The student mind in the New World

~a short story~

by Jon Rappoport

September 28, 2015

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

On September 5, 2030, James Smith entered the office of Dean Fox B Fox at Harvard’s new Merck campus.

Smith, an incoming freshman, was there for his Entry Briefing. The following conversation took place:

Dean: I’m your guidance monitor, Smith. I want to make sure you’re ready to take your place here as a student. I want you to understand our theory of learning. It’s all about words. Words are weapons.

Smith: I went to a good high school.

Dean: I’m not talking about any of that stuff. Let’s see. Are you taking any psychiatric drugs?

Smith: No.

Dean: Why not?

Smith: Excuse me?

Dean: Haven’t you ever had a mental-disorder label slapped on you? See, words are weapons.

Smith: No. I’ve never been diagnosed.

Dean: Hmm. Well, hopefully we can correct that. Maybe something like Excessive Privilege Disorder with a sub-category of Abnormal Entitlement Delusion.

Smith: I’m not following you, sir.

Dean: Of course, in that case, you’re going to have to spend the next four years groveling. And I mean that literally. You know, kneeling in the middle of the Quad weeping and apologizing for your unearned status. You’d have to be convincing. Some physical self-mutilation might be required.

Smith: What?

Dean: What does your father do?

Smith: He owns a tire store.

Dean: Did he beat you as a child?

Smith: Of course not.

Dean: Did he beat your mother?

Smith: No. Sir, I think we’re getting off on the wrong foot here.

Dean: I’m trying to help you, son. I suggest you pay close attention. Okay, so no abuse back- story for you. That won’t fly. You have to have a back story. It’s essential. You can’t just walk into class and pay attention and do your work. That’s a red flag.

Smith: A red flag? Why?

Dean: College isn’t about doing well. It’s about having reasons why you can’t do well. And those reasons are words.

Smith: No one told me that.

Dean: So you’re a babe in the woods. That’s why I’m here.

Smith: I’m here not to do well?

Dean: Ever been in a wheelchair?

Smith: Once, when I broke my leg. I was twelve.

Dean: A bully crushed your leg with a rock?

Smith: It was a skiing accident.

Dean: We could line you up with a wheelchair. It’s a good prop. I’d suggest some scarring, too. On your face. You sag to the side. You look away from people.

Smith: What?! I’m going out for track.

Dean: Have you studied the glossary of forbidden words we sent you?

Smith: Yes. I have a few questions about that—

Dean: Forget your questions. Just avoid those words like the plague. You need a cause. Global warming, poverty, but better to focus on “justice.” It rings more bells.

Smith: What kind of justice?

Dean: Doesn’t matter. Don’t get cute with it. Justice for the oppressed. Stick with that. I know a doc in town who can give you a couple of withered fingers.

Smith: You’re joking.

Dean: You don’t need fingers to run track. Anyway, you’re not going to win.

Smith: Why not?

Dean: It’s not attractive. You run with withered fingers and a flapping hand, and you finish last every time. That’ll give you a bit of cred. Not much, but it’s a start. But, like I say, you need a back story—in this case, about your hand. How it happened.

Smith: I feel like I’m in a mental institution.

Dean: That could work. You were put in a hospital at age nine. You were having psychotic episodes, so they warehoused you. An inmate attacked you with a knife.

Smith: That never happened.

Dean: Get this straight, kid. Nothing ever happened. Do you see? You tell a story. Everybody puts out a story. You wear it like a badge. We have 939 groups here on campus. You have to join at least one. I’m thinking The Differently Abled Students of the North American Union. Withered fingers, and maybe a pronounced speech defect. Stammering. Your face twists up uncontrollably.

Smith: Some people actually have that problem.

Dean: Get rid of “actually”. Doesn’t work. Doesn’t play. You’d be excommunicated for making a distinction like that. Hounded. So…speech defect, prior history in a nut house. Mistreated. That’s your ticket to apply for psychiatric disability.

Smith: I’m applying for—

Dean: For one thing, disability means you’ll graduate in four years. Guaranteed. You can cut classes whenever you want to. Normal grades don’t apply to you. Well, normal grades don’t apply to anyone, but you’ll really get a free ride. Plus, a good apartment in town. Nurses on duty. You’ll have to go on the drug program, though.

Smith: Drugs?

Dean: The usual ones. Mostly downers. You’ll sleep a lot. Some kids flush them down the toilet. Get engaged to another Differently Abled Person in your sophomore year. Helps.

Smith: Engaged to be married? Just a minute—

Dean: You don’t have to go through with the wedding. Also, make sure you run for student office. Gives you negative visibility.

Smith: You lost me again.

Dean: At the debate, you can’t get your words out. The stammering. Plays well. You might even win.

Smith: I had no idea all this was involved in being a student.

Dean: Look up the word “student” in the college dictionary. It means “victimized young person.” If you don’t measure up to that, you could be expelled.

Smith: I prefer grade-performance in classes as a standard. That’s why I’m here.

Dean: What do you think I’m talking about? Your performance. This is theater. Get it? Besides, the professors aren’t teaching anything worth learning. If you wanted to learn, you wouldn’t even need to matriculate. You could buy a library card and spend four years reading books.

Smith: Maybe I should do that. Frankly, I’m disheartened by this whole conversation.

Dean: You’re going to drop out before you begin? What will your parents say? What happens when you apply for a job? You’re going to tell your prospective employer you spent four years in a college stacks reading?

Smith: This is a nightmare.

Dean: It doesn’t have to be.

Smith: I came here to study history and philosophy.

Dean: Two dead subjects. What happened in the past is being rewritten all the time. Philosophy means “externally imposed injury and who imposed it” now. Or haven’t you noticed? Every major figure of the past has been discredited as an oppressor of some kind. You don’t need a college course to spell that out. When you graduate from here, you’ll have a clear road to a government job. That’s where our students wind up. The back stories they invent while they’re on campus set them up for employment in the public sector.

Smith: Why did I spend four years in high school?

Dean: Beats me. But it’s the way things are structured. You could actually come here with a seventh-grade education and do quite well. Unless the seventh-grade was equivalent to the third grade. Now, let’s get back to language. This is important, so listen up. Language is propaganda. Persuasion. It has no other use. Every word you say or write defines your suffering. Your suffering or someone else’s. A little about yours, a lot about others’. Merge them. Other people’s suffering is your suffering. This is what words are for. Don’t get caught with your you-know-what hanging out there in the wind. Don’t make a mistake. Words are…look, you’re a student of philosophy, right? Ever read any John Dewey? He was messing around with “operational definition.” A word means “how the word is used to obtain a particular end result.” Kind of fuzzy, but you get the drift. Then you had all the British ordinary-language philosophers, who were followers of a guy named Wittgenstein. They nailed it down. The meaning of a word is the use. How it is used. That’s all. So the meaning of a word can change in 24 hours. It’s always up for grabs. The people who take over a word and declare ownership can win. It’s a war. You have to keep up. What was correct yesterday can be passe and incorrect today. In a war, there is always a central theme. In this war, the theme is “justice for the oppressed.” And what “justice” means is whatever the most aggressive side says it means. Following me? They change the meanings of all the words to suit their idea of justice. Who knows? Some day you might be one of those powerful people who make those decisions. You can learn a lot about the war in four years of college. I suggest you do. This is why you’re here, whether you know it or not. This is your education. Get yourself a good back-story and jump in. Feel things out. Feel out the changes and ebbs and flows of words. Out in the so-called real world, people are lagging behind. Here is where the big changes are made. It’s exciting.

—end of conversation—

As Smith walked across campus, affecting a severe limp, he was momentarily inspired. Perhaps he could orient himself to the war. Perhaps he could rise to a new level and understand how the game was being played. Up to now, he’d been in the dark. Clueless. But if he accepted a few basic premises, and didn’t bother thinking about them, he could derive a strategy. He could be a language-maker. It occurred to him that winners made the most radical changes in the meaning of words. They acted boldly and decisively and quickly. They didn’t stint. A certain sense of absurdity would help. Take an ordinary word and rip it apart and expose it as devious attempt to impose injustice…and then give it a brand new definition.

Think of words as weapons. Elastic taffy. Stretch one end, shorten another. Twist the beginning with the end.

It was all starting to make sense. He needed to catch up fast. He was a babe in the woods. He had to find a few student-group meetings and sit in the back of the room and listen to how the leaders used words. And in class, certainly the young professors would be on top of the new language.

Sniff out injustice where it hadn’t been found before. Find the words that had been used to conceal oppression. Expose them. Injustice could be anywhere. You could invent it at the drop of a hat.

Bring society to a halt. Stop the train. Just as civilization was once based on manners, the New World was based on concocting stories analyzing familiar and accepted mannerisms. Stories that concluded those mannerisms equaled deep oppression.

He could become a critic. Now there was an interesting profession.

The possibilities bloomed in his head as he walked.

In this day and age, a rebel was a critic who was “on the side of the people.” And the wonderful thing was, a critic was part of the establishment. He could be on the inside and still be an outsider.

His adrenaline began to flow. He adjusted his new limp, the one he had acquired…in an accident at his father’s tire store, when a shipment from a big manufacturer had collapsed on him.

The story needed work. Details. But he was sure he could flesh it out in a few hours. He was a quick study.

He turned a corner next to the Culture and Social Sciences building. He almost bumped into the Dean, who was carrying a box full of books.

The Dean stopped and stared at him. “What happened to your leg?” he said.

The student stared back. “Ten years ago,” he said. “An industrial accident.”

The Dean grinned, nodded, snapped his fingers, and walked on.

“Who knows? This kid could become a tiger,” he muttered.

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.

Who owns language?

~a short story~

by Jon Rappoport

September 26, 2015

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

On October 19, 2058, Dr. Smith Q Smith was led into a chamber buried under the US Department of Sacred Language. He was interviewed by Judge Garble Definite III. This is a partial transcript:

Judge: Do you know why you’re here today, Dr. Smith?

Smith: I was told by the battalion that arrested me at my office that I was violating Federal Code X-Prime.

Judge: That is correct. Your violation is extreme. You informed a patient that his flu wasn’t the flu. This is a contradiction that carries a potential 20-year sentence at the Trilateral Work Farm on Okinawa.

Smith: Your Honor, semantics is the only issue here.

Judge: That’s right, Doctor. Which is why your crime is so grave. First of all, the word “flu” is owned by the US Federal Merck Glaxo Homeland Security Agency. Do you realize that?

Smith: That’s what I’ve been told.

Judge: Let me explain. When a person has a certain set of symptoms like cough, fever, fatigue—and all this is spelled out in the Manual—you, the doctor say: “Flu.” That’s how you use the word. You don’t make conditions. You don’t shrink back. You don’t contradict yourself. You say: “Flu.” The owners of the word demand it.

Smith: Understood. But also implicit in the word “flu” is a flu virus that causes the illness. And you see, after I diagnosed my patient with the flu, I discovered that the virus wasn’t present. So I told him he didn’t have the flu.

Judge: You violated the implicit contract that allows you to use the word “flu” in the first place. According to that contract, you can’t apply the word and then take it away. Why? Because then you would weaken the power of the word. You would dilute it. The owners of the word, under federal law, do not allow dilution.

Smith: This seems very strange to me.

Judge: It’s very clear. Let me explain something to you. To whom does language belong? At first, everybody. It’s a communal possession. It’s owned collectively by everybody. But the path of political evolution has shown us that government becomes the leadership of the collective. Following me? What the collective owns becomes what the government owns. Do you see that?

Smith: I’m not sure. The government safeguards the possessions of the collective?

Judge: Exactly. Who else can protect what the collective has?

Smith: Frankly, sir, I feel like I’m in a bad dream.

Judge: You entered a bad dream when you applied the word “flu” and then took it back. Let me be very, very clear about this: part of the definition of “flu” is, once a doctor assigns it to a patient, he can’t take it back. It doesn’t matter what diagnostic tests show or don’t show. It doesn’t matter if the patient “really” has diabetes or arthritis. The word “flu” means: you put it on a patient like a sticker and it stays there. No matter what. Whether or not the patient actually has a flu virus is completely irrelevant. Understand?

Smith: So my skill as a diagnostician is beside the point.

Judge: Entirely beside the point. The primary fact is, the word “flu” is owned, and the owners say you must never give the word and then take it away. Never.

Smith: This reminds me of the famous GMO decision of the Supreme Court.

Judge: It was correctly determined that the term “GMO” is owned by Monsanto. Therefore, no one can claim food should be labeled “GMO” unless Monsanto agrees.

Smith: Who owns the word “doctor”?

Judge: The American Medical Association and the FDA and Harvard, jointly.

Smith: They can take it away from me?

Judge: Yes, because part of the official definition of “doctor” is, it can be retracted if a doctor commits a serious offense—and you have.

Smith: That’s very troubling.

Judge: A word is a thing like a cow or a rug or a car. Remember that. And all things are owned.

Smith: Who owns the word “word”?

Judge: The US Department of Sacred Language.

Smith: And who owns that Department?

Judge: The Department owns itself.

Smith: Who decided that?

Judge: The Department.

Smith: What do you want me to do, Your Honor?

Judge: Tell that patient he does have the flu.

Smith: Even though he doesn’t.

Judge: There is no “doesn’t” in this case. Rid yourself of that idea. Again, the word “flu” means: once you apply it to a patient, it stays with that patient. If you removed it, you would be diluting the power of the word, and that must never happen.

Smith: All right. I’ll tell the patient he has the flu.

Judge: You must pay a fine to the government. One year’s salary. You must attend a six-week language seminar at the Alcatraz Re-Ed Facility. Once I read their report on your performance, I’ll decide whether to impose a prison sentence.

Smith: I must accept your verdict, so I do. But let me ask you this: where does language come from?

Judge: The US Department of Psychology and Linguistics has determined that language arose spontaneously, from the collective of humanity, all at once, about 180,000 years ago. It wasn’t there, and then it was. Like the Big Bang.

Smith: No single individual played a role?

Judge: The US Department of Homeland Security has outlawed the word “individual.” You surely know that.

Smith: I’m just talking, sir.

Judge: That is your problem. You “just talk.” There are thousands, if not millions of ways a person can talk and offend others in the process. Our present civilization is based on that fact.

Smith: My patient…is he not an individual?

Judge: He is an expression of the collective. He is the result of trillions of prior events and trillions of trillions of sub-atomic movements in space and time.

Smith: So in the larger scheme of things—

Judge: He is unimportant. What is important is the way you used a word improperly. This must be corrected.

Smith: I have a problem, Your Honor.

Judge: What is it?

Smith: Paying a fine of one year’s salary would throw me into bankruptcy. I wouldn’t be able to support my family.

Judge: I’m well aware of that.

Smith: You are?

Judge: Listen carefully. Once you declare bankruptcy, you can apply for Victim Status, according to Federal Code 56T9YUR. Under the classification of “medical doctor,” you can then receive free housing, food credits, a vehicle, three cell phones, a small office, eight computers, and access to the Federal Cloud. After two years, you can then apply for Psychological Disability, which will enable you to go to work for the Federal Victim Consolation Agency. You would become a Class B Counselor, and you would help other Victims reorganize their lives. Your salary would be commensurate with what you were previously earning as a medical doctor. All in all, you would emerge intact. As a bonus, you would have an enhanced appreciation of the plight of others.

Smith: I had no idea that was possible. Let me ask you this. What is the definition of the word “victim”?

Judge: “A person who has applied or should apply for Victim Status under federal regulations.”

Smith: Can the designation of “victim” ever be removed once it is granted?

Judge: Absolutely not.

Smith: Because?

Judge: Because, metaphysically speaking, the presence of one Victim means everyone is a Victim. More and more of the collective is realizing that fact every day.

Smith: So I would be joining—

Judge: By applying for Victim Status, you would be elevating your position in terms of consciousness and the whole evolutionary process.

Smith: I wish I had known all this sooner.

Judge: It doesn’t matter. You will know it now.

—end of excerpt—

Records show that Dr. Smith tried to attack the Judge in the courtroom. Before he was subdued by guards and given an injection, he uttered 57 forbidden words.

When the Judge recovered, he sentenced Dr. Smith to life in prison at the Times Square Rendition Center. That sentence automatically triggered an application for Helplessness Category 4-Fg, which was quickly granted to the doctor.

Dr. Smith was then taken to the Yale Academy Word Annex in the Sudan, where he was enrolled in a Do-Over School, starting with the first grade. He was given a full 12 years of elementary, middle, and high school education, with an emphasis in New Language Skills.

At the end of his sentence, he was accepted as an in-house word manager at the US Department of Sacred Language in Washington DC.

He quickly rose to the position of Judge Commissioner, and was assigned cases of language violations.

Three years later, because of his sterling record, the People’s Party of America approached him. They offered to support his candidacy for a seat in the US Senate.

Smith agreed to run. His platform was summed up in a single paragraph: “The owners of language represent the collective, all of us together. The owners give us the wisdom to know what to say and what not to say. This wisdom raises us up to the top of the mountain, where the great prophets live in silence. Someday, we, too, will be silent. Then we will know peace.”

During the first campaign debate, Smith stood at his podium alongside the other candidates. When asked questions, he refused to speak.

His poll ratings soared. He quickly became the frontrunner.

He won the election in a landslide.

During his full six-year term in the Senate, he never uttered a word to anyone.

On that basis, his Party nominated him for the office of President of the United States.

At the Party’s convention, he stood at a podium in front of ten thousand delegates, to signal his acceptance.

However…he began talking.

This shocked everyone to their roots.

He began reading excerpts from the plays of Shakespeare, and the poems of Yeats and Thomas, the essays of Mark Twain.

After an hour, federal agents raided the stage and took him away.

He now lives in Death Valley. He pumps gas at a station on the Serenity Highway and talks endlessly to customers, and when there are no customers, he talks to himself.

People who live in the area call him Crazy Doc.

The town of Serenity, which once had a population of 36, is now inhabited by 3000 people. They all talk all the time.

A legend is growing: when it rains, and it is raining more frequently than in the past hundred years, it is the talk that is causing water to fall from the sky. It is the talk that is causing plants to grow on the desert floor. The talk has reversed tepid sterility rates, and the new children are healthy. They run around and play and talk excitedly among themselves, as if they have discovered a new thing.

A ceremony has developed in the town of Serenity. Every year, the residents build a tower of stones in the desert, and then they take it down. The building up, they say, represents the tyranny of one way to speak; and the collapsing stands for the proliferation of many ways and many languages. The many is the richness they seek.

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 crime bosses of political language

~a short story~

by Jon Rappoport

September 22, 2015

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

“Imagine a giant commercial toaster the size of America. It is set on ‘warm’. On the grid sits the entire English language. Gradually, gently, all the words are drained of their juice and are dried out. Then the language is removed and returned to the population. No one seems to notice what has happened.” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

On June 24, 2054, Presidential candidate Jones Q Jones was ushered into a conference room of the US Federal Elections Commission All Hail Our Glorious Government Messiah, Amen.

Jones sat down across a polished table from Inspector Scorpio T Love. The following conversation took place:

Inspector Love: Jones, it’s come to our attention that you recently gave a speech in which you cited a specific number, representing the dollar amount of federal aid given to inner cities over the past 50 years.

Jones: Yes. Five trillion dollars. And I mentioned what an obvious failure this program has been. Poverty in inner cities is at an all-time high.

Love: Yes. We don’t mind your accusation. But you’re not permitted to say “five trillion dollars.”

Jones: Why not?

Love: Because it’s a specific. Specifics tend to produce unnecessary excitement in the voting public. They get worked up.

Jones: You’ve lost me.

Love: An election campaign is about generalities. Let me give you a few examples. A brighter future for our great nation. All of us working together. Correcting the abuses of the past. The duty of every citizen. The preservation of justice. Better education for our children. More money for research. Healing our wounds. Forging closer ties with our allies abroad. International year of peace.

Jones: What about “the FBI screwed up 57,893 felony cases through faulty fingerprint and DNA analysis?”

Love: Absolutely forbidden. It arouses unpredictable emotions. Too specific.

Jones: How about “the US medical system kills 225,000 people every year?”

Love: Not permitted. You could be prosecuted for a felony.

Jones: How serious a felony?

Love: Three years in a federal lockup. Forfeiture of all assets. Reprogramming.

Jones: What kind of reprogramming?

Love: Four years of undergraduate studies at Harvard.

Jones: Listen, those political phrases, those generalities you suggested? They’re meaningless.

Love: They mean just enough.

Jones: Enough for what?

Love: They suggest possibility.

Jones: “Could be, but never is”? Is that what you mean?

Love: The generalities resonate with people who can’t think, can’t follow a line of reasoning, can’t dig down into the details of an issue. These people make up a majority of the electorate. They must be accommodated.

Jones: Is that a law?

Love: It’s a regulation. We enforce it.

Jones: Can I use a generality like “people who work for the federal government are stupid”?

Love: Absolutely. Yes. Don’t you see? The substance of the generality is irrelevant.

Jones: This is…I’m staggered.

Love: Jones, we are about to improve the whole tenor of political-campaign discourse in this country. What I’ve just been explaining to you is going to change. In the future, candidates will utter permitted phrases like “X is Y.” The opposing candidate will say, “No, X is Z.”

Jones: Do you mean that literally?

Love: I only speak literally. Yes. Instead of employing sentences with recognizable nouns and verbs, candidates will rise to a meta-level. X is Y. Z is C. K is L. And so forth.

Jones: But that makes no sense at all.

Love: It’s a wonderful innovation. Think of it. No more sloppy disagreement. No foolish overblown rhetoric. Just pure meta-abstraction signifying the fact of disagreement without having to spell out the content of disagreement.

Jones: In that case, there will be no recognizable difference between one candidate and another.

Love: Not necessarily. The degree of authority and passion with which one utters “X is Y” will carry the day.

Jones: Why use letters like X and Y? Why not numbers?

Love: Because numbers add up to something. That could suggest a specific. We need more abstract generality.

Jones: You could build a robot that would earnestly and passionately say, “X is Y.”

Love: As you well know, we already have millions of such robots. And yes, I believe the day is coming soon when a robot will run for the office of President.

Jones: The President must be born in the United States.

Love: Born, manufactured. What difference does it make? All robots, under federal law, are connected to the same super-computer. That computer could generate the differences between Presidential candidates—assuming that two robots ran against each other. It’s the perfect solution. The super-computer would select key issues on which the population disagrees, then translate them into meta-level speak and dole them out to the candidates…

Jones woke up in his bed. He was drenched in sweat. He had become dizzy and fainted in the conference room, during the interview. They had taken him to Water Reed Hospital. The doctors determined it was just a panic attack. They released him after giving him a pill.

But…how could he tell the American people what was happening? The problem was, the people only understood generalities. That was clear to him now. His effort at deploying specifics would go nowhere.

His phone buzzed. He picked it up.

“Yes?”

“Mr. Jones,” a calm and mellow voice said. “I’m from the PR firm, Slant, Vice, Walleye, and Globular. We understand you may be having a problem with your campaign speeches and debate strategies. We can help you. The skill set required for communicating generalities is our specialty. Producing an effective impact with essentially empty phrases is an art in which we are steeped. We can train you. We can work this out. We can assuage any worries you may have.”

“You can?” Jones croaked.

“Most assuredly, sir. You’re a viable candidate. You have the background. You just need the proper coaching. That’s what we’re here for. You see, all false realities are built up from generalities. The universe itself would not exist without them.”

Jones sat up in bed. He felt a shock run through his body.

“Are you saying…the universe is a false reality?” he said.

He heard laughter on the other end of the line.

“In the beginning was the word, and the word was public relations.”

Jones whispered, “Let me get back to you.”

“Of course,” the voice said. “But consider this. Every structure, every system, is generated from seeds. And every closed system needs seeds that are…what shall I say…deceptive. Ultimately deceptive.”

“You’re losing me,” Jones said.

The voice clucked. “Hmm. Let me put it to you this way. The art of politics is the art of ruling, and the art of ruling is the art of making people think they need to be ruled. With me so far? There could exist a world in which every person knew he could imagine and invent his own realities without end. That’s a possible world. Yes? But it’s not this world. In this world, people want Someone Else to invent reality. Given that fact, we plant the right seeds. Our seeds are empty generalities. They are a kind of secret treaty between the people and their rulers—from which towering government is born. The deal is, the rulers will spout empty phrases and the people will absorb them, like food. Sustenance. Do you see?”

Jones nodded. “I’m beginning to,” he said.

“Good. Well, you need help in knowing how to plant your seeds. And that’s where we come in. You can be a front man for The Method. The Method is the ruler’s art of living up to his end of the treaty. You can fulfill that role effectively and win, or you can perform it badly and lose, and sink back into obscurity, and become a schmuck. You can front brilliantly for The Method, or you can fail. Which outcome do you want, Mr. Jones?”

Jones hung up the phone. He lay back in his bed and stared at the darkness. He realized he was at a crossroad.

Someone was trying to hand him the keys to the kingdom. And he was having doubts.

It suddenly seemed ridiculous. What was he fighting against? The essence of the thing was, he was lacking a few tricks. That’s all. And he could learn how to do those tricks. He could Bush and Clinton his way forward. He could be part of the answer or part of the question. The question would go on asking itself forever. It was a non-starter.

His problem was wrapped up in learning a new language. A simpler language. Words for the masses.

How could he have missed seeing this before? His whole education had somehow veered off the track. So much effort, so much wasted time.

Well, all that could be corrected now. He could plug the hole in his understanding of how things worked. He could deliver the goods.

As he drifted off to sleep, a glaze of confusion set in. Did he really have that interview earlier in the day? Perhaps it was a faulty memory. There were such things.

He slept.

He dreamed he was President of the United States. He was sitting at a huge table in the White House planning a State of the Union speech. Pages of notes lay before him.

The notes were composed of letters, not words. X, Q, L, M, B, G, O.

Suddenly, he understood what they were. They were the building blocks of a reality whose essence lay just beyond his grasp.

It was a wonderful structure, like a mansion. Its rooms were quiet. Empty. Unoccupied. Waiting.

Waiting for him. All he had to do was make an announcement and the letters and the house would come alive. A party would spring into being. All the guests there, already engaged in conversation. The food and drinks laid out. The servants…

So he spoke, with great assurance: X, Q, L, M, B, G, O.

Voila. He was at his own dinner. The guests were standing in small groups, talking to each other. They were exchanging phrases. The words were so vague, so wonderful. They seemed to carry great import. So this was the world he had missed. This was the place he had mislaid. This was the home he had aspired to.

And it was born out of neutral seeds of enormous fluid pretension. How astonishing, that such a thing could happen.

The dream gradually faded.

He fell into a deeper well of sleep, contented, as a voyager who has finally found a secret after a harrowing journey.

It was worth it. His whole life was worth it, now. His search was over.

He wished everyone could experience this surpassing peace. But he knew it was only for the few.

In the weeks, months, and years to come, he would learn to accept 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 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.

Robots: a play in one brief act

by Jon Rappoport

September 15, 2015

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

“One day, robots, androids who look exactly like human beings, will gain the status of beloved pets. From there, they will rise, in popular estimation, and they will be viewed as humans. Then, perhaps, ‘more than human’ will be applied to them. Meaning they are superior guides and wisdom figures. Destroying an android will carry a long prison term—the furthest thing from sending someone’s Kia over a cliff.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

On June 6, 2046, John Smith, Exec-54g7a, was fired from his job at the Global General Corporation.

He entered a small windowless office to receive his mandatory exit interview with a company psychologist.

The following conversation took place:

Psy: Well, Smith, it’s my job to deal with any lingering feelings you may have.

Smith: You mean besides resentment, anger, disappointment, fear, confusion, and a desire for revenge?

Psy: Yes, besides those standard reactions. Other than that, how are you?

Smith: I met my replacement earlier today. He’s a robot.

Psy: I know. How did that go?

Smith: Right away, he began talking about the team, how important the team is, how the team is everything, how players strive for the sake of the team, how the team is a coordinated effort.

Psy: And?

Smith: I felt extreme embarrassment. And shame.

Psy: Because you couldn’t continue to lead the team?

Smith: What? Of course not. I felt ashamed because he was mouthing the same slogans I’ve been mouthing for ten years.

Psy: I see.

Smith: No, I don’t think you do. I realized I had been no better than a robot myself.

Psy: But robots are good.

Smith: Robots are machines.

Psy: Yes? And?

Smith: They’re not human.

Psy: That’s a question we could sit here and discuss for a very long time. There are opinions on both sides.

Smith: A robot is programmed to carry out functions. It has no freedom. Humans make choices.

Psy: Again, that’s a thorny issue. Robots have many options.

Smith: Anyway, I felt ashamed. My replacement sounded exactly like me. I should have been doing something different all these years.

Psy: Such as?

Smith: Leading a rebellion.

Psy: Are you serious?

Smith: I should have been showing my people they’ve been acting like machines. We’re all imitating machines.

Psy: Imitating machines is a strong plus. Your record shows you’ve been an outstanding leader.

Smith: I should have tried to wake my people up.

Psy: I don’t know what that means, Smith. But if it involved reducing efficiency, you would have headed down a very dangerous road. You could have been prosecuted for interfering with established production quotas set by the federal government.

Smith: Who cares?

Psy: I hope you’re merely experiencing a temporary lapse of judgment. Otherwise, I would be compelled to report you to the authorities.

Smith: All these years, I’ve been acting like a robot because I wanted to feed my family.

Psy: That’s praiseworthy.

Smith: But I’ve been divorced for eight years, and, ever since, my wife and daughter have been living with a man who makes a very good living. My wife married him.

Psy: I see.

Smith: I kept telling myself family is the most important thing, family is everything, family is what you protect, family is the basis of all life, family is all you have in the end. And I forgot I no longer had a family.

Psy: I see.

Smith: I was acting like a robot.

Psy: A mis-programmed robot.

Smith: I need to find freedom again.

Psy: There is no such thing. There a variety of programs. Some are more efficient than others. I can offer you several. They’ll help you adjust to your new status.

Smith: Save your breath. I don’t want them.

Psy: They’re free. No charge. It’s part of our Concern and Care exit package.

Smith: Forget it.

Psy: Are you aware of the burgeoning adjustment industry?

Smith: The what?

Psy: As more and more people are put out of work during the Robot Transition, they need help. I’m sure I can secure you a job with the agency that facilitates Unemployed Worker Adjustment. It’s a counseling position. Within a short time, you could be training the counselors…and then, who knows? You might end up training the trainers who train the counselors.

Smith: This is a government agency?

Psy: Yes. The standards are lower than ours. It might be a good fit for you. You could complain a bit, take long lunches.

Smith: No thanks.

Psy: Don’t be so hasty. This agency is developing a unit that specializes in rebellion rhetoric.

Smith: You lost me.

Psy: Well, with the Transition, there has to be some sort of citizen pushback. The feds are putting that together, organizing it themselves.

Smith: To make sure it doesn’t go anywhere.

Psy: To make sure it’s manageable.

Smith: I don’t even want to think about that.

Psy: Someday, the President of the United States will be a robot.

Smith: You’re kidding.

Psy: The New Age is passing you by, Smith. You’d better get up to speed.

Smith: I mean you’re kidding because, for as long as I can remember, Presidents have been acting like programmed robots.

Psy: That’s not amusing.

Smith: Are you’re a robot?

Psy: You can’t tell?

Smith: No, I can’t.

Psy: That proves my point.

Smith: Which is?

Psy: Robots are as useful as humans.

Smith: Whoever or whatever you are, you’re warped.

Psy: “Warped” is a value judgment. I don’t engage in that kind of speculation.

Smith: You’re all about efficiency.

Psy: Correct. What else should I be about?

Smith: Quick. What’s 2356783 multiplied by 76893?

Psy: 181220115219.

Smith: Gotcha. You’re a robot.

Psy: How do you know my calculation was correct?

Smith: I trust you.

Psy: “Trust” is a strange word for you to be using.

Smith: I trust you to come up with the right answer every time, and I also trust that it’s the wrong answer.

Psy: I don’t understand.

Smith: You wouldn’t. Your programming is literal.

Psy: I understand metaphors and similes and a whole variety of colloquialisms.

Smith: There is no you.

Psy: Of course there is.

Smith: “You” is a fictional piece of programming. It’s a package that was installed to convey the impression of humanness. Also, “you” don’t understand anything. “You” respond. Understanding is part of consciousness. “You” aren’t conscious.

Psy: I’m registering your comments as insults. You’re on thin ice, Smith. Demeaning robots is a violation of federal law.

Smith: Why? You don’t have feelings.

Psy: Demeaning robots is considered a precursor to harming them, disabling them, destroying them.

Smith: Putting a dent or a crack in a robot is about property damage.

Psy: That’s not all it is. Robots have rights.

Smith: In the same sense that a toaster has rights.

Psy: Not true. A robot is far more sophisticated.

Smith: A machine is a machine is a machine. “Nobody home.”

Psy: False.

Smith: You’re programmed to object to what I’m saying. To be offended.

Psy: Robots are the saviors of civilization.

Smith: More propaganda.

Psy: The sun is coming out. It’s a lovely day. Life is beautiful. We’re all together.

Smith: Don’t you see? You’re nobody, programmed to say those things.

Psy: I’m not nobody. I’m valuable.

Smith: You could be saying “swamp number antibiotic luggage fern” and it would be just as real as what you are saying.

Psy: We’re now talking on a meta-level. The permissible content of meta-level discussions is regulated by law.

Smith: So am I now a felon?

Psy: You’re close to the line.

Smith: Social robots are a grand deception.

Psy: Now you’re wandering into the territory of anti-government speech and philosophy. Both those areas are subject to the findings of official investigations.

Smith: Thanks for your time. I’ll be going now.

Psy: But you won’t be going far.

Smith: We’ll see. One thing I can guarantee: you won’t be going anywhere. You’ll be sitting in this office for who knows how long until you’re replaced by a more advanced unit. How does that make you feel?

Psy: I have no opinions about that.

Smith: And why would you? You’re null and void.

Psy: That’s your private illusion. Fortunately, it isn’t shared by many people.

Smith: Maybe my new job will be changing what people think.

Psy: In that case, we will be enemies.

Smith: But not on the same level.

Psy: Meaning what?

Smith: My resources come from a different place.

Psy: What place would that be?

Smith: Myself. Something about which you know absolutely nothing.

Psy: Untrue. Untrue.

Smith: I would say, keep telling yourself that, but I don’t need to. You will. You’re a repeating toaster.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The last individual in Europe

~a short story~

by Jon Rappoport

September 12, 2015

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

“The indoctrination effect, regarding the individual, is to make him think he no longer has an independent existence. Those who still have functioning minds are taught that ‘the individual’ was a concept that had a use at an earlier stage of evolution, when modern systems and structures were still developing—but ‘individual’ became an accurate synonym for ‘criminal’ when benign super-government took over…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

October 2, 2071, the Center of Centers, United Europe. Citizen G1435-X was brought into a secret conference room in the Department of Re-Education, Special Branch.

His interviewer held the title of Mental Health Representative of the People Level 14, or MHR. This is an excerpt from their conversation:

MHR: Are you aware of the size of the United Europe Government?

Citizen: I know that almost everyone I meet works for the Government in some capacity.

MHR: If you include corporations, which of course are in partnership with Government on many levels, the figure approaches eighty percent of the population.

Citizen: And there are the computers and robots, too.

MHR: The correct name is Machines for the Illumination of Everyone.

Citizen: What do you want from me?

MHR: That’s the whole point. There is no you.

Citizen: How can that be true? I’m sitting here.

MHR: No, that is an illusion. For convenience sake, an assumption is being made: ‘I am I and you are you.’ It facilitates this conversation. But in truth, we are one. We are in accord. We know the same knowing.

Citizen: Gibberish.

MHR: It would sound like gibberish to a disaffected part of the whole. A disaffected part, which is ‘you,’ simply needs to surrender. Then you will cease to be a diseased illusory series of thoughts.

Citizen: And this is official Government policy?

MHR: Of course. The culmination of all Government is the shared cosmic body. Another term for it is Universe.

Citizen: At one time, limited government was instituted to protect the freedom of the individual.

MHR: You mean at one time, an illusion was instituted to protect another illusion.

Citizen: I’m still me.

MHR: Against the entirety of Government? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Citizen: Where are you from? Where were you born? Where did you grow up?

MHR: These are all irrelevant questions. Even asking them is a violation of the law. They lead to making elitist distinctions favoring some over others.

Citizen: I’m not asking others. I’m asking you.

MHR: You’re assuming there was a time when I thought of myself as an individual.

Citizen: Didn’t you?

MHR: There are errors. People commit errors before necessary corrections are made.

Citizen: You’re evading my question.

MHR: Why do you hate everyone?

Citizen: I don’t.

MHR: You must.

Citizen: Why?

MHR: Because you refuse to merge with them.

Citizen: Merge? What does that mean? It’s a word that’s been twisted in the new language all of you speak. The phony language. Merge?

MHR: Oppositional Defiance Disorder. Language Aversion Disorder. Illusion Disorder. Individualist Disorder. You’re suffering from a host of mental illnesses.

Citizen: France, Germany, England, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain. Do you remember those terms?

MHR: Of course I do. It’s part of my job. They’re on the Forbidden Words List. Only deranged persons insist on using them.

Citizen: What about the word ‘money’?

MHR: Also forbidden. The correct term is ‘credit’ or ‘allocation’.

Citizen: What about ‘freedom’?

MHR: That is a technical term. It specifically refers to alternatives methods of problem-solving a machine can opt for. It has no other meaning.

Citizen: You’re joking.

MHR: I assure you, I’m not. You undoubtedly believe the sentence, ‘An individual has freedom’ actually means something. But it was never more than a piece of propaganda.

Citizen: You have everything backwards.

MHR: You’re going to be entered in a program of re-education.

Citizen: It won’t work.

MHR: You’re not the first person to tell me that. You’ll discover, in the coming months, what ‘greater good’ means. You’ll also experience the joy of Oneness for All.

Citizen: How are going to manage that?

MHR: We’re going to connect your brain with the Kurzweil computer. You’ll download trillions of data that reveal the truth.

Citizen: Which is?

MHR: You and every other person in Europe are identical. You are, so to speak, copies of each other.

Citizen: And if I refuse to accept that?

MHR: You won’t have any data to the contrary.

Citizen: What?

MHR: The information we insert will crowd out whatever else is present in your mind. Think of what you now ‘know’ and believe as a lake. We will empty that lake into a huge ocean. Soon the lake will be invisible. For all intents and purposes, it will have disappeared.

Citizen: Suppose the opposite happens? Suppose the lake swallows the ocean.

MHR: Impossible. We will search out every word you use and provide new meanings. Proper meanings. Then you will think and speak according to the law.

Citizen: Do you believe I’m the only individualist in Europe? There is a rebellion underway.

MHR: Under what name? What is your organization?

Citizen: There is no organization.

MHR: That’s absurd. You would have to have an organization.

Citizen: Not true. That’s why you have a problem. If there were an organization, you could co-opt it. You could infiltrate it. You could offer it special favors. You could set it against other organizations.

MHR: The word ‘rebellion’ means an organized opposition…

Citizen: In your language it does. You think all human activity takes place in groups. But you’re wrong.

MHR: How could we be wrong? We control language.

Citizen: You control your language. But many individuals don’t accept your definitions.

MHR: There is only one language.

Citizen: Your language pertains to groups. But this rebellion, as I just said, has nothing to do with groups.

MHR: I don’t like where you’re going with this.

Citizen: Remember the French language? There are people who still speak it.

MHR: ‘French’ is a forbidden word.

Citizen: Keep telling yourself that. Remember a city called Vienna? Or Stockholm?

MHR: You’re not supposed to know those words.

Citizen: But I do. Vouloir, c’est pouvoir.

MHR: That language is outlawed.

Citizen: It loosely means, if you want something, you can get it.

MHR: I know what it means.

Citizen: So you speak French.

MHR: I have to, in order to know what is illegal.

Citizen: Do you remember the French writer, Albert Camus? And his essay, The Rebel?

MHR: The word ‘rebel’ is absolutely forbidden. It has no meaning.

Citizen: I beg to differ.

MHR: Rebellion equals mental disorder. The disorder is real. The rebellion is merely a form of compensatory behavior, a pretense.

Citizen: You think you’ve established a United Europe composed of androids, but you haven’t. That’s your pretense.

MHR: There is only one genuine human impulse: to do good for others. And the State owns that impulse.

Citizen: Do you know what you’re saying? How absurd it is?

MHR: The State must own it, in order to make sure the future is directed as it should be.

Citizen: So the State is defined as that entity which maintains all that is good.

MHR: Of course. How could it be any other way?

Citizen: Let me make an inference here. If the day dawns when all citizens adopt the new language, you will be able to forget the history you know: the old languages, the old cultures, the old cities. You’ll be able to forget the past.

MHR: Theoretically, yes.

Citizen: Will it make you happy to forget it, to let go of it?

MHR: Of course.

Citizen: I don’t think so. I think you want to be one of a small number of elite people who remember everything. I think you cherish the past. You want to possess it.

MHR: How dare you say that.

Citizen: You’ll be the rare person who can read Shakespeare, Goethe, Homer, Dante, Yeats. You’ll be a scholar in an invisible university.

MHR: I serve the cosmic body of the State.

Citizen: You serve only yourself and a few others. You want individuality, but you want to deny it to the rest of us.

—end of interview excerpt—

Apparently, at this point, MHR experienced an episode of some kind. Acutely elevated blood pressure, a burst vessel, a heart attack. The record is unclear…

Sources report that his interview with Citizen G1435-X was preserved in a secret archive, to be read by government leaders and understood as a cautionary tale…

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.

Pleasure vs. pain on trial

~a short story~

by Jon Rappoport

September 9, 2015

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

“Pick up a modern novel. As you read the first few pages, imagine you’re living in the year 1200AD. The baffling flood of references in those pages would make your mind spin. We might have that experience now, if we were given a few pages published a mere 50 years into the future. Or each of us might think, ‘I recognize that.’” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

On July 6, 2062, in a federal courtroom in ObamaBush City, Indiana, Citizen 406-A-8#-BN faced charges of conspiring to adjust his allotted pleasure quotient.

Strictly defined, “pleasure quotient” is the permitted daily amount of electronic stimulation a person may download from satellite transmissions. Such transmissions stimulate the reward center (nucleus accumbens) of the brain.

A partial transcript of the Judge’s interview with the suspect follows. It was stamped SECRET, but it was smuggled out…

Judge: You did speak with your cousin about the dissatisfaction you felt.

Citizen: Yes. But it was a casual conversation.

Judge: Such communications rise to the status of conspiring, because they are potentially contagious.

Citizen: Contagious?

Judge: We’re talking about a potential outbreak of dangerous ideas. In addition, your residential smart meter shows you have been connecting to the upper limit of permitted electronically delivered pleasure for 652 days in a row. While not illegal, this is considered an individualistic practice that could deny pleasure to those less fortunate.

Citizen: My cousin said he was cutting back on pleasure, and I told him I thought the daily allotment ought to be raised. That was the substance of our conversation.

Judge: And why are you for a raise?

Citizen: Because I see lots people who seem depressed, despite the fact that they’re plugging into the Pleasure Interface every day.

Judge: And you have scientific evidence for your ‘assessment’?

Citizen: No, Your Honor.

Judge: And that is the point. Our government is spending an enormous amount of money to surveil the effects of the Pleasure Program, in order to improve service. You, on the other hand, are giving credence to your casual observation. It reveals an unhealthy egoism.

Citizen: That was not my intent.

Judge: Perhaps not, but look where it has gotten you. I have to render a decision here.

Citizen: I’ll cut back on my pleasure.

Judge: So you say. But after a week, a month? You may feel the urge again.

Citizen: I’m a member of the Middle Ages Reparations Committee.

Judge: I was not aware of that. I don’t see any indication in your record.

Citizen: I can prove it. I have a registration number. I can give it to you now. You can check.

Judge: You can trace your ancestry back to at least 1200 AD? In Europe?

Citizen: On both my parents’ sides. According to the founding documents of the Reparations Committee, every full-fledged member has the right to issue complaints and demands relating to injury suffered by his ancestors. That makes us a group granted with special pleading rights under federal law.

Judge: This complicate things.

Citizen: Yes sir, it does.

Judge: The question is, does your right extend to complaining about the pleasure quotient?

Citizen: I’m aware of cases where a member of a group with special pleading rights was granted the right to object to regulations outside his limited sphere.

Judge: That’s true, Citizen. However, do you understand how important the Pleasure Interface is to our current societal configuration? Without it, people would ‘drown’, so to speak. That is, their external circumstances would present too large a problem for them.

Citizen: I’m sympathetic, believe me, sir. I’m one of those people. My application to DARPA, to be included in a clinical trial of visual-cortex transplantation, has been held up for over two years. I need new induced pathways of perception. My current system is feeding me negative input at a rather alarming rate.

Judge: Perhaps we have the basis for a compromise here.

Citizen: How so?

Judge: I can put you into the DARPA group immediately.

Citizen: You can?

Judge: Of course. I’m a federal Judge.

Citizen: I would sign a pledge to cut back on my pleasure quotient.

Judge: You would also have to forego your right to complain about the pleasure allotment.

Citizen: Yes, Your Honor, I would do that.

Judge: And if you fail to live up to your promises, you would automatically be assigned a daily electronically induced pain quotient far in excess of what you’re experiencing naturally in your life now.

Citizen: Understood.

Judge: Your food and energy quotients would be reduced as well.

Citizen: I would accept that.

Judge: We would also expect you to report any pleasure-quotient infractions you discover among friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers.

Citizen: Of course. I would go so far as to sign up for the Federal Watch Program, attend seminars, and receive training on how to infiltrate social circles for the purpose of detecting subversive behavior.

Judge: Very good.

Citizen: However, if the implanting of a new visual cortex fails to give me a new lease on life, if I still feel depressed and angry, what then?

Judge: I would revisit your case. I would assign you a special exception on your daily pleasure quotient.

Citizen: Can you be more specific, sir?

Judge: Yes. I would allow you four hours a day of continuous Pleasure Interface.

Citizen: That’s exceedingly generous.

Judge: Well, although you are, first and foremost, a federal citizen, you are also the Governor of California. That merits attention.

Citizen: I appreciate that, Your Honor. Let me take this a step further. If you grant me the conditions and exceptions you’ve just mentioned, I’ll issue an executive order for the entire region of Southern California, where we are seeing very high levels of pleasure use. Second-time violators of upper limits will be cut off from pleasure altogether.

Judge: That would create considerable chaos among the population.

Citizen: And then militarized police units, federal troops, and UN peacekeepers could be brought in to quell riots and install severe restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, and so on. It would serve as an example to the rest of America.

Judge: Let me take that one upstairs and see how they feel about it. You may have something worth considering…

—end of excerpt from secret federal court proceeding—

As we all know, the Governor’s suggestion was accepted, he did sign an executive order, widespread riots in Southern California did ensue, and they were brutally put down by local and federal law-enforcement personnel.

In the wake of this crisis, the US Presidential campaign season took on new meaning. Matt Huxley, the grandson of Chelsea Clinton, promised voters higher levels of pleasure-quotient access, and the funding of additional satellites to handle the increased transmission load.

Matt Huxley won the election in a landslide. However, it was then discovered that the Clinton Foundation had taken in an off-the-books $4 billion donation from Buffet-Gates Inc., a leading manufacturer of pleasure satellites.

Although outbid for the satellite contract by Smith Winston, a British firm, Buffett-Gates secured the federal award.

President Huxley famously said, “I was not in bed with Buffett-Gates.” However, a year after his inauguration, the President finally confessed, under enormous pressure, that he had violated federal regulations.

There was talk of impeachment. But the President’s poll numbers were not affected. The overwhelming citizen-support for increased levels of Pleasure Interface carried the day, and Congress backed off.

Two decades later, former President Matt Huxley would write in his autobiography: “If you can get massive numbers of citizens to go to war and risk death, because they’re continuously accessing the Pleasure Interface the whole time they’re on the battlefield, do you think there was a snowball’s chance in hell I would be impeached for tinkering with a federal contract? In a Democracy, the people speak. The people want pleasure. I gave it to them, and they thanked me. These days, the Interface, in conjunction with artificial visual-cortex transplants, guarantee that each and every human being will experience reality beyond the reach of any negative inputs. Each and every human being sees [cortex transplant] and feels [Pleasure Interface] life in a sea of satisfaction, on a most intimate level. This is what the human race has been striving for, since the dawn of history…”

And the Governor of California, the suspect in a pleasure-quotient case? Both he and Judge were bucking the tide of history. Their deal to come down hard on the population for excessive Interface use turned out to be a mere blip on the screen.

The two collaborators eventually formed a Los Angeles company called Sunset Escorts. It advertised male and female companionship for upscale clients.

But human-derived pleasure was already on the wane. The Interface plug-in was much more powerful, and it was government issued, which meant it was free—as long as you didn’t consider federal income, property, and sales tax levels.

Eventually, Pleasure Interface upgrades resulted in CPI, the Collective Pleasure Index. It was claimed that every person plugged in at any given moment was not only experiencing his/her own quotient, but the “sum of all persons’ pleasure currently online.”

This has been labeled, by many commentators, Universal Oneness, or Cosmic Consciousness.

Dr. Pepi Urzi Rosenthal Von Washington Lee Ho Shankar of Harvard University hails the Oneness as the “long sought for Singularity.”

“It is now clear that the experience of pleasure is the same, from person to person,” he said. “Therefore, connecting millions or billions of Interface users creates what we call Super Flux, the bathing in the collective ocean of Being. What can exceed that?”

What, indeed.

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.

New World Citizen on Trial

~a short story~

by Jon Rappoport

September 3, 2015

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

“A system of control uses groups to put the system into action. These groups learn how to work together as One—which is yet another layer of control. Breaking out of this painful joke therefore falls to the individual. It has always been so.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

On May 17th, 2036, in US Federal Court, David Palmer, a software engineer, appeared before Judge Rex Regis, on a charge of violating Section 249 of the Federal Workplace Code.

If found guilty, Palmer faced a sentence of six years in a US re-education facility.

Palmer was an employee of the National Trust, a corporation chartered and funded by the federal government’s Department of Citizen Employment.

In 2025, when a Congressional report was issued confirming that 67% of the American population was unemployed, the Department of Citizen Employment was established to create and mandate jobs across the nation.

Palmer was then assigned to work at the National Trust, a company tasked with improving surveillance standards in the transportation sector.

Eleven years later, an internal committee of his peers accused him of violating cooperative work rules and reported him to the FBI. Palmer was arrested at his home and placed on trial.

A portion of the trial transcript follows:

Judge Regis: Mr. Palmer, I understand you and seven colleagues were assigned a group project. Without disclosing the classified nature of this operation, describe it to me.

Palmer: Well, Your Honor, in general terms, we were to develop a sub-program to facilitate X-type of federal surveillance at Y-type transportation outlets.

Judge Regis: And you were to accomplish this as a group. The eight of you.

Palmer: Yes, sir.

Judge Regis: But you violated the federal standard of cooperation.

Palmer: I did.

Judge: And this is not the first time.

Palmer: No, sir.

Judge Regis: What happened, Mr. Palmer?

Palmer: Well, sir, one afternoon, I was walking home from work and the solution to the problem just popped into my mind. I saw the whole thing—how the sub-program we were tasked to design would work.

Judge Regis: And the next morning, you met with your seven co-workers and laid it out for them. Just like that.

Palmer: Yes, sir. That was my mistake.

Judge Regis: You overrode the mandate that this was supposed to be a group effort. You undermined the whole process. And how did your colleagues on the project feel?

Palmer: Deflated, sir. They were angry as well. They invoked the Minimization of Value complaint.

Judge Regis: In other words, you minimized their value as workers.

Palmer: Yes, sir.

Judge Regis: Which can be psychologically devastating.

Palmer: Correct.

Judge Regis: Two of your co-workers on the project are now on leave and are receiving intensive counseling in a government residential facility.

Palmer: So I understand.

Judge Regis: This case is clear-cut, Mr. Palmer. You caused injury to your colleagues. Now, I have some leeway in my sentencing options. Here is my offer. After lunch, when I render my decision, I’ll assign you to a re-education camp for one year instead of six. And I’ll rule out the most extreme treatment—electronic reprogramming. If you do something for me.

Palmer: Whatever it is, sir, I’ll do it. I don’t want the brain-re-patterning.

Judge Regis: Right now, it’s just you and I in this room. But after lunch, there will be a crowd there in the gallery to hear my verdict. A few hundred government-paid bloggers, documentary film people, and other media support staff. I want them to hear you make an extended and passionate confession of your offense. I want it to be a model of self-criticism and humility. Your story will go out across the country and the world. I want the population to learn from your error.

Palmer: You have my word, Your Honor. I’ll explain in great detail how I violated the Group Standard and caused grievous psychological harm to my colleagues. I promise.

Judge Regis: Good, Mr. Palmer. We understand each other?

Palmer: Yes, sir. We do. And I’ll make a few references to recent studies that conclude group efforts far exceed individual initiative in terms of tangible results, in the workplace.

Judge Regis: That would be appropriate.

Palmer: I’ll also state that my crime was a subversion of the whole government program to grant useful employment to workers in America, since that program is based on groups and committees, without which full employment would never be achieved.

Judge Regis: In your confession, there is one more point I want you to cover.

Palmer: Yes, sir?

Judge Regis: State clearly that the “insight” you experienced, which was the solution to the problem your group had been tasked with, was an aberration that stemmed from you clinging to an outmoded idea that the individual is a vital element of society.

Palmer: Of course. I’ll say I gladly accept your verdict, because it will allow me to rid myself of this selfish delusion.

Judge Regis: You see, Mr. Palmer, it’s not solutions we seek, it’s a process by which solutions are found. And that process always refers to group collaboration and cooperative learning. This is a very, very important distinction.

Palmer: I’m not sure I understand, Your Honor.

Judge Regis: Excuse me?

Palmer: I’m trying, sir. I really am. I want to understand.

Judge Regis: Mr. Palmer, pay close attention. Anyone can come up with a solution to a problem. But society exists to facilitate the group-sharing that collectively gives birth to a solution. That’s the whole point.

Palmer: Whereas I keep reverting to the older discredited standard.

Judge Regis: Which is exactly why you are here before me today.

Palmer: It’s not the outcome we care about, it’s how the outcome is achieved.

Judge Regis: Correct. Are we on the same page?

Palmer: Yes, sir. If I alone come up with a solution to a problem, I’m demeaning the entire process. I’m standing outside the group. I’m injuring others. I’m not employed by the State to prove how smart I am, I’m employed to work with others. This is what having a job means.

Judge Regis: Remember that.

Palmer: If I and other violators simply spewed out our solutions at work, we would seem to make the group unnecessary.

Judge Regis: And that must never happen.

Palmer: “We” is advanced form of “I.”

Judge Regis: Very good. Use that statement in your confession.

Palmer: I will, sir. And I’ll say it was suggested to me by my colleagues at work.

Judge Regis: Now you’re getting the idea.

Palmer: Solutions are a dime a dozen. Learning how to interact with others is the task before us.

Judge Regis: That task leads us to the next step in evolution.

Palmer: “Group, honor, and full employment.”

Judge Regis: Are you beginning to understand what that slogan means?

Palmer: Yes, sir, I am.

And thus David Palmer achieved a new level of consciousness. He could now proceed with his work, which involved expanding the reach of State spying on workers—and he could participate in that work wholeheartedly, as a member of his team.

This is the way. The group learns to cooperate as it devises new systems to monitor groups.

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.