The artist on trial

by Jon Rappoport

January 21, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

OutsideTheRealityMachine

Guilty! the Judge said, and it was over.

The charge? Maintaining that his work was his own, that he had done it himself, that he had made the choices and invented the words and imagined the whole thing, whatever it was, the novel, the poem, the play.

What it was, was not on trial. Nothing to do with the message. No, it was all about attribution.

Because the great spiritual merger had already taken place. The masses had undergone enlightenment, and the government had seen it—actually, seen TO it—and then declared that artists could face jail time for pretending to be what many of them said they were:

Individuals. Inventors. People who did things in their own rooms, privately, out of view, by their own means.

This was now verboten. Because it had been established that the whole human race, no one excepted, was tapping into the very same great consciousness, and whatever was in the world emanated from THAT experience.

So the judge had no need to deliberate. It was simple. This artist, whoever he was, and it didn’t matter who he was, was guilty. He claimed he had created his work. He’d insisted on it. In fact, he denied the Great Merger, said he was no part of it. He opposed it on several grounds. One, it was a fanciful delusion, and two, even if people were actually melting into one another, he didn’t have to. He could stay right where he was, in his own room, alone, and he could turn out his work.

The sin of pride. The sin of ego. Quite distasteful.

The artist was transgressing against the human race. He was by deed, word, and attitude, denying the final ascension to Unified Infinite Consciousness. He was saying no to that, over and over. He was revolting against the truth. He was spitting on the Messengers of Peace.

This needed punishment. Society had to censure him, had to deny him the right to turn out new work, unless he righteously admitted he was just a channel for it.

For example, an anonymous monk in Albania had recently published a 1000-page work titled, The Whole World Engages in Orgy. He dedicated it to the Great Spirit of Wholeness. He prostrated himself before the Akashic Warehouse From Which Information Proceeds and abluted his body with the symbolic blood of past suffering generations. He confessed openly that no word of his book came from him.

“My subconscious,” he said, “is abiding in the Oversoul, and there it asks for knowledge, and knowledge is granted.”

He made a pilgrimage to the Monument of the Eternal Smile at the Arizona Yoga Mat Hotel and Entertainment Complex and fasted for 13 days.

He titled the introduction to his opus: We’re All in This Together. He stated in no uncertain terms that we are all little dots in the sea of energy and consciousness, and art is merely an expression of that condition. Nothing more. Ever. “No one person achieves anything,” he wrote. “We must cling to that. Not only as a political fact, but as a spiritual revelation.”

He stated, “I ask nothing for my work. I abdicate ownership. I surrender. In the past, I suffered from spiritual constipation, but now I have let go.”

In his Epilog, Letting Go and Moving On, he praised Bright Day III, our new president, for his work in ushering in legislation confirming the discovery of One World Self.

“Just as government consents to new scientific discoveries,” wrote the monk, “it now affirms spiritual ones. The President is the expression of our collective thought, and therefore his election was inevitable.”

As the judge in the trial described how the monk was an example of what a real artist should be, the defendant in the case stood up and said, “Your Honor, before you pass sentence on me, I have a question. Will there be boundaries on what people, any people, can do in the privacy of their own homes? Since I’m going to jail for producing my art, I was just wondering whether other prohibitions will soon follow.”

The judge nodded.

“As a matter of fact,” he said, “there is pending legislation to outlaw certain kinds of independent research, on the grounds that it takes a person away from the Universal Body. So much of a spiritual and political nature is now settled, unfunded research amounts to meddling with Unity. Why should we allow it?”

The defendant sat down. He said, “Can I think my own thoughts?”

“You see,” the judge said, “that’s your problem. You insist on your contemplations, as if they were private possessions.”

“All due respect, Your Honor, but I just like to think.”

“Why?”

“It pleases me.”

“More than your freedom from imprisonment?”

“That’s a tough choice.”

“And apparently one you’ve already made.”

The artist said, “You know, there was a time when a person who used the word ‘magic’ as a term of approbation could be excommunicated, even tortured, because he was said to be on the side of the Devil.”

“Nonsense,” the judge said. “We are all magic, together.”

The artist said, “I deny the right of this court to pass sentence on me.”

“Obviously,” the judge said. “But your opinion has no effect. I could sentence you to six years’ hard labor in a camp in Alaska. Instead, I’m going to have you live in a padded cell for two years with a group of rebel artists. You’ll sort out your problems and basically do what you do. CBS is organizing it as a new reality show. It’s called When Spiritual Evolution Fails.”

“Your Honor,” the artist said, “how can you sentence me when you don’t really believe I exist as an independent person?”

The judge wagged his finger.

“Don’t try to pull that one on me,” he said. “You’re a piece of energy that has broken off from the whole. That’s all.”

“But how? Through my own choice? If so, I have freedom. And that means I am I.”

“No it doesn’t. Some force ultimately pushed you out of the hive.”

The artist shook his head.

“Review what you’ve been saying to me, Your Honor. You’ve been accusing me, an individual, of free and willful behavior, immoral choices.”

“It’s a convenient way to speak, nothing more. When we get around to changing the language, and we will, all references to individuals will be eradicated. Eventually, the kind of thing you write will come across as gibberish. No one will understand it. It will drop like dead leaves from a tree.”

Guilty!

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.

Mind control: the attempt to program life

by Jon Rappoport

January 19, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“The targets of modern mind control are always described in terms of medical treatment, alleviation of suffering, and healing. What else would you expect? A stark mission statement about population control and intentional shrinking of brain function? No, this op inevitably falls under ‘greatest good for the greatest number’. The promoted premise is: less effort, less pain, more happiness. A gift given to the essentially passive human being. That formulation itself is a version of mind control. The hero and the rebel are replaced by the semi-satisfied and quiescent android.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Here’s a research project that tells you something about where mind control is going. From MIT News, “Neuroscientists reverse memories’ emotional associations,” (8/27/14):

“The findings, described in the Aug. 27 issue of Nature, demonstrated that a neuronal circuit connecting the hippocampus and the amygdala plays a critical role in associating emotion with memory. This circuit could offer a target for new drugs to help treat conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, the researchers say.

“’In the future, one may be able to develop methods that help people to remember positive memories more strongly than negative ones,’ says Susumu Tonegawa, the Picower Professor of Biology and Neuroscience, director of the RIKEN-MIT Center for Neural Circuit Genetics at MIT’s Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, and senior author of the paper.”

Translation: blot out emotions connected with memories.

Tinker with memory, re-program neurons, change brain chemistry…these are the hallmarks of modern efforts to condition human life.

The science is spotty, to say the least, but the effort is enormous, and the direction is clear.

If you stacked up all the social sciences, and biology and physics and chemistry, as well as psychology and psychiatry…and even if you went out to the fringes of academia, where the so-called dissidents live…you would encounter scenarios about life as programming.

Change the cell, the molecule, the atom, the family, the environment, the DNA. Initiate new blueprints, systems, patterns of organizations.

The whole basis of this exercise: we humans are passive recipients of “influences.” Therefore, alter the influences.

On the low end, you have the CIA’s mind-control program, MKULTRA. At the high end, you have something like this: “the universe is taking us to an ultimate state of consciousness, and we’re cells in the super-body of All Wisdom, which is gradually revealing its truth to us.”

Either way, humans are viewed as passive.

Passive ciphers of cause-effect, stimulus-response, input-output. No matter how basic or elegant, this is existence in which free will, choice, individual power, imagination are radically diminished.

For example: “the brain is source of consciousness.”

Consider how physics looks at the brain: it is an organ of the body, made up of the same particles that populate the rest of the universe. Nowhere, in any of those particles, is the capacity to understand meaning.

Therefore, the brain does not understand meaning.

Meaning is merely (and absurdly) a chemical/biological/electromagnetic illusion, an ongoing “readout” to which we are passively subjected.

Possessed of such demented view of life, scientists feel perfectly justified in experimenting and tinkering with, and changing, the “human machine.”

In fact, for Dr. Ewen Cameron, the most highly decorated psychiatrist in the world during the 1940s and 50s, an individual’s personality was the property of society, represented by men such as himself.

On that basis (as I’ve described in other articles), Cameron devised a method of torture called “psychic driving,” which involved administering many powerful electric shocks to his patients’ brains, coupled with intensive drugging that put them into consecutive weeks of sleep, after which he played them tapes that repeated pat phrases millions of times—all in an effort to erase their personalities and install new ones.

Cameron worked on contract to the CIA, as a researcher in its infamous MKULTRA program.

These days, the research on programming is far more subtle, but the objective is the same. The patient would not experience overt physical pain while a particular circuit in his brain is “neutralized,” but he would never function in the same way again. He would be “new.”

“Better living through programming.”

Against all this is the fact that the individual has the capacity to be free, independent, self-directed, powerful, and creative.

He needs neither the science of programming nor myths that support a view of humans as passive.

The notion of ironclad cause and effect, carried over from the physical sciences to the human mind and consciousness, falls woefully short. Why? Because the individual can understand meaning, think rationally, and imagine and create new realities and futures. In these actions, he is not merely a product of what has gone before.

The pseudoscience called psychiatry would have us believe that all of its 300 officially certified “mental disorders,” none of which have defining physical diagnostic tests, are applicable across the board, to all humans.

This is because psychiatry assumes (and never proves) that all people are passively subjected, in exactly the same machine-like way, to the same chemical imbalances in the brain.

Uniform cause and effect. Therefore, install a new uniform cause-and-effect program as a remedy.

In an article at the Brain Bank, “What is consciousness? A scientist’s perspective,” (3/4/13), author Oliver Freeman offers neuroscientist Giuloio Tononi’s perspective on how the brain gives birth to consciousness. Freeman: “According to Tononi it is the ability to combine lots of information efficiently that yields the ability to analyse abstract concepts and thus gives us ‘consciousness’.”

This illustrates the paucity of neuroscience when it comes to consciousness. You can “analyze” all the abstract concepts in the world, but were it not for your prior knowing that you are alive, that you exist—which does not depend on the brain—you would be utterly lost. In fact, you would have as much consciousness as your computer does while it is making calculations.

However, believing that consciousness itself is merely an effect of more sophisticated levels of analysis, neuroscientists freely experiment on the brain without hesitation or conscience, like some Geek Squad of the New Age.

The human being, who is more than the brain, more than the body, nevertheless experiences those experiments as unpredictable disruptions in his vital “physical assistant.”

It is the human being and not the “experts” whose voice must be heard. It is his life that is the target.

For all their high pronouncements and assurances, the experts have the smallest conception of what they are doing. They’re shooting in the dark. And they think they’re simply repairing and updating a machine.

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 surrender to modern education: brainwashing

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“There is a movement to make children into social animals, but not just that. The objective is to make them good social animals, and better than good—the best and most wonderful, special, special, special social animals… and in the process, to cherish them, to profess great love for them—when love is ALREADY a given. When you pile sloppy sentiment on top of what is already naturally there, you’re selling a child a grotesque counterfeit, and he knows it. He either invents his own false sentiments, in order to have a role in the farce, or he rebels at a deep level. Either way, he’s confused. He doesn’t understand these insane overreaching adults.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

It may be hard for today’s parents to believe, but millions of children in America came through the public education system in the 1940s and 50s, and learned the basics—without a shred of cheery happy rainbow goo-goo decorations and slogans on the walls of classrooms.

Learning as seduction did not exist. Learning as “get the child interested” didn’t exist.

It wasn’t important or necessary to “uplift the child.”

Audio-visual aids were entirely absent.

Nor were teachers concerned with producing little humanitarians. There was no instruction in “getting along” or “relationships.” Or “cooperation.”

No values of any kind were taught. They were learned at home and on the playground, without the presence of teachers.

Children who misbehaved to the point of disrupting the classroom were sent away. Warned, suspended, expelled. Otherwise, behaviorism didn’t exist.

Social agendas? Political agendas? Medical agendas? Psychological agendas? Sex education? Group projects? Expressing feelings? Sharing? Never heard of it.

Teachers taught their subjects. Students learned. That was the beginning and end of school.

Reading, writing, math. No grading on a curve.

There was very little nasty competition. Students wanted to achieve (or they didn’t). They knew how well they were doing by learning the material, and by test grades.

The text books were old-fashioned. Many were used, second-hand. Publishers hadn’t yet invented the scam of peddling new books with “new formulations and methods” every few years.

A text book covered a subject in obvious small increments. New concept introduced; many student exercises, designed to illustrate the concept in action. Then, next new concept, with exercises. And so on.

The teacher would explain each new concept, and show how it worked on the blackboard. The whole class would do some of the relevant exercises from the book.

The remaining exercises would be done as homework. The next day: turn in the homework for grading. Take a quiz on yesterday’s lesson. Go on to a new lesson.

The teachers managed to supervise this process without complaining that it wasn’t creative, without having a nervous breakdown.

Creativity and imagination for the students? This was launched through gaining the rock-solid ability to read a book. A student would read a novel on his own and travel to another world.

Education was simple, straightforward. Yes, it was hard work, and yes, there were deficiencies, particularly in the study of history, and in the absence of instruction in logic, but all in all it worked.

It was understood, in every classroom, that sufficient numbers of drills, exercises, and tests were necessary for learning to take place. There was no way around it.

“We need more money” wasn’t an excuse or a compliant or a justification for failure to teach.

If a student got Fs, he repeated the grade, or went to summer school to catch up. No one was graduated on the basis of mere attendance.

“Self-esteem” didn’t exist. Children weren’t “special.” They certainly weren’t “world citizens.”

Again, no one taught values. That would have been considered meddling. Brainwashing.

By the 1940s, the agenda of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations had certainly taken hold. There was no instruction in the Constitution. There was no instruction in individual citizenship in a Republic. All that had been wiped out. Courses in art and music were pathetic shadows of the real thing.

Nevertheless, learning took place. Students achieved. They gained confidence. They weren’t viewed as little mind-control objects. Socialization wasn’t a goal.

In my public school, a student could choose to study Latin, beginning in the 7th grade. No one blinked or thought it was strange. It was understood that if you really wanted to understand English, you took Latin.

Then, in the 1960s, a shift occurred. It was planned. Schools (and willing parents) took on the job of teaching children to be good people. That was the prime mission. Learning was a secondary goal. After all, “saving the world” required more good people.

There was just one problem. Children didn’t want to become good people. They wanted to be what they were. They wanted to learn, play, explore, imagine. Children didn’t have a natural social agenda. They hadn’t sprung from the womb with a full-blown ideology. “Greatest good for the greatest number” wasn’t their constant companion.

That devious program (who decides what the greatest good is?) belonged to educators and parents and bureaucrats and foundations and technocrats and Globalists.

Parents were the worst offenders, because they were the closest to their children. They had the greatest impact. If they weren’t really about giving their children freedom and responsibility and power, if they were really interested in creating little living models…they wreaked havoc.

Let’s face it, it’s a dumbshow. Populated by moral tricksters. Opportunists. “How can we intervene and show children how to get along, how to be kind and generous and tolerant and blind to differences between people? How can we educate them to want a better world? How can we blunt their natural curiosity and substitute a perception of vague endless equality? How can we make them into mind-controlled angels? How can we manufacture planetary citizens? Surely, this what children want to be. They just don’t know it. So we’ll bring it out in them.”

The word “educate” comes from the Latin. Duco: I lead. E or ex: Out of, from. To lead from. To educe, “bring out something latent.”

Pretending to educe a fabricated and synthetic quality of “goodness” from children by teaching it and imposing it is a recipe for disaster. It might save the planet, but then the planet would become the Home of the Androids.

Make good little androids, suffer the consequences.

War, at every level.

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.

Thought-controlled classroom: orgy of the group

by Jon Rappoport

January 14, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“In the middle of all the brain-research going on, from one end of the planet to the other, there is the assumption that the individual doesn’t really exist. He’s a fiction. There is only the motion of particles in the brain. Therefore, nothing is inviolate, nothing is protected. Make the brain do A, make it do B; it doesn’t matter. What matters is harmonizing these tiny particles, in order to build a collective consensus, in order to force a science of behavior.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Individual power. Your power.

It stands as the essence of what the founding documents of the American Republic are all about, once you scratch below the surface a millimeter or so.

Therefore, it stands to reason that colleges and universities would be teaching courses in INDIVIDUAL POWER.

As soon as I write that, though, we all fall down laughing, because we understand the absurdity of such a proposition. Can you imagine Harvard endowing a chair in Individual Power?

Students would tear down the building in which such courses were taught. They’ve been carefully instructed that the individual is the greatest living threat to the planet.

If you can’t see that as mind control, visit your local optometrist and get a prescription for glasses.

So we have this astonishing situation: the very basis of freedom has no reflection in the educational system.

You can say “individual” within certain limited contexts. You can say “power,” if you’re talking about nuclear plants, or if you’re accusing someone of a crime, but if you put “individual” and “power” together and attribute a positive quality to the combination, you’re way, way outside the consensus. You’re crazy.

In order to spot the deepest versions of educational brainwashing, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME STANDARD AGAINST WHICH YOU CAN COMPARE WHAT IS COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE INTO THE MINDS OF STUDENTS.

If you lack that standard, you miss most of the action.

If you lack that standard, you have already been worked over by the system.

And in this case, the standard is INDIVIDUAL POWER.

Clean it off, hose off the dirt, polish it, look at it, think about it, remember it.

Then you’ll see some Grade-A prime mind control. Everywhere. Because schools either don’t mention it, or they discredit it.

Back in the days when I was writing on assignment for newspapers and magazines, I pitched a story about individual power to an editor. I wanted to trace its history as an idea over the past ten years.

He looked at me for a few seconds. He looked at me as if I’d just dropped some cow flop on his desk. He knew I wasn’t kidding and I had something I could write and turn in to him, but that made it worse. He began to squirm in his chair.

He laughed nervously.

Then he stopped laughing

He said, “This isn’t what we do.”

He really meant: “If you want to get back in my good graces, you’ll go away and come back with a story we can print. You do that four or five times, and then MAYBE I’ll trust you again.”

For him, I was suddenly radioactive. I was dangerous.

It was one of those, “Jon, I thought I knew you. Obviously, I was mistaken.”

I had a similar experience with a high-school history teacher in California. We were having lunch in a cafe in Santa Monica, and I said, “You should teach a course in individual power. The positive aspects. No group stuff. Just the individual.”

He frowned a deep intellectual frown, as if I’d just opened my jacket and exposed a few sticks of dynamite strapped to my chest. As if he was thinking about which agency of the government to report me to.

He launched a lecture, the essence of which was I should consider seeing a mental-health professional.

Now, for the schizoid part. The movies. Television. Video games. Comics. Graphic novels. They are filled to the brim, they are overflowing with individual heroes who have considerable power. These entertainment businesses bank billions of dollars, because people want to immerse themselves in that universe where individual power is supreme. They want it badly.

But when it comes to “real” life, power stops at the front door and no one answers the bell.

Suddenly, the hero, the person with power is anathema. He’s left holding the bag. So he adjusts. He waits. He wonders. He settles for less, far less. He learns how the game is played. He stifles his hopes. He shrinks. He forgets. He develops “problems” and tries to solve them within an impossibly narrow context. He redefines success and victory down to meet limited expectations. He strives for the normal and the average. For his efforts, he receives tidbits, like a dog looking up at his master.

If that isn’t mind control, nothing is.

From another discipline, medicine, here is an illustration of power-reduction, standardized and uniform treatment of every individual, avoidance of the unique elements of each person, and a chilling approach to surveillance, all wrapped up in one package:

Several years ago, the Business Insider printed a story:

“DARPA is at it again. This time, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [the technical-research wing of the Pentagon] has announced plans to create nanochips for monitoring troops’ health on the battlefield.”

Those who criticize the plan point out that gradually accustoming people to the insertion of chips will eventually lead to the mass chipping of society.

Yes, true. But there is another op, too.

Further down in the Business Insider, we have this official explanation: “…the sensors [nanochips] are targeted at preventing illness and disease, the two causes of most troops’ medical evacuation.”

Did you catch that? Apparently, the implanted nanochips are going to relay soldiers’ physical symptoms back to base in real time.

Now we are talking about something quite ominous: the capacity to use chips to relay hard data to authorities, who can then make off-the-shelf diagnoses of particular illnesses.

The troops are a test run. The actual op, up the line a few years, is to outfit private citizens with those nanochips, so medical analysts (or their computers) can present patients with rapid-fire and peremptory diagnoses, leading to drug treatments. (Recent press reports indicate computerized medical care is, in fact, gaining ground.)

Should I draw a picture? A person is walking down the street on his way to work, with his nanochip(s) in his arm. The tiny computer is silently running, recording metabolic changes. Suddenly, it pings. The man on the street doesn’t hear that sound from his arm, but a computer located in a facility ten miles (or 6000 miles) away does.

The data from the chip are flagged and shunted to another automatic processor which, depending on the severity of the diagnosis, electronically issues an appointment slip to the walking patient. For the clinic.

He receives a nudge from his cell phone, reads the appointment info, and confirms.

He will see a doctor, he will be handed a diagnosis, and he will take a drug. He’s in the system.

Eventually, the doctor in most cases won’t be necessary. The electronic message will spell out the diagnosis, direct the patient to the nearest pharmacy, where the prescription will be filled.

Of course, the fact that the diagnosis may be shortsighted or completely off-base is irrelevant. It’s ironclad: symptoms A,B,C, and D add up to diagnosis X, which means take drug Y. End of story.

Toxic effects from the drug? Never discussed. Irrelevant.

The published studies reporting the clinical trials of the drug were altered, on behalf of the drug company? The drug was actually ineffective and grossly dangerous? Who cares? It’s in the book. It’s official.

Welcome to tomorrow.

For those of you who want to probe a little deeper (and you should want to), here is a brief example of something that can go terribly wrong in this chipped version of healthcare. I spell it out at great length in my book, AIDS INC.

Antibody tests. These are widely used assays to determine what disease a person may have contracted. When the test reads positive, the patient is said to have the disease for which the antibody test is custom-designed. And from that flows the diagnosis and drug treatment.

Why? Because, starting in the early 1980s, something astonishing happened to antibody tests. The analysis of their results was turned upside down. Before then, the presence of antibodies to a particular germ was generally taken as a good sign. It meant the immune system had reacted well and forcefully to the germ-intrusion. But with the new interpretation, a positive test was taken to be a bad sign. The patient was at risk. In fact, he might already be ill.

So there you are with a nanochip in your arm, and you’re sitting in your backyard with your family, and the chip, every so often, is running routine antibody scans through access to your blood indicators.

Ping. At four in the afternoon, it suddenly develops that you have Hepatitis. You receive an appointment slip on your cell phone.

BUT you have no disease. Not even close. You’re actually suffering from a piece of medical-research insanity that has turned antibody tests on their heads.

However, there is no court of first or last resort. You’re going to the doctor, and he’s going to give you a powerful and toxic drug, and you’re going to take it. If you don’t, your chip will report the non-compliance to authorities.

You may doubt that computers and nanochips can carry out far-reaching analyses of various body indicators. Direct analysis isn’t necessary. In the same way that computer models built on a foundation of sand can assert manmade warming will destroy the planet in five years, medical models based on all sorts of indirect and abstract computations can deliver instant assessments of “physical aberrations from the norm.”

Again, welcome to tomorrow. Welcome to one-size-fits-all. Welcome to the diminishment of individual differences.

What about psychiatric diagnosis?

This, too, could become automatic. With a list of 300 officially certified mental disorders, nanochips could measure brain activity and supply an immediate assessment. Oppositional Defiance Disorder, bipolar, ADHD, Social Anxiety Disorder. Toxic medical drugs would follow.

Yes, it sounds like science fiction. Now. But many technologies we presently have sounded like science fiction 50 years ago.

Once we enter a world where the individual no longer has credibility, a world where “greatest good for the greatest number” is the overriding principle, and where that principle is defined by the elite few, the term “mind control” will have a positive connotation. It will be accepted as the obvious strategy for achieving “peace in our time.”

At a job interview, a candidate will say, “Yes, I received my PhD in Mind Control at Yale, and then I did three years of post-doc work in Cooperative Learning Studies at MIT. My PhD thesis? It was titled, ‘Coordination Strategies in the Classroom for Eliminating the Concept of the Individual.’”

“Students must work in groups to complete tasks collectively toward academic goals. Unlike individual learning, which can be competitive in nature, students learning cooperatively can capitalize on one another’s resources and skills…Furthermore, the teacher’s role changes from giving information to facilitating students’ learning. Everyone succeeds when the group succeeds.” (Wikipedia, “Cooperative Learning”)

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.

Where virtual reality is going

by Jon Rappoport

January 13, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“In the early 1960s, I was sitting in a crowded New York theater watching one of the first dubbed Japanese monster imports. I was hoping the police would stop the huge lizard, who was clomping around, wrecking the city, toppling buildings, squashing humans I gradually became aware that the audience was cheering for the monster. A cultural shift had happened. I hadn’t known about it until then.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

I want to sketch the path along which virtual reality is going.

Right now, companies are selling improved tech that allows a helmet-wearer to see landscape and people in a wider perspective, and hear layers of sounds to the left and right, and above and below him. He can also walk inside the virtual set up.

He can’t touch everything he sees yet, but that’s coming. And perhaps one day, he’ll be able to sit down at a lavish meal and smell and taste the food.

Sight, sound, touch, smell, taste. A five-sense envelope.

He’ll leap off a cliff, fly through the clouds, and attack a monster coming his way, and he’ll win. He’ll do this over and over, and begin to control his own attendant fear. (You can see the obvious military use.)

But…the money men behind virtual reality will want more. They’ll want to program the user’s reactions AHEAD OF TIME; his feelings, sensations, nervous-system responses, endocrine outputs, brain signals.

The full package.

“Press Button A on your remote and receive the complete experience as we give it to you.”

Eventually, there won’t be a button A. Buyers will want what they’re given.

That’s the threshold, the crossover:

Why try to imagine and create your own reactions? Why try to minimize your Pavlovian responses? The VR techs already have the answers for you.

And their answers are very much like a medical protocol.

Entrainment on multiple levels. This is where virtual reality is heading.

In the process, the basic principle of elite reality-building will be expanded: cut off the individual’s imagination; bury it; exclude it; make it unnecessary.

Why?

Because that imagination, and its ability to invent new unpredictable realities, is ultimately what stands between a locked-down planet and a planet that has a chance of freedom.

No matter what happens to this society, civilization, and culture, imagination has to stay alive.

There is, at any given moment, a whole level of solution and innovation that is in a state of hidden potential, that is uncreated and unknown…no one knows what these solutions are, because individuals haven’t invented them yet, haven’t dreamed them up, haven’t acted on them.

If, by burying imagination, you eliminate this level, what’s left is total control over the population.

I’ll take this a step further. Humans are ALREADY operating with a package of pre-programmed brain signals, endocrine outputs, nervous-system reactions, emotional responses, and sensations. But…

The package isn’t sealed, it isn’t complete, it isn’t final, it isn’t unalterable. There are escape hatches. The primary path of escape is, in fact, imagination.

It’s the ability to demote things-as-they-are, in favor of what might be, what could be, what is invented—and living through and by imagination radically changes neurological and emotional and hormonal responses.

What constituted one’s old life becomes fuel for the fire of a new created life.

If you look at the technocratic field of brain-computer interface, and the so-called Singularity, in which the human brain plus the master-computer equal some mystical fulfillment, you’re really looking at a very old notion:

The accumulation of all knowledge brings illumination.

This is a nonsensical premise.

The “total of accumulated knowledge” is an infinitesimal fraction of what hasn’t yet been created. Whether we appreciate it or not, we swim in a vast sea of that uncreated potential; and hooking up to a computer via the brain does nothing to intensify the desire to deploy imagination and turn the potential into new reality.

You could spend the next million years cataloging data, information, knowledge, indexing it, comparing it, cross-referencing it, accumulating it; and you wouldn’t begin to approach or touch what imagination can do.

In this sense, the internal systems of a human being are temporary baseline protocols waiting for imagination to revolutionize them down to their core.

The overall effect of all forms of mind control is: inducing an acceptance that the temporary and the provisional are permanent.

That acceptance gives you a passive human being.

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.