Tagged: Rappoport

Measles outbreak in Europe: convenient lies

http://ift.tt/2utPrvu

Measles outbreak in Europe: convenient lies

By Jon Rappoport

There is an invariable first rule of propaganda: know exactly what your agenda is, and then design every statement to forward that agenda.

The World Health Organization is now touting a measles epidemic in Europe. And of course, they’re explaining it with propaganda—it’s the fault of people who refuse to allow their children to take the measles vaccination.

The focus is on Italy, where, “coincidently,” protesters are outraged at a new law mandating vaccination for children. Perfect. “You see? Don’t take the shot and this is what you get. A massive outbreak.”

Well, here is an official report. In Italy, there are 3300 case of measles and two deaths.

That’s the classic and traditional and age-old picture of measles. 3298 children have survived. Kids get measles, they recover, and thereafter they’re immune.

As for the two children who died, you would have to do a very careful independent investigation, to determine what health problems they may have had before they contracted measles. And “health problems” would include prior toxic medical treatment. The actual cause of death isn’t always what health authorities say it is.

In addition to the above, here are two revealing quotes to consider:

“…the window of vulnerability of an infant may be even greater in vaccinated women than in with women with natural measles infection.” (Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 79(5), 2008, pp. 787–792).

Translation: Measles occurring in infants—which is unusual and dangerous—is more likely to occur when the mother has been vaccinated against measles. Why? Because, as a result of her being vaccinated, she no longer passes down, to her child, the natural components of immunity to measles from her having had the disease. And the vaccination she received didn’t confer immunity to her baby.

“Administration of KMV (killed measles vaccine) apparently set in motion an aberrant immunologic response that not only failed to protect children against natural measles, but resulted in heightened susceptibility.” JAMA Aug. 22, 1980, vol. 244, p. 804, Vincent Fulginiti and Ray Helfer. The authors indicate that such children can come down with “an often severe, atypical form of measles. Atypical measles is characterized by fever, headache… and a diverse rash (which)… may consist of a mixture of macules, papules, vesicles, and pustules… ”

In other words, the measles vaccine can create a worse form of measles. This is not the normal form of the illness, from which children routinely recover with the bonus of lifetime immunity. No, this is a severe, atypical, dangerous, synthetic, vaccine-induced disease.

Does all this mean the health authorities in Europe aren’t telling the whole story, are twisting the truth?

I’m shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

To cite just one parallel in the US among many, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) buys and dispenses several billion dollars’ worth of vaccines every year. At the same time, the CDC is in charge of doing key studies to test the safety and efficacy of those vaccines. This unconscionable conflict of interest is an ongoing crime—because there are NO circumstances under which the CDC would ever say that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective, since they, the CDC, are a leading commercial customer and purveyor of those medical products. They would be cutting their own throats.

Do public health authorities lie?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Filed under: Uncategorized

Vía Jon Rappoport’s Blog http://ift.tt/2vFwc0F

The good old days: Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelley—and Salvador Dali

http://ift.tt/2v3YFjP

The good old days: Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelley—and Salvador Dali

by Jon Rappoport

Salvador Dali, surrealist, was one of the most reviled painters of the 20th century.

He disturbed Conventional Folk who just wanted to see an apple in a bowl on a table.

Dali’s apples and bowls were executed with a technical skill few artists could match—except that the apples were coming out of a woman’s nose while she was ironing the back of a giraffe, who was on fire.

“It doesn’t go together! It doesn’t make sense! He’s Satan!”

Yet, these same Folk sit in front of the television screen every night and watch the entirely surreal network news. Elite anchors seamlessly and quickly move from blood running in the streets of a distant land to a hairdryer product-recall to an unseasonal hail storm in Michigan to a debate about public policy on pedophiles to genetically engineered mosquitoes in Florida to a possible breakthrough in storing computer simulations of human brains for later recapture to squirrels gathering nuts in New Jersey.

Nothing surreal about this??

Cognitive dissonance is imprinted on viewers’ minds. It’s the news. It must be normal, even if it’s quite insane.

The best of the best mind control is supposedly applied by the three major network anchors. Recall the old trio: Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer. They’re all gone now. The junior varsity has taken over. David Muir, Lester Holt, and a permanent CBS anchor to be named later.

When the elite anchor goes on air and digs in, he’s paid to be seamless. He could be transitioning from mass killings in East Asia to sub-standard air conditioners, and he makes the audience track through the absurd curve in the road.

Then there is the voice itself. The elite anchor has a voice that soothes just a bit but brooks no resistance. It’s authoritative but not demanding.

Scott Pelley (CBS) was careful to watch himself on this count, because his tendency was to shove the message down the viewer’s throat like a surgeon making an incision with an icepick. Pelley was a high-IQ android who was training himself to be human.

Diane Sawyer wandered into sloppiness, like a housewife who’s still wearing her bathrobe at 4 in the afternoon. She exuded sympathetic syrup, as if she’d had a few cocktails for lunch. And she affected a pose of “caring too much.”

Brian Williams was head and shoulders above his two competitors. You had to look and listen hard to spot a speck of confusion in his delivery. He knew how to believe his act was real. He could also flick a little aw-shucks apple-pie at the viewer. Country boy who moved to the big city.

The vocal delivery of an elite anchor has to work minor poetic rhythms into prose. Shallow hills and valleys. Clip it here and there. Give the important words a pop. This is hypnosis at work. Not the cheesy stage act with three rubes sitting in chairs, waiting to be made into fools by the used-car-salesman type waving a pendulum. This is higher-class stuff. It flows with certainty. It entrains brains. The audience tunes in every night to get their fix.

That’s the key. The audience doesn’t really care about content. They want the delivery, the sound, the voice of the face.

Brain Williams could do a story about three hookers getting thrown out of a restaurant by a doctor celebrating his anniversary with his wife, and it would come across like the Pentagon sending warships into the Gulf.

Diane Sawyer couldn’t. That’s why Williams’ ratings were higher.

Segues, blends are absolutely vital. These are the transitions between one story and another. “Earlier today, in Boston.” “Meanwhile, in New York, the police are reporting.” “But on the Hill, the news was somewhat disappointing for supporters of the president.”

Doing excellent blends can earn an anchor millions of dollars. The audience doesn’t wobble or falter or make distinctions between what went before and what’s coming now. It’s all one script. It’s one winding weirdness of story every night.

Therefore, the viewer doesn’t need to think. This is the acid test. If the ratings are high enough and the audience isn’t thinking, we have a winner.

Corollary: the audience doesn’t notice the parameters of stories, how they’re bounded and defined and artificially constructed to omit deeper themes and various criminals who are committing outrageous crimes that aren’t supposed to be exposed.

Brian Williams, with just a bit of his twanging emphasis, could say, “Today, pharmaceutical giant Glaxo was fined one-point-nine billions dollars,” but he would never tie all the horrendous stories of medical-drug damage together in a searing indictment of the whole industry.

The audience needs to remain oblivious to this larger story. That’s the anchor’s job. That’s his underlying assignment.

It’s called, in intelligence circles, a limited hangout. You expose a piece of a crime, in order to transmit the illusion of “justice served,” while the true RICO dimensions are kept out of view.

Elite anchors are the princes of limit hangouts. That is their stock in trade. Sell the illusion of justice while concealing the bulk of the iceberg that is under water.

The audience can watch and listen to hours of coverage on revolutions and counter-revolutions in the Middle East, but they can’t suspect that the US and NATO are funding terrorists dressed up as freedom fighters, in order to destabilize and destroy nations in that region.

“More gunfire and explosions in the capital city today…”

Then there is a little thing called conscience. The elite anchor can’t have one. He has to pretend to have one, but it isn’t real.

Every year, the anchor covers dozens of scandals that are left to wither and die on the vine and fall down the memory hole, never to be seen again, except perhaps for a much-later task-force or commission report that equivocates and exonerates the major players.

The anchor is happy to deal with this. He’s happy to develop memory loss.

In editorial meetings at his own network offices, if someone mentions trillions in government bailouts to banks, he can frown slightly and thus impart, “It’s stale, it’s old, we already covered that, let’s move along.”

And when it comes to elites, to whom the anchor pledges allegiance, and with whom he occasionally hob-nobs? CFR, Rockefeller interests, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, AIPAC, government-allied Big Medicine, and so on? Nothing to see, nothing to say. No problem.

Therefore, the viewing audience doesn’t suspect these controlling entities are doing anything wrong or, in some cases, even exist.

The elite anchor: “Conspiracy? Aw shucks, I really do have sympathy for the people who dig up this stuff. And I’m not saying all of it is wrong, either. But you know, journalism is about plumbing for facts and verifying them. That’s the hard truth we have to face in this business. Going on the air with a possible this and a possible that is ultimately irresponsible. If we who present the news feel an occasional impulse to wing it, we have to rein ourselves in. Restraint is part of our job…”

Show these jokers a few devastating books by Anthony Sutton or Carroll Quigley and they’ll nod and say, “I did read that one in college. It was interesting but a little thin, I thought…”

The anchors project a sense they’re doing science. Gathering facts, verifying, testing, repeating the study to see if it holds up, checking the checkers, confirming the sources, tailoring the assertions to make sure there’s no wandering off the well-researched path.

It’s part of the act.

The elite anchor has to impart the impression that he’s personally familiar with the events he’s reporting. That’s nonsense. He isn’t touching actual events with a ten-foot pole. He isn’t doing journalism himself. But the audience must think he is.

“Washington has been the scene of many battles. But the current tussle at the top of the fiscal cliff is becoming an exercise in outrage on both sides. Today, behind closed doors…”

Some anchors are managing editors of their own broadcasts. That means they sit around like newspaper editors and listen to lesser editors present the stories of the day. The anchors ask questions and pick and choose which pieces they’ll cover on the evening news, and they decide the sequence, but their hands never touch the events themselves.

It’s more illusion. A well-trained and literate high-school sophomore from Nome could go on air, with a decent haircut, and read the news.

But backed up by expert technicians, a good set decorator, and a pro make-up person, Williams, Pelley, and Sawyer gave people the kind of living fiction that has become its own genre.

Elite anchors have a dual aspect. They control minds and they also put themselves in a mind-controlled state, in order to (temporarily) believe in what they’re saying on-air. It’s all self-inflicted.

No need to censor stories from above. The anchors have a finely honed sense of what is permissible and what isn’t.

In early human societies, the story teller was a principal figure. He wove the tribe’s experiences into a coherent whole, and built layers of cosmology. Story tellers formed an elite priest caste and spun official metaphysical doctrine.

Today, people feel the same need for narrators: the anchors. Although these front men for the news no longer use metaphysics to control the masses, they do covertly obey the old rule: tell only part of story.

Guard the rest from public view.

In ancient times, the rationale for hiding key secrets was explained in terms of stages of privileged initiations into “the magic.” Today, millions of people are led to believe their news narrators are giving them everything there is. Other than anchors’ stories, there is nothing. So in this secular media religion, viewers think they have only two choices: swallow the news reality, or face a cold vacuum.

Their bottomless need for a story teller survives.

But…

Came the Internet.

And then the whole world turned upside down.

The networks began to realize they were made out of eggshells and cardboard, and the holes and fractures and disintegrating pieces were out there, on television, for all to witness.

As a veteran reporter who quit the business and went online told me, “Network mind control is expensive. You have to keep doing it every day. And that’s without competition. Now, competitors are everywhere.”

It takes a village. The “it” in this case is network news and the village is the staff and crew. But the village is experiencing typhoons. Once upon a time, crazy surreal mainstream television news required no apologies. But that entitlement has peeled away and blown offshore.

Independent online news outlets are catching up to, and in some cases, surpassing MSM audience numbers. And the content is quite different.

For one thing, the content often features devastating critiques of elite news. For example: The Washington Post, once considered (by the uninformed) an unimpeachable source, is presently owned by Jeff Bezos, the billionaire boss of Amazon. Amazon has a $600 million contract to provide cloud-computing services to the CIA.

This is more than a crippling conflict of interest. It’s a death rattle. Every story the Post publishes about the CIA, and every story that has a named or unnamed CIA source is as reliable as an antelope’s press agent justifying the extinction of all lions.

The NY Times’ daily attacks on Trump for his supposed Russian connections? Well, in 2015, the Times published a devastating piece detailing the Clintons’ role in selling 20% of US uranium production to Putin. But the Times conveniently refuses to follow up on its own story. Needless to say, if Trump had played such a decisive role in enriching Putin and transferring a top national-security resource to Russia, he’d already be wearing a prison jump suit and awaiting a firing squad.

Day by day, elite mainstream news is fading.

This is what happens to elitist authority, no matter how skillful their production.

Hypnosis leaks.

It’s not a perfect seal.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Vía Jon Rappoport’s Blog http://ift.tt/2v3w7qx

Wake up to the Rockefeller movie of political reality

http://ift.tt/2uoVlOu

Wake up to the Rockefeller movie of political reality

By Jon Rappoport

The key document here is the 2010 Rockefeller Foundation brainstorming exercise, “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”.

It imagines various disasters and possible responses to them.

The report presents a friendly and concerned front, but reading between the lines, you can see Globalism at work, shoring up a new and improved international order—as if that solution is the only viable future for humanity.

Here is a choice bit of scenario-building and forecasting from the report:

“In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit…national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.”

Ah yes, the favorite phony stepchild of the Globalists: a pandemic. Forget the fact that every dire prediction of worldwide destruction from a dreaded virus, during the past 15 years, has fallen flat. SARS, Swine Flu, West Nile, Bird Flu, etc. Duds.

Here’s another preposterous Rockefeller future, from the viewpoint of 2010:

“Undeniably, the planet’s climate was becoming increasingly unstable.”

“Sea levels were rising fast, even as countries continued to build-out coastal mega-cities.”

“In 2014, the Hudson River overflowed into New York City during a storm surge, turning the World Trade Center site into a three-foot-deep lake. The image of motorboats navigating through lower Manhattan jarred the world’s most powerful nations into realizing that climate change was not just a developing-world problem.”

The last Time I looked, New York City was not underwater. Submarine taxis weren’t taking people to work.

Now read further, to get a flavor of the Rockefeller solution to the “climate disaster.” Notice that an international order, and NOT separate nations, is required:

“In such an interconnected world, where the behaviors of one country, company, or individual had potentially high-impact effects on all others, piecemeal attempts by one nation here, one small collective of environmental organizations there, would not be enough to stave off a climate disaster – or, for that matter, to effectively address a host of other planetary-scale problems.”

“But highly coordinated worldwide strategies for addressing such urgent issues just might. What was needed was systems thinking – and systems acting – on a global scale.”

“International coordination started slowly, then accelerated faster than anyone had imagined.”

“In 2015, a critical mass of middle income and developed countries with strong economic growth publicly committed to leveraging their resources against global-scale problems, beginning with climate change. Together, their governments hashed out plans for monitoring and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the short term and improving the absorptive capacity of the natural environment over the long term.”

“In 2017, an international agreement was reached on carbon sequestration (by then, most multinational corporations had a chief carbon officer) and intellectual and financial resources were pooled to build out carbon capture processes that would best support the global ecosystem. A functioning global cap and trade system was also established.”

“Worldwide, the pressure to reduce waste and increase efficiency in planet-friendly ways was enormous.”

Now here is the big one, with technocracy as the master:

“New globally coordinated systems for monitoring energy use capacity – including smart grids and bottom-up pattern recognition technologies – were rolled out. These efforts produced real results: by 2022, new projections showed a significant slowing in the rise of atmospheric carbon levels.”

“Inspired by the success of this experiment in collective global action, large-scale coordinated initiatives intensified. Centralized global oversight and governance structures sprang up, not just for energy use but also for disease and technology standards. Such systems and structures required far greater levels of transparency, which in turn required more tech-enabled data collection, processing, and feedback.”

“Enormous, benign “sousveillance” systems allowed citizens to access data – all publicly available – in real time and react. Nation-states lost some of their power and importance as global architecture strengthened and regional governance structures emerged. International oversight entities like the UN took on new levels of authority, as did regional systems like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), and the Asian Development Bank (ADB).”

Are you following this? The monitoring of energy use, for example. This is nothing less than moment to moment tracking of energy production and consumption, planet-wide.

It’s the ultimate top-down force. What flows from this position is the ALLOCATION of energy to every nation—and, up the road, TO EVERY HUMAN.

“Mr. Jones, your energy-use card shows you’ve reached your limit for this month. Ten days left until February 1. All your energy-producing devices and assets will shut down now. Have a nice day.”

You don’t think that could ever happen? There is no way to assign energy-use limits to nations without directly impacting use by individuals.

I also hope you noticed the reference to emerging “regional governance structures.” The takeover of separate nations by the UN, the EU, and other unelected bodies.

This is the preferred and mandated Rockefeller solution.

And now a word about the hated and loved Donald Trump. Whatever you think of him, he raised the issue of Globalism, front and center. He shot down the Rockefeller TPP treaty. He didn’t sign the Paris Climate pact. He emphasized nationalism, as opposed to internationalism. He mocked climate-change “science.”

For the moment, let’s assume the very worst. Trump didn’t mean anything he said. He was a liar, is a liar, and will be a liar. He was actually put in office by the Globalists, who wanted a ludicrous enemy to play off of. He wasn’t and isn’t an enemy of Globalism. He’s a complete fraud. By relentlessly attacking Trump, the Globalists will defeat their “last opponent,” and in the next election they will sweep into power as never before, believing they can then complete their plan for worldwide domination. Let’s assume all this.

Nevertheless, millions and millions of people have become alerted to this thing called Globalism as a destructive force with a covert agenda of planetary control.

Observers can go full-bore gloom and doom, claiming it doesn’t matter. They can bitch and moan about how nothing has changed. They can confirm their own personal prophecy of failure along all fronts.

Or they can try to wake up more people to what Globalism is really all about.

All along I’ve said I’m far more interested in the people who supported Trump, for their own reasons, than I’m interested in Trump. And I’m not particularly interested in those supporters’ reasons, either—except when FREEDOM is involved.

The freedom to take destiny into their own hands.

That idea is not dead. It will never be dead.

Time is long.

THE INDIVIDUAL is at the very bottom of the Globalist plan. He is considered to be a fly in the ointment who needs to be eradicated, in favor of The Group.

He is considered to be an extinct evolutionary appendage.

That is why the Globalist superstructure must be defeated.

Psychologically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, creatively, a separate nation is better than an oligarchical global government.

An individual is better than a nation.

A free individual is better than a sleeping individual.

A self-empowered individual—free, responsible, rational, intensely creative—is possible and necessary.

This is where it all starts.

This is where it has to start.

It doesn’t start with a global glob of fantasizing utopians, who are unaware they’re acting on behalf of an Earth Empire.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Vía Jon Rappoport’s Blog http://ift.tt/2vAG3ot

Love the medical spy in your home

http://ift.tt/2vNPbFx

Love the medical spy in your own home

By Jon Rappoport

“O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.” (George Orwell, 1984)

What are Merck/Amazon up to these days?

The drug giant is sponsoring a contest, in association with Amazon, to develop voice-activated programs for patients with diabetes.

Utilizing Amazon Alexa, the voice-interactive AI box that functions as a personal assistant—a spy in your own home—Amazon will enable “help” for people managing their disease.

An article at fiercepharma.com describes one of the finalists in the Merck contest: “The intelligent personal assistant platform creator Ejenta advanced into the finals with PIA, or personal intelligent agents. Its entry aims to leverage NASA artificial intelligence technology and Internet of Things connectivity to detect risky behaviors and encourage healthy habits. The system could also notify care teams if abnormalities are detected.”

Are you getting this?

Personal intelligence agents?

Detecting risky behaviors and abnormalities?

Notifying CARE TEAMS?

“Personnel dispatched to 142 Summit Street, home of John Jones, diabetic. Alexa heard the crinkle of a package-wrap associated with sugar cookies. 92% probability Jones just opened the bag and is quietly chewing the cookies. Front-door entry advised. Do not ring bell. Move into the home quickly and disarm the subject…”

But don’t worry, it’s for people’s own good. Of course. People need protection from their bad habits.

“I had a close call today, Fred. I was aching for chocolate candy, and I guess I made some kind of lip-smacking sound. I was on the edge. But my Alexa alerted the care team and they showed up in a few minutes and their dogs found my secret stash in a trunk in the basement. The guys sprayed the trunk with high-dose fluoride and Roundup and a few other chemicals…”

“That’s nothing, Jim. I was calling my ex-wife. I wanted to get together for lunch. But my psychiatrist had told me any contact with her would be a negative. Alexa alerted the care team and they disconnected the call before it went through, showed up with a shot of Thorazine and put me under for a few hours. When I woke up, I felt better. Saved again.”

It takes a village.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Vía Jon Rappoport’s Blog http://ift.tt/2uncyYx

Explosive: psychiatric diagnosis, Surveillance State linked

http://ift.tt/2uoTqI3

Explosive: psychiatric diagnosis, Surveillance State linked

By Jon Rappoport

Pay close attention to this one. It’s the future coming at you like a strong wind.

First, a bit of background. As my readers know, I’ve assembled conclusive proof that psychiatric diagnosis of mental disorders is a fraud. It’s pseudoscience. There are no defining lab tests. No definitive blood, saliva, hair, brain, genetic tests.

Instead, committees of psychiatrists meet and discuss arbitrary clusters of behaviors, group them and label them with “mental-disorder” names.

But diehards insist that one of the earliest and oldest disorders, schizophrenia, is the exception. That one is solid. That one isn’t pseudoscience. That one is the “gold standard.”

Wrong.

As fiercebiotech.com reports, “…Diagnosing schizophrenia relies on subjective methods…There is no single test for schizophrenia, so diagnosis typically involves observing symptoms and ruling out other potential causes for them…”

Want more? Fiercebiotch: “And while scientists have observed differences in brain scans of healthy people and those with schizophrenia…these are not currently used to diagnose the neurological disorder, according to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).” Not used because the brain scans aren’t precise or definitive.

Same old, same old. Committees of psychiatrists “observe symptoms” (behaviors) and invent rules for diagnosis of schizophrenia.

As usual, the public is the last to know.

Now, there is a new project afoot that aims to change the non-objective diagnosis, using MRI images of the brain. IBM and the University of Alberta are working on it:

Fiercebiotech: “The team used machine learning to create a model that identifies schizophrenia based on connections in the brain, IBM said. The fMRI data was taken from different sites, using different machines, but the algorithm could differentiate between the patients with schizophrenia and without 74% of the time.”

No one is popping champagne corks. This was a small pilot study using 95 volunteers. Typically, these projects die out when larger studies are done, because the results aren’t specific enough.

That’s why NO brain tests, for ANY so-called mental disorder, are labeled definitive in the psychiatric bible, the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

However, the computer boys and medical pros keep trying—and here is where the Surveillance State enters the scene in an ugly way.

Fiercebiotech: “Mindstrong Health, cofounded by former NIMH [National Institute of Mental Health, a federal agency] chief Tom Insel, is working on technology that analyzes smartphone data to determine a person’s mental state. The company’s tech collects information on which words are used, or a person’s location when using certain apps, for example, and turns them into objective measures of brain function. The company recently raised $14 million…”

“Meanwhile, Boston-based Akili Interactive and Pfizer reported data last year showing that a video game-based diagnostic test could distinguish between people with and without brain amyloidosis, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. And PureTech’s Sonde Health is working on the analysis of ‘vocal biomarkers,’ or changes in nonlinguistic characteristics of a person’s voice, to indicate changes in health.”

To make a long story short: spy on everybody through their cell phones and computers, in order to diagnose them with ANY mental disorder.

The Surveillance State gets a new justification, and the psychiatric establishment gets to play Big Brother, “to protect us all” from mentally ill persons.

This research was kicked into a higher gear by Obama’s Brain Mapping Project, which he announced in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting. The Project is necessary, he claimed, to help prevent such future tragedies.

No, the Project is necessary to expand surveillance of the population, for the sake of control.

Psychiatric diagnosis, and the toxic drugging that follows, IS a form of control.

“Well, we have a red-flagged subject in Boston who’s been using key words in his cell phone calls, and the non-linguistic pauses and voice inflections indicate he’s demonstrating a schizoid pattern. According to outlined procedures, we need to step up surveillance on him, do a deep check on his financials, quietly interview a few of his friends and co-workers, determine his voting record, find out what groups he belongs to. He’s a college professor. He teaches American history. Do we have anything on how he interprets the Founding Fathers, the Constitution…oh look, he seems to be making statements about the need to return to limited central government…we’ve got a live one, guys. Get busy…”

Diagnose the prof with schizoid tendencies and put him on an anti-psychotic drug, which will sink him into a brain haze and slow down his motor reflexes, at minimum.

Psychiatry and the Surveillance State:

Kissing cousins.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Vía Jon Rappoport’s Blog http://ift.tt/2upfq5X

What is The Matrix

http://ift.tt/1rSRHEf

What is The Matrix

The Yin Yang Experiment

by Jon Rappoport

July 22, 2017

Let’s pretend that a few Chinese sages, long ago, decided to float a trial balloon.

They spread the word that opposites could resolve in a state of harmony. Each polarity could reflect the other.

It was a poetic thought that might be embedded in a few verses.

The sages watched and waited. Eventually, they saw that this fancy had taken hold. In fact, it had become embedded in a philosophy. It was now being discussed as a principle of the universe, the cosmos.

The sages were shocked but not surprised. Humans exhibit strange fetishes.

What started out as a poet’s passing rumination on a summer afternoon—entertained purely for the purpose of writing verse—was now an all-embracing weave of the Matrix.

From the sages’ point of view, what might be done in a poem was far more important than what might be attributed to Universe.

I use this as an illustration of “piling on”–how humans add one idea after another, one speculation after another to a Matrix that is already built to give the impression that it is the prime reality.

Richard Jenkins, the extraordinary healer I write about in The Secret Behind Secret Societies, once told me, “The addiction to Universe is like every other religious addiction. People aren’t satisfied with just two or three myths. They have to keep making them up. It’s like children with dolls and clothes. You’ve got to have more outfits.”

The Matrix is made into a magnet. Instead of understanding that products of imagination are art, people have to embellish the Matrix with those products. That gets them dug in deeper.

Nearly 45 years ago, I rented a garage in Santa Monica and turned it into a studio. It was small, and I wanted to paint large. I stretched three canvases, the biggest of which was 15×8 feet. Because there wasn’t enough room in the studio, I kept painting over that canvas.

Six months later, I had done perhaps 15 paintings on that one canvas—each painting covering the one before it. I’d used all sorts of paints—acrylic, oil, enamel. Finally, I painted the whole thing black. I looked at the black space for a few days, and I noticed there was a small glint of light green peeking through in the lower left.

I worked at the area with my fingernails, and suddenly a two-foot section of black came away like a swath of rubber, exposing many colors and shapes, which were intact.

I realized that, because I’d used different kinds of paint, I’d done distinct layers. The layers hadn’t adhered perfectly.

For the next week, using a screwdriver and a mallet, I uncovered painting after painting, going back in time.

Eventually, I arrived at a painting composed of several layers at slightly different heights. I liked it.

If the painting had been the Matrix, and I had been a devotee, I would have fallen on my knees at that point and said a prayer. I would have, for the moment, been happy I had determined how many layers (myths) were necessary to give me the One Painting For All Time. The religion of Matrix.

But it was a painting. And of course, since I was the artist, I knew that.

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

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

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

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

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


exit from the matrix


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

First, my audio presentations:

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

* EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* 50 IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* FURTHER IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* ANESTHESIA, BOREDOM, EXCITEMENT, ECSTASY

* ANCIENT TIBET AND THE UNIVERSE AS A PRODUCT OF MIND

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

* PARANORMAL EXPERIMENTS AND EXERCISES

* CHILDREN AND IMAGINATION

* THE CREATIVE LIFE AND THE MATRIX/IMAGINATION

* PICTURES OF REALITY AND ESCAPE VELOCITY FROM THE MATRIX

* THIS WOULD BE A VERY DIFFERENT FUTURE

* MODERN ZEN

* THE GREAT PASSIONS AND THE GREAT ANDROIDS

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

* Mind Control, Mind Freedom

* The Transformations

* Desire, Manifestation and Fulfillment

* Altered States, Consciousness, and Magic

* Beyond Structures

* The Mystery and Magic of Dialogue

* The Voyage of Merlin

* Modern Alchemy and Imagination

* Imagination and Spiritual Enlightenment

* Dissolving Stress

* The Paranormal Project

* Zen Painting for Everyone Now

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

* Expression of Self

* Imagination Exercises for a Lifetime

* Old Planet, New Planet, New Mind

* The Era of Magic Returns

* Your Power Revealed

* Universes Without End

* Relationships

* Building a Business for Success

I have included an additional bonus section:

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

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

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

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

And these audio seminars:

* The Role of Medical Drugs in Human Illness

* Longevity One: The Mind-Body Connection

* Longevity Two: The Nutritional Factors

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Filed under: Exit From the Matrix

Vía Jon Rappoport’s Blog http://ift.tt/2vL3dI9

The individual vs. the illusion of consensus reality

http://ift.tt/2twKIuc

The individual vs. the illusion of consensus reality

by Jon Rappoport

This is such a supercharged subject, I could start from a dozen places.

But let’s begin here: the individual is unique, because he is himself. He is unique because he has his own ideas, because he has his own desires, because he has his own power. That power belongs to no one else.

In particular, it doesn’t belong to the State. The State will always try to suggest that it is granting power to the individual, but this is a lie. A lie broadcast with ill-intent.

While everyone else is trying to manufacture connections to the group, under the banner of a false sense of community, the individual is going in the opposite direction.

Philip K Dick: “Insanity—to have to construct a picture of one’s life, by making inquiries of others.”

Consensus reality is the reality of sacrifice. It is coagulating energy, form, content, substance that takes on amorphous shapes studded with slots into which people can fit themselves.

The independent individual thinks what he wants to think. Over time, he keeps graduating into new, more nearly unique levels of what he wants to think.

He rises to his own thoughts.

There is no subject and no substance which is not infiltrated by consensus reality. Wherever you look, you will encounter it. The group is the basis of consensus reality, and the group-pact extends everywhere. The group fears a sector where only individual thought can tread.

That would be dangerous to the illusion. “Well, we’ve got things well in hand in most places, but over there and over here we’re not in charge.”

No, that doesn’t work for the group. The exceptions would blow a hole in the rule.

“Stay away from the corner of Lexington Avenue and 34th Street. Something too weird is going on there. We come in and try to inject consensus on that spot and it doesn’t work. Our ‘sharing’ energy bounces off that corner. We may have to call in the troops to surround the place and cordon it off.”

“Group consensus is fraying and fragmenting in Area 768-B! Call the professors and pundits! Discredit the individual! Call him a monster! Do something fast!”

Consensus reality is an illusion in the sense that you can see it and I can see it, but we didn’t sign up for it.

The individual can opt out. That doesn’t necessarily mean the consensus disappears; you can still see it, but you see it without accepting it.

You can see the oasis in the desert and know it is a mirage. You have your own water, you don’t have to run toward the mirage and fall down on your knees and try to drink from the pool.

Philip K. Dick: “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…increasingly, we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated electronic mechanisms…And this is an astounding power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.”

The strong and free individual evolves. He doesn’t stay the same. He continues to emerge with new ideas, new energy, new invention. He becomes larger. He gains more power.

When the illusion of consensus reality attains a level beyond mere slogan, it enters the realm of systems. This is its most convincing format. A system appears to be watertight. Each one of its parts has relations with the whole.

This is interesting, because that mirrors what a group is. Each member is a part that connects to the whole.

Consensus as a system is like a game of chess that plays the same moves over and over. Game one is the same as game two, three, four…

That’s where its illusion of power comes from.

The individual, though, doesn’t proceed according to systems. He isn’t moving from one closed context to another.

Consensus is the coin of the realm. It is forced from the top, and it is signed up for at the bottom. One hand washes the other.

Societies may begin through consensus, but if they have any courage, they shift focus to the job of pulling away coercive restraints on the individual. Regardless, the individual asserts his freedom. It is his to begin with, not the group’s. No one gives it to him.

Earth’s societies have moved rapidly to an inverse, an upside down structure, in which freedom is looked upon as a privilege grudgingly accorded in the absence of a reason to take it away.

The group has conception of Normal. Normal is like a message passed around, from hand to hand, and when you look at it closely, for content, it dissolves. There was really nothing there.

Group consensus is mindless hive-action covering a vacuum.

Here is what occasionally happens to people who have hidebound political ideologies. The people on the Left move further and further to the Left, and the people on the Right move further and further to the Right. Finally, they are both so distant from the State they meet and stare at each other in shock. At that point, they are just individuals.

“But society runs on groups! It must have groups!”

And what? The individual must give in and join and belong?

Consensus reality is a cartoon that is trying to become as real as steel. What deconstructs the steel and exposes the cartoon? There is only one thing that can do that. Nothing and no one else is going to do that.

The individual does it.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Vía Jon Rappoport’s Blog http://ift.tt/2uiD2Jc

Why I love schools that ban books

http://ift.tt/2twgcAJ

Why I love schools that ban books

By Jon Rappoport

Let’s start here. In 2016, as US News reports, “The Portland Public Schools Board on Tuesday decided to ban any classroom materials that cast doubt on climate change. The resolution passed unanimously and requires that textbooks and other material purchased by the district present climate change as a fact rather than theory. Material will also need to present human activity as one of the phenomenon’s causes.”

This is good news. Why? Because a school system has asserted how it wants education to be managed. This is how children will be taught. No tap-dancing around the issue. Here it is. Boom. Out in the open. If you don’t like it, too bad.

If you don’t like it as a parent, take your child out of the Portland system. Launch home schooling. Start your own private school. Move out of Portland to another public school district.

Let’s go all the way back to the beginning of the American public-education system and Thomas Jefferson, who tried (and failed) to get a bill passed in the Virginia legislature. Jefferson:

“But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by…[any] general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.…No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.”

Jefferson’s vision was hundreds of small wards within each state. Each ward would have its own public school, and the parents—not the government—would manage it and fund it.

If, in one school, the parents decide children will learn the moon is a painted illusion on the sky, so be it. If they decide that stones can speak or logic is a European plot against human reason, so be it. If they decide to assemble a list of a thousand banned books, which must be burned, so be it.

With this sort of vast decentralization, it wouldn’t be long before disgruntled parents within a ward would break away and start their own school.

The opposite system is federal. Federal mandates, funding, programs, curriculum.

Education run by the individual states is hardly better. These governments are also huge and demanding.

I don’t care what excuses parents come up with, in order to opt out of taking charge of education. It’s their burden, whether through home-schooling, by creating and sustaining their own private schools for their children, or deciding which schools to send their kids to. The responsibility is theirs.

The usual caterwaul goes this way: “But many, many parents aren’t equipped to understand what goes on in the classroom. We need government-run schools to make sure children receive a good education.”

Baloney. Since when is it necessary to design an entire school system around the ignorance of parents?

Why not say most parents don’t know how to raise their children, and therefore the state must take over that function, too?

Well, if you took a few hours to research the work of Child Protective Services bureaucracies around the US, you’d realize this is, in fact happening. The brutal overreach of these agencies, in many cases, amounts to kidnapping. On false pretexts, the State takes children and dumps them into foster care, where violent abuse and high-dose drugging with toxic psychiatric meds is endemic.

Face it, the government loves parents who say they don’t understand education, medical treatment, child-rearing—whatever responsibility parents are willing to abdicate, it’s a cause for celebration in government circles.

The State promotes a consensus of cluelessness and victimhood.

If I were a top federal bureaucrat, I’d sponsor a program (a few billion dollars ought to cover it) to investigate and discover the most ignorant set of parents in America, the mother and father who can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag. I would profile those parents from head to toe, and based on the information gleaned, I would then form 1000 federal programs (adequately staffed) to assume all the child-rearing functions those parents can’t perform AND IMPOSE THOSE FUNCTIONS ON ALL FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN AMERICA.

“It takes a village.” And this is the kind of village we’re really talking about. Not some African tribal outpost. A federal ghetto.

So good work, Portland, in banning all books that question climate change. My only problem is you haven’t gone far enough. You should have daily chanting sessions for all the children: CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, intoned for a half-hour after lunch. Perhaps you can attach electrodes to the children’s heads and produce readouts of secretly dissenting young minds in the classroom, and shunt those kids off to a Chinese-style re-education facility and call it “enrichment.”

Then, perhaps, more parents in your district would wake up and grab their kids and run for the hills and start their own schools, because they can’t deny what you’re doing any longer.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Vía Jon Rappoport’s Blog http://ift.tt/2tvNX58

Matrix logic and Real logic

https://jonrappoport.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/matrixrevealed3.jpg?w=640

Matrix logic and Real logic

by Jon Rappoport

July 20, 2017

Included in the The Matrix Revealed is a full 18 lesson Logic & Analysis course, with a teacher’s manual, detailed lesson plans, and a final exam. It’s not a seminar or a workshop or a quick “survey.”

Logic, these days, has been replaced in schools with a mind-control apparatus that involves the following:

EVERY POINT OF VIEW IS EQUAL.

EVERYBODY HAS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE WHOLE.

CRITICAL THINKING LEAVES PEOPLE OUT OF THE GROUP AND IS THEREFORE PREJUDICIAL.

If you favor this new formulation and think it’s useful, I have condos on Jupiter for sale.

The point of modern education, more and more, is the GROUP.

“Good people belong to the group.”

“The Group is everything.”

“If you don’t belong to the Group, you have a mental disorder.”

Why is all this emphasis put on the Group?

The answer to that question also gives you the reason logic isn’t taught in schools anymore:

The independent self-sufficient individual is being phased out.

The independent individual who knows how to think and make lucid judgments on his own is a threat to the EMERGING RELIGION OF GLOBALISM.

The emerging religion of Globalism is a fuzzy image of THE GROUP.

The hive.

The colony.

The nest.

The planet.

Mother Earth.

Some people think education has been hijacked for the purpose of training children to become robotic workers for the State. That’s partly true, but I beg to differ. Actually, education is the proving ground for the religion of the Group. That is its real goal. And it’s been the goal for some time.

This religion doesn’t need or want logic. Logic would be disruptive. It would differentiate one student from another. It would reveal there are ways to analyze information that actually come to valid conclusions. Logic isn’t fuzzy. It doesn’t promote the all-inclusive hive.

A few years ago, I spoke to a teacher who was introducing his class to logic. He told me, “These are very bright kids. They’re all going to college. They said they couldn’t learn logic. They couldn’t do it. They had some kind of mental block.”

As we talked further, it became obvious that the mental block was an idea of THE GROUP. These kids had already been indoctrinated into “cooperative thought.” They instinctively realized that, if they studied logic, the Group would break apart. Each student would have to stand on his own, and that prospect was frightening.

In the religion of the Group, one of the key concepts is “the sustainability of the planet,” which is, after all, the largest group. This “sustainability” catchphrase is the leading edge of a vast movement to decide how you, as a UNIT, an energy-consuming UNIT, will be regulated in the overall scheme of things.

Your life will be ruled by decisions of the “wise ones,” who understand how to distribute all the available resources of the planet.

This is a perverse machine, but it needs to be presented as something soft and spiritual, in order to be sold: the “needs of the Group.”

I’ve actually had students tell me, in their fumbling way, that they have an obligation to think like everyone else. Or if they’re rebels, they have a duty to rebel like other rebels.

When I started writing this website twelve years ago, I explained that the elite Plan was “ant colonies of the 21st century.” I’m glad to see other people are catching up and realizing this really is on the agenda.

Logic is a sword that cuts through all that. It wakes up the sleeping mind. It doesn’t paint vague and pretty pictures. It has nothing to do with what the Group thinks or has been taught to think.

Logic isn’t a cooperative enterprise. That’s why it was exiled from school systems a long time ago.

I’ve talked to many teachers (I used to teach school) who tell me they lead their students on this basis: “we’re all in this together.”

It sounds nice, but it has nothing to do with education. It’s a con. It’s a way of avoiding teaching. Once a teacher walks down that road, he’s finished. He’s regressing back to being a child. He’s forfeiting his position. He’s involved in socializing. It can work for a picnic but not for school.

The cooperative spirit in the classroom is really the prelude to the religion of the Group. “We’re all in this together” is the initial sales pitch.

I remember, 40 years ago, I had an argument with a teacher who was very annoyed that I was attacking the “spirit of the group” concept. He was absolutely convinced that the atmosphere he promoted in his classroom was instrumental in making education work. He was deeply offended that I was questioning it. For him, it was inconceivable that I couldn’t see the value of “sharing and caring” in the classroom. Hadn’t I ever played sports? Didn’t I know what a team was? Hadn’t I ever experienced the joy of friendship in a group?

I told him many of his kids were scoring quite badly in his class exams.

Apparently, this was beside the point. He was heroic, he was a good guy, he was a cheerleader for friendship and tolerance, he was concerned about feelings and self-esteem, he was doing his best to make good human beings out of his kids.

I knew all his moves. I had heard them before.

They didn’t make a dent, because in my college days the most compassionate professor I’d had taught me logic. He was also the most exacting professor. He put his students through the mill, and it was exciting. And when, years later, I started working as a reporter, I was already ahead of the game.

A person either wants to think for himself—and knows how to—or he prefers the hazy hive-like existence of belonging to something that is less than he is.

It’s that simple.

Logic gives you the option of making the first choice and avoiding the second.

Shortly before I graduated from college, I had a talk with my logic professor in his office.

I told him that, from what I could see, the whole path of Western history, starting from ancient Athens, where logic was discovered, involved individuals separating themselves from groups. This was the keynote of progress. These individuals could and did think for themselves and rejected group consciousness.

He paused for a few seconds. Then he said he’d give me a little friendly advice. If I started making a big deal out of it and shooting my mouth off—as I was prone to do—I was going to encounter unpleasant resistance.

That was 1960. The brainwashing campaign, based on The Group, was already well underway.

I finished my formal education just before the really big wave hit. The educrats and the elite planners were putting the finishing touches on their blueprint for “participatory education.”

Under that system, the students would be encouraged to believe their ideas and feelings were just as important as their teachers’. By extension, the students were really in class to make their feelings known and help lead the way to a more just world.

Like any social movement, there was a little truth in the notion. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have gained traction. But the larger part of participatory education is anti-learning. Learning is supposedly done more through some magical osmosis, the result of the students and teachers rubbing off on each other. “It’s a process.”

Slice that baloney any way you want to, it’s still baloney. And when the meal is over, the students have no knowledge of logic, which is the foundation for rational thought. They’re cut loose on a river with no paddle. They have an inflated sense of self-worth, and no understanding to back it up.

Out in the world, after school is behind them, what do you think these graduates are going to be attracted to? Anything and anyone who sounds like he’s talking about the GROUP, who praises and elevates the GROUP, who promotes the Collective, who emphasizes how we’re all in this together for a better world.

Only it isn’t a better world. It isn’t, because these half-educated young adults never became truly independent individuals. And because “better world” is the flag behind which sits the actual scenario: self-appointed priests directing devotees in the Church of Sustainability. All life, all resources, “for the sake of Mother Earth,” being guided and run from Central Planning.

Some day, unless we turn this around, these ex-students will be complaining, “We didn’t think we were signing up for this!”

Small correction: you didn’t really think at all, because you never learned how.

As I put together The Matrix Revealed, I made sure to show Matrix as a work in process, an ongoing enterprise, a work of art, as it were, that can be dismantled—as a person takes another road of his own.

This is vital. It transforms victimization into inspiration.

In my work, I was assisted by interviewees who profoundly understood all this.


the matrix revealed


Here are the contents of The Matrix Revealed:

* 250 megabytes of information.

* Over 1100 pages of text.

* Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also included:

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

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

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

This work is all about reinstating individual power, above and beyond what the Matrix implies and stands for. It is about insight, yes—but it is also about liberating one’s consciousness from the habit of accepting life on the terms by which it is given to us.

Thought and action can align themselves with Matrix, or they can strike out in a far more adventurous and galvanizing direction. A thrilling direction unique to each individual.

Jon Rappoport

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

Filed under: Matrix Revealed

Vía Jon Rappoport’s Blog https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/07/20/matrix-logic-verses-real-logic/

My conversation with Jeff Rense

http://ift.tt/2uaMU9A

My conversation with Jeff Rense

By Jon Rappoport

Last night, I was a guest on Jeff Rense’s show. We had a wonderful wide-ranging conversation about education, the joys of reading, the decline of civilization, and the long view of the future.

I said: at some point the whole issue of human destiny will revolve around whether individuals accumulate wisdom or keep accepting the cycle of rise and fall of societies—and Jeff came up with an electric phrase—he said, we need a RENAISSANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL.

That need never goes away. We need it now, ten years from now, a hundred years from now, a thousand years from now.

I then read him several of the relevant quotes I included in yesterday’s article, from Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead.

So today, I found some notes I made perhaps 20 years ago—a long dialogue between two “unknown persons.” It started as an exercise, a warm-up one day, when I felt I had nothing to write. It evolved along several tracks. Here is an excerpt plucked from that dialogue that touches on a renaissance of the individual soul:

Unknown Person #1: You want this, you want that. You’re pressed for time. You want to be entertained. But suppose you could move from being a mildly concerned spectator…suppose you could create a fictional destiny for yourself and then make it real?

Unknown Person #2: I choose to be detached.

Unknown Person #1: Yes, and that’s my point. You see yourself right now as the final version of what you can be. You draw a line. But that line isn’t really there. It’s an illusion you’re buying. You’re buying it like the most rabid consumer. It’s the ultimate product for you. You guard it night and day, even in your dreams. If you suddenly dream about a majestic future, you close it down. You take that exhilarating destiny spread out like valleys and mountains and skies and you stand over it and pour acid on it. You dissolve it before it gets too real. You deny any connection between that vision and yourself. But there is a connection. Your psyche has no limits.

Unknown Person #2: When I was sixteen, my parents took me to a cathedral for a service. It was a gigantic dark place. During the sermon, I fell asleep. I had a dream about a mountain range. I was walking in that range, and the immediate power of the place…I was free. The feeling was sheer ecstasy. A few days later I decided, if freedom could be THAT, I would do anything to defend it. But then I crushed the dream. I rejected it. No one made me do it. I did it myself.

Unknown Person #1: And you still bury it and crush it.

Unknown Person #2: You want to know how I do that? I say the dream was wonderful. I say it’s “inspiring” even now. I even take pride in reminding myself I had the dream. But then I just let it lie there, like water, like a pool stagnating. That’s how I separate myself from it. I never take that energy and ecstasy as a clue about what I can do in this life.

Unknown Person #1: But you could take it as a clue.

Unknown Person #2: Yes. Instead I opt for nostalgia. I prefer nostalgia. That’s how I look at the dream, that’s how I escape using the dream as knowledge about what I am.

Unknown Person #1: And of course you say everyone has had a dream like that, and everyone has done what you did to it.

Unknown Person #2: I’m part of that “community.” The community has strength in numbers. Why would I desert that family? We all reject the meaning of the dream. I look in their eyes, and I see they left the dream behind, and they see it when they look in my eyes. It makes us happy, in a way, to know we all did the same thing.

Unknown Person #1: It’s never too late.

Unknown Person #2: Three days from now, I’ll forget we had this conversation. It won’t register. I’ll have new complaints, and I won’t make any connection between them and the dream I deserted.

Unknown Person #1: When I look in your eyes, I don’t see that you deserted—

Unknown Person: No, you see the dream. I understand. But now I’m going to walk away, I’m going to walk away, I’m going to walk away…

Filed under: Uncategorized

Vía Jon Rappoport’s Blog http://ift.tt/2uajSXq