The Matrix Revealed: the collective experiment on planet Earth

by Jon Rappoport

November 18, 2016

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

When all obsessive group-consciousness on Earth is finished, exhausted, when it admits defeat, then a different era will emerge. But for now, we are in the middle of the collective experiment.

High-flying cloying sentiment, profound dependence on others, covert repression—these are the order of the day.

How long until the collective age is over? A hundred years? A thousand years? The answer is, as long as it takes for every human to realize that the experiment has failed, and why.

The why is clear—the individual has been overlooked. He has been demeaned. He has been grabbed up and drafted into groups. His creative power has been compromised in order to fit in.

The majority of the world still believes in this approach, as if from good groups will flow the ultimate and final solutions we have all been seeking.

This is sheer mind control, because good groups morph into evil, and vice versa, in the ongoing stage play called reality.

Ideals are twisted, infiltrators subvert plans, lessons are ignored, and the whole sorry mess repeats itself again.

What constituted a triumph of good over evil at one moment is guided into yet another collective, whose aims are “a better kind of control.”

The most deluded among us believe we are always on the cusp of a final breakthrough.

But there is no “we” to make the breakthrough.

It comes to every person on his own. And it does not arrive as the thrust of an external force, but from one’s own struggle, accompanied by insights for which there is no outside agency to lend confirmation.

If indeed it will take a thousand years to bring this collective illusion to a close, that is no cause for despondent reaction.

On the contrary, it is simply an understanding that all experiments come to an end, as does the method of thought on which they are based.

One or ten or a hundred collapses of civilization, and the resultant rebuilding, are not enough.

The pattern endures.

It can only dissolve when overwhelming numbers of individuals, each in his own way, absent self-deception, sees its bankruptcy.

The “we” and the “us” are merely postponements and cover stories splashed on the front pages of the mind.

Fighting for what is right, here and now, is vital. But it does not preclude the knowledge that, as long as people are fixated on groups as the Answer, the underlying problem will persist.

Therefore, as part of my research over the last several decades, I have explored what is now commonly called the Matrix, from the point of view of freeing the individual from it.

The first step is understanding Matrix as an ongoing perverse “work of art” and viewing the nuts and bolts of it.

That is the purpose of my first collection, The Matrix Revealed.

Here are the contents of The Matrix Revealed:

* 250 megabytes of information.

* Over 1100 pages of text.

* Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

* My complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and audio to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

* The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

* ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

* JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages.

* RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

Also included:

* Several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix. 53 pages.

* The ten and a half hours of mp3 audio are my solo presentation, based on these interviews and my own research. Title: The Multi-Dimensional Planetary Chessboard—The Matrix vs. the Un-Conditioning of the Individual.

(All the material is digital. Upon ordering it, you’ll receive an email with a link to it.)

Understanding Matrix is also understanding your capacity and power, and that is the way to approach this subject. Because liberation is the goal. And liberation has no limit.

I invite you to a new exploration and a great adventure.

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 illusion called medical journalism: the deep secret

Nov17

The Illusion called medical journalism: the deep secret

by Jon Rappoport

November 17, 2016

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

—Some of the greatest illusions are sitting out in the open. They are bypassed for two reasons. People refuse to believe they are illusions, despite the abundant evidence; and the professionals dedicated to upholding the illusions continue their work as if nothing at all has been exposed.

Medical journalists in the mainstream rely completely on studies published in prestigious journals.

This the rock. This is the science.

This is also the source of doctors’ authoritarian and arrogant advice to patients.

“Studies show…”

Well, that wraps it up. Nothing else to prove. The studies in the journals are the final word.

Medical reporters base their entire careers on these published reports.

But what if higher authorities contradicted all these studies? What if they scrutinized more studies than any reporter or doctor possibly could…and came to a shocking and opposite conclusion?

This very thing has happened. And the conclusions have been published. But medical reporters ignore them and go their merry way, as if a vast pillar of modern medicine is still intact…when it isn’t, when it has been decimated.

Buckle up.

Let us begin with a statement made by Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, perhaps the most prestigious medical journal in the world—a journal that routinely vets and prints thousands of medical studies:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” —Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009

You might want to read that statement several times, to savor its full impact. Then proceed to this next one, penned by the editor of The Lancet, another elite and time-honored medical journal that publishes medical studies:

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”

Still standing? Here are several more statements. They are devastating.

The NY Review of Books (May 12, 2011), Helen Epstein, “Flu Warning: Beware the Drug Companies”:

“Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false, in the sense that independent researchers couldn’t replicate them. The problem is particularly widespread in medical research, where peer-reviewed articles in medical journals can be crucial in influencing multimillion- and sometimes multibillion-dollar spending decisions. It would be surprising if conflicts of interest did not sometimes compromise editorial neutrality, and in the case of medical research, the sources of bias are obvious. Most medical journals receive half or more of their income from pharmaceutical company advertising and reprint orders, and dozens of others [journals] are owned by companies like Wolters Kluwer, a medical publisher that also provides marketing services to the pharmaceutical industry.”

Here’s another quote from the same article:

“The FDA also relies increasingly upon fees and other payments from the pharmaceutical companies whose products the agency is supposed to regulate. This could contribute to the growing number of scandals in which the dangers of widely prescribed drugs have been discovered too late. Last year, GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia was linked to thousands of heart attacks, and earlier in the decade, the company’s antidepressant Paxil was discovered to exacerbate the risk of suicide in young people. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was also linked to thousands of heart disease deaths. In each case, the scientific literature gave little hint of these dangers. The companies have agreed to pay settlements in class action lawsuits amounting to far less than the profits the drugs earned on the market. These precedents could be creating incentives for reduced vigilance concerning the side effects of prescription drugs in general.”

Also from the NY Review of Books, here are two more quotes from Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption”):

“Consider the clinical trials by which drugs are tested in human subjects. Before a new drug can enter the market, its manufacturer must sponsor clinical trials to show the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective, usually as compared with a placebo or dummy pill. The results of all the (there may be many) are submitted to the FDA, and if one or two trials are positive—that is, they show effectiveness without serious risk—the drug is usually approved, even if all the other trials are negative.”

Here is another Angell statement:

“In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.”

If you have the patience to read and re-read these statements, you’ll see they are marking out a scandal of scandals—the entirety of medical literature is a pipeline for deep fraud.

Citing with confidence a study on a drug, for example, would carry no more weight than an article about a celebrity in a gossip rag.

But medical reporters must pretend their sources are correct. It’s their job. If they reject published studies, they have nothing left—except to expose the giant scandal I’m outlining in this article. Biting the hand that feeds them would put them out of work. They’d end up writing about picnics for some local paper—if they were lucky.

However, that’s not my problem or yours. It’s theirs. They chose their profession.

We can settle on the truth. We can even spread it.

Why not?

Jon Rappoport

Google/Facebook now targeting “fake news sites; I’ve been doing it for 15 years

Nov16

Google/FB target fake news sites: I’ve been doing it for 15 years

by Jon Rappoport

November 16, 2016

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

Only I’ve been doing it for real, here at NoMoreFakeNews.com. That’s the difference. Google and Facebook are up to something else. They’re attacking truth emanating from the alt media.

It’s a reverse play on their part. Google will refuse to allow “fake sites” to use their AdSense Program. FB will try to limit “fake” posts.

They’re really getting desperate.

Major media election coverage was so phony it was laughable. Inside their bubble, Hillary was winging her way to victory. She was way out ahead in the polls. Wikileaks and Project Veritas were spooling out devastating revelations almost every day, and the press was studiously ignoring the implications. Why don’t FB and Google go after the NY Times and WaPo and CBS and NBC and ABC and CNN and FOX, if they want to limit fake news? Why? Because all those jokers, including Google/FB, are on the same page. They’re all PR firms fronting for the concoction called Globalism.

And they’re losing.

In mainstream news, everything should begin with the concept of a staged event.

Every television newscast: staged reality

“The news is all about manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it. If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time, the fourth dimension.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Focus on the network evening news. This is where the staging is done well.

First, we have the image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if he broke into the house?”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

It would never occur to him to wonder: are the squabbling political legislators really two branches of the same Party? Does government have the Constitutional right to incur this much debt? Where is all that money coming from? Taxes? Other sources? Who invents money?

Is the flu dangerous for most people? If not, why not? Do governments overstate case numbers? How do they actually test patients for the flu? Are the tests accurate? Are they just trying to convince us to get vaccines?

What happens when the government has overwhelming force and citizens have no guns?

When researchers keep saying “may” and “could,” does that mean they’ve actually discovered something useful about autism, or are they just hyping their own work and trying to get funding for their next project?

These are only a few of the many questions the typical viewer never considers.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

Next we come to words over pictures. More and more, news broadcasts are using the rudimentary film technique of a voice narrating what the viewer is seeing on the screen.

People are shouting and running and falling in a street. The anchor or a field reporter says: “The country is in turmoil. Parliament has suspended sessions for the third day in a row, as the government decides what to do about uprisings aimed at forcing democratic elections…”

Well, the voice must be right, because we’re seeing the pictures. If the voice said the riots were due to garbage-pickup cancellations, the viewer would believe that, too.

We see Building #7 of the WTC collapse. Must have been the result of a fire. The anchor tells us so. Words over pictures.

We see footage of Lee Harvey Oswald inside the Dallas police station. The anchor tells he’s about to be transferred, under heavy guard, to another location. Oswald must be guilty, because we’re seeing him in a police station, and the anchor just said “under heavy guard.”

Staged news.

It mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what that world is, at any given moment.

Since the dawn of time, untold billions of people have been urging a “television anchor” to “explain the pictures.”

The news gives them that precise thing, that precise solution, every night.

“Well, Mr. Jones,” the doctor says, as he pins X-rays to a screen in his office. “See this? Right here? We’ll need to start chemo immediately, and then we may have to remove most of your brain, and as a follow-up, take out one eye.”

Sure, why not? The patient saw the pictures and the anchor explained them.

After watching and listening to a month or two of news planted with key words, the population is ready to see the President or one of his minions step up to a microphone and say, “Quantitative easing…sequester…”

Reaction? “Oh, yes, that’s right, I’ve heard those words before. Good.”

A month later, those two terms disappear, as if they’d never existed.

Eventually, people get the idea and do it for themselves. They see things, they invent one-liners to explain them.

They’re their own anchors. They short-cut and undermine their own experience with vapid summaries of what it all means.

And then, of course, when the news cuts to commercial, the fake products take over:

“Well, every night they’re showing the same brand names, so those brands must be better than the unnamed alternatives.”

Which devolves into: “I like this commercial better than that commercial. This is a great commercial. Let’s have a contest and vote on the best commercial.”

For “intelligent” viewers, there is another sober mainstream choice, a safety valve: PBS. That newscast tends to show more pictures from foreign lands.

“Yes, I watch PBS because they understand the planet is interconnected. It isn’t just about America. That’s good.”

Sure it’s good, if you want the same thin-context or false-context reporting on events in other countries. Instead of the two minutes NBC might give you about momentous happenings in Iraq, PBS will give you four minutes, plus congenial experts commenting abstractly, employing longer words.

PBS’ experts seem kinder and gentler. “They’re nice and they’re more relaxed. I like that.”

Yes, the PBS experts are taking Valium, and they’re not drinking as much coffee as the CBS experts.

Anchors deliver the long con every night on the tube, between commercials.

Staged.

They’re marketing thin context.

And of course, the “science” promoted on the network news is also derived from marketing efforts at major government agencies, such as the CDC.

The anchor says, “Medical experts are now taking a heavier approach to parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and deny the benefits of vaccines.”

What sits behind that statement?

The announcement of so-called epidemics and outbreaks are part of a strategy for marketing vaccines. It’s obvious.

For example, read this from the World Health Organization Fact Sheet, Number 11, dated March 2014:

“Influenza occurs globally…Worldwide, these annual epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500 000 deaths.”

Now consider a “measles outbreak” in the US. 150 cases.

In the matter of worldwide flu, WHO and the CDC choose not to hype and propagandize; but in the case of the measles, it’s suddenly all hands on deck and fear, fear, fear.

Why?

Because it’s time. It’s time to inflate the seriousness of a standard childhood disease. It’s time to focus on “the children.” It’s time, once again, to offset the massive rebellion against vaccination exploding in the US population. It’s time to engender fear. It’s time to attack anti-vaccination researchers. It’s time to take another step in the direction of mandating vaccines. It’s time to introduce bills in legislatures that cancel legal exemptions from vaccines and cancel freedom of choice. It’s time for more medical fascism. It’s time to paint parents who don’t vaccinate as terrorists. It’s time to paint their children as little biowar weapons running loose in the community.

It’s time to advance the medical police state.

The designation of “outbreaks” and “epidemics” is arbitrary. “We’ll take THIS as an epidemic and we’ll ignore THAT as an epidemic.”

It’s very much like marketing, because it is marketing.

“Let’s see, Bob. Which one of the items in our sales catalog should we push hard this quarter? The bikini or the leather boots?”

“You know, we haven’t hyped the measles vaccine for a while. How about an outbreak of measles? Can we sell that? Focus on the kiddies? We’ll need about 100 cases, we’ll say they all came from one source, like a playground or an amusement park, and we’ll claim it’s very, very serious…”

“Do we have a good front man to go on television and promote the fear factor? How about that maniac who thinks any kid can handle 10,000 vaccines? Or the schmuck from UCLA. Maybe a woman doctor, a mother with three kids. You know, soapy dopey.”

When the propaganda pros decide which way to go…they issue a statement, a press release, and this release is picked up by the news shows:

“Medical experts are criticizing parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and deny the proven benefits of vaccines.”

There are various forms of mind control. The one I’m describing here—the thinning of context—is universal. It confounds the mind by pretending depth doesn’t exist and is merely a fantasy.

The mind, before it is trained away from it, is always interested in depth.

Another way of putting it: the mind naturally wants more space, not less. Only constant conditioning can change this.

Eventually, when you say “mind,” people think you’re referring to the brain, or they don’t know what you’re talking about at all.

Mind control by eradicating the concept of mind. That’s quite a trick.

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 entrepreneur/visionary and his challenges

Nov15

The entrepreneur/visionary and his challenges

by Jon Rappoport

November 15, 2016

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

This article isn’t about tax rates and government red tape and intrusive regulations. Those issues are, of course, very real.

This is about the person who has large dreams and ambitions, and has launched them, or is on the cusp of launching them. He appears to be a dying breed in this society, but he is not. Under the surface, out of the limelight, there are many, many such people. I have worked with some of them in my consulting practice, and I admire them. They have escaped from the dependency culture. They have energy, and they move forward. They don’t set gross limits on themselves. They understand the founding ideas on which this country was built.

On one level, the share the trait of resistance. They don’t back down and opt for safe and easy solutions. They don’t bow down to the system or prevailing trends. They don’t obsessively look for excuses. Wearing a nicey-nice mask isn’t their main goal.

They deal with challenges. One, of course, is building something from the ground up. Another is building a vision into the world without scaling it back so far that it loses its unique scope, size, and power.

Entrepreneurship has a counter-intuitive core. The more the enterprise is built to the scale of the original dream, and the less it is compromised, the greater the chances of success.

This is something most people can’t fathom. They see compromise as the ultimate instrument. They deploy it whenever they can. They strive to become experts in its use. They see invention and creation as entirely dependent on the public’s “lowest common denominator.” This, to them, is the way reality works.

And on one level, they’re right. But this isn’t the level of the person with a vision. How thrilling the enterprise becomes when it is built to be everything it was meant to be—and when, lo and behold, people respond—as if they’ve been waiting for it, for a long time. Then the entrepreneur/visionary realizes how reality CAN operate. It’s a revelation. He experiences it.

The entrepreneur needs to inspire the people he works with. Committing to his own vision through thick and thin, he has to keep it fresh and new. Even if, at times, he feels as if he’s rolling a huge stone up a hill, he can’t let the vision merge with that stone. He has to keep the vision pure. His ace in the hole is he WANTS to keep it new and pure. His final challenge is avoiding becoming rigid as he keeps the vision secure. He has to pour an elastic and far-reaching energy into his work. He has to be able to be spontaneous—there are many times when improvisation in the moment is his best ally.

If all this seems too much—it isn’t. Deep down, the entrepreneur knows it. He is tapping into a well that is bottomless. He comes to understand this secret. There are no limits.

His imagination and creative power have no boundaries.

The entrepreneur can cross a threshold and find that his work and goals have expanded to such a degree that he has become a true visionary. What he once thought was the end of his ambition was just a stepping stone, and the path he is now walking has no end.

No end.

—Always beginning.

The architect and engineer of his dream, he can simultaneously look at what he has built so far and appreciate it, and he can also see that he is, at the start of every day, inventing anew. He is, simultaneously, a thousand miles along his path, and immersed in a great Now.

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.

A new teaching: Imagination

Nov14

A new teaching: Imagination

by Jon Rappoport

November 14, 2016

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

“People sometimes recognize that the content of their thoughts defines the limits of their reality; but they rarely notice that these thoughts also give rise to a SPACE that is limited and holds them in check.” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

I call it new because it still has not been given its proper due. Imagination is beyond “subject matter” or “content” or “knowledge” or “systems” or “philosophy” or “metaphysics.”

Imagination is not something you pursue, like a lost mine or a species of plant never seen before. Imagination is not an object.

It can solve problems. It can dispense with a problem altogether. But imagination is not a solution. It isn’t a method.

Imagination is already there in every person, as a potential. To put it in a slightly different way, imagination comes into being the moment you want it. Even more accurately, perhaps, imagination is imagining. It’s an action. When you want to take that action, you can.

What imagination invents is, of course, different from person to person. Why? Because there is no pre-set pattern. There is no “final answer” at which imagination arrives.

A painter can say, “This painting is the embodiment of everything I’ve been reaching for,” but if he think that means imagination has served its function and can then fold up and dissolve, he is mistaken.

Where does imagining happen? That’s an interesting question. Many years ago, an old acquaintance of mine told me the following amusing story: A painter of horses felt she had come to the end of the line because she wanted to paint large horses on large canvases, but she was convinced she couldn’t picture the large horses because…imagining was taking place in her brain, and her brain was small.

When she finally realized this was a major misconception, she executed a course correction and…she was painting big horses on big canvases.

Imagining doesn’t take place in the brain. As untold numbers of artists down through history have understood, imagining takes place in “a space.” That space is invented. That space is not the same space you see when you look through your window or walk down the street or stand on a roof top. You invent other spaces. You populate them with thoughts, images, sensations.

And these other spaces have no restrictions on size, shape, dimension, and so forth.

Tesla has been quoted as saying that he would envision an entire machine before he built it, and in that imagining he could view all the parts of the machine operating together—and therefore he already knew whether the device would work properly, before he assembled a single component.

Do you think he was seeing the machine inside one of his own brain cells, or inside a cluster of cells? That’s quite a joke. Of course not. He was seeing the machine sitting there in a space—and he was imagining both the machine and the space.

The literature called science fiction took off, in part, because the reader was imagining all sorts of wondrous spaces populated by many strange and fascinating creatures and civilizations. Huge spaces.

In other words, there is physical space, the common arena we share…and there are an infinity of possible other spaces a person can imagine.

What a person imagines, in the way of spaces, need not be “scientific” or “clinical” or “according to the laws of physics.” There are no restrictions.

I once spoke with a woman who had, for many years, struggled to win a victory in a just environmental cause. She was a veteran activist leader; and she had never won what she was seeking. She was stymied. I told her she had to imagine a new kind of strategy, and I gave her a writing exercise that might enable her to get outside all the familiar campaigns of the past. Within two minutes, she found what she was looking for. Which is to say, she imagined it.

I wasn’t giving her knowledge or content or a system or an answer. I was showing her a way to invent something new, on her own.

Not long after our conversation, I finished work on my second collection, Exit From The Matrix. The heart and core of that work is a series of imagination exercises that, practiced in a daily fashion, can transform a person’s view of reality and their own power.

The word “education” comes from two Latin roots: “ducere,” meaning to lead, and “e,” the prefix meaning “out of” or “from.” Education, in that sense, is leading something out of the person, something that was already there.

Imagination, with all its awesome possibilities, is already there in a person. The “teaching” part involves bringing out that innate capacity so that it becomes conscious.

The bottom line: when all the imagining a person does is happening subconsciously, he’s trapped in a machine-like habit.

He becomes glued to the repetitious content and the sameness of what he keeps imagining over and over—and it becomes his chronic reality.

Conversely, when the person imagines and creates consciously, he becomes aware of his power and its immense latitude, and his freedom.

This makes all the difference.

Because, consciously, he can imagine and invent the future he truly desires.

Jon Rappoport

Globalism: revisiting the monster in the presidential campaign

Nov14

by Jon Rappoport

November 14, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Over the weekend, thousands of protesters across multiple countries condemned impending [Globalist] trade deals promoted by governments and their corporate partners. Though the protests received little coverage from mainstream media, they stretched from Paris to Warsaw.” (Carey Wedler, Blacklisted News, 10/19/16)

Now that the election is over, it’s important to review a few facts about Globalism. It was a centerpiece of controversy during the run-up to the vote.

Globalism isn’t just an abstract word or idea. It gives survival to some, and tries to take it away from others. It lights on population like a storm of locusts. It undermines jobs and work. It steals. It is designed to make chaos.

Globalism is based on the elite conviction that “the best people” should rule over everyone else for the greater good. “We’re not trying to do harm. We’re spreading the wealth.”

We can find the seeds of Globalism in Plato and his ancient dialogue called The Republic. Plato made his final philosophic stand on that work. Step by step, he establishes that The Good, which is highest concept in the universe, which exists in a realm of “pure ideas” apart from the daily round of existence, must be accessed and understood, if society is to meet up with its best destiny.

But, naturally, not all people are able to fathom The Good or translate it into action here in this human realm. Only the few can grasp it—and they must rise to the top and rule.

So, in the end, there is a fascist paradise. It rebuffs all attempts at dilution.

This is how Plato, the humane philosopher, the champion of the individual and freedom and independent thought, painted himself into a terrible corner. But never mind. Down through the centuries, “the wisest of men” have taken their cue from him and built nations and civilizations based on their (self-serving) version of The Good.

And in the process, they have used propagandists to convince populations that rule from above is only carried out as altruistic service…

When a system has been devised, planned, launched, and maintained by criminals to undermine a nation, they are naturally going to defend it by saying: “It’s good for everyone AND THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO MANAGE HUMAN AFFAIRS. BESIDES, WE CAN’T STOP IT NOW. THAT WOULD CAUSE WIDESPREAD CHAOS.”

In exactly the same way, a massive prison housing nothing but innocent people would superficially look like “chaos,” if the airtight security system were turned off.

The truth about the Globalist prison is simple. The underlying operation takes jobs away from America, in this instance, and sends them to Third World hell holes, where the same products are manufactured by the same companies, for pennies, using slave workers who labor in toxic environmental conditions that destroy their health.

Isn’t that easy to understand?

The American companies in those hell holes then sell the products back to Americans without paying taxes, tariffs, or penalties of any kind. The defenders of Globalism claim selling back the products cheaply is good for the American consumer. This is a lie, because many of those consumers no longer have jobs. Or they work at much lower wages than they used to, because the companies they worked for left America and went to the hell holes.

All in all, this arrangement is obviously designed to torpedo the national economy. It’s not an accident. It’s not an unintended consequence. The Globalists may be criminals, but they aren’t stupid criminals.

But what about the US companies who left America and set up shop overseas? Can’t they read the handwriting on the wall? Can’t they realize their base of consumers in the US is shrinking?

The companies are, in fact, stupid. They’re betting on short-term success vs. long-term collapse, and they’re going to lose. They plunge ahead with their eyes closed—because they can’t bring themselves to believe that the system they’re part of could have been fashioned with ultimate failure in mind.

The anti-Globalism movement is MUCH bigger than Trump, so no matter what you think of him, whether you believe in his honesty or not, the ideas he is bringing forward are having an immense impact on the populace—because the populace has figured out the Globalist game. They see and feel the destruction. They see and feel what is happening to jobs. Their jobs. They see the brutal reality, and they want no part of it.

They want America to endure. They want America to prosper. They want a free market. They don’t want their country reduced to Third World status.

All the politically correct humanitarian lingo in the universe is not going to change these basic realities. Globalism—the export of jobs, the rapid expansion of the Welfare State, the launching of senseless wars to pave the way for corporate plunder, the immigrant-flood through open borders—is a nation killer. It’s built to be a killer.

Decimating nations is an intentional precursor to ruling the planet from above by the Globalists-in-charge. “What we destroy we will resurrect on our own terms.”

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

No nation on Earth has a pure and clean history. But no nation deserves to be leveled and destroyed. The founding ideas of the original American Republic were and are the best ideas about government ever forwarded in human history. They imply:

Severely limited federal power. Free individuals. Independent individuals. Individuals who choose their own dreams and destinies. Individuals who work to achieve those dreams.

Individual creative power.

The so-called liberal press, and the academic institutions of America, have sold out completely. They are on board with what they can see of the Globalist agenda. The press will never challenge that agenda. They are grotesque cowards of the first order.

I have met some of them during my 30-plus years of working as a reporter. Behind their perfumed fronts, they give off a stench.

I created this website 15 years ago, in part, to expose Globalism in its various aspects, as a deep sickness of elites; Globalism must be cut off and shut down.

America is America. For the most part, its people are decent. Their leaders have betrayed them time and time again, without a second thought, without a shred of remorse.

The so-called populist movement which is growing by leaps and bounds, which got its legs under it with Ron Paul, must not come to a halt, no matter who sits in the White House, not matter what he does.

The future is now.

Jon Rappoport

The law of attraction: garbled fragment of a lost tradition

Nov13

The law of attraction: garbled fragment of a lost tradition

by Jon Rappoport

November 13, 2016

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

There is no way to state the law of attraction with finality, because thousands of people have tinkered with it, and some of them earnestly believe they have the only “true” version.

I’ll present several of the more popular descriptions first, and then comment.

“The law of attraction is the name given to the maxim ‘like attracts like’ which in New Thought philosophy is used to sum up the idea that by focusing on positive or negative thoughts a person brings positive or negative experiences into their life…” (Wikipedia)

“The Law of Attraction is no scary science or heavy philosophy – it is all about turning good intentions into positive action. It really is as simple as that. Simple exercises like filling your thoughts, words and energies with positivity and possibility, knowing exactly what it is that you want and then simply ‘allowing’ the universe to flow.” (thelawofattraction.com)

“Someone has said, ‘the Universe has imagined it even better than you have.’ And we like to add to that: The Universe got all of its information about what you like from you, and it has remembered every piece of it and has put it together in perfect formation. And so, the things that are on their way to you are so much better than you even know that you want. And as you allow them, the essence all of these things that the Universe knows that you are wanting make their way to you and appear in perfect timing for you.” (abraham-hicks.com)

The first thing to notice about these formulations is that they have a major passive component. You’re just there, thinking good thoughts, and the universe delivers its gifts to you. Hello! Incoming! And the second thing to notice is how the universe itself is characterized. It isn’t planets, stars, and galaxies. It’s a mystic “everything” that is paying close attention to you. It’s an outside force that is ready and willing to pass along positive results in exchange for positive thoughts.

It’s no surprise that the law of attraction has flourished in modern America. The law, in its own strange way, is a marvel of optimism. “No need to worry, all you need to do is accentuate the positive in your thoughts, and good things will descend upon you.”

There is even a more “sophisticated” version of the law, whereby, if you think-positive and don’t receive what you want, you didn’t really want it. That is, your higher self didn’t want it. Therefore, disappointment and failure aren’t possible.

The law is also an expression of a severely declining culture, in which large numbers of people, living in a superficial land of plenty, just can’t seem to be happy. They’re not getting what they want. The presents under the Xmas tree aren’t the right presents. The dreams they’re dreaming aren’t coming true. Therefore: build a better Santa Claus. Call him Universe.

The law of attraction also has a dark side: don’t entertain negative thoughts or negative things will happen to you. This may as well be an overt piece of mind control, because…who can avoid a trickle or a stream of negative thoughts? The individual is being set up. “Be a cop. Monitor yourself. Be your own Surveillance State. Keep those negative thoughts away. Don’t think of a pink elephant driving a truck on the sidewalk as you step out a café…”

The law of attraction: it’s as if someone read an ancient torn manuscript, tried to reconstruct a valuable piece of information, and missed the mark by a few miles. He got it all wrong. He got it backwards. Everything he could get wrong he did get wrong.

Why do I say that?

First of all, re the law of attraction, we’re talking about “positive and negative thought” at a level of power that is weak, weak, weak. We’re talking about an inconsequential level of thinking. We’re also talking about thought that is divorced from action. The individual is characterized as if he were a radio antenna, a receiving apparatus. Thoughts are coming in, good ones and bad ones. His job is to filter out the bad ones and strive to accentuate the good ones. This is preposterous. This is a losing proposition.

In ancient Tibet, before the priest class took over and established a theocracy, the practitioners of the art of manifestation were operating at a truly profound level of creation. If someone had come up with the law of attraction, he would have been encouraged to see it and invent it with all the sustained intensity he possibly could—and then, when he had it before him with alive and electric force, he would have been told: get rid of it.

The whole notion of Tibetan magic was: creation and destruction.

Through long-term grounding in this practice, the student would eventually come to see, first-hand, that he could invent anything and also dispense with it. Now we’re talking about power.

Not the inconsequential static of “positive and negative thoughts.” Not the little amateur radio station. Instead, the Niagara, initiated by the student and gotten rid of by the student.

“You’re in love with the idea of a beneficent universe that delivers all good things? All right, create that universe with all the energy you can muster. Spend months creating it. And then, when you’re quite sure you’ve got that marvelous invention, and it’s going to hand down to you everything you want, get rid of your invention. You see? You’re the artist of reality. You invent it. You can invent whatever you want, and you can destroy it, too. You’re the painter with an infinite canvas. You can fill it up with anything you want—and you can also paint over it and erase it out of existence. And there’s no need to feel sad about it, because you KNOW you can create endlessly. You’re living in a sea of abundance, not because the universe is mandating it, not because any entity or force or field or personage is mandating it or allowing it, but because YOU are the beginning and end of the abundance.”

The Tibetans weren’t fooling around. They weren’t taking a stroll through a mall. They weren’t pining over some fervently wished for relationship that never was. They weren’t cooking up some little religion with rainbows and marshmallows. They weren’t a terminally sentimental culture. They weren’t living and dying by dreams of abject hope. They weren’t inventing some good guy at the center of universe who comes down the chimney every night to deliver presents.

For that twisted version of the truth to flourish, there had to be a culture that was seeming to produce a consumer paradise. A place where every toy and machine and frizzle and frazzle on shelves of plenty were within arm’s reach—and still the people were unhappy. Then, the people would imagine that a higher St. Nick was available by merely “thinking good thoughts.” Then, people would believe this St. Nick was “giving them permission” to be happy.

Re the law of attraction, those early Tibetans would say: “Are you really worried about thinking a negative thought? All right, take one of those negative thoughts and invent it sky-high. Go to the quarry and cut out a two-ton block of granite and have some horses drag it back home and spend a few months engraving that negative thought on the stone and put lights on it and hold a week-long boggling celebration—and then blow up the stone. Do this whole process many times as you need to, until you realize you can invent anything and then get rid of it. Until you realize you’re an artist of reality and you’re infinitely more powerful than some weak sister of a ‘negative thought’.

An artist of reality puts together a vision of something he deeply, deeply, deeply desires, and then he strides out and brings it into being in the world. Because he wants to. Because he’ll walk through whatever he has to walk through to bring it to fruition. And that’s “the law of attraction.” It’s not a law and it isn’t attraction. It’s art. It’s creation. It’s invention. Nothing is “allowing it to happen.”

The individual, as an artist of reality, can go anywhere and access anything: he can tap into fields of data, oceans of being, other people’s minds, this consciousness and that consciousness, this role and that role; he can merge and un-merge—or he can do none of that. He can invent power out of nothing. He can, as artists have since the dawn of time, experience the joy and ecstasy of bringing to life his greatest dreams. He can invent and choose those dreams. And he can also, if he wants to, put all that on the shelf, and just walk down the street in the rain and hold a newspaper over his head and hail a cab and ride to a restaurant and have a drink and eat a meal with a friend and talk about the horse who won the fifth race at Del Mar.

And just in case you think I’m excluding all the “necessary work” that needs to be done to make this world a better place, a client I worked with, some years ago, told me: “I just woke up to my dream. I’m going to take down [a major evil corporation].” There was joy in his eyes, like a man on a high cliff looking out to sea contemplating glorious unknown lands. He is making progress, real progress. I wouldn’t want to be that corporation.

What I’m describing in this article is an open path. Major steps on that path are embodied in my three Matrix collections, because I’m not only interested in characterizing the journey, but also taking it.

Jon Rappoport

There is a lot of static and interference out there now

Nov13

There is a lot of static and interference out there now

by Jon Rappoport

November 13, 2016

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

The tsunami of election news and fallout has created much confusion out there. People are exhausted; they’re running and hiding; their uncertainty is spiking; their cynicism is kicking into high gear; they’re trying, in some cases, to dumb themselves down…

This always happens when a large event is resolved in favor of one side, but doubts remain about the winner. It’s as if the lights in the stadium went out during the last quarter of the Super Bowl. What happened? What’s happening now? What will happen?

People are even forgetting they have lives of their own. And that’s what I want to return to. Because, when individuals park their own lives, they’re bound to experience disorientation.

General issues raised in the presidential campaign have stimulated questions that individuals ask themselves: do I want to be free? How free? Do I want to take control over my own destiny? What are my true goals? Where am I going?

These and other similar questions are, of course, quite valid. And yes, answering them can cause an upheaval.

And the life of the individual is paramount. What difference does the course of the nation make, if the individual loses his way, if most individuals lose their way? After all, this nation was founded on the basis of liberation of the individual.

I suggest that the disparity between where a person is headed and where he REALLY wants to go is at the core of the confusion he may be feeling. This disparity has arisen time and time again in my consulting work with private clients.

It doesn’t resolve by turning away and ignoring the gap. It doesn’t resolve by pretending the situation isn’t real.

The presidential campaign featured two candidates who had very different visions for the future of America. Those differences caused many people—if only at a subconscious level—to question their own vision for their own future.

What’s the compromised vision? What’s the real one?

What’s the vision that would get me out of bed in the morning ready to go, filled with energy and excitement and optimism?

When a person sacrifices THAT, he’s operating from a severe deficit. He’s filling in blanks in his life with rationalizations.

The notion of serious contemplation has become foreign in this society. But serious contemplation is exactly what is needed, if the individual is to change course and move in the direction he really wants to pursue.

This is not a side issue. This is a central issue. This is the big one.

Understanding that fact alone can restore equilibrium. And then, self-engagement in discovering what the best personal vision is becomes the next adventure.

No amount of static and interference floating in the air these days justifies backing away from that adventure.

The life of the individual is paramount.

The founding principles of this nation were engraved to emphasize it.

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 mechanical structure of the Matrix

Nov12

The mechanical structure of the Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

August 10, 2016

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

Basically, the mechanical structure of the Matrix is derived from the concept that:

Everything is connected to everything.

This notion is increasingly hailed as a positive marvel. For example, in quantum entanglement, pared particles, even at great distances from each other, both react to an impact on either particle.

“Everything/connected” produces a sensation of Weave&All Inclusiveness.

It’s ultimately designed for long-term rental. The occupant is there, and there he will stay.

Feeling this Oneness is Matrix religion, and it is meant to instill a sense of the sacred. Holy, holy. The mind completes the equation: sacred=forever. It’s a ruse. “Sacred” is no more forever than listening to a Bach concerto is forever. It’s one thing to bathe in a majestic feeling. It’s quite another thing to infer it means eternal occupancy.

There are many people ready to shake your hand and embrace you and welcome you into the labyrinth, the weave, the connection of everything to everything.

People aspire to be wired into the “everything/connected” apparatus as their highest ambition—which is their primary substitute for imagination.

That they don’t realize this doesn’t make it any less true.

“I’m one atom in an infinity of atoms all connected throughout the universe, and this is what I want to feel. This is illumination and enlightenment. This is the grand essence, the final stop on the train ride.”

Well, let me put it to you in this way. Let’s say you’re an actor. You work in a repertory theater that stages 100000000000000000 plays. In each play, you have a role, a different role. You’re “connected” to each one of those roles. BUT YOU’RE AN ACTOR. That means you can inhabit a role and then take it off like a coat. It doesn’t mean you’re forever chained up to every role you play.

However, this distinction is lost on most people.

The idea of everything/connected is quite old. You can find it enunciated in ancient Egypt and China, and traces of it exist in Aristotle. It’s often arranged as a hierarchy. The “great chain of being.”

So are we talking about an architecture of the universe or a notion in the mind?

Both.

Think of everything/connected as a style of building among various possible styles.

And religion is its goal—the inducement of religious awe. That is the stage play.

People join the “everything/connected” church of the universe. They want to be in that congregation singing a song, melting down into butter.

Oh, look. There at the altar is a priest. He’s delivering a sermon. Let’s listen in:

“If you know that everything is connected to everything, could you possibly kill a whale? Of course not.”

Remember two things, though. One, you don’t need to embrace everything-is-everything to know you don’t want to kill a whale.

And two, the priest, as he’s delivering his sermon, is thinking to himself: “If I want to kill a whale, I damn well will.”

You see, when you really unpack the “everything is everything” wow, it’s not as sensational as it first seemed.. Any more than, say, the fact that every national newscast covers the same stories from the same point of view.

“I can’t believe it. ABC just did a piece on the Supreme Court, and now CBS is highlighting it, too. Let’s light a candle and kneel.”

“Everything/connected” is supposed to signal that the universe is conscious, and to boil the argument down, since universe is also so much larger than a human being walking around on a street in a city on planet Earth, he is obligated to defer to universe.

He is programmed from a young age to defer. He learns how politically incorrect it is to reject this church…

Matrix.

You have a choice. You can go along for the ride in Matrix, or you can imagine imagination and embark on the journey of journeys.

Artists create worlds and universes. Therefore, the idea that “The Universe” is somehow our greatest guide and mentor and gift-giver is a joke of the highest magnitude.

Most people are not up to contemplating the idea of consciously creating, much less spontaneously improvising, which involves a kind of merging with what they would create.

But for those who can grasp such an idea, the world and the universe aren’t any longer arbiters and rule makers and guides. They are inventions that are already here.

Ensuing years of research resulted in my three recent Matrix collections, of which Exit From The Matrix is most focused on practical techniques of imagination — to make your deepest desires fact in the world.

Here are the contents of my collection, Exit From The Matrix:

First, my audio presentations:

* INTRODUCTION: HOW TO USE THE MATERIALS IN EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* 50 IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* FURTHER IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* ANESTHESIA, BOREDOM, EXCITEMENT, ECSTASY

* ANCIENT TIBET AND THE UNIVERSE AS A PRODUCT OF MIND

* YOU THE INVENTOR, MINDSET, AND FREEDOM FROM “THE EXISTENCE PROGRAM”

* PARANORMAL EXPERIMENTS AND EXERCISES

* CHILDREN AND IMAGINATION

* THE CREATIVE LIFE AND THE MATRIX/IMAGINATION

* PICTURES OF REALITY AND ESCAPE VELOCITY FROM THE MATRIX

* THIS WOULD BE A VERY DIFFERENT FUTURE

* MODERN ZEN

* THE GREAT PASSIONS AND THE GREAT ANDROIDS

Then you will receive the following audio seminars I have previously done:

* Mind Control, Mind Freedom

* The Transformations

* Desire, Manifestation and Fulfillment

* Altered States, Consciousness, and Magic

* Beyond Structures

* The Mystery and Magic of Dialogue

* The Voyage of Merlin

* Modern Alchemy and Imagination

* Imagination and Spiritual Enlightenment

* Dissolving Stress

* The Paranormal Project

* Zen Painting for Everyone Now

* Past Lives, Archetypes, and Hidden Sources of Human Energy

* Expression of Self

* Imagination Exercises for a Lifetime

* Old Planet, New Planet, New Mind

* The Era of Magic Returns

* Your Power Revealed

* Universes Without End

* Relationships

* Building a Business for Success

I have included an additional bonus section:

* My book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies (pdf document)

* My book, The Ownership of All Life (pdf document)

* A long excerpt from my briefly published book, Full Power (pdf document)

* My 24 articles in the series, “Coaching the Coaches” (pdf document)

And these audio seminars:

* The Role of Medical Drugs in Human Illness

* Longevity One: The Mind-Body Connection

* Longevity Two: The Nutritional Factors

(All the audio presentations are mp3 files and the documents and books are pdf files. You download the files upon purchase. There is no physical ship.)

What has been called The Matrix is a series of layers. These layers compose what we call Reality. Reality is not merely the consensus people accept in their daily lives. It is also a personal and individual conception of limits. It is a perception that these limits are somehow built into existence. But this is not true.

What I’ve done here is remove the lid on those perceived limits. This isn’t an intellectual undertaking. It’s a way to open up space and step on to a new road, with new power.

Jon Rappoport

Trump wins: coloring-book and Play-Doh therapy for college kids

Nov11

Trump wins: coloring-book and Play-Doh therapy for college kids

by Jon Rappoport

November 11, 2016

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

Wall Street Journal: “Colleges try to comfort students upset by Trump victory…despair over Clinton’s loss prompts ‘cry-in’ at Cornell; Play-Doh for the distraught…Dozens of students at Cornell University gathered on a major campus thoroughfare for a ‘cry-in’ to mourn the results of the 2016 election Wednesday, with school staff providing tissues and hot chocolate.”

I can hear some low-level staffer at Cornell saying, “Let’s get out there, Millie. These kids are crying. They need tissues!”

PJ Media: “…the University of Kansas reminded students via social media of the therapy dogs available for comfort every other Wednesday…’People are frustrated, people are just really sad and shocked,’ said Trey Boynton, the director of multi-ethnic student affairs at the University of Michigan…There was a steady flow of students entering Ms. Boynton’s office Wednesday. They spent the day sprawled around the center, playing with Play-Doh and coloring in coloring books, as they sought comfort and distraction.”

Tufts, Cornell, the University of Michigan—schools for high-performing students. Or they were. I don’t know what they are now. Daycare centers for toddlers? Obviously, regression to an earlier stage of development is a mind-control op favored by these institutions.

Maybe a Michigan alumnus with deep pockets could lay out some serious cash to build a giant dome shaped like a womb, where the kids could gather and curl up during cloudy days.

“You went to the U of Michigan? Great football school.”

“I wouldn’t know. I was in utero for four years.”

Perhaps this is a clue: “…a national survey by the American Institutes for Research (AIR)” has discovered that “[t]wenty percent of U.S. college students completing four-year degrees—and 30 percent of students earning two-year degrees…are unable to estimate if their car has enough gasoline to get to the next gas station or calculate the total cost of ordering office supplies…[or] compare ticket prices or calculate the cost of a sandwich and a salad from a menu.”

How do these geniuses graduate?

“Hold up ten fingers. Very good. Here’s your diploma.”

“What do I do now?”

“Pay back your student loan.”

“I can’t tell how much I owe.”

“Don’t worry. That’s probably a good thing.”

Arrested intellectual development goes hand in hand with arrested emotional development.

Jon Rappoport