Imagination beyond the power of symbols

by Jon Rappoport

December 26, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Here is the symbol,” the old wizard said. “It doesn’t matter what it means. It only matters that you take it. Then I’ll tell you what it means. I’ll keep telling you until you fall into a trance, and then I’ll be able to help you. I’ll be able to cure you of whatever you have.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

This article has to do with the individual, his consciousness, and imagination.

Symbols are, for the most part, group-tactics—assigned meanings designed to achieve certain effects on a mass level.

We could be talking about the arcane symbols of a secret society or even consumer objects, which are given meanings to impart the sensation of status. The new car, the necklace, the ring, the dress, the house.

For a passive mind, the world takes on its shape as symbols mark out space.

A more active mind can analyze and reject the meanings of symbols.

But there is another level the individual never reaches or understands unless he is deploying his imagination. Why? Because imagination invents its own spaces and meanings, against which symbols pale by comparison. A creative person can even invent his own symbols, imbue them with meanings—and then turn around and give them new meanings or destroy them. He isn’t only rejecting mass symbols; he’s inventing realities that go light years beyond them.

Of course, his inventions may strike passive minds as strange, possibly incomprehensible, because passive people define their space and their lives through conventional signs. They view all incursions or exceptions with suspicion.

I’ll take this further. Large numbers of people view the universe as something “extra-special,” and therefore they consider certain symbols “embedded” in it as sacred, permanent, intrinsic, and cosmically authoritative. Let them do that. Sooner or later they may wake up to the fact that the universe is a work of art. No one would be tempted to say a symbol found in a painting by Chagall is, by virtue of its presence on the canvas, a forever-thing with a forever-meaning. In the same way, no object in the universe can lay legitimate claim to some sort of eternal authority.

Consider the following thought-experiment: a person draws hundreds of symbols. He makes them up by the truckload. For each one, he concocts a meaning out of thin air. If he keeps this up long enough, it will begin to dawn on him that symbols and their meanings are arbitrary.

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, this fact did, indeed, start to become obvious at the edge of consciousness. But then, with alarm at the implications (“I’m inventing my own realities, I can invent them”), there was a hasty retreat. People began to look for already-established symbols and their meanings. They opted to fit into one firm consensus or another. They went into hiding. They deserted their own imaginations. This was a crucial revisionism.

Orthodoxies which had been on their way out returned. Energy and conviction were pumped back into them. It was basically a show, a pretension, but the new adherents blinded themselves to that.

When it comes to the arcane symbols of secret societies, people are sucked into a trap. They buy these referents as inherently powerful—which is exactly what the “manufacturers” are hoping for. All the absurd trappings of the secret groups are concocted to achieve that effect.

In the 20th century, advertising agencies exploded with their brand of art. By associating products with feelings, sensations, and status, they made the products over into symbolic representations of “the good life.” At the same time, PR agencies rose to a position of unprecedented power. They made certain people, groups, and institutions into symbols of authority, truth, and goodness.

Television networks spent enormous amounts of money promoting and shaping elite news anchors as sculptures of believability. “You want our messenger of truth in your home every night.”

It’s easy to see that, in order for all these machinations to work, the individual and his consciousness of his own imagination needed to be downplayed. The very notion of the individual had to be minimized. The program was: mass symbols for a mass reality.

To the degree that people could be convinced to believe that symbols had inherent and permanent meaning, the program would establish itself as the prime mover in society.

Lessons were learned from the long-running show called organized religion. After all, the controllers of that game had been winning the war of symbols for centuries. They could invent, revise, and distort history to their hearts’ delight, and substitute their own referential stories.

Initially scorned and derided, the profession of psychoanalysis formed itself into its own religion with its own pregnant symbols: the Oedipus complex, transference, and so on. Except it flew the new banner: science—itself a sign of unimpeachable accuracy.

Its nasty stepchild, psychiatry came to invent some 300 symbols, which were called “mental disorders.” The trick was, all 300 required drugging. “We want to do more than sell our concepts. We want to put toxic chemicals in your body.”

On the political front, leaders discovered they could peddle a war quicker than a rabbit could run down its hole. With the aid of media, and a bedazzled public, foreign leaders could be transformed from nobodies into incarnations of evil overnight. Gear up the troops! Attack! These days, by manipulating a cluster of symbols all at once, the public will believe: a leader must be overthrown; the rebels and freedom-fighters who are trying to accomplish that must be supported; those rebels are evil and must be destroyed. Absurd contradictions? Senseless gibberish? Who cares?

A whole civilization can chew and swallow its own tail, turn upside down while singing a catchy tune, go to war, and juggle a few hundred trillion dollars of debt, and it all seems to “make sense,” as long as the citizenry accepts designated symbolic references.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Against this insanity stands the individual, with his untapped power of imagination, his capacity to invent realities and futures of his own choosing—if he will wake up to that truth.

The truth has always been there, not in the jingle-jangle jigsaw crazy world, but inside himself.

Here is a note I made as I began putting together my second collection, Exit From The Matrix:

“Society, civilization, the world may all try to legislate and propagandize against the individual and his power, but the individual can always rebel. However, he needs to remember that rejecting the hypnotic consensus is just the beginning. After he shakes off the tangles and webs, he needs to imagine something else, something different, something new, something close to his deepest desires, and he needs to build and create that in the world. This is the yes that follows after the no. This is the difference between despair and triumph.”

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 strange fear of symbols

by Jon Rappoport

March 13, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

Groups use symbols.

But symbols have no inherent power.

None.

They have power only when people believe in them. In which case it’s the belief that is the power.

Just as important, symbols have no inherent meaning. They only have the meaning given to them.

So, for example, the famous eye and pyramid mean zero. Zilch. They only have meaning because Masons and other groups have assigned it.

There is no closed secret world of symbols that has magic in it.

There are no universally good symbols or bad symbols. A symbol is a word, term, sign, shape. It’s injected with meaning by a group. The group adopts a consensus about the symbol.

To a surprising degree, people think in terms of symbols. They operate as if they understand what they’re doing, but they don’t. They fear the power of certain symbols and attach themselves to the power of other “good” symbols. They’re hooked.

You could make a picture of a sun emanating three rays and call it Oobladee, and invent a whole mythology around it. You could claim it comes from Atlantis, or a secret society embedded in the old KGB, or an ancient Babylonian priesthood.

And then some people would react when they saw it. They would feel fear or anger or excitement.

It’s a con.

If you took this even further and created a whole set of symbols, dozens of them, and made up meanings for them, and worked with this game, you would eventually experience an interesting kind of liberation. You would see, to a greater extent, how arbitrary symbols are, how people trap themselves in “internal symbolic spaces.”

The whole point of frozen symbols is to enclose consciousness.

Let’s say you devised a picture of an eyeball hovering in a forest. A tear is dropping from the eye. The literal mind is looking for specific meaning. The literal mind wants an answer. It can’t find one.

The eyeball and the forest and the tear don’t add up. They provoke all sorts of associations, but no particular meaning, and the literal mind is frustrated.

So THEN you come along and assign a meaning. You say, “Well, this symbol was painted on masks in 834BC by the ancient Egyptian founders of a cult of pyramid builders. The eye and the tear stand for the tragedy caused by lack of faith in eternal life…”

And so forth and so on.

Now you’ve assigned specific meaning to the symbol. Now the literal mind breathes a sigh of relief. It has an answer. It can suck up that meaning and take it in and accept it. And now you can embellish the story and sell it to the literal mind. You can make that symbol into an object of fear and repulsion, if that’s the reaction you want to provoke in your audience, or you can make the symbol into an object of victory that stands for redemption.

You can twist and turn the symbol any way you want to.

The literal mind wants an answer to the mystery, a solution, and you provided it.

We’re talking about a very primitive form of art. When people operate at this level, buying symbols and their assigned meanings, it’s an indication they can’t appreciate or fathom more complex art.

They can’t read and fathom a novel or watch a stage play. That’s too much. There isn’t a clear one-to-one connecting pipeline between symbol and meaning, and so they’re confused. They’re frustrated.


I remember sitting in a movie theater watching a crime drama. The cops arrested the wrong man and framed him for a killing. A guy sitting next to me blew his top. He started telling his girl friend about how the cops were railroading this suspect and how bad the cops were, how the suspect was a victim of police brutality.

Well, yes. That was, in fact, the whole point of the movie. The movie was showing the audience how the police operated to create a false scenario and frame an innocent man. That’s what the movie was saying.

But this guy couldn’t get to that level. He thought the movie was actually on the cops’ side. He thought the movie was praising the arrest of the wrong man.

The literal mind at work.

In the same way, people accept the meanings that are assigned to symbols, and they react to those meanings in a reflex fashion.

In truth, symbols are open. They have no intrinsic meaning. People can inject any meaning they want to.

But when they’re trapped in a layer of symbolic thinking, they can’t see that. They’re determined to accept the already-assigned meaning and react to it.

Which is an invitation to propagandists.

Worse yet, it’s a fixation that artificially defines the limits of mind.

Symbols form a matrix-shell inside which minds live. Until they don’t.

In case you hadn’t noticed, lunatic school officials have been punishing students for symbols of guns. Pop tart chewed into the shape of a gun. Screen saver showing a picture of a gun. T-shirt with a message supporting the 2nd Amendment.

Then there are widening definitions of so-called hate speech. People want to ban the word “bossy.” They want to take any bland utterance and analyze it for possible “hate content.”

Among other things, this is puerile symbol-addiction.

A story about someone burning an American flag receives far more coverage and more reaction than a statement that the federal government violates the Constitution in a hundred ways.

Presidents are symbols. That is, the public reacts to the meanings broadly assigned to their images. The last time I looked, Americans in Kansas and Ohio weren’t sitting in the Oval Office having long conversations with Presidents.

Neither, I dare say, are Americans sitting down and talking with Satan. They’re reacting to meanings assigned to images of Satan painted by others.

Artists are in a unique position. They can make and unmake symbols at will. They can imbue symbols with meaning and then change the meanings or destroy the symbols. They don’t have to live under the dome of consensus symbols and their assigned meanings.

There are people who will argue that some symbols have “inherent meaning.” As if “the universe” sits around and writes down descriptions in a book, which is irrefutable.

Even if this were true, why do people have to accept those meanings?

Some symbols point to things that actually exist. Other symbols are fabricated with the intent of referring to fictions as if they were real. In both cases, the symbols are cooked and plumped up with meanings to impart a reaction.

I suppose God is the most widespread symbol on Earth. But instead of standing back and allowing the individual to decide what, if anything, it means to him, priest classes move in and organize religions to tell their stories, to embellish and codify the meaning of that symbol. And then to fight and kill to defend it.

Here is the symbol-maker’s proposition: “I’ll give you a symbol and tell you what it means and what it refers to. Then I want you to accept it, yes, but also to imbue it with feeling and awe and power. Give that power to the symbol. Make that investment. It’s your duty. Don’t vary or quibble.”

This is how humans are made into ciphers. This is mind control.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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.

Celebrities as symbols

by Jon Rappoport

August 1, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Let’s start here. A museum. A show of photographs of celebrities. If you didn’t know who they were, if you hadn’t been “prepped,” most of the photos would barely register. You’d yawn and walk past them.

But because you have separate knowledge, the photos mean something. They refer to a whole host of material and background on famous people.

“Oh. That’s Jay Leno eating ice cream.”

Again, subtract that material and background and the photos are meaningless.

“That’s some guy eating ice cream. So what?”

The photos are symbols, in the sense that they refer, they point to something that isn’t there.

The photos have power because YOU make the jump from symbol to meaning. You’re doing it.

“Oh, look at that photo. That’s Jay. Tonight Show. Tells jokes. He and Letterman compete for ratings. Jay replaced Johnny Carson.”

Then there are your opinions and feelings. More background.

“Jay’s not that funny. They should have stayed with Conan. Television, what a waste of time. A distraction for the masses.”

You make the simple jump from an image to what it means.

And all these photos have something in common. They refer to someone who is famous.

You could say, “Wait a minute. Let’s make a distinction here. The photos don’t refer. The photos don’t refer to anything. They’re just sitting there, inside frames, hanging on the wall.”

And that’s true. You do the referring. You connect the photo to meaning, to background.

But this is equally true of all symbols. A photo of an American flag doesn’t really refer, either. It just sits there. You make the connection to 50 states, the Constitution, the country, etc. The photo doesn’t step down from the wall and tap you on the shoulder and talk to you about itself.

People INVEST power in a photo of John Lennon sitting on a porch smoking a cigarette. However, people believe the photo itself HAS power.

Now, we’re talking about the trick involving symbols. They’re basically empty. You fill in the emptiness.

All this becomes more interesting when you realize there are PR people and propagandists working around the clock to make you impart particular meaning to symbols. They’re not satisfied to have you supply your own meaning. No.

For example, the last thing they want is you supplying your own references to photos of Hillary Clinton. They want you to think: distinguished leader, much experience, first woman president, above party politics, brilliant mind, great sympathy for the plight of the less fortunate, etc.

They want to make the symbol of Hillary as specific as possible.

This is really why the speeches of politicians are so empty. Their handlers don’t want actual information to get in the way of how the symbol is being crafted. PR people, if they could, would have a presidential candidate come up to a microphone, stand there, smile, and say nothing.

They, the PR handlers, are already shaping the symbolic meaning of the image of the candidate. That’s all they care about. That’s the difference between winning and losing.

Just as television shows are really the breaks between commercials, an election campaign is just a break between symbol-manipulations for the masses.

A scholar could write a compelling and important history of the human race based entirely on how symbols are given meanings by propagandists.

Rulers and other leaders are celebrities. Their symbolic value is established and shaped. The whole idea is to get followers to invest meaning A,B,C in the image of the celeb, rather than meaning E,F,G.

In this case, what does meaning mean? Thoughts and feelings. Strong feelings.

“Bush will restore the republic.” Feel, feel, feel.

“Obama will bring unity to all peoples.” Feel, feel, feel.

Bush and Obama are real people, but that’s where the resemblance ends to the symbolic value being imparted by their handlers.

But THEY (the propagandists) aren’t doing it to YOU in a vacuum. You’re consenting to the ploy. You’re injecting desired meaning. You’re not a helpless victim.

Here’s the kicker. If you know you’re injecting meaning, you know you’re creating something. So why not open that door wide?

Why not create with power? Why not create what you most profoundly want to?

Bottom line: everybody is an artist. So why not do something with that fact, instead of playing the symbol game?

This isn’t about withdrawing to a theoretically safe distance where you can refrain from injecting symbols with meaning. It’s about expressing your own energy and power in the world.

A final word about the amusing, wild, and wooly world of “channeling.” This is a perfect example of symbolism. The lecturer is purportedly obtaining all his information and wisdom from some entity in another dimension. The entity is the celebrity.

The audience is prepped to understand this relationship between the lecturer and the entity. So now, when the lecturer (medium) speaks, everything he says automatically has greater and higher meaning.

The symbolic reference to the entity is supplied by whom? The audience. They inject the “super-meaning.”

What would happen if the lecturer dispensed the same information, minus the prior assertion that he was getting it from a higher source? His audience would shrink to minimal size. People would walk out of the hall.

They would have no reason to stay. They aren’t being asked to inject that added dimension to the lecturer’s words. It’s a dud.

No gloss. No glitz. No celebrity. No deal.


The Matrix Revealed

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


And now, a final, final word. Who is the greatest celebrity in the universe?

God.

I don’t care whether you believe in God or don’t believe in God. I don’t care whether you believe in Him on Sundays or every day of the week.

But the symbols of God, all the symbols that exist—these are the work of organized religions. They put out and promote and flash those symbols, for one reason: they want you to connect to God through their network and mesh of symbols.

Otherwise, they’d be out of business.

They don’t want you to connect to God through your own private faith. That would be a disaster for them. They have to have all those symbols. They have to get you to inject those symbols with their meaning. Because, then, you’re part of their club. You belong. You’re in their group.

So…do symbols have power? Is this serious business?

Is the Pope Catholic?

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 fear of symbols

The fear of symbols

by Jon Rappoport

July 30, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Groups use symbols.

But symbols have no inherent power.

None.

They have power only when people believe in them. In which case it’s the belief that is the power.

Just as important, symbols have no inherent meaning. They only have the meaning given to them.

So, for example, the famous eye and pyramid mean zero. Zilch. They only have meaning because Masons and other groups have assigned it.

There is no closed secret world of symbols that has magic in it.

There are no universally good symbols or bad symbols. A symbol is a word, term, sign, shape. It’s injected with meaning by a group. The group adopts a consensus about the symbol.

To a surprising degree, people think in terms of symbols. They operate as if they understand what they’re doing, but they don’t. They fear the power of certain symbols and attach themselves to the power of other “good” symbols. They’re hooked.

You could make a picture of a sun emanating three rays and call it Oobladee, and invent a whole mythology around it. You could claim it comes from Atlantis, or a secret society embedded in the old KGB, or an ancient Babylonian priesthood.

And then some people would react when they saw it. They would feel fear or anger excitement.

It’s a con.

If you took this even further and created a whole set of symbols, dozens of them, and made up meanings for them, and worked with this game, you would eventually experience an interesting kind of liberation. You would see, to a greater extent, how arbitrary symbols are, how people trap themselves in “internal symbolic spaces.”

The whole point of symbols is to enclose consciousness.

The mechanism by which this happens is simple. Let’s say you devised a picture of an eyeball hovering in a forest. A tear is dropping from the eye. The literal mind is looking for specific meaning. The literal mind wants an answer. It can’t find one.

The eyeball and the forest and the tear don’t add up. They provoke all sorts of associations, but no particular meaning, and the literal mind is frustrated.

So THEN you come along and assign a meaning. You say, “Well, this symbol was painted on masks in 834BC by the ancient Egyptian founders of a cult of pyramid builders. The eye and the tear stand for the tragedy caused by lack of faith in eternal life…”

And so forth and so on.

Now you’ve assigned specific meaning to the symbol. Now the literal mind breathes a sigh of relief. It has an answer. It can suck up that meaning and take it in and accept it. And now you can embellish the story and sell it to the literal mind. You can make that symbol into an object of fear and repulsion, if that’s the reaction you want to provoke in your audience, or you can make the symbol into an object of victory that stands for redemption.

You can twist and turn the symbol any way you want to.

The literal mind wants an answer to the mystery, a solution, and you provided it.

We’re talking about a very primitive form of art. When people operate at this level, buying symbols and their assigned meanings, it’s an indication they can’t appreciate or fathom more complex art.

They can’t read and fathom a novel or watch a stage play. That’s too much. There isn’t a clear one-to-one connecting pipeline between symbol and meaning, and so they’re confused. They’re frustrated.


The Matrix Revealed


I remember sitting in a movie theater watching a crime drama. The cops arrested the wrong man and framed him for a killing. A guy sitting next to me blew his top. He started telling his girl friend about how the cops were railroading this suspect and how bad the cops were, how the suspect was a victim of police brutality.

Well, yes. That was, in fact, the whole point of the movie. The movie was showing the audience how the police operated to create a false scenario and frame an innocent man. That’s what the movie was saying.

But this guy couldn’t get to that level. He thought the movie was actually on the cops’ side. He thought the movie was praising the arrest of the wrong man.

The literal mind at work.

In the same way, people accept the meanings that are assigned to symbols, and they react to those meanings in a reflex fashion.

In truth, symbols are open. They have no intrinsic meaning. People can inject any meaning they want to.

But when they’re trapped in a layer of symbolic thinking, they can’t see that. They’re determined to accept the already-assigned meaning and react to it.

Which is an invitation to propagandists.

Worse yet, it’s a fixation that artificially defines the limits of mind.

Symbols form a matrix-shell inside which minds live. Until they don’t.

Jon Rappoport

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

Finally, the Truth about Symbols

by Jon Rappoport

May 31, 2011

(To join our email list, click here.)

“The last time we saw her, him, or it, the winged figure, there were great shapes scrawled in the sky left behind, and then a single thought slowly falling to Earth like a light snow. The thought was: if these sky shapes had meaning, what would it be? And if each of you could decide independently, what would happen?” — Auntie Mime, Reality Disruptor

“The only menace is inertia.” — St. John Perse

The red knight said to the blue knight, “I’m departing for unknown shores. Here I give you the seal of my empire. Hold it close. When the hour of the new year strikes, open it and view the symbol contained therein. It carries esoteric meaning that will usher you into my lands.”

The blue knight was staggered. “Is this really true?” he said.

“I’ll reply with a riddle. Listen. It’s true if you’re a fool.” — Auntie Mime, Reality Disruptor


In land far-far or near-near, the people had symbols. For many centuries, symbols had been imposed on them.

This is not a hard thing to do. For example, you build a tower and place art around the joint and you play droning music and you dim the lights and you hold services, and the high priest hopefully has a rich mellow voice, a good baritone…and at the appropriate moment, he lapses into silence, waits, and then leans forward and pronounces the name of the symbol…maybe he holds up an illuminated stick with the symbol at the end.

Then he describes the meaning of the symbol.

And it sinks in.

Squish.

With enough time, enough good prep, enough symbols, you can put a whole populations under hypnosis and lead them around by their collective nose.

Well, in this land, the people eventually got tired of that crap, and so they sank the tower in the sea and started over.

From that moment on, symbols were OPEN.

Symbols were contemplated, now and then, and people could derive (imagine) whatever meanings they preferred. Each person could do that.

Then they would hold informal meetings, and after a few comedians loosened things up, people would stand, one at a time, and present their experience with the symbol of the month. Do their riffs. The only rule—don’t be boring.

The funny thing was, after a few years of this sort of meeting, the very language of the people began to expand…new words, new phrases, new ideas, new images…even new constructions.

It was a language, more and more, infiltrated by imagination.

And what do you know, the people became freer and more energetic. They sensed their language was coming into line with their creative impulse—whereas in many societies, the creative impulse comes into line with the language.

The people called this a major discovery, and they celebrated it by building a new tower. They discussed what to call it. After a few days, they said HOLD ON, THIS IS RIDICULOUS, and burned it down.

Every year, they build a new tower and burn it.

Just to remind themselves about what can happen when everyone behaves like an android and allows meaning to emanate from one point.

Their language is now 1000000000 times its former size.

Oh, off in a corner of a dim bar, a few guys reminisce about the good old days when things were normal and they knew what “the spiritual universe” consisted of. They wish it would all come back. The music, the snoring, the hypnotic ceremony, the closed symbols. They really love those closed symbols.

They’re even trying to build their own permanent tower out at the end of town by a tire recapper and a collapsed warehouse. Others, of the new generation, will go down there on a Saturday morning, stand around, and chip in advice.

“Put more mud on that side.”

“Make the holes for the windows a little bigger.”

Much amusement.

One universe, many universes, take your pick.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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.