Save-planet George Soros invests in coal

by Jon Rappoport

December 2, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

Breitbart reporter Steve Milloy has the story (“The New King Coal: George Soros”, 8/17/2015):

“I predicted…that the left wasn’t going to kill off the coal industry so much as it was going to steal it. That prediction is already becoming true courtesy of billionaire George Soros.”

“U.S. Securities and Exchange Act filings indicate that Soros has purchased an initial 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and 553,200 shares of Arch Coal, the two largest publicly traded U.S. coal companies. As pointed out last week, both companies have been driven perilously close to bankruptcy by the combination of President Obama’s ‘war on coal’ and inexpensive natural gas brought on by the hydrofracturing revolution.”

“Less than a year ago the Soros’ Climate Policy Initiative issued a major report concluding that the world could save $1.8 trillion over the next two decades by transitioning away from coal. The report referred to coal reserves as ‘stranded assets’ that were losing value as they were no longer needed…What a difference a few months makes, especially when those months have seen coal company stocks fall to fire sale prices…”

Instead of the ever-popular pump and dump strategy for making money, this is dump and then pump. Make coal look worthless, then buy it up. Then take the stock price up.

The Climate Change tap dance features all sorts of $$ deals, and as yet the really huge ones are lurking behind the curtain. In the meantime, we can see a few of the out-front hustles.

There is the case of Tom Steyer, hedge-fund billionaire. Alatheia Larsen of newsbusters has that story (“Green Billionaire Tom Steyer, Squeezing Climate Panic for Profit”, 7/10/15):

“Tom Steyer’s concern for the environment and almost religious devotion to promoting green energy appear to be targeting another kind of green…Alternative Energy wasn’t always Steyer’s focus. He only began attacking coal power in 2011…Meanwhile in Australia, the hedge fund that Steyer started and ran until at least 2013, Farallon Capital Management, was busy finalizing a transaction to create what is on track to become one of Australia’s largest coal mining operations. This deal increased coal production in Australia by a staggering 70 million tons…Steyer divested from Farallon in 2014 after saying that he could not reconcile it with his current personal beliefs about climate change. Also, conveniently after he had made a fortune.”

Nice work if he could get it, and he could.

Several years ago, I wrote a piece about Al Gore’s good fortune as a climate-change god.

Here is an excerpt:

In 2001, Al Gore was worth less than $2 million. Now, in 2012, it’s estimated he’s locked up a nice neat $100 million.

How did he do it? Well, he invested in 14 green companies, who inhaled — via loans, grants and tax relief — somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion from the federal government to go greener.

Therefore, Gore’s investments paid off, because the government was providing massive cash backup to those companies. It’s nice to have federal friends in high places.

For example, Gore’s investment firm at one point held 4.2 million shares of an outfit called Iberdrola Renovables, which was building 20 wind farms across the United States.

Iberdrola was blessed with $1.5 billion from the federal government for the work which, by its own admission, saved its corporate financial bacon. Every little bit helps.

Then there was a company called Johnson Controls. It makes batteries, including those for electric cars. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management (GIM) (twitter search), doubled its holdings in Johnson Controls in 2008, when shares cost as little $9 a share. GIM sold when shares cost $21 to $26 — before the market for electric-car batteries fell on its head.

For a while, the going was good. To make it go good, Johnson Controls had been bolstered by $299 million dropped at its doorstep by the Administration of President Barack Obama.

On the side, Gore has been giving speeches on the end of life as we know it on planet Earth, for as much as $175,000 a pop. (It isn’t really on the side. Gore is constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up.

—end excerpt—

The save-the-planet cash registers are ringing. And you can bet that the future configuration of cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and “reparations” paid out from developed to undeveloped countries will funnel endless cash into elite hands—while cutting energy production for the planet and putting more people into a state of poverty.

We’re just seeing the tip of the $$ iceberg.

Finally, here is a quote from Princeton physicist, William Happer (Climate Depot, 1/22/15, mirrored here: “A Noted Physicist Speaks Out”):

“…the jihad against atmospheric carbon dioxide. Like its predecessors, this cause has generated plenty of sanctimonious slogans: ‘intergenerational justice’, ‘saving the planet’, ‘sustainability’, ‘negligible carbon footprints’. In reality, the cause has brought ugly, bird-killing windmills, which have replaced the psalmist’s ‘cattle on a thousand hills’; hapless native peoples have been expelled from their from ancestral lands, sometimes at gunpoint, so wealthy corporations and foundations could claim to be saving the planet, at no small profit to themselves; fraud in the trading of carbon credits has cheated honest taxpayers. But for this cause, as for most of its predecessors, the end justifies the means. Policies to ‘stop climate change’ are based on climate models that completely failed to predict the lack of warming for the past two decades. Observational data show clearly that the predictions of unacceptable warming by more carbon dioxide are wrong…policies designed to save the planet from more carbon dioxide are based on failed computer models.”

Profits for “the right people,” however, aren’t failing.

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.

Abortion and population: an open secret

Dec1

Abortion and population: an open secret

by Jon Rappoport

December 1, 2015

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

There are various estimates of the number of US abortions performed since 1973, when the US Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade. Most estimates are in the range of 54 million.

The website, abort73.com, offers statistics on abortions in the US. These figures are taken from two sources: the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute (AGI):

“Women between the ages of 20-24 obtained 32.9% of all abortions in 2011; women between 25-29 obtained 24.9% (CDC).”

“Women in their 20’s have the highest abortion rates. (CDC)”

“51% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25; women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all U.S. abortions, and teenagers obtain 18% (AGI).”

Now let’s look at a US birth statistic. WebMD, May 5, 2015 (“U.S. Birth Rate Hovers at All-Time Low, CDC Reports”):

“Birth rates for women in their 20s declined to record lows in 2013…”

It doesn’t take a complicated analysis to show that the declining birth rate for women in their 20s is connected to the number of abortions in that same group.

Yes, there are certainly other reasons for declining fertility in both women and men, including the presence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment; but the link between abortion and declining birth rate, as revealed above, couldn’t be more obvious, and it shows that men and women are still able to make babies.

So why isn’t this link between abortion and declining birth rate mentioned, highlighted, and discussed widely in mainstream news reports? The answer to that is also obvious:

Abortion is part of a different agenda.

Officially, reporters are supposed to bring up abortion in the context of a woman’s right to choose, or as a long-accepted practice currently opposed by some recalcitrant traditionalists, or as a subject that has provoked violence. And that’s it.

Linking abortion to declining birth rate is “off-topic.” It could make the reporter seem like an opponent of abortion. It could “engender the wrong perception.” It could cause unfavorable publicity for media outlets. Therefore, don’t touch it.

Mainstream journalism is, in many cases, reporting by agenda. The writer or broadcaster knows which agenda he is supposed to represent. Therefore, he fits his facts into one of those compartments. Or, if the facts won’t fit any of the favored compartments, he opts out altogether. He moves on to another story.

If pressed in a private conversation (and I have done this with reporters over the years), he’ll mention “uncomfortable facts” or “misleading facts.”

By “misleading,” he means: his audience will get the wrong idea. His audience will infer that he, the reporter, has “wandered off the reservation,” is now “a loose cannon,” is a “lone wolf,” is no longer reliable. Much worse, the reporter’s editor will begin looking at him in a different way. “Why is he submitting this story? Doesn’t he know he’s asking for trouble? Is he shifting his overall political position? Is he trying to drag me (the editor) into a controversy? Doesn’t he understand our established boundaries?”

Nobody from the publisher’s penthouse makes a call to squash the story. The word doesn’t come down from on high. It doesn’t need to. Everything is settled at ground-level. If the reporter won’t play ball, he’s relegated to filing stories on flower shows and fund-raiser picnics, or he’s out the door with a black mark next to his name. The call from the penthouse is the rare exception. In most cases, the people who restore order are the editors who thoroughly understand the subject of agendas.

Abortion? Declining birth rate among women in their 20s? The connection is as obvious as the nose on your face. But “obvious” doesn’t add up to a published story, not when it crosses firmly established lines.

The news business has always worked this way, but these days, the pressure is at all-time levels, because so many readers and viewers can’t, or refuse to, make proper distinctions. If they sniff the faintest possibility that one of their sacred premises might, in any conceivable universe, be receiving an indirect poke in the ribs, they start screaming.

Education being what it is now, Adoring or Screaming appear to be the only two options.

That’s why intelligent people, millions of them, are deserting mainstream news for alternatives. They see no reason to participate in an operation that panders to lunatics.

Meanwhile, mainstream news outlets are pushing the same old boulders up the same old hill, their employees panting and praying that their efforts will produce paychecks that sustain them into retirement. Many of them won’t make it.

Jon Rappoport

If Obama gave a different speech about Planned Parenthood

Nov30

If Obama gave a different speech about Planned Parenthood

by Jon Rappoport

November 30, 2015

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

Naturally, in the wake of the Planned Parenthood shooting, Obama made another call for gun confiscation. Any one of us could have written his speech. Very predictable.

But suppose, seized with a desire to tell more of the truth, he gave the following speech instead:

“Hi, folks, this is your President, making the clubhouse turn in my two-terms as your esteemed leader. I’ve decided I want some props for what I’ve really been doing in office, as opposed to what some of you think I’ve been doing. Therefore, let’s go to the subject of guns.

“This Planned Parenthood shooting? Do you actually believe this is the only recent event I could have seized on to promote my agenda? Wow. Come on. What’s wrong with you folks? For example, I’ve got a story right here from Reuters, dated November 28, about the arrest of a suspect in a New Orleans blow-up. Let me read a few lines.

‘A suspect in a shooting at a New Orleans park last Sunday that wounded 17 people is in police custody, authorities said on Saturday. The suspect, Joseph “Moe” Allen, 32, has declined to give detectives a statement, the New Orleans Police Department said in a Twitter post. Police on Friday named Allen a suspect in the shooting at the Bunny Friend Playground. Police have said gunfire erupted on Sunday between two groups when hundreds of people gathered at an unauthorized block party and for the filming of an impromptu music video. Police have said the shooting appeared to be gang-related. One of the victims is 10 years old and most of those injured were young, they said. Authorities plan to charge Allen with 17 counts of attempted first-degree murder. Police said on Friday he is believed to be one of several suspects involved in the shoot-out.’

“That’s a good one, right? Seventeen counts of attempted first-degree murder. Why haven’t I mentioned that one? Now, I know what some of you are going to say—the suspect is black, some of the victims are gang members, and I don’t want to publicize black crime.

“But you’re missing the subtle point. Screw in your brains real tight to understand this. The official narrative about black crime is that it’s caused by, let’s call it the environment in inner cities—and of course, racism. Right? Well, if I highlighted the suspect in the New Orleans shooting, I’d be disturbing that narrative, see? Suddenly I’d be changing it to: this guy is horrible and let’s take away all the guns, including those in the inner cities. I’m not about to do that.

“Let me go over that again, for those of you who are dim bulbs. Let me boil it down. Crazy lone white guy with a gun spraying bullets around? That equals blame, guilt, mental illness, and therefore, take all the guns away. Black guy with a gun spraying bullets all around? That equals ‘we have to do something about conditions in the inner cities’ and racism. Does that make things a little clearer?

“There are different narratives for different situations. It’s nothing personal, it’s just business. So don’t get your panties in a twist. Relax.

“Instead of the shooter at Planned Parenthood, I could have given a speech about yet another situation. Can you guess what it is? Chicago. Do you know that the tally of gunshot victims in Chicago, so far in 2015, is 2,724? Wow. Pretty wild, right? Can you guess that most of these victims are black, and that most of the shooters are black? But all those folks fit into a different narrative on a national level. They don’t become the poster children for ‘take away all the guns from everybody.’ They just don’t. For that message, I need one white shooter going nuts in Colorado.

“This is how the game works. Why can’t you see that? Plus, and this is something you should keep quiet, I don’t want to draw too much attention to the inner cities and their problems, because then it would come out that all these Globalist trade treaties gutted jobs in those areas—and of course I’m the number one proponent in the world for trade treaties, like the TPP, the one that’s coming up for a vote now.

“Oops. But again, this is all about the cost of doing business. In this case, I mean my business, because I was put in office to move Globalism forward. Can’t you grasp that? Why is this such a mystery? How naïve can you people be?

“I certainly wasn’t put in office to ‘extend equality,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean. That was just the cover story. Come on, get with it. Look at the American landscape these days. Do you see more equality?

“I know this may be hard to swallow, but things are worse in the inner cities…and wait for it, I’ve given up on the inner cities. They’re good for one thing: creating unrest and violence. That’s it. So regardless of what I’m saying about black lives, how much do they really matter to me? I mean, look, I could have forwarded just one item for the past seven years—the growing of food in vast empty lots, urban food gardens and farms, and with that one program I could have done more good for those folks than anything I’ve been generalizing about. Don’t you think I know that? I’m a smart guy. Think of it—three thousand, four thousand flourishing food gardens in the inner cities of America. I could have done that. It would have been a real revolution called self-sufficiency. Good clean food for all. But I didn’t do that. Why not?

“Like every other American President, I’m an agenda guy. I have my agendas on a silver platter that’s handed to me and I go with that. Different narratives for different agendas. It’s actually pretty simple.

“We, the people who run the day-to-day stuff for the real power players…we don’t want self-sufficiency. We want dependence on the government. That’s our job, to foster that. I can give away cell phones like there’s no tomorrow, but I can’t promote, with vigor, one urban farm in an inner city. That’s just the way it is. And to be frank, guns and shootings in inner cities do, in fact, promote dependency, because what else do those residents have to fall back on, in their dreams, when bullets are whistling around their heads?

“This isn’t rocket science. This is Clinton, Bush, me, and every other President. We’re in the political party which, if it had a name, would be called: the screw-things-up-worse party. On purpose. Make chaos, then bring in tighter order. Everybody should know that by now.

“And as far as guns are concerned, we need enough of them on the streets in the hands of people who want to fire them, so we can keep the pot boiling. Honestly, isn’t that as obvious as the nose on your face?

“Anyhow, that’s all for the moment, I have to get back to the Climate Change summit. Or as I call it, the Spare Change Summit, about 50 trillion dollars of it, diverted from some to others, and in the process making regular folks all over the planet worse off than they are now, because total energy production will drop like a stone when we have our way. This isn’t an accident or a miscalculation, in case you’re laboring under yet another delusion. This is an agenda designed to do what it does. Get it? I hope so. For once, I’d like to be recognized for what I’m actually doing, instead of for my public persona.

“But maybe that’s too much to ask for. By the way, stop writing me asking for winter coats. It’s warm, warm, warm everywhere, even when it’s cold.

“—Wait. I thought I was done, but one more thing occurred to me. It has to do with those smart alecks who say I should give up my guns …meaning I shouldn’t have all those heavily armed Secret Service people around wherever I go. I don’t mind the sentiment, but again, it’s the naïve presumption that gets under my skin. How stupid are you people? I and others like me have to be the last people with guns when all other guns are taken away. That’s the whole goal of gun confiscation: the people in charge have the firepower. And of course, the criminals get to keep their weapons because you can’t stop them from finding sources of supply. And like I said, we need criminals with guns because they’ll shoot them whenever they want to—and this promotes a desirable climate of fear.

“One last confession: I have dreams at night, glorious dreams, in which all sorts of ‘liberals’ who want to disarm the populace are in a bad situation, on streets where bad guys are coming toward them with guns, and the liberals are out of luck. And in those dreams, I ask myself, How far can I push those liberals before they turn into advocates for guns? And the answer seems to be: there is no limit. They’ll die on the street. And do you know why? This is the wonderful thing. They’ll die because they’re too scared to shout: ‘I want a gun!’ That’s all. That’s their bottom line. They’d rather die than shout, ‘Give me a gun!’ This is how low the survival instinct will sink just to avoid public criticism. It’s a beautiful, beautiful thing. I wake up from those dreams laughing. I really do. I mean, you have to laugh. It’s unavoidable. If you were in my position, with all that firepower guarding you, wouldn’t you see the joke? I think you would. I hope so. Because if you couldn’t see the joke, you’d be so stupid you wouldn’t have understood anything I’ve been saying in this speech. Bye for now.”

Jon Rappoport

The stage-play of Self and the global mystery

Nov28

The stage-play of Self and the global mystery

by Jon Rappoport

November 28, 2015

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

Consider that everything happening on planet Earth is an enormous stage play.

The mystery is: what is the theme? What is the payoff? What is the climax?

And even more deeply, what is the role of Self, the individual, in this play?

The key phrase is “in this play.” Because most people are, indeed, inside the play. They have roles. They may not be aware of the parts they’re playing, but that doesn’t change the situation or the dilemma.

How unusual would it be if, in a theater, in a city, citizens were led on to a stage to audition for parts—and the director said, “Well, we want you in this production, but we can’t show you the script. We can’t tell you your role. You’ll just have to feel your way along. Trust us, we know what we’re doing. And by the way, you’ll be playing your part for the rest of your life…”

Self doesn’t want this arrangement. Self wants something else, a way to see what the play is, a way to climb out of it.

Where to start? How to begin? What is the exit strategy?

That strategy depends on imagination. It can’t go anywhere without it.

The long-running Earth stage-play has severe limits. It tries to impose its energy-depleting plot-lines on Self.

But with imagination, a person can conceive of a new play, and create it, and centrally participate in it.

In fact, Self has been waiting for just such an opportunity. The cells of his body and brain, his thoughts, his energies have been waiting.

However, waiting doesn’t do it.

Connecting with one’s own imagination does do it. It initiates a cascade of positive ideas and emotions, which in turn feed back into imagination, making it even more powerful.

Together with an active and personal commitment, a new stage-play can come into being.

This is why I developed many imagination exercises and techniques for my collection, Exit From The Matrix.

Here are the contents of the collection:

First, my new 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.

Jon Rappoport

If Obama gave this speech instead

Nov28

If Obama gave this Thanksgiving day speech instead

by Jon Rappoport

November 28, 2015

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

What Obama actually said: “Nearly four centuries after the Mayflower set sail, the world is still full of pilgrims – men and women who want nothing more than the chance for a safer, better future for themselves and their families. What makes America America is that we offer that chance.” Barack Obama, Weekly Address to the nation, urging Americans to welcome Syrian immigrants.

Pilgrims. Ah yes. You know, the Thanksgiving connection. And not to worry, the White House assures us that the Justice Dept., Homeland Security, and Scrooge McDuck will scrutinize every Syrian coming into the US before granting “asylum.”

But suppose Obama gave another speech, a quite different speech instead, for the sake of clarity:

“Look, when I talk about refugees coming here from ‘war-torn’ Syria, I’m really referring to how my administration helped tear down Syria by backing ISIS. Understand that. We gave them money and weapons. In fact, we played a major role in creating ISIS in the first place. Everybody knows that, it just hasn’t reached the level of the network evening news. But I thought you should be aware. That’s the main difference between the Syrian immigrants and the Pilgrims. We didn’t go over to England in the 17th century and rip up that country, forcing people to come over here.

“And while I’m at it, I may as well admit that not all those folks coming here from Syria are fleeing war. Some of them just want to attack us. They’re ISIS people—and we played an instrumental role in creating them.

“So before you go all limp with sympathy and generosity and humanitarian ding-dong, welcoming people into your home, realize the facts. This is an op. I and my people ramped up the war in Syria, and the overflow of immigrants is the result. Get it? I mean, come on. Can’t you people think?

“In the waning days of my Presidency, I want to gain some admiration for what I’ve really been doing, instead of what you think I’ve been doing. So stop with the ‘huddled masses yearning to be free’ stuff. That’s not it, okay? That was never it, during my Presidency.

“As far as Mexico is concerned, and the flood of people coming here, do you really believe I don’t understand the consequences? Do you think I’m that dense? These people and their children will be Democrat voters on into the future. That’s one thing. And they’ll put tremendous destructive pressure on the economies of the various states where they wind up. Stop pretending that isn’t true. Also, they’ll swamp social services. That’s already happening. They’ll take jobs from Americans. I get all that. I know that. I’m a smart guy. I’m not the messiah, I’m really not.

“So, try to track with me, please. If I know all this stuff, it follows that I’m doing it on purpose. Right? I want all these consequences. Why in the world would you think otherwise? Are you that naïve? Are you on drugs? Try to get where I’m coming from. I want to induce chaos. I’m that guy.

“Another thing. The TPP? You’ve heard of it? The enormous Globalist trade deal I’m pushing through to completion? It’ll send more American jobs out of the country. That’s what all the trade deals do. They reduce employment at home. I’m heavily in favor of the trade treaties. Therefore? Think. Come on. What’s my real position here? I want those consequences. More poverty at home, more chaos. This isn’t high-IQ stuff.

“I tell you, it’s a real pain in the ass when people can’t admire you for what you’re doing. The whole religious-adoration thing, early on in my career? That was nice. It was a plus. And it was necessary at the time. But now, I’m a two-term President. I’ve been through it. I don’t need that anymore. Now I need recognition for what I’ve really been up to.

“Clinton had his way of producing chaos. So did Bush. So do I. We’re erasing one America and installing another America. Is that so hard to see? I could go on for hours about what I’ve really been up to these past seven years, but I don’t want to overwhelm your tender sensibilities.”

—end of speech—

Sometimes we need a breath of fresh air. No President will ever deliver a speech like this, but we can do it for him. And then realize that, for once, he’s telling the truth.

Through us.

Back in the mists of time, the “through us” part was put forward as the whole idea behind representative (and severely limited) government.

Even if it was a fiction then, it was, in its words, a good idea. Better than most.

Why should people continue to make excuses for Presidents? Why not translate what they’re saying into what they really mean?

Jon Rappoport

Planned Parenthood shooting agenda already set in stone

Nov27

Planned Parenthood shooting agenda already set in stone

by Jon Rappoport

November 27, 2015

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

6:07pm Pacific Time, Friday, November 27. Before the name of the Colorado Springs shooter is released, before the final report is in on how many victims there are, before we know any of the facts and lies, the after-agenda is already set:

Take away the guns.

Planned Parenthood is a wonderful organization. Recent criticism, those bothersome videos—who cares? They’re selling baby parts for profit? Those videos were edited and omitted proper context (non-denial denial?). The folks at PP do a great job, and the proof of that is that they were attacked.

Right-wing domestic terrorism is the greatest threat to America. Forget Syrians. That was yesterday. Old news.

Hillary supports PP. PP is good (again, they were just attacked). Therefore, elect Hillary.

How dare anyone criticize abortion. Critics of abortion attack PP and kill people. (Elect Hillary)

Law-enforcement responded quickly and effectively. They acted as team members in the “war on terrorism.”

The stories with these talking points and the news shows with these talking points are already in the pipeline. If emerging data somehow contradict the talking points, too bad. Too late. It doesn’t matter.

The shooting could have happened in a way that supports these talking points; therefore the shooting did happen in that way, even if it didn’t.

Jon Rappoport

Logic: the student’s edge, the investigator’s gold

Nov25

Logic: the student’s edge, the investigator’s gold

by Jon Rappoport

November 25, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“The discovery of logic was enormous. It changed civilization. It also equipped professional deceivers with a new level of understanding about their own mind-bending work. Today, the investigator needs a knowledge of logic as never before. He also needs to engage in a process of analysis that incorporates more than the stark rules Aristotle once laid down. He needs to know logic’s first cousins…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

This article has two parts. To fully understand what I’m discussing, both parts are essential.

Part One:

Twenty-four-hundred years ago, in the ancient city of Athens, something unprecedented happened.

Three men changed the course of the world by introducing the discipline of logic: Socrates, Plato, and finally, Arisotle, who codified the principles of reasoning in The Organon.

Since then, all the way up the present day, mathematicians and philosophers have added to that store of knowledge, through intensive research.

In many countries, logic used to be an integral part of secondary education. It was often presented as a series of fallacies or errors one needed to avoid while thinking through a problem or assessing an argument.

Now, however, like the dinosaur, it has disappeared.

Why has it vanished from secondary-school curricula? Perhaps for the same reason fewer and fewer students study Latin or Greek. Logic is deemed irrelevant. It’s “old-fashioned.” It can be replaced by minor attempts to teach young people how to “think critically.”

That is simply not true.

We used to understand the formal meaning of the word “argument.” It was a presentation in which the speaker or writer aimed to move from a first set of ideas, along a specific, path, to a conclusion. In order to understand and evaluate an argument, one had to be able to spot departures from the rules of logic. More basically, one had to be able to follow the course of reasoning, like a stream, and not lose the way.

Today’s students are generally lacking in that tracking ability. They often don’t even realize an argument is being made. Rather, they read a chapter in a book and pick and choose what they feel are the most interesting bits of information. They drift; they founder.

They see themselves as consumers in a marketplace of ideas and words, and they buy the most attractive pieces.

This strategy breaks down the farther the student moves along the road of education.

As a former teacher, I have seen students who were, in fact, equipped with a background in logic. In every course they took, they possessed an edge that was enviable.

Logic underlies academic subjects. It is the rock on which those subjects are built. Physics, math, biology, history, languages are taught on the basis that a rational approach to the material is essential. And logic is the essence of rationality.

At best, students pick up logic piecemeal, haphazardly. The obvious step is to teach it as its own subject. If this is done, students suddenly are ahead of the game. They have an indispensable tool for thinking lucidly in any situation, in any classroom, using any text, taking any exam, writing any essay.

It is, so to speak, the difference between mapping a large area by laboriously walking the land, and filming it from the air with high-resolution cameras.

Academic achievement, as the degree of difficulty grows, is all about mastering larger and larger quantities of information. This is the primary challenge. Armed with logic, a student can win this challenge, because he sees and follows the underlying architecture around which all information is organized.

A youngster can take apart an old clock. He can examine the pieces and figure out what each piece does. But then, if he comprehends the structure, the logic of the clock, he can go further. He can understand, more deeply, how all the parts combine to produce the clock that tells time. At that point, his knowledge is unshakable.

This is what the study of logic accomplishes.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed — which includes Jon’s Logic And Analysis course, click here.)

Part Two:

With everything that the study of logic produces, there are limits.

We not only live in an age of information, we live in an age of disinformation.

When concealment and deception are official goals, an outside person who is examining facts, arguments, premises, and lines of reasoning needs to spot patterns of propaganda, cover stories, intentionally placed distractions, and purposeful omissions of vital data.

In other words, these days we are routinely dealing with spokespeople and experts who are deploying all manner of anti-logic methods, in order to persuade audiences.

This used to be called polemic. That term has dropped out of use.

We need to understand polemic as never before.

Never mind high schools; you can’t find a good course of study on propaganda and polemic at any college or university in the world. I make that statement, because colleges are compromised from the get-go. They receive monies for research involving, for example, vaccines, medical drugs, mind control, climate change, advanced weapons systems, human genetics, pesticides, GMO crops. Propaganda and polemic on these subjects are everywhere. A real course on propaganda would expose the very colleges that teach it.

A professor who went full-bore on propaganda would be cut off at the knees by his administration. He would be attacked, defamed, smeared, hounded, and exiled by his bosses and his own colleagues.

Therefore, the study of disinformation falls outside the academic spectrum.

In my third Matrix collection, Power Outside The Matrix, I include a long section called Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation. It is based on my experience as a reporter over the last 30 years.

I build it on the foundation of: fleshing out and examining, in great detail, the official scenario on any subject. This is an approach that pays handsome dividends.

When you can lay out, like a map or a blueprint, the complete official scenario, you can then take it apart. You can attack its parts, one by one.

I learned how to do just that, on the fly, six years into my career as a reporter, with my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century. I came to this approach as a matter of necessity, because I was inundated with a flood of information on all sides. As soon as people became aware I was writing the book, they gave me their “best opinions” on the subject.

Those opinions ranged all the way from “virus produced in a lab” to “cosmic debris landing on Earth”—and everything in between.

At the same time, I was assembling my own discoveries re the illogical arguments government and university researchers were presenting about “the AIDS virus.”

I was also detailing, in my notes, the biases of independent journalists, who were organizing data to fit their pet causes and agendas.

And beyond any of this, I was standing in the middle of a vast muddle, because I had not yet identified the most basic premises inherent in the official scenario about HIV and AIDS. That was the real kicker. That was keeping me up at nights. I didn’t know I was missing the most basic assumptions.

In other words, I was still unconsciously buying certain official ideas about HIV and AIDS. And given that, I couldn’t move beyond a certain point. I couldn’t take the thousands of pieces of data I had and see them from the correct viewpoint. I had part of the puzzle, but not enough.

Then one day, a man who was supporting my work introduced me at a small gathering where I was delivering a speech. He made an offhand remark. It set off a string of firecrackers in my head. One explosion led to the next—and then I realized what I’d been missing.

It became clear to me—why so many people had so many ideas about AIDS.

I realize that, for many readers, my next statement will fall on deaf ears, because they don’t have all the necessary background. Nevertheless…

I realized there was no such thing as AIDS.

The suffering, pain, and death that was being called AIDS was not one thing, not one syndrome, not one disease, not one condition.

That was the first and foremost error (piece of disinformation) in the official scenario.

Now I could finish the book, and quickly. I had the deception in my hands.

I learned my lesson, which has stood me in good stead ever since. Flesh out the complete official scenario. Find all its parts. Investigate each part. Go to the most basic of all the basic assumptions in the scenario.

There is much more to say about all this, but I wanted to give you at least the flavor of analyzing disinformation about a large, large issue and a large, large false reality.

Logic helps; it is essential; but in practice, it doesn’t carry all the freight. Pushing through multiple webs of lies and half-truths and false trails is a process, and you have to engage in it, up close and personal, in order to arrive at the true foundation of the covert op.

Jon Rappoport

Dr. Starfield’s revelations: shock of shocks

Nov25

by Jon Rappoport

November 25, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

Suppose you learned that a single source in the US, every year, like clockwork, kills 225,000 people. That would be 2.25 million killings per decade.

Wouldn’t you think we’d hear about it? Wouldn’t public health agencies make a big, bigger, biggest deal about it? Wouldn’t they call it a pandemic to end all pandemics?

Can you imagine the reaction at every level of society? The insane panic? The madness in the streets? The attacks against institutions tasked with preventing such a cataclysm? The collapse of the stock market and the healthcare system? The predictions of the end of the world? The churches on roaring business highs?

Well, on July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published Dr. Barbara Starfield‘s review, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

In it, Starfield, who was a respected public health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, stated that:

* The US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.

* 106,000 deaths per year from FDA-approved medical drugs.

* 119,000 deaths per year from error-ridden treatment in hospitals.

I’m aware that independent research puts those death figures much higher, but I focus on Dr. Starfield’s work because no mainstream reporter or government official could challenge her credentials or the credentials of the journal that published her findings.

And yes, there were stories in the press at the time, in 2000. But the coverage wasn’t aggressive, and it faded out quickly.

And none of the mainstream coverage did the obvious extrapolations. We are talking about 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade. And over a MILLION deaths per decade from medicines the FDA has approved as safe and effective.

The US government is aware. You can search for an FDA page titled, “Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs)?”

It states: “Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly.” And “100,000 DEATHS yearly.” (The capital letters are the FDA’s, not mine.)

The FDA, of course, is the single federal agency responsible for certifying all medical drugs safe and effective before they are released for public use. They readily admit the human death-and- maiming devastation…but take no responsibility for it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here are excerpts from that interview.

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

NO.

Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.)

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

—end of interview excerpt—

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

Comment: Hyping death is a media industry. But it cuts two ways. The people who do the scare-propaganda also delete the uncomfortable truths, like those Dr. Starfield describes above.

As always, media are fronting for an agenda.

They are selectively inventing reality for the public.

Reality-invention is the biggest business in the world.

Jon Rappoport

The book you want to write: the life you want to invent

Nov25

The book you want to write: the life you want to invent

by Jon Rappoport

November 25, 2015

(Jon has a new work of fiction at his other blog, Outside The Reality Machine. If you want to take a wild ride, read it.)

“No one will ever map out a formula for writing a book. The formulas that already exist, and there are many of them, are pale reflections of what occurs in the writing process. They ape, in a maniacal way, what a machine would do if you loaded it up with enough information. Writing taps into, and brings life. Formulas do not. There are mysteries that can only be penetrated by writing a book.” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

I’ve had several clients who are writers. They decided they had a book in them. I’m talking about fiction—as I am in this article.

Tapping the keys for the first few sentences of Chapter One is a momentous event. That’s when you’re pushing the boat out from the shore.

As your imagination swings into gear, you become aware of the space that sits out there, the space you’re going to “fill and shape.”

The world has existed for a long time, but the book is a unique event. It’s the world plus one.

Of course, some people will never finish the work. They’ll bog down in details and plans and structure. They’ll convince themselves there is one prescribed way to do the job, and they’ll decide they just can’t produce that pattern.

Through direct instruction or the “shared wisdom” of writing teachers, they’ve bought a straitjacket. It fits, but it doesn’t fit the writer in them. That’s the sad joke. The straitjacket is for a person who isn’t a writer.

Of course, I’m not talking about spelling, grammar, or syntax. Kids are supposed to master those basics in junior high and high school.

It’s often said the best advice for a student is, “Write about what you know.” Ah yes. The pearl. Well, that certainly works if a person, in fact, wants to write about what he knows. But many other people really want to write about what they don’t know—or more precisely, what they haven’t imagined yet.

And even if you want to write about your life and past, you’re going to find out imagination is a major part of the process (*), because words and sentences and paragraphs don’t fit reality like a glove. Good writers can make you believe their words are exact replications of events, but that’s an illusion. That’s their brand of magic.

(*) [For more on using your imagination in creative writing, see my “A Writer’s Tutorial” in my audio collection Power Outside The Matrix.]

Even the old hard-boiled curmudgeon, Hemingway, was inventing something that looked like realism. He was hammering out sentences that conspired to produce that flat laconic effect. He had his own magic wand.

The ways imagination can operate—that’s what you want to discover and experience.

And hopefully, you’ll come to understand your imagination can move in unique currents.

Then you’ll have the engine and the fuel to start and finish a book.

It’s not a walk in the park; if that’s what you want, just take a walk in a park. Writing a book is the kind of commitment that expands your understanding of what a commitment is. It changes your life.

Fortunately, I had only one writing teacher during my 16 years as a student. He was a well-known poet and translator. He was a decent teacher because he didn’t hand out advice. He just let us work. I don’t recall him ever saying, “Write what you know.”

Good lines of writing stimulate creative adrenaline in the reader. They bypass the usual filters of perception. They awaken the reader to some X quality.

At that moment, he isn’t holding a book in his hands. He’s in an unforeseen space that blots out all other spaces.

Most beginning writers want to communicate big ideas. They conceive of these ideas as generalities. Then they spend page after page piling up more generalities like gooey layers of an ungainly cake. Looking at it sitting on the dinner table, no one is happy.

The solution to this problem isn’t merely substituting details, because details can also make an unfriendly tower.

A book isn’t a mechanical proposition.

When I was 11 years old, in 1949, I read a children’s book that took me away. It said, under the surface, “Do you want to be this? Do you want to be a writer?” Six years later, I said yes. Recently, I went back and read that book. I had to laugh, because I saw how much I had “supplied” to the author, how much I’d given him. I had been writing most of his work in my own mind. But that was all right. He brought me the first wave.

Do you want to write a book?

Don’t build a machine out of a thousand facts. You’ll find ways of folding in details in the caverns of your chapters.

You don’t really have a book in you. You have the capacity to invent a book.

If the prospect of inventing one doesn’t move you, either go on to another line of work or figure out how to find your imagination. You left it somewhere.

Which is like forgetting you’re going to get married. When you walk down the aisle, hopefully you’ll wake up when you say I DO.

If a person recovers his imagination, he can write a book. He can do lots of things. He can do anything.

Through a process no one will ever be able to fathom, he can work his way up the side of a wave while standing on the top, he can lug up and down the wave suitcases of details and sprinkle them where he wants to.

And he’ll write a book.

Over the years, I’ve made several lists of recommended books. This one is for stimulating imagination, and for illustrating vastly different ways of writing brilliantly. In no particular order:

A VOYAGE TO ARCTURUS/David Lindsay

THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY/GK Chesterton

RETURN FROM THE STARS/Stanislaw Lem

STEPPENWOLF/Hermann Hesse

THE COLOSSUS OF MAROUSSI/Henry Miller

COLLECTED POEMS/Dylan Thomas

TENDER BUTTONS/Gertrude Stein

MONA LISA OVERDRIVE/William Gibson

EINSTEIN’S DREAMS/Alan P Lightman

If you can read these nine books and say nothing new has entered your bloodstream, you need a serious engine overhaul.

Your book, the one you want to write—you have to find a way in. You have to find a way to speak. Your point of view has to be more than surgical, more than remote observation.

And this is where imagination comes into play.

How, for example, do you describe the wind on a lake when you were five years old? Do you try to recall every detail of its effects? Do you measure, in memory, the width of each ripple?

You think about what you were doing and feeling when you were sitting on the edge of the lake watching the ripples. You write about the “poetics” of the situation. And to make that happen, you invent.

Memory is just the beginning of the process.

Actually, even as you were living your life at five years old, you were imagining. You weren’t just seeing.

At any age, what you perceive, divorced from imagination, is almost nothing. It’s invisible.

As a writer, you need to grasp this. When you were five, perception and imagination mingled into a whole. Now, you’re conscious of something else. Your power of invention.

So invent.

Proliferate.

Then much, much later, edit.

When writers claim they have distilled a memory down to its essence, they’re selling you a bill of goods. It’s their amusing way of masking invention. There is no rock bottom.

Every culture has its creation myths. They purport to describe how the world came into existence. But they’re poems. They were launched out of the wellspring of imagination.

So imagine.

Create.

Improvise.

Making it up will catch far more reality in its net than trying to remember everything.

Yes, the past is real, but as a writer you’re not a devotee of perfect recall. You’re an explorer who has built his own ship and you’re riding it out on to seas you’re creating.

The superhighway of history tells a story of the unshackling of imagination.

By the second half the 20th century, it became clear to many people that imagination had become unhooked from ideologies, metaphysical clap-trap, the pretensions of psychology, and the juvenile materialistic philosophy coming out of science.

Finally, after centuries of work, imagination stood alone for all to see.

But few were ready to look.

Instead, they dove back into a jungle of spiritual symbology. They dove into a hodge-podge of resurrected ethnicity. They grasped at “revivals” of ancient cosmologies. They embraced futile and destructive fundamentalisms.

Nevertheless, IMAGINATION HAD EMERGED AS THE NORTH STAR.

It was apparent that many metaphysical meanderings which had occurred since the dawn of time were CREATIONS OF IMAGINATION, pure and simple.

So why not admit it?

Why not confess that imagination is there for the individual? Infinitely.

Well, people were still obsessed with wrapping the individual in various disguises: “the individual is just one atom in the super-atom of cosmic ding-dong.”

But there it was, imagination, the exposed gold centerpiece of alchemy. Finally. And people said, “Let’s go back to lead.”

But…no matter. Because the mystery is out in the open.

For those who can see it.

They will discover that every longing pointing to cosmos, illumination, enlightenment, transcendence is answered and fulfilled through imagination deployed.

This is a true spiritual tradition of planet Earth. It has been buried, repressed, sidetracked, and misidentified—but now here it is.

In a very real sense, it was always the goal. It was always the thing to be distilled out of the dross of history—and out of the rambling life of an individual.

When my publisher, Bonnie Lange, gave me the green light to write The Secret Behind Secret Societies (**), I realized I would have a chance to explore this whole area.

(**) [The Secret Behind Secret Societies is included as a bonus (.pdf file) in my audio collections Exit From The Matrix and Power Outside The Matrix.]

The first part of my work was to strip imagination of useless and distracting accoutrement. The second part of my work was to show people its scope and range and power, and what can happen when you use it intensely, without limits. (***)

(***) [Both parts are presented in full detail in my audio collection Exit From The Matrix.]

And that’s what I’ve been doing for the past 15 years with NoMoreFakeNews and OutsideTheRealityMachine, and what I continue to do, come hell or high water.

It pays homage to untold numbers of artists on this planet who have carried the torch, since the first cave man scratched the first drawing on the wall of a cave and declared: reality is not enough; I make reality.

That’s the secret. It was, then, and it is, now, for those of us willing to know it.

Jon Rappoport

Beyond structures, beyond one space and time

Nov22

Beyond structures, beyond one space and time

by Jon Rappoport

November 22, 2015

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

“There is a form of mind control in which very workable patterns are taken too far. They become obsessions. They become filters through which a person sees everything. Then the fire of life cools and goes out. Then the intelligence of a person works against him. My work is about showing people there is something beyond these patterns. What people are hoping for and wishing for is beyond these mind-patterns, whether they know it or not. I don’t care whether they live in America, Australia, Canada, Malaysia, India, Peru, or the North Pole. They’re hoping for a kind of spontaneity and energy that transforms dead and repetitive days and nights into burning joy.” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

I recently wrote a piece about my collaboration, in the 1980s, with a brilliant hypnotherapist named Jack True. Jack discovered that patients, under hypnosis, would visit “separate areas of space and time,” if he asked the right questions.

In this way, the patients went beyond the consensus structure of the “the one and only continuum” we take for granted. In doing so, they gained a new sense of their own power.

In various ways, science fiction authors have presented this “going beyond” factor. Two of the best were Philip Dick and his early inspiration, AE Van Vogt. Of course, most readers view their novels as a form of exciting entertainment, and they don’t bother pinpointing the source of the excitement.

What sits in the subconscious is not at all what psychoanalysts have theorized about. The contents of the subconscious are far more adventurous: different spaces and times—many of them. And the “shapes” of these spaces and times are not identical. Clock time and geometric space are, in a sense, a default setting. They are what survives after the subconscious goes to sleep.

In one of our interviews, Jack True remarked: “Turn everything backwards and ask, ‘What kind of space-time continuum do we all need, in order to get along?’ The answer will give you the space-time we have, the lowest common denominator. But people can, on some level, sense there is much more.

“They visit these ‘other islands’ in dreams. When they are asleep, they leave the system and venture out into locations where they feel much more alive. Why is that? This is a very important question. They experience a remarkable spontaneity. It’s electric. It’s unhindered by pattern. It’s infused by their own deep desires. And no amount of convincing in their waking lives is going to stop them from having these dreams. Interpreting the dreams afterwards waters down the experience itself. Consciousness doesn’t accept one space and time. Consciousness, freed from cultural patterns, reaches out into many continua…”

We are fascinated with structures and systems because they work, and because some of us feel an aesthetic attraction to them.

They work until you want to do something different.

Many people want to grab a structure and pull it around them and sit there like a bird in a cage. They want to go from A to B to C and feel the satisfaction of knowing it works every time.

Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong at all.

But go into a corporation and say you want to teach them creativity and they’ll say, “What’s the system?”

Once, at a party, I told a personnel chief at a company, “The system is to stand on your head.”

“Literally?” he said.

“No. That would be too easy. People would find a system for that. But figuratively, that’s what you want to get people to do.”

He scratched his head.

“I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said.

“Exactly,” I said. “That’s where we start. I say something and you don’t understand. Then we have a chance.”

“What are you?” he said. “Some kind of Zen teacher?”

“No,” I said. “If I said I was, you’d pigeonhole me. I teach non-systems.”

He laughed in an uncomfortable way.

“We don’t operate on non-systems at the company.”

“No, but if you let three or four people do that, they might come up with a product you never dreamed of.”

That he could understand. Vaguely.

Here’s how things work at most major companies. The second-tier honchos decide it’s time for a new product. They call in the chief of production and ask him what could be done. He suggests a whiz-it 4, which is basically a whiz-it 3 with a few more bells and whistles.

The honchos give him the green light, and he goes to work. He triggers the structure he already has. He assigns compartmentalized tasks to various departments under him.

He appoints a project supervisor to oversee the whole thing.

The project supervisor pretty much knows what’s going to happen. The six departments in charge of bringing in the whiz-it 4 on time will do okay—except one key department will fail miserably, because three guys in that dept. are lazy. They find ways to delay operations. They ask meaningless questions. They let work pile up on their desks. They meddle in other people’s business.

Twelve times, the production supervisor has tried to get these idiots fired. No go.

So everybody settles down to grind of bringing in whiz 4 on time.

Structure.

Manuals, rules and regs.

This can make magic the way an ant can fly to the moon.

So long ago it was in another life, I taught private school in New York. There were six kids in my class, all boys. I was supposed to teach them math. They were all at different levels. They had no ambition to learn math. No matter what I did, they performed miserably. Add, subtract, multiply, divide, decimals, fractions—it didn’t matter. If they managed to learn something on Monday, they forgot it by Tuesday. It was rather extraordinary.

So I took them to an art museum one morning. They were as lost there as they were in the classroom. But I wasn’t. That was the key. I was already painting in a little studio downtown, and I was on fire.

So I began to talk about the paintings. The Raphael, the Vermeer, the Rembrandt. The De Kooning, the Pollock, the Gorky. I had no plan, no idea. I just talked about what they could see if they looked.

And then we walked back to school and I set them up with paints and paper and brushes and told them to go to work. I said I didn’t care what they painted. Just have a good time. Do something you like.

All of a sudden, they weren’t making trouble. They were painting. No more whining and complaining.

I walked around and watched them go at it. I pointed to this or that area and mentioned what I liked.

There was no way to measure or quantify or systematize what the kids were doing that day, but they were coming alive, out of their sloth and resentment.

Then we got back to math, and it was as if they’d all experienced an upward shift in IQ.

That night, back in my studio, I made a note in my notebook. It went something like this: Give them a non-structure, and then follow that with logic; it works.

So that was that.

There used to be something in this culture called improvisation. People understood what it was, even if they wouldn’t do it themselves. Now the word has almost vanished. Same with the word spontaneity. The moment when eye, mind, and brush meet canvas. When mind meets the new. When the inventor suddenly gets up from his chair and trots over to his workbench and starts putting pieces together.

This becomes magic because imagination jumps into the fray. The urge to invent takes the foreground.

The trouble with all these imported Asian spiritual systems now is that they have a long and distinguished history, and the history tends to infiltrate everything that’s happening. It’s venerated. You need a clean slate, a wide open space. You need Now.

You need Now, which is dry tinder to the spark of imagination.

Magic isn’t really a return to the mystical past. Alchemy was what people did in the Middle Ages to give themselves a Now, into which they could inject the flame of their imagination.

At its highest levels, it wasn’t a system. Not really.

But if you have enough history at your back and you stand away far enough, everything looks like pattern and structure and system. That’s the illusion. That’s the deception.

Systems allow people to see and also make them blind. If they can’t fold an event into a structure, then for them it isn’t there. This is very interesting. This is where all the myths of Hermes (aka Mercury) sprang from. He was the figure who flew and passed through walls and had no barriers in the space-time continuum—the tin can we call universe. So people pretended, at a deep level, that they were unable to comprehend him. He was invisible to them. He was a trickster. He toppled idols of the hidebound, rule-bound, system-bound society.

Mythologically, he ranked very high in the pantheon of the gods. There really was no reason he couldn’t be considered the king of the Olympians.

But he didn’t want the throne or the lineage. That was just another structure, erected by his god-colleagues, who were bored out of their minds and desperately needed the entertainment and distraction it could provide.

Hermes lived deep in the fire of his own imagination and speed and improvisation and spontaneous action.

He didn’t need metaphysics or cosmology. He already embodied them, and much, much more.

To him, the notion of shared, consonant, and brick-by-brick reality as the longed-for ultimate goal became an enormous joke.

The word “art,” across the full range of its meanings, is what happens when, from a platform of structure, a person takes off and discovers that consciousness doesn’t particularly want to wait around a railroad station looking at What Already Exists forever. Consciousness wants to invent what isn’t there. Consciousness wants other spaces and times.

This is why I’ve authored my collection, Exit From The Matrix. Here are its contents:

First, my new 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 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.

Jon Rappoport