The creative center of the world

by Jon Rappoport

January 12, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

“After the final no there comes a yes and on that yes the future of the world hangs.” –Wallace Stevens

What would happen if the world were enveloped by art? And if we were the artists? And if we owed nothing to any hierarchy or external authority?

Is it possible that an outpouring of art, creation, invention, coming from millions and millions of people, would bring about a sea change in the conducting of human affairs? Would such a tide affect the obsession to wage war?

Magic is not about arcane crests and codes and symbols. All those symbols and seals are just a way of invoking mystery and a front of supposed privilege.

People still accept landscapes painted by a priesthood and they call those landscapes Spiritual, and hope these puerile inventions will somehow take them to bliss and final enlightenment.

In other words, people want to exist inside a phony masterpiece designed by a class of authoritarians.

In a nutshell, that’s the story of this planet, and it always was.

I’ve been writing about the creative life for some time. For me, that life is a far cry from the pallid oatmeal of spiritual movements where the essence of things is “peace through avoidance”—an attempt to substitute one form of politeness for another, one form of sleep for another.

When people strip away all the hogwash that has been passed off as spiritual enlightenment for centuries, what they are left with—if they can feel it—is creative fire. That fire IS the spiritual force. IS the real thing. Finally.

Most people don’t want to travel to that grand arena. They have been trained like pets by some sector of this society to be good little girls and boys.

Art (creation/magic) is a word that should be oceanic. It should shake and blow apart the foul smug boredom of the soul.

Art is about what the individual invents when he is on fire and doesn’t care about concealing it. It’s about what the individual does when he has thrown off the false front that is slowly strangling him.

Art is about the end of mindless postponement. It’s about what happens when you burn up the pretty and petty little obsessions. It’s about emerging from the empty suit and empty machine of society that goes around and around and sucks away the vital bloodstream.

Art is about destroying the old order and the new order and the present order, with a glance.

It’s about spearing the old apple on the point of a glittering sword and opening up the whole rotting crust that has attached itself to the tree of life.

It’s about shrugging off the fake harmony of the living dead.

When this kind of creation overtakes the world, only then does the world become what it should be.

On an individual level, boredom has much the same effect as concrete does in the landscape: it covers more and more territory, and once you lay it down it doesn’t usually come up.

If you look closely, you can see people are walking around with big signs on their necks: I’M BORED.

They pretend they’re not.

But they’re bored silly. They’re driving themselves cuckoo.

Creation of deep desire with great fire, as fact in the world, IS the definition of magic. That’s what magic is. It isn’t anything else.

The secret of the labyrinth is this: as long as masses of people are trapped in their own acquiescence to a fictional spiritual and psychological existence, in which they are the passive receivers of “wisdom and direction,” all is lost.

No matter how many liberation movements arise, no matter what degree of success they achieve, in the long run the winners (or their descendants) always fall back into a trance state in the center of their consciousness. They look for answers to come in to them from an external source—and if they can’t find a ready-made source, they will subconsciously invent one.

The whole proposition comes back to: shall we be audience only, or creators? Shall we find our spiritual destinies through obedience to “art” made with mind control as the motive, or shall we embark on a much greater adventure, along a road where what WE individually create is the hallmark and the revelation of our power?

Do we take the magic in our hands, or do we cede it to those who, by default, become our masters?

Suppose the divide between actors and audience in our society underwent a spontaneous revolution?

Art is not a little sandbox. Fueled by liberated imagination, it is THE revolution the psyche has been asking for.

When one acts long enough, he realizes that the world could really be a stage, and the sound and fury would, in fact, signify something vital and deep.

When one paints long enough, he realizes this world and all the universe are but one painting out of an infinity of possible paintings.

When one writes long enough, he realizes that so-called history is but one story—and many other (better) stories could be told.

When one plays music long enough, he realizes that emotion can be lifted out of petty concerns into realms where feeling becomes vast triumph.

When one builds long enough, he realizes that the physical structure of civilization can be led out of mere functionality into dazzling new spaces.

This is where we could go. And the stars in space would pale by comparison.

At some point in such a vision, a critical mass would be reached. People, viewing an explosion of art, would themselves catch the thread and begin to inhabit their own dreams. The contagion would take hold. What was formerly viewed as an elitist activity would spill over all boundaries.

And then?

People at large would realize the connection between spirit and creative action. The propaganda machines of the world, aimed at control of the deadened masses of populations, would blow gaskets and become obsolete. Drowned in a sea of creativity.

That would be the answer to the question, “What do I do after I see through the illusions of the puppet masters?”

Art unchained becomes titanic. It can spread out over the landscape and take it over. It can spawn and proliferate more art, until the emotional content of daily experience becomes transformed. Until we all live at a wider and deeper level.

There are artists like Stravinsky, like Gaudi, like the composer Edgar Varese, like the often-reviled American writer Henry Miller, like Walt Whitman (who has been grotesquely co-opted into a Norman Rockwell-like prefect), like the several great Mexican muralists—Orozco, Rivera, Siqueiros—all of whom transmit an oceanic quality.

As in, The Flood.

There is a fear that, if such artists were unleashed to produce their work on a grand scale, they would indeed take over the world.

Our world, contrary to all consensus, is meant to be revolutionized by art, by imagination, right down to its core.

That this has not happened for the best is no sign that the process is irrelevant. It is only a testament to the collective resistance.

Who knows how many such revolutions have been shunted aside and rejected, in favor of the consensus shape we now think of as central and eternal?

We are living in a default structure, the one that has been left over after all the prior revolutions have been put to sleep.

But creation is not neutral.

It flows out into the atmosphere with all its subjective force.

Were you to embark on a uniquely passionate course of creation, enlarging the scope at every turn, you would launch out of the realm of the push-pull humdrum Earthside disintegrating disaster…..and into the realm of what you INVENT….and as you inhabited this latter realm more fully, the SO-CALLED NATURAL LAWS OF THE FORMER REALM WOULD APPLY TO YOU LESS AND LESS, AND THE MORE FREE YOU WOULD BECOME.

Magic.

As more and more of us moved forward in this way, THAT would become the transformation we have been unconsciously hoping for. That would relentlessly make society over. That would eventually shatter the influence of all cartels and monopolies of physical and emotional and mental and spiritual experience. Not because we wished it were so, but because we made it happen.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

New World citizen on trial

Jan11

New World citizen on trial

~a short story~

by Jon Rappoport

January 11, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

A portion of the trial transcript follows:

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

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

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

Palmer: Yes, sir.

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

Palmer: I did.

Judge: And this is not the first time.

Palmer: No, sir.

Judge Regis: What happened, Mr. Palmer?

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

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

Palmer: Yes, sir. That was my mistake.

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

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

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

Palmer: Yes, sir.

Judge Regis: Which can be psychologically devastating.

Palmer: Correct.

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

Palmer: So I understand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Regis: That would be appropriate.

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

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

Palmer: Yes, sir?

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

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

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

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

Judge Regis: Excuse me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Regis: Remember that.

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

Judge Regis: And that must never happen.

Palmer: “We” is advanced form of “I.”

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

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

Judge Regis: Now you’re getting the idea.

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

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

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

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

Palmer: Yes, sir, I am.

Jon Rappoport

Social sciences and the destruction of individuality

Jan9

Social sciences and the destruction of individuality

by Jon Rappoport

January 9, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

You may or not be interested in the sexual practices of Trobriand Islanders. You may or not be interested in what some tribe in the Amazon jungle is doing on a slow Thursday.

But what sociologists and anthropologists have written about such subjects is as much science as you sitting in a park and writing notes on what people are doing in the playground.

One of the founders of sociology, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), coined the phrase “collective consciousness.” Durkheim insisted there were “inherent” qualities that existed in society apart from individuals. Exposing his own absurd theory, he went so far as to claim suicide was one of those qualities, as if the “phenomenon” were present beyond any individual choice to end life.

He wrote: “Man is the more vulnerable to self-destruction the more he is detached from any collectivity, that is to say, the more he lives as an egoist.”

In other words, according to Durkheim, the individual who rejects the norms of society must be wrapped up in himself in some morally repugnant way. There are no other alternatives.

In his book, The Division of Labour in Society (1893) (wikipedia), Burkheim spun moral conscience in the following fashion: “…Make yourself usefully fulfill a determinate function.” He cited this as a kind of command issued by collective consciousness. This is the presentation of the individual human as machine-cog.

From the mud of sociology’s beginnings, the long sordid history of the academic discipline brings us to something like this. Peter Callero, of the department of sociology, Western Oregon University, has written a book titled: The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives (2013, 2nd Ed):

“Most people today believe that an individual is a person with an independent and distinct identification. This, however, is a myth.”

When Callero writes “identification,” he isn’t talking about ID cards and Social Security numbers. He’s talking about an absence of any uniqueness from person to person. He’s asserting there is no significant distinction between any two people. There aren’t two individuals to begin with. They’re a group.

This downgrading of the individual human spirit is far from accidental. It’s launched as a sustained propaganda campaign, the purpose of which is top-down control.

“The cold truth is that the individualist creed of everybody for himself and the devil take the hindmost is principally responsible for the distress in which Western civilization finds itself — with investment racketeering at one end and labor racketeering at the other. Whatever merits the creed may have had in the days of primitive agriculture and industry, it is not applicable in an age of technology, science, and rationalized economy. Once useful, it has become a danger to society.” (Charles Beard, 1931)

Beard, a celebrated historian, appears to see no difference between individual racketeering and the individual freely choosing and living his own life. For him, society must rely on organization, and the individual takes the leftovers.

“British empiricist philosophy is individualist. And it is of course clear that if the only criterion of true and false which a man accepts is that man’s, then he has no base for social agreement. The question of how man ought to behave is a social question, which always involves several people; and if he accepts no evidence and no judgment except his own, he has no tools with which to frame an answer.” (Jacob Bronowski, Science and Human Values, 1956).

Bronowski is quite sure that hearing other people’s evidence and then keeping one’s own counsel is wrong. One has to accept that evidence on its face? This is sheer idiocy. Individuals are capable of deciding, on their own, what social agreements to enter into.

Even more to the point, Beard and Bronowski were both high-achieving individuals—who then turned around and celebrated the kind of society that would try to flatten and level the individual to an average.

The world has many such experts. They rise high enough and then they preach collectivism. They become social meddlers. They believe they have the tools to plan what kind of world we should live in—since they are not part of that world anymore.

Freed from the obligations with which they want to bind us, they can pontificate and scheme and fantasize about social, economic, and political constructs in which The Group is all.

This is elitism par excellence.

I’ll stick with Orwell:

“It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of.” (George Orwell, 1944)

The people who take it upon themselves to impose a planned society on everyone else don’t have much to say about freedom. Why would they? It’s a wild card, and it belongs to the individual, whom they consider merely an obstacle to the so-called progress of the group.

The very basis of sociology and anthropology, with which college students’ heads are filled, is: know the group. These pseudo-disciplines have thrived because elites with real power are doing everything they can to eradicate the concept of the individual.

Why would anyone perpetuate the myth that these two academic subjects are “social sciences?” There is nothing scientific about them. Their practitioners may devise computer models and debate the merits of one generality about cultures vs. another. But otherwise, we’re looking at nothing more than a gateway into planning a world management system.

In which the individual plays no part.

Jon Rappoport

Google and the World Brain

Jan7

Google and the World Brain

by Jon Rappoport

January 8, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

In a BBC documentary, “Google and the World Brain,”
the issue of author copyright is explored. Google has scanned and published out-of-print books that are still covered by copyright.

Interviewed, Kevin Kelly (twitter) (also here and here), the co-founder of Wired, makes a startling remark. In his view the whole issue of copyright is archaic. He explains that all authors draw their ideas from previous authors and therefore don’t own their own ideas.

It’s wonderful to witness such bloviating on the cusp of the New Civilization, in which “you didn’t build that” is taken to unprecedented levels.

Kelly should start a publishing firm; all his authors would work for free. After all, nothing is original, nothing is new, and these writers are merely rearranging other people’s words.

You might be surprised at how many people actually believe this tripe Kelly is passing along.

It’s part of the vastly expanding operation aimed at the individual.

The “modern” position is, we’re all one great big group. Kelly adds an historical touch. We’re just recycling the past.

Rimbaud was just redoing Shelley. Dylan Thomas was adding a few exhibitionist touches to Shakespeare, who was aping Sophocles. Plato was mimicking generations of Egyptian high priests. Socrates was staging dialogues based on arguments between cave men.

If we could climb into a time machine, we could travel back to the age of the Neanderthals and find all subsequent ideas of any value in their conversations. Certainly.

And I’m sure the Neanderthals were stealing thoughts after listening to what ants and gorillas and cabbages were saying.

The individual imagines and creates? Ho-ho-ho. Ridiculous. Kelly has put a lid on that fiction. Perhaps he’ll publish a list of authors from whom he’s borrowed, and then we can read their work and ignore his.

Yes, it’s all spiritual collectivism, and we’re melting down into one cosmic goo-glob, and it’s marvelous. Everything is free.

“It’s all information” is the code phrase, as if all data are like all other data, and therefore diminished—in which case “information is power” means degraded and shrunken power.

When it comes to intelligence—that is, actual intelligence—the capacity to see how a book is unique, rather than “like” another book, is far more important than the perception of sameness.

And Kevin Kelly notwithstanding, the individual creator is real, not a fiction.

A book isn’t just a whole bunch of data, and it isn’t just a whole lot of borrowing and reshuffling from past authors.

The very basis of meaning, without which we would all be swimming in a sea of gibberish, isn’t a phenomenon of the Group. Meaning ultimately comes down to each individual and his perception. We may share a common language, but individuals shape it and individuals understand it. Or don’t.

The move to wipe out the entire concept of the individual and erase it from human consciousness is a propaganda op. It is far easier to wield control over a group.

“We” isn’t an advanced form of “I.”

Here is where things are heading: “I/we is/are together.” Then: “We are together.” Then: “We.” Then: Nothing. Oblivion.

The failure to see this is a direct consequence of the failure of a person to know he is an individual.

That Google would even consider digitizing and publishing books that are still under copyright, that still belong to the author, reveals how casual their concept of the individual is.

“Just another greedy mega-corporation” doesn’t capture what is really going on here.

Jon Rappoport

Television news, the stage play

Jan6

Television news, the stage play

by Jon Rappoport

January 6, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

There is a bit of magic to it.

Images sent over thousands of miles, well-lit anchors who seem alert to everything of importance taking place in our world, field reporters in far-flung places who pop up and respond instantly to the anchors and deliver close-up accounts of vital events.

And the same important faces of government leaders who, day after day, are struggling to improve our destiny against great odds, against intransigent enemies of progress.

All this is delivered to us in the space of a few minutes, each night, like clockwork.

The fatuous wall-to-wall lies aside, the news presents that little show of magic which the people sorely need. The need never dies. It’s eternal.

Substitutes for the real thing are acceptable. The television anchors can be obvious oafs, hucksters, cheap con artists; it doesn’t matter.

They can twist the truth, burn it, hide it, step on it, reverse it; it doesn’t matter.

If the US government hires, supports, and arms terrorists, the news can claim the government is doing everything possible to fight against terrorism—including the installation of a massive Surveillance State. The absurd contradictions are simply ignored.

As long as television news gives viewers a small hit of magic, it stays in business. The magic is the stage play, the anchors and reporters are the actors, and the whole show, as it passes into eyes and ears, imparts a dreamlike quality.

Once upon a time, the dream, the magic, the myth were the saddle, reins, and horse of a great personal adventure. But in this modern age, the news stands in as the (brain-addled) knight on his quest for truth and meaning.

In 1927, Carl Jung wrote: “…the dream is the theater where the dreamer is at once scene, actor, prompter, stage manager, author, audience, and critic.”

But for most people, that startling analysis was too much. A single human being staging his own reality? Impossible. The dream and the magic must come from somewhere else, from a place and personage stamped with an official authoritative imprimatur.

There must be The Voice and it must be the news, and it must narrate (invent) the dream.

When this happens on a daily basis, most viewers sink so far into the stage play they fully accept its parameters and remain enclosed.

The space, time, and energy of the play form a continuum that is a prison.

In this prison, viewers are content to “take their magic” from an external source. This is considered safe. This is considered proper. This is considered reasonable. Magic comes to be thought of as always and forever coming from a place that is definitely not-self.

That’s the key.

By extension, speak to people about lost civilizations, hidden archeology, visitors from space—all of which are not-self—and they are eager for more of that magic.

But talk to them about lost continents within the Self, the archeology of the subconscious, the alchemical force of imagination, the creative principle underlying knowledge, their own manufacture of reality…and they tend to back away.

They prefer Small Self to Large Self. They’ve chosen a humble role. That’s the front they want to show to the world.

And society, government, and the news are more than happy to subjugate them to such a role.

And that’s how individual power is replaced and hidden.

When I was a small boy, the stooge for official reality was one of the most respected men in America, Edward R Murrow. He seemed to be talking out of a dark vault. His somber tone, his serious intent, his moonscape rhythms offered doom, but always with a hint of light, because he knew Justice and, therefore, it might still prevail, if good men stepped forward and fought for it.

I can still remember thinking, this is a show, it’s a good show, but it’s theater. I knew that, because in those days my friends and I played on fields of our own choosing, we were free, we made up our own rules and our own games, and we loved having that power.

And then at night, I found my imagination by reading novels about sea voyages and trips to other planets—and soon enough I realized the news was a story about power being everywhere I wasn’t.

It was a losing proposition, from one end to the other.

Fortunately, my other early education was conducted in a local pool room. People who were a lot smarter than I was taught me how to recognize a hustler.

Official reality is a cosmic hustler.

Jon Rappoport

“Parallel-universe therapy”

Jan5

by Jon Rappoport

January 5, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

One of the best questions a person asks himself is, “What if…?”

People do ask themselves that question all the time, but they rarely take it seriously.

They prefer to keep the answers at arm’s length. They prefer to assign someone else the task of putting answers into action.

“What if…” sets up a kind of parallel universe, in which things are quite different.

It’s no surprise that artists ask the question; then they answer it with novels and plays and paintings and films.

For the individual, the question always suggests taking a new course in life, changing the old framework. As one edges closer to initiating action, body and mind and psyche go into an anticipatory state of high energy.

“Yes, do it. This is good.”

It’s especially good because the subconscious sees new possibility, and not just along one line; it sees multiple dimensions of action—trees sprouting many branches.

It’s as if the old you were moving along a single path…and now you have length, breadth, and depth.

Shapes of potential fulfillment appear in space.

The subconscious wants to provide fuel for that many-pronged fire. I say many-pronged, because the subconscious is itself multidimensional; and its problem is: the individual seems not to be aware of that.

The individual treats the subconscious as if its material can only fit into a single thin stream of information.

As an analogy, consider an order coming down that the Michelangelo Sistine Chapel, wall and ceiling, must be laid out flat in a single plane, or that all the characters in Velazquez’ Maids of Honor must be standing along side the central child, Infanta Margaret Theresa, in the foreground of the painting.

When “What if…?” is asked and answered in its full scope, the person not only sees a new life but a new kind of life, in which a goal connects to multiple dimensions.

What this means for the seeker is far from an habitual response. It entails exploration. It implies a creative life.

Instead of imagining a few lamps that go on in a dark room, we are talking about numerous points of illumination that reveal a mansion with many wings.

We move from a single point to a line to two-dimensional figures to volume in three dimensions, to more and more previously unseen dimensions.

The subconscious is thus given its due and liberated.

The invention of film was an event to suit this state of affairs. A number of the earliest films were really dreams placed on the screen. They subordinated a simple story to miraculous happenings that occur in dreams. Happenings that surpass the so-called laws of the space-time continuum.

The creative life, lived by and through imagination, will naturally expand to include more and more dimensions, unless throttled.

“What if…?” then, finally, is answered, not by some trained android system, but by the imagination.

A person’s past, and what happened in that past, is no longer a cultural artifact for explaining how and why the individual is limited in the present, but instead is seen as buds that can bloom into an infinite variety of Future.

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

The fulfillment of desire in the physical world seems to operate on one basic idea: discover what you want and go get it. However, when you follow that path with imagination, new spaces swim into view, new objectives, new branches on the tree.

This kind of expansion reflects what Self is really after: unlimited creation.

The cells of the body, the brain, the mind, the consciousness, the subconscious are all waiting for that, are all hoping for it, are all geared up for it.

Whether they are all dressed up with nowhere to go…or will be enlisted in a grand adventure, is up to the individual himself.

The illusion presented by the physical world is: one objective, one course of action, one strategy. But even in the realm of science, we see this is only a partial explanation of what is going on. When breakthroughs are made, they are accomplished through leaps of imagination. There are gaps between what was previously known and what is suddenly known now.

Those gaps aren’t crossed by purely rational means. In retrospect it may seem that way, it may be told that way, but the discoverer and the inventor are accessing and creating solutions by introducing new dimensions.

In a person’s life, the same approach applies. There are endless opportunities for imagining and creating new roads.

These roads are new spaces, worlds, universes.

In many fields of alternative inquiry—history, archeology, science, economics, etc., undisclosed dimensions are revealed. So it is with the human being himself and his creative potential. What is considered hard fact dissolves, and imagination comes to the fore as the alchemical force that transmutes a few dimensions into an unlimited number.

Our societies, civilizations, and traditional teachings (indoctrination) seek to exclude and bury this infinity.

(Thanks to Steve Candidus. His insights in our discussion prompted several of the ideas in this article.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The creative flowering of humankind

Jan3

The creative flowering of humankind

by Jon Rappoport

January 3, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Over the past several months, I’ve written articles about how I put together my two collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix.

There were many threads, many investigations, and much history, some of it personal.

And then there is the why behind it all.

The basic human response to the world around us, unless that response is repressed, is creative.

It’s so natural and direct, one wonders how it can get lost.

The world is a work of art; therefore, it reminds people of creating art themselves.

So easy, so simple. But then the static interference sets in. The static of “should” and “must.” The demands for obedience. The fear of freedom transmitted from person to person.

These elements set up like clay and then they harden. They form a subconscious mold into which life must be poured.

At the highest levels of perverse power, societies and civilizations are made larger and more encompassing. The should, the must, the obedience, the fear are institutionalized.

I’m reminded of science fiction novelist Philip Dick’s remark: “Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups…So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms…They have a lot of it [power]. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.”

Who will create your reality?

A baby crawling across the floor picking up objects and grasping them, biting them, looking at them, is not only exploring this world; he is gathering material and sensations and images for creative output. He is very much an artist, diving into new experience, from which he will make, unless stopped, imaginative responses.

Imagination, intensely pursued, long enough, begins to break apart the Matrix of trance-like normality.

Creative action is never predictable. It blooms in all directions. It supersedes systems and established patterns. It crashes internal programming. It is not a slave to past, present, or future.

When the creative life takes over, the old rationality of caution, obedience, hardened dead ideas, boredom, and frustration begin to disintegrate.

Space is new, time is new, energy is new.

Here is the list of elements in my collection, Exit From the Matrix.

First, the brand 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

GREAT PASSIONS AND 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:

A pdf of my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies

A pdf of my book, The Ownership of All Life

A long excerpt from my briefly published book, Full Power

A pdf of my 24 articles in the series, “Coaching the Coaches”

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. You download them.

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.

That road travels to more and more creative power, joy, and fulfillment.

During that great adventure, the individual experiences what has been labeled “paranormal” and “synchronistic” and “magical.” These words really don’t do us justice. They only hint at what we are and what we can do.

I put this collection together because it expresses, explains, and shows, in detail, how the individual can rediscover and reclaim his/her true power.

That process, that engagement, that life, is beyond solving problems. Our problems, at the core, exist only because we have “misplaced an infinity.”

Everything I’ve done and written in the past 20 years has been aimed, one way or another, at bringing back that infinity, seeing through the layers of disguise, and moving ahead on the sunlit road we all desire.

Jon Rappoport

After the machine-mind died

Jan2

~a short story~

by Jon Rappoport

January 2, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

Introduction

You may have noticed that some websites, when they publish satire, label it as such. I indicate “short story” when it’s fiction.

Why? Because some people take things so literally they can’t recognize parody. For example, I wrote a piece about 150 MILLION Americans traveling to Mexico and then coming back across the border as immigrants and going on welfare—and people believed I was reporting a news story. On top of that, they got up on their hind legs and brayed: “It isn’t true!”

Wow.

Drugs? Brain damage? The education system? Or just plain tiny minds?

So…here’s a story about that:

You of course remember the Alice in Wonderland War. In 2056, a government historian brought suit against Midas Publishing for reprinting the ancient Lewis Carroll book.

The historian stated there was no Alice, there was no Mad Hatter, there was no tea party, and so on. He claimed that to assert the existence of these characters was an affront to the rational mind, the literal mind.

The literal mind, he insisted, was man’s highest achievement. He wrote: “A is A and can’t be otherwise. The fabrication of A as B or C is an attempt to confuse, subvert, and destroy civilization as we know it.”

The historian produced a manual printed by the National Security Agency. He cited a paragraph from the Introduction:

“In order for universal surveillance to succeed, the citizenry should say what they mean at all times. Metaphor, simile, joke, satire, parody—these constructions confuse algorithms established to detect potential terrorist activity. In general, fiction is a crime…”

The attorney for Midas Publishing countered with: “The literal mind is an idiot. It wouldn’t recognize a joke or a punchline if they were shoved down its throat. I hereby issue a call to all people everywhere to start lying, fabricating, making stuff up, telling jokes, all day, every day. Stop acting like good little androids. Screw The Man. Take him down. Have some fun for a change!”

Suddenly, it happened. People started enjoying themselves. The joke and the parody and mockery made a comeback. Did they ever. And NSA’s computers went nuts, exactly the way the literal mind collapses in the face of metaphor.

It was, ultimately, a revolution, and life as people knew it went right down the dumper.

Flash forward….

In the year, 2094, a document was uncovered in a copper mine in Southern California. It was sent to the Non-Federal Bureau of Non-Control, headquartered in the old buildings of the former and forgotten National Security Agency.

The document, undated, written by an unidentified painter, was read by the Chief of Unsystematic Uncoordinated Records.

The document:

“If you hand a person a fig and tell him it’s a plum, there is a chance he’ll see a plum.

“If you give a person a copy of Nabokov’s Lolita and explain its ‘themes,’ there is a chance that, as he reads it, he will find those themes and consider them the most important result of his reading.

“Instead of relying on his own imagination and perception, a person decides that what he is told is what he is looking at.

“So you point to a tree and say to a friend, ‘See that car?’

“Education tends to define what is there before a person can experience it on his own.

“I’m a painter. My education in art, before I ever laid a brush on canvas, was conducted by a few world-class morons who floated convincing theories about this and that. Somewhere along the line, I took over the process and ignored what they were saying.

“This eventually led me, on a long path, to the conclusion that imagination has no limits.

“A few minutes after that, I realized such an idea was not acceptable to most people. They preferred to be told what to see and what to know. They wanted confirmation of what they already assumed.

“Nevertheless, to the extent that I rely on anything beyond my work, I rely on other people’s imagination, in the sense that I’m painting what can only be accessed by imagination.

“Given what I believe, it would be foolish to tell people what to see in my paintings. I myself see many things, and what I see changes. I want it to be that way.

“I’m not trying to nail down a particular bounded reality. If that were my goal, I would manufacture shoes.

“From a rough societal perspective, I see imagination as an infinite series of platforms. The first burst of imagination somehow places people on platform number 1, which is beyond current consensus reality. They walk around on that platform for a while, and then it’s time for burst number 2, which creates a further platform, on which people stroll for a period of time. And then, burst 3. And so on and so forth. Forever.

“At no point does anyone lay down laws of perception. Nevertheless, there is a loose and congenial sharing of platforms.

“Of course, this is an ideal. Things don’t happen so smoothly.

“I have some peculiar ideas about language. In a way, I believe you can reach an endpoint with it. You obviously haven’t exhausted all the possibilities for, say, writing a poem. You can invent lines no one has ever come close to before. But you begin to experience the sensation of rearranging deck chairs, and then you know you need something more.

“You need a new kind of language, in which the letters or words or characters or pictographs are open. They carry no fixed meanings.

“Confronted with such a language, the reader employs imagination and imagination only.

“In terms of what we ordinarily expect from language, this seems quite absurd. It seems absurd until we try it out.

“At which point, imagination begins talking to imagination. Leaving systems behind, we are in new territory. The place is new, and how we will deal with being there is new…”

The Chief of Unsystematic Uncoordinated Records finished reading the document and laid it down on his desk.

He thought, “If only that painter knew millions of people now speak and write in those open languages. His assessment seems so obvious in hindsight. Of course we would follow this approach. What else could we do? Deteriorate? Give up? Imitate a consensus? Only a lunatic would opt for that.”

The odd and interesting thing is, we can have both. We can live in a consensus reality, with logic as our tool, and we can also imagine and invent our way out into endless new spaces, about which we presently know nothing.

The literal mind chafes at such a prospect. The literal mind begins to feel it’s going crazy. The literal mind lashes out like a spoiled child. It thinks it’s winning, but it’s losing.

And here is the capper. The literal mind, even if it claims it wants freedom and the end of the horrific Surveillance State, really wants to install its own tyranny. It wants to exchange one fascism for another.

The literal mind is just another machine.

And sooner or later, when it collapses and blows its circuits, it’s a good day in the universe.

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

Along with the Alice-in-Wonderland War, we all recall another famous turning point in our history—the 2061 Lenny Bruce case. Lenny, a volunteer in a Technocracy II experiment, was hooked up, brain to brain, with the Kurzweil super-computer at MIT, in the first public demonstration of Enhanced Human, a government-funded program.

But just before the connection was made, Lenny uttered, “Suppose what I’m thinking is a series of jokes? Suppose I don’t really mean what I think in a literal sense? Suppose when I think A I’m really meaning Z? Suppose I’m doing inside-out and upside down stuff?”

The experiment was halted at that point and Lenny was arrested by the FBI. He was put on trial for conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism, because, obviously, the whole technocratic premise would fail along all systems of brain-to-brain interaction, if other people took Lenny’s hint.

The bill of particulars against Lenny read, “A violation of the literal…an act of domestic terrorism”

And then, a hundred thousand Americans rioted at the Federal Building, and a few hundred of them broke into the courtroom and overwhelmed government troops and burned down the building and freed Lenny. Remember?

Jon Rappoport

Space-time and imagination

Dec30

Space-time and imagination

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

In space, time passes.

If you put a clock in a room, it will tick.

Time is associated with change. In that room, a person walks around. A moth circles. Another person enters, then leaves. The shadows move. If you wait long enough, a light bulb will burn out.

In space, some objects remain stationary. Books on a shelf. Notebooks on a desk. Boxes piled in a corner. Shoes on the rug. But again, if you wait long enough, those objects change. They decay.

So convincing is this presentation, we assume all space is this way. And we assume physical space is all the space there is.

Whereas, if we begin talking about the space of imagination, most people would draw a blank. “Imagination exists? Yes, maybe, I guess so. But it has a space or spaces? That’s going too far. That’s tantamount to setting up a ‘competitor’ to the space we all recognize. That’s weird and wrong…”

When I began painting in 1962, one of the first things I became aware of was I was finding and creating space on the canvas. And of course, much earlier, I had vivid sleeping dreams. What was that “thing” I was walking around in, in those dreams?

I once asked a physicist about this. He said: when you dream, you think you’re in space, but that’s just an illusion. As proof, he pointed out that he wouldn’t be able to measure what was happening in the space of my dreams, and for him, that was that.

When you’re inspired by a subjective vision of what you want to do to make your own future, and you stand at a window in the middle of the night and look out over a city, your experience of space is much different from what you experience while walking to your car in the morning to drive to work.

And even if you call “the visionary space” subjective, it can be a crucial factor in what you actually do to bring your future about. To make it happen in the world.

The energy exercises I developed for Exit From the Matrix are also about space. To project energy, you create space naturally.

Go back and watch Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane or Touch of Evil. Those films are all about created space and the arrangement/motion of people in space, and the angles from which they are shot. All film is about this, but Welles does it better.

From the viewpoint of imagination, space is being created all the time.

During the years, 1935-1960, in New York, the so-called action painters (De Kooning, Pollock, Gorky, Kline, etc.) discovered space as a primary workable “substance” for their explorations. They were quite forceful about it. It had nothing to do with Renaissance perspective or the illusion of intentionally drawn objects that mimicked how we see the world. In action painting, subjective space was pushed to the hilt, and it disturbed many people because it challenged the comfortable sensation that space was an entirely settled issue.

When you create space, you create power. Yours.

You’re no longer simply living in the automatically delivered space of the universe.

The transition from heaven-based religion to the worship of the universe itself occurred because, after the deconstruction of religious myths, the simplest course of action was to claim that the space we could see all around us, or through telescopes, was holy. It was easy. And holy space would give us all we needed, without any action on our part. Passivity.

The philosopher-poet, Giordano Bruno, was burned to death by the Roman Church because he suggested that every soul could extend his own space infinitely and yet remain in accord with other souls. This view challenged the Church at such a fundamental level it could not go unanswered.

Bruno, in a real sense, was talking about imagination—and once that door is opened in the discussion, institutions fall.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that every human has the right to pursue life, liberty, happiness, and the creation of space, time, and energy…”

Money is the commonly held method for creating space. If you have money, you can make space. Witness, for example, the man who works for 30 years to accumulate enough to retire and build his dream house or buy his boat, so he can sail the seas. Space.

If there is a revolution in store for us, it will come by changing that formula, with enough power, so we can create the space first and then flesh it out in the world.

This is not a sedate undertaking. It isn’t a stroll in the park.

The space-time-energy of the universe could be looked at as a business deal. A guy sells you a coat. He says, “Put this on and you’ll have all the space, energy, and time you need. Why go to all the fuss of creating these things yourself?”

I’m drawing attention to the fact that some sort of bargain has been struck.

Artists aren’t satisfied with accepting the space-time bargain as the end-all and be-all. They chafe at that prospect.

Underneath it all, this is why people regard artists with suspicion.

“Why are you creating your own space and time? We have plenty of it already. Can’t you just accept that and get on with your lives?”

Coincidentally, this is the underlying message of secret societies: let us build reality for you.

People look around and quickly realize they’re surrounded by space, time, and energy, and they conclude there isn’t reason to create their own—and if pressed, they’ll tell as many stories as necessary to explain away their inertia. But somehow, the stories don’t do the trick. Vis-a-vis imagination, you’re either active or passive.

For many years now, I’ve been pointing out the advantages of pushing the “active” button.

The whole red-pill blue-pill story in The Matrix is, in a way, a deflection from the main event, which is: to imagine or not to imagine, to invent or not to invent, to create or not to create.

If we had an actual entity called psychology, instead of a watered-down cultural artifact, it would hinge on that choice, and everything in its purview would bloom from that seed.

Suppose, hypothetically, you found a machine that manufactures all the public space, time, and energy there is in physical reality. Suppose you somehow knew that if you turned off the machine, the continuum would shut down and utterly disappear. Suppose, finally, you also knew that when you turned the machine back on, it would smoothly pick up from where it left off, and no one would recall the “the blank period.”

That’s what we’re dealing with.

But when you invent space, that all changes.

In the thousands of stories about ETs coming to Earth with a message, where is the ET who says, “Wait a minute, don’t you people realize you’re passively accepting this space-time setup you have? Don’t you realize there’s another way to go about this? Don’t you realize you’re all artists? What happened to you? You bought a vacation in this little island of space-time, and you never went home. You forgot the way home…”

It’s even worse than that, because the vast majority have also become salespeople for this space-time continuum. They sell it every day, they pitch it and promote it and market it and hype it as “the one and only.”

Nothing intrinsically wrong with this space-time. It’s the acceptance of it as the final word that causes all the trouble.

Organized priest-class religion has a lot to answer for on that score. So do all our institutions.

One of the most successful sales tactics is making space less affordable and thus more valuable and scarce.

“Get your little space now, before it’s too late. For the low-low price of $250,000 you can move into a 250-foot-square shoebox.”

And then: “We have to spy on everything that happens in this space, because everybody is a potential terrorist.”

It’s the shrinkage factor.

Focus everyone’s attention on diminishing, tightly controlled space, and they’ll be less likely to remember that they can invent their own.

Jon Rappoport

A miracle in Wisconsin

Dec30

A Miracle in Wisconsin

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

I published this article in October of 2002. At the time, it was the most widely read piece I’d written and posted on my site. Its basics still hold up.

What I didn’t mention at the time was the corrosive role school-food distributors and their allies on boards of education play in the health of children.

These are the people who operate a corrupt system and mandate the feeding of toxic and nutritionally empty junk to students across the country.

One school took another path:

Natural Ovens and the ‘Healthy Lunch Program’ Revolution

A Miracle in Wisconsin

by Jon Rappoport

Monday, October 14, 2002

A revolution has occurred in Appleton, Wisconsin. It’s taken place in the Central Alternative High School. The kids now behave. The hallways aren’t frantic. Even the teachers are happy.

The school used to be out of control. Kids packed weapons. Discipline problems swamped the principal’s office.

But not since 1997.

What happened? Did they line every inch of space with cops? Did they spray Valium gas in the classrooms? Did they install metal detectors in the bathrooms? Did they build holding cells in the gym?

Afraid not. In 1997, a private group called Natural Ovens began installing a healthy lunch program.

Fast-food burgers, fries, and burritos gave way to fresh salads, meats “prepared with old-fashioned recipes,” and whole grain bread. Fresh fruits were added to the menu. Good drinking water arrived.

Vending machines were removed.

As reported in a newsletter called Pure Facts, “Grades are up, truancy is no longer a problem, arguments are rare, and teachers are able to spend their time teaching.”

Principal LuAnn Coenen, who files annual reports with the state of Wisconsin, has turned in some staggering figures since 1997. Drop-outs? Students expelled? Students discovered to be using drugs? Carrying weapons? Committing suicide? Every category has come up ZERO. Every year.

Mary Bruyette, a teacher, states, “I don’t have to deal with daily discipline issues. I don’t have disruptions in class or the difficulties with student behavior I experienced before we started the food program.”

One student asserted, “Now that I can concentrate I think it’s easier to get along with people.” What a concept—eating healthier food increases concentration.

Principal Coenen sums it up: “I can’t buy the argument that it’s too costly for schools to provide good nutrition for their students. I found that one cost will reduce another. I don’t have the vandalism. I don’t have the litter. I don’t have the need for high security.”

At a nearby middle school, the new food program is catching on. A teacher there, Dennis Abram, reports, “I’ve taught here almost 30 years. I see the kids this year as calmer, easier to talk to. They just seem more rational. I had thought about retiring this year and basically I’ve decided to teach another year—I’m having too much fun!”

Pure Facts, the newsletter that ran this story, is published by a non-profit organization called The Feingold Association, which has existed since 1976. Part of its mission is to “generate public awareness of the potential role of foods and synthetic additives in behavior, learning and health problems. The [Feingold] program is based on a diet eliminating synthetic colors, synthetic flavors, and the preservatives BHA, BHT, and TBHQ.”

Thirty years ago there was a Dr. Feingold. His breakthrough work proved the connection between these negative factors in food and the lives of children. Hailed as a revolutionary advance, Feingold’s findings were soon trashed by the medical cartel, since those findings threatened the drugs-for-everything, disease-model concept of modern healthcare.

But Feingold’s followers have kept his work alive.

If what happened in Appleton, Wisconsin, takes hold in many other communities across America, perhaps the ravenous corporations who invade school space with their vending machines and junk food will be tossed out on their behinds. It could happen.

And perhaps ADHD will become a dinosaur. A non-disease that was once attributed to errant brain chemistry. And perhaps Ritalin will be seen as just another toxic chemical that was added to the bodies of kids in a crazed attempt to put a lid on behavior that, in part, was the result of a subversion of the food supply.

For those readers who ask me about solutions to the problems we face—here is a real solution. Help these groups. Get involved. Step into the fray. Stand up and be counted.

The drug companies aren’t going to do it. They’re busy estimating the size of their potential markets. They’re building their chemical pipelines into the minds and bodies of the young.

Every great revolution starts with a foothold. Sounds like Natural Ovens and The Feingold Association have made strong cuts into the big rock of ignorance and greed.

First published 10-14-2002.

Jon Rappoport