals, through electronics, that happiness-target stands a chance of being reached.

Then you would have a population ruled by stimulus-response, by conditioned reflex—a population that nevertheless interprets that state of affairs as acceptable, because it carries “happiness” with it.

This is how you drastically reduce the possibility of unending rebellion, revolution, and war between the people and the leaders.

This is the goal of elite empire.

Counter to that, as I mentioned above, is freedom.

In its fullness, freedom implies a personal and individual knowing that one is free. No doubts, no conditions.

Travel anywhere is the world, visit every college and university from Tierra del Fuego to the North Pole, and count how many courses are called Freedom. Count how many courses are taught with the explicit intent of exploring, deeply, what individual freedom means and is.

If, reading this far, you are beginning to suspect that the discredited and ugly word “philosophy” is creeping in, you’re right. Yes, that old saw, that ridiculous subject.

Back in the Stone Age, when I went to college, I majored in it. I have a good memory, and I can tell you that nowhere in the department’s curriculum was there a serious and extensive treatment of individual freedom.

Philosophy is supposed to take up and illuminate fundamental questions of existence and fundamental conflicts embedded in opposing views.

Such as the conflict I’m discussing here: stimulus-response vs. freedom.

Exit From the Matrix

Let me boil this titanic issue down to something I’ve introduced before: my analysis of two concepts: understanding and meaning.

You are reading this article, these words on the page. If you are nothing more than responses to stimuli, if you are merely atoms in motion, none of which are conscious in and of themselves, then how can you possibly understand the meaning of what you are reading?

Yet you do understand the meaning of the words.

So do I.

We are not merely atoms in motion. We are not merely matter. We are not merely pre-programmed responses to stimuli.

Which is a way of saying: we can choose, we can decide, we are free, each one of us.

The princes of Pavlov would have us accept that there is no “you” or “I.” Instead, there is the just the unceasing flow of particles in the universe. That’s all.

But again, you are here, right now. You, beyond particles, are reading these words and you understand them.

This is what has happened to the human race, through unceasing tons of propaganda and false science: people have come to believe that the arena of stimulus-response is gigantic. But the opposite is true:

It is individual freedom that is gigantic.

Which leads to the question every individual must ask himself: what is my freedom for?

For what action?

Is it for bowing down to the Reality that has been artificially constructed for me and everyone else?

Or is it for imagining and creating and inventing the reality and the future I most profoundly desire?

Now we are getting to the pivot of this civilization. Which way will it ultimately swing? Toward the stimulus-response empire, or toward individual power?

Jon Rappoport

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