Last-minute thoughts for July 4: light at the end of the tunnel

Last-minute thoughts for July 4: the light at the end of the tunnel

by Jon Rappoport

July 5, 2013

For 95% of the population, if you give them hope they eat it like candy and forget it an hour later. Then they want more. They’re hooked on the hope machine.

They somehow believe Hope is Action.

They are the fearful, the submissive, and the delicate.

They have an endless capacity for self-delusion.

Hoping for hope is what elects presidents, one after another. Whereas, what would happen if enough of us refrained from voting for either of the two major criminals campaigning on behalf of the double-headed Washington crime family?

On election day we would crash the system by withdrawing our consent, the consent of the governed.

We wouldn’t be hoping for hope.

Today, the American people registered an astonishing 13% turnout and loudly expressed their no-confidence in government. Washington is lying in electoral ruins.”

If the live audience for one of those half-cocked presidential television debates roared with derisive laughter at every turn, they would sink the whole charade, in front of millions of viewers.

…a better day ahead for all Americans…”

Laughter cracks like thunder through the hall.

It bounces off the walls and runs up and down the aisle. It invades people all over the America in their homes. Despite themselves, they begin chortling.

Pretty soon, they’re rolling off the couch and hitting the floor. They call other people to make sure they’re watching the debate, but they can’t talk. They can only shriek with laughter.

The whole country bursts its androidal bubble. Waking up from the big trance.

I’m sure you know about movements in states to nullify federal laws on the grounds they’re constitutionally illegal. Ultimately, this is a form of corrosive laughter.

Decentralization of illegitimate power should be a laughing matter. It should stage parades with surreal floats. It should walk along sidewalks with crazy signs. It should bellow from billboards. It should come blasting out of churches.

You want to make a difference? Organize a hundred parents in your town and have them make guns out of pink cookie dough and give them to their kids, to take to school. It’s a start. It stimulates the dormant absurdity-center of the brain. It screws with the robots in charge of things.

I want to hear what a million people standing in the Washington Mall laughing at the federal government sounds like. I really do.

When was the last time you laughed so hard you thought you were going to die? Remember how that feels? Reality explodes. Which is the whole point.

Last week, I was watching the news—a form of self-torture I try to avoid. I can’t even remember what the item was. It was some kind of baroque political jive. I went into hysteria-land all of a sudden. It was one of those laughing-weeping blow-ups out of nowhere. I ended up with my head on my knees.

I don’t know about you, but I need that once a day. I really do.

This isn’t the red pill or the blue pill. It’s the crap-in-your-pants pill.

A few years ago, it happened to me in the Vatican. We were there to see Michelangelo’s ceiling in the Sistine Chapel. Have you ever gone? The room is like a steam bath. It’s hot and humid. You’ve got these people, who’ve come from all over the world, and they’re sitting on benches around the periphery and standing—and they’re all looking up.

It only takes a few minutes to realize Michelangelo wasn’t a happy camper lying on that scaffold. On most of the panels, he did fast cartoons. Now and then he’d bear down and execute an immortal face. But most of the time he was aching and grumbling and wondering how he’d let himself get roped into the commission.

This struck my funny bone. I held it in until we got out of the room and were walking back toward the entrance. Then I started laughing. A few people saw me and didn’t like it. Too late. That made me laugh harder. The whole thing, the whole edifice of the Church, with its specialized access to God through licensed priests, was now bleeding into my laugh-center. I was a goner.

It took me a hundred yards along the carpeted corridors to calm down. But then I was at the counter where they sell prints of the Michelangelo—horrifically bad prints—and I was in stitches again.

Wait a minute. What about the millions and millions of people around the world—the billions—who are in chains of one kind or another, who are starving and dying, who are fighting manipulated wars, who are suffering…

The point is, that’s all coming from centralized criminal power. It’s no joke. But when you start to decentralize, when you think about it and find ways to DO it, the whole frame of the Matrix wobbles, the whole arch of consensus bullshit reality and the media that promote it do become a matter for laughter.

And not just a giggle or two. I’m talking about immortal laughter that wipes them off the face of the Earth. I’m talking about a natural and repressed impulse that, unless it’s exercised to the fullest, can turn around and ruin your well-being and take you down.

The Matrix is a joke because it’s designed to stand in for your own power to create reality. That’s the biggest joke of all. If I were the king of that most insane of all human endeavors—”mental health”—I would rewrite the books and point out that Sanity is, in fact, solely defined as: being able to comprehend the biggest joke of all…and that’s all Sanity is.

If you can’t access your imagination, you can’t laugh. Simple.

And you’re dead.

Exit From the Matrix

So, for Independence Day, this is a call to remember that most profound of kiddie tales: The Emperor’s New Clothes.

He’s so naked in so many different ways. When millions of people see it and know it and point it out and respond to it and laugh at it, we have a different kind of revolution.

We’re no longer sucking pipe on the Hope Machine.

We now live in a society where people feel they’re entitled to complain: “I can’t laugh!” As if this rates sympathetic notice.

Not only must we find a way to laugh, we must find a way to make it penetrate to the depth of the Matrix itself. We must find a way to expose the whole joke at the bottom of the despicable power system, so it dies, so it stands naked and decapitated.

This kind of comedy isn’t a light brush-off. It isn’t a modest chuckle. It’s a typhoon that attacks the ship and blows enough holes in it to make it sink.

Sink it.

Every human was once a child who knew how to laugh at lunatic buttoned-up eyes-straight-ahead deadly Reality. Then we became card-carrying members of that buttoned-up farce.

We lost our way. We died and forgot.

It’s time for a resurrection. And an insurrection.

I have absolutely no doubt that some readers will to choose to misunderstand what I’m saying here. So be it.

They’ll claim I’m some sort of gooney Rainbow man. That will definitely make me laugh. Definitely.

So anyway…the war on drugs and the war on cancer and the war on terror and all the other phony wars are efforts to make people fear danger.

Brian (“I’m just a boy scout on a bike with a newspaper route”) Williams; Scott (“I’m not a licensed doctor but I’m performing brain surgery on you”) Pelley; and Dianne (“don’t cry for me, America, I’m weeping for all of us”) Sawyer are beaming this fear at the population every night.

Underneath it all, they’re worried that you’ll see through the scam and start laughing at them. The whole stench-ridden corpus of the news will then collapse in slime and dust.

In other words, danger is the cover story they sell to keep a lid on the massive impulse to ridicule entrenched power into the ground.

This strategy mirrors how many people talk to themselves: “Things are too dangerous and serious to laugh at. I have to march forward with my eyes locked on the next automaton in line.”

Laughter is a trigger for Decentralization of life.

Laughter seems impotent only to the people who can’t laugh.

My advice: shun those people. Their minds are swamped with Literal Reality. If they hear the world is their oyster, they’re down in the sand on the beach digging for the one that will change everything for them.

Don’t think so? I recently wrote a piece about 150 MILLION Americans going to Mexico, swimming back to the US, and becoming instant welfare millionaires. There were readers who were convinced this was a news story.

Satire? Parody? Never heard of it. Because they can’t laugh. They don’t believe in the concept. They’re against it.

Defeating laughter is, in fact, their bottom-line cause. They’re the Matrix People.

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 29th District of California. 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




by Jon Rappoport

October 20, 2012


An old professor of mine once told me that the purpose of learning was to “escape.”


He said that insight was the experience which would lead you beyond a system that was trapping your mind.


He gave a very interesting informal lecture to a group of us about the dawning age of science. He put us at the threshold of the great change, when people began to realize that science was real, that it worked.


So,” he said, “imagine you’re living then. You absorb some of this new scientific method, and the more you think about it, the more you see that superstition is a skin you can shed. It’s quite a discovery.


You track this new thing called science, you roll it around in your mind, you grasp what the experimental method is, and you suddenly break through. You reach a new level. You don’t need all those superstitious habits anymore. You can look with clearer eyes.


At that point, you’re awake. I hope you understand this is the purpose of learning, to make that breakthrough. That’s why learning is a serious thing. It’s not just a game.”


Fifteen years later, spurred by several articles on American politics, and some comments from an American original, Karl Hess, I came to one of those threshold moments: If people on the political right moved far enough to the right, they’d see the insanity of big government and its embrace with big corporations. If people on the left moved far enough to the left, they’d see that big government and its corporate partners were solidly and unalterably against individual freedom.


And then, those people who had gone far enough in their chosen left or right directions “would meet around the back of the barn.” I believe this was a phrase Karl Hess used.


At that moment, the whole left-right division crumbled in my mind.


I was “out of the system.”


To one degree or another, in one way or another, many Americans catch a glimpse or a full-on view of this false political dichotomy. When they do, they wake up.


Then comes an election season. Two actors take the stage and run for president.


The veil that was lifted drops again. The people who woke up go back to sleep. The freedom of escaping the system now looks dangerous. “This time,” in this election, the issues are just too important. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option. And so on and so forth.


If there were a few hundred thousand citizens packed together at the back of the barn, their ranks quickly thin out. People flee so they can vote for one of the two actors.


They re-enroll in the system.


I thought I wanted freedom. But now I realize how foolish that was.”


Here is my image: there are three men on a modest boat at sea. A lefty, a righty, and a neutral. Things seem to be going well. It’s a nice cruise. The boat keeps slowing down, but not to worry. It’s still moving, and the weather’s fine.


Then one morning, just after breakfast, the neutral is walking on the deck and he sees…something different. In a second, he realizes what he’s seeing has been this way since the outset of the trip, only now, for the first time, he’s noticing it.


The lefty is chopping holes in the boat with an ax. So is the righty.


The neutral begins yelling. He tries to take the axes out of the hands of these lunatics, but he isn’t strong enough.


Finally, the lefty and the righty stop chopping and come over to him. They begin talking in reasonable voices. They tell him that the boat is in danger, yes, but not for the reasons he, the neutral, believes.


No, the lefty is the problem. No, the righty is the problem. They tell him there is a very serious debate here, and he, the neutral, has to choose sides, because the survival of all three of them is at stake. That’s the true situation.


In other words, “for the good of all,” the neutral has to reject what he was just seeing with his own eyes. There was no chopping. There were no axes. Water isn’t pouring into the boat.


Hmm, the neutral thinks. There are two of them and there is one of me. They are the majority. Nothing can change that. Two against one.


But the two of them are opposed to each other. I have to cast the deciding vote. I have a grave and important responsibility.”


The neutral was awake, but he didn’t wake up.


So he goes back to sleep, and in his haze he listens the arguments of the lefty and the righty. At first, they sound like gibberish. He struggles to make sense of them.


Eventually, he figures out why their assertions seem so garbled. He’s seeing into their true character, and he can separate what they’re saying from their actual intentions. He can see the deception. He can watch the words float by like absurd little balloons.


So, accepting his new responsibility, the neutral shuts down that part of his own perception that can assess character. He turns it off. Instead, he just concentrates on the words.


That’s better. Now the words have some degree of meaning. He can “score” them. He can put THESE words into THIS category and THOSE words into THAT category. Better.


Yes. Much better.


Of course, the neutral doesn’t notice that his eyes are closed and he’s snoring. He doesn’t register that. As water continues to pour into the boat, he’s hearing the words and he finds them interesting, even intriguing.


He believes he’s getting a grip on what politics are all about.


The whole point of emerging from the hypnotic tunnel of deception is to stay emerged. That’s called progress. To go back and hide in same tunnel is counter-productive, to say the least. It’s self-induced narcosis.


For millenia, what we now call the controlled media have brought populations under their spell and put them into a trance that defines reality. For the first time in the history of planet, we are seeing new truth-telling media come to the fore in an explosive way.




One thing is certain. The old ways of creating positive action, based on the truth, are changing.


It’s up to people everywhere to imagine new ways and implement them. Imagination is another item which has been put in the deep-freeze for a long time. It is thawing.


Don’t assume that knowing the truth is paralyzing. It’s only paralyzing if you can’t invent ways to use it. Don’t wait around for a message to float out of the clouds. Don’t say, “But now that I’m awake, what do I do?” That’s a close cousin to surrender, and it’s a precursor to going back to sleep.


Don’t whine, don’t complain. INVENT. IMAGINE. CREATE.


Conceive of innovative ways by which you can effectively take this emerging consciousness/truth/wakefulness and make it work.


This isn’t the old model, where you sit around and hope someone will come up with a really great idea. This isn’t I’M A VICTIM, TELL ME HOW TO SAVE THE WORLD. This isn’t any of that crap.


This is going light years beyond watching two phony clowns on television telling you why they should be president.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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




By Jon Rappoport

October 16, 2012


Was Barack Obama handed the Jimmy Carter script from day one of his presidency?


Both men were political amateurs who came out of nowhere. They were tutored and mentored by the radical Globalist, Z. Brzezinski, who became Carter’s national security adviser and Obama’s informal but vital foreign policy consultant.


Obama and Carter are both creatures created by David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission. Carter’s administration was rife with TC members, and of the 87 TC members who live in the US, Obama appointed 11 of them to key posts.


Carter’s political downfall was the Iran hostage crisis. One of Obama’s major perceived failures has been his handling of “the nuclear weapons crisis” in Iran.


During Carter’s term, an attack on the US embassy started the Iranian hostage crisis. During Obama’s term, the flashpoint was an attack on the US embassy in Libya. Both events made the sitting presidents look weak and ineffective.


In truth, the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the ascendance of the Ayatollah was engineered by Carter, who ordered the restraining of the Shah’s secret police and troops, in the face of “student protests” against the Shah. It was Iran’s “Arab Spring.”


In a similar manner, Obama has promoted phony Middle East “popular democratic uprisings” and the overthrow of ruling strongmen in that region.


Both presidents injured their standing by blandly observing rising oil prices on their watch. They promoted humility and fairness in dealing with major oil-producing nations, sending a signal that gasoline at the pump was not a crucial issue.


In truth, they welcomed higher prices. Carter was hell-bent on his “religious” policy of conservation and asceticism, and Obama wanted to make expensive alternative energy finally cost-effective and competitive with oil.


Carter and Obama launched rhetoric about “a new kind of honorable politics,” a messianic call for greater “social justice” in both the domestic and foreign-policy arenas. As a result, both men were perceived as “weak.” Carter then fell to the “stronger” Ronald Reagan. Obama is running against the “stronger” Mitt Romney.


Obama and Carter both promised sweeping change that would take place immediately after their inauguration. For Carter, it was a (specious) comprehensive energy plan that would free Americans from dependence on foreign oil. For Obama, it was the (specious) stimulus that would put millions of Americans back to work. Both men vastly overplayed their positions, and both men failed utterly.


It’s hard to imagine either man wanted his grand plan to succeed. It’s much easier to conclude that both men wanted to diminish America.


Interest rates played a central role in both presidencies. For Carter, it was crippling escalation. For Obama, it has been massive manipulation to keep rates extraordinarily low. The result in both cases has been a significant degradation of the dollar and rising prices of goods.


Obama and Carter became intimately involved in Afghanistan. For Carter, it was about undermining the Soviet war there, and the training and arming of Arab proxies to attack Soviet troops. Obama has extended the Bush war in Afghanistan, and he has armed Arab proxies to launch wars in the Middle East (made to look like home-grown popular rebellions).


Both men have faced crises that involved their secretaries of state. Cy Vance resigned when Carter ordered a mission to rescue the 53 Americans held hostage in Iran. Now, Hillary Clinton, embroiled in the disaster in Libya, has “taken responsibility” for it. At this moment, whether she will resign is an open question. But both Vance and Clinton chose their strategies to subtly point fingers at the presidents they were serving. In Clinton’s case, she was essentially saying, “Somebody around here has to stand up and take the blame, and since Obama won’t, I will.”


The most powerful similarities between Carter and Obama, though, relate to their bosses, the Trilateral Commission. This is the least-talked-about key.


David Rockefeller created the TC 40 years ago. Its purpose then and now? The erasure of sovereign nations and the establishing of a single global management system.


Carter and Obama submitted to that influence. They pretended they were independent, innovative, unique political figures possessed of a vision that would, finally, transform Washington and business-as-usual politics in America.


They both played the “innocence” card. They came into power promising unique change. They both used religious speech to bolster their claims. They both paraded themselves as humanitarians, first and foremost, who had somehow skirted the corrupt vetting process for presidential candidates.


They both knew this was a lie.


To ensure there is no misunderstanding, a comparison between the stances of Reagan and Romney would provide equally disappointing content.


It’s all about script. The “strong” (Reagan and Romney) were put in place to provide contrast to the “weak” (Carter and Obama).


It’s the old whipsaw effect. “You didn’t like that president? Well, here is an entirely different one.”


Meanwhile, the federal government, like a fungus, grows. It encompasses and steals more power, as the monopolistic two-party system fortifies the dark canopy under which the fungus can thrive.


The real message to the American people, from the top of the power ladder, is: “You can vote for X, or you can vote for X.”


Faced with that rank insanity, the public consciousness spins its wheels in place and tries desperately to invent fairy tales in which one of those Xs is really a Y. But it isn’t.


It’s all about the script.


That’s why even one vote scrawled on a piece of paper in an alley at midnight, for a man like Ron Paul, means more than 30 million taps on a touch screen for X or X in three weeks.


Barack Obama is the first black Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was the first white Barack Obama. Mitt Romney is the first Mormon Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was the first Hollywood Mitt Romney.


It’s all about the script.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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




by Jon Rappoport

October 5, 2012


For decades, disaffected Americans have been trudging to the polls and voting for the lesser of two evils. That’s how they register their preference for a presidential candidate.


Choices based on that dubious strategy seem to work for the short-term (at best). But in the long run, the law of diminishing returns sets in.


Term after presidential term, the lesser of two evils lowers the quality of life for everyone and keeps nudging the decline of the American Republic. The hole to dig out of becomes deeper, and successive presidents—each one the lesser of two evils—are less capable and willing to do the necessary digging.


That’s the story of leadership in America.


But prompted by new and more desperate created crises, citizens resort to the “lesser” strategy every four years, believing they must.


Carter-Reagan, Reagan-Mondale, Bush-Dukakis, Bush-Clinton, Bush-Gore, Bush-Kerry, Obama-McCain, Obama-Romney.


I’m not that enthusiastic about either man, but I have to choose one. I have to go with the lesser of two evils, because this country is in real trouble.”


Where does it stop?


Look, this time I’m picking the lesser of two evils, because the national crisis is so terrible. But next time, I promise I’ll do something else.”


Really? What else will you do? Hope the sun comes out?


The voter who is chronically addicted to the lesser of two evils is like a man in debt who borrows to pay it off. Each time he borrows, the debt gets bigger. He says, “I know this is crazy, but what else can I do? Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul is the lesser of two evils. If I don’t do it, I’m sunk. I promise I’ll straighten this mess out—but not right now. I have a payment coming due. I have to borrow again.”


And just like the federal debt, which keeps swelling, the election of one lesser after another as president keeps expanding the national misery. Finally, the idea that voters can step outside the two-party system to find a real president who actually believes in the Constitution seems like a pipe dream, because all the prior lessers have screwed things up so badly, have sold so out badly, have trampled on the Constitution so crazily…the shell-shocked public accepts these lessers as the status quo.


At that point, people say, “Stop all this nonsense about a third-party candidate. Get real. We have to choose from the two candidates in front of us. That’s what life and elections are all about. Be an adult. Make your decision. Go for the lesser of two evils.”


If this is wisdom, a strawberry is navigating a space ship to Jupiter.


Hmm. You know, that’s not a bad idea. If we could insert four or five hundred new DNA strands in a strawberry, give it artificial eyes, install tiny computers in its skin, it might work. Captain Strawberry. It’s better than having a human pilot the craft. The distance is so great, a human could never sustain concentration for the duration of the voyage. All in all, the strawberry is the lesser of two evils.”


A national poll might prove quite interesting. Ask people, “In the presidential election, are you voting for the lesser of two evils? Are you voting for the candidate who is “less bad” than the other guy?”


Better yet, let’s have a candidate who says, up front, “Hi, I’m Fred Goober. I’m the lesser of two evils, and I’m running for president. Let’s not kid each other. You know, I know, and everybody knows that my opponent and I are both morons and sell-outs. We got where we are by lying and stealing. What else did you expect? We’re both puppets for larger forces. But at least I’m willing to admit it. And I believe, in my heart, that I’m the lesser of two evils. What do you say? Cut me a break. I really want to live in the White House and be the commander-in-chief. And my wife? Don’t get me started on what she wants.”


So the next time a “smarter, wiser” friend, who “really knows how the world works,” tells you you’ve got to choose the lesser of two evils, realize who’s smart and who the idiot is.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.



by Jon Rappoport

October 5, 2012

Dear Gary,

I’m writing because I believe you, as the Libertarian Party candidate for president, can perform a great service for the country.

As you know, there is a growing awareness across America that a vote for Obama or Romney is not going to get us where we want to go.

It’s only going to worsen the situation we’re in.

We’re close enough to the cliff already.

The Libertarian Party fully understands that the Democrats and Republicans—the one Party with two heads—have been violating the Constitution at an egregious level for decades.

The whole notion of limited central government, on which the American Republic was founded, is now buried under mountains of illegal laws, regulations, and practices.  To spell out a complete bill of particulars would take years.

Now is the time for us to take public action, and I believe that action can best be capsulized as: Choke the Vote.

Don’t vote in this presidential election.  Don’t vote for anyone.

Let those of us who are aware stand up and say, “We’re not voting for Obama or Romney.  We don’t want either one.  And if you are voting for either candidate, it’s you who’ll shoulder the responsibility for what the eventual president does to make things worse.”

Let’s place the burden where it really is.

Gary, you could, in one stroke, make more of a difference in this election than through all the campaigning you and the Libertarian Party are doing.  You could tell your supporters, your Party, and all America: DON’T VOTE.  DON’T VOTE FOR ME.  DON’T VOTE FOR ANYONE.

You could further urge other third-party candidates to tell their followers the same thing.

“In this election, don’t vote for me.  Don’t vote for anyone.  This time around, that’s what I’m campaigning for.”

Contrary to the notion that this amounts to political suicide, it could galvanize thousands, maybe millions of Americans, who are sitting at home grumbling about Obama and Romney, who are profoundly dissatisfied, as they try to figure out what to do about the dilemma they’re facing.

We’re not as small a group as some people imagine.  If a spark is created, we could ignite a dormant sense of outrage that has been boiling under the surface of the population for years.

We could make ourselves known.  We could state our case, connect, and show our true preference by staying home on election day.

Since we can’t go into the voting booth and select “none of the above,” we need to make our voices heard beyond the ballot.

How many people, in the wake of the first presidential debate, saw their worst fears realized?  How many people shook their heads and said, “I don’t trust either candidate”?

How many people would like to feel their no-vote could send a clear positive message?

How many people retain enough knowledge of the Constitution to know that each of these candidates is planning to keep violating that document if he is elected?

How many Americans who know nothing about the Constitution feel in their gut that Obama and Romney would keep leading us down the wrong path?

We should do all we can to legitimize that feeling, because it is real, it is true, and it is distinctly necessary.

The Democrats and Republicans have been asserting a monopolistic chokehold on the government for a very long time.  Through incessant promotion to vote, through PR about “the lesser of two evils,” and in other ways, Americans have been made guilty about withholding their consent from the two-party system.

When are we going to say Enough?

Gary, a vote for you as president, a vote for what you stand for as a Libertarian, is a good thing.  But consider that the best thing is you taking one step further on the road, in 2012, and leading a grassroots revolution.  Now, make a course correction and run on a platform of DON’T VOTE.  DON’T VOTE FOR ME.  DON’T VOTE FOR ANYONE.

Apply a shock to the system.  Express how profoundly you feel about what the two major parties have been doing to the American Republic.

This is the leadership we need now.  This is the voice we need.

Make a beginning.

It doesn’t matter whether, in the wake of your announcement, we would suddenly hear ten supporting voices or ten thousand.  What matters is that we start.

Let all the counter-rhetoric flow.  Let the critics who demand that we vote say what they will.  It will give us a chance to point out the flaws and lies in their pronouncements.

Does the government, as represented by Democrats and Republicans, own this country, or do we?  Are our authentic voices confined to choosing between two alternatives that don’t reflect our best thoughts and desires?

Is that our diminished and subservient role?

I hope you’ll give these issues some thought.

And to all free-thinkers, independent citizens, and artists everywhere, I hope you’ll take up the banner of CHOKE THE VOTE in your own imaginative and compelling way.  Somewhere up the line, we could see the moment when so many people stay home on election day, the nation will come alive with the No Confidence its citizens righteously express.

We can say, “We can’t do anything,” or we can do something.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.




by Jon Rappoport

October 4, 2012


Since these two guys are actors, can’t they get better actors to debate? Since these two guys are gangsters, can’t they get Tony Soprano to square off against Sonny Corleone? That would give us some fabulous TV viewing.


I tried watching the debate. I got so bogged down in numbers I gave up.


No, it’s not the 600 percent added on to the rebate on the other tax, it’s the minus 40 percent, and then you divide by 2, not 3. And that’s what I’ve been saying since day one.”


Well, if you divide by 2, the figures don’t match up to what happened to my grandmother.”


The postmortem media reaction was, of course, all about performance. The pundits were schoolteachers in a public speaking class.


You looked down at the podium. You didn’t stand straight. You were slumping. You have to keep your shoulders back and your head level. Try to smile more. Never look at your hands. The moderator is your friend. Don’t interrupt him…”


The country is falling apart, the economy is taking hits from all sides, the food supply is brimming with GMOs, the US is fighting covert wars all over the Middle East, crime in the streets is spreading, the surveillance state is recording everything that moves, the Fed is printing money like it’s toilet paper, but…Obama kept looking down at the podium, that’s the takeaway from the debate.


The stretch I watched was two accountants trying to figure out how to cook the books.


I would have preferred matching clips of Romney water-skiing versus Obama shooting hoops on the White House lawn.


Here are a couple of the incisive after-debate poll questions from CBS and CNN: how do you feel now about (candidate) caring about your needs and problems; did (candidate) perform better than you expected.


Caring about my needs and problems? What the hell does the president have to do with my needs and problems? I need the dissolution of the two American political parties. My problem is they’re actually one party with two heads.


Perform better than I expected? I expected both of them would be mind-numbing, and they exceeded even Dr. Phil.


The psychology of elections boils down to something simple. If people see two guys in suits disagreeing about something, people think what they’re disagreeing about must be important. That’s it. That’s all you have to know.


That’s how you stage politics. The real issues and the real crimes are buried, because the candidates agree on what they’re supposed to argue about up front.


They won’t take questions on the obscene number of medically caused deaths, on GMO destruction, on the explosion of surveillance, on the phony war on terror or drugs, on the patent crime of stock manipulation, on black budgets, on the encroaching forces of Globalism, on the fake science behind global warming, on chemtrails, on the massive failure of public education, on US-government empire building, on corporate statism, on the bureaucratic army of unelected regulators who run federal agencies and illegally make laws, on Agenda 21, and on a host of other issues.


They’ll skirt all that.


They’ll fiddle while Rome burns.


You want a Monsanto president? Elect either Obama or Romney. Facts show both men are in the pocket of that heinous corporation.


CBS, NBC, and ABC accentuate “performance” in the debates. FOX slams Obama; MSNBC slams Romney. CNN tries to look neutral while supporting Obama. It’s all for show. Nobody dares say both candidates (and thus both political parties) are disasters. That would derail the ratings of the stage play. That would blow the ongoing cover-up.


During the run-up to every presidential election since 1980, I have heard people say that THAT ELECTION was the most important in history, and a failure to vote would be treasonous. That’s because engendering fear is the primary way to keep the population locked into two-party electoral politics. In every election season, there is always some “overriding issue” that demands picking sides. There is always a new disaster, a new crisis.


In that sense, the purpose of the election is not to solve the crisis; the crisis is generated to make the election seem vital.


The best after-debate comment of the night was delivered by Al Gore. Obama coming to Denver at the last moment, Al opined, could have created, at that altitude, a brain oxygen deficit. On this basis alone, if Obama is reelected, Al should win the directorship of the Dept. of Health and Human Services.


Speaking of brain cells, any American with at least two functioning cells should realize that the road to the presidency, coming up through the two-party system, means any puppet who gains the job is a lowest common denominator. It’s not just about party, either. It’s about the men who control the parties. The Rockefeller types who run the whole show delight in superficial presidential thinkers who can’t separate the real wheat from the phony chaff.


These presidents actually believe their own “secret agendas” have a chance of success. They refuse to understand that what they want is just a minor flea on the body of the true Plan: global takeover by Globalist elites.


This isn’t conspiracy, this is history going back at least as far as 1913.


Why don’t people want to see it? Because they’ve struggled to assert and cement in a picture of reality by the time they’ve reached the age of consent. And having done that, they can’t face the idea that what they’ve begged, borrowed, and stolen might be completely wrong.


During my life, I’ve met two significant politicians. Norman Thomas, who for years ran for president on the Socialist ticket, came to our house for dinner. He was a bore. Nothing I heard or saw reflected a vigorous mind at work. As far as I could tell, he was just going over old cliches for the thousandth time.


The other politician was Senator Hubert Humphrey. My parents dragged me to a lecture of his when I was 16. I listened to the Hump talk for close to three hours, and at the end of it, I was convinced he was the greatest man in the world. At that time, he was at the height of his oratorical powers. He was something to see.


A week later, I couldn’t recall a single thing he’d said. It was then I began to wonder what politics was all about.


Last night, I watched two sold-out specimens take their show on the road in Denver. It was so, so tired. I waited for the water-skiing and the hoops, but they never came.


Democrat-Republican politics in America is a walking dead man. We who know this are trending, as they say. We need to expand our ranks. Two pernicious book-end gargoyles aren’t going to save the day.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.




by Jon Rappoport

October 3, 2012


That reporter would be me. My reply, for starters, is a video cartoon. Watch it here:



I’m tired of celebrities who don’t have a clue, who think this election is really about the differences between Obama and Romney.


This election is about the pretense of differences. As any awake American knows, we have one political party in this country. It has two heads. Its heads are corporate. Its heads are Globalist.


Globalism has never been a campaign issue in any presidential election. That should be a clue, since what is happening in this world is, to a large degree, guided by Globalist forces.


Their goal is a New World Order. Not the narrow one Democrats think the Republicans fomented. The N.W.O. embraces both parties. Whenever there is a piece of legislation before Congress that would expand mega-corporate power at the expense of everybody else, such as the GATT, NAFTA, and CAFTA treaties, requiring Senate approval, both sides of the aisle manage to engineer enough cooperation to pass it.


It doesn’t matter who is president.


Globalist banking forces have been busy bees in the last few years, torpedoing national economies, shoving populations over the cliff, preparing to install some version of a new currency that will encompass the planet. This currency doesn’t have to be paper, nor does it have to win formal approval of governments. In its first phase, it can simply rearrange debt.


Wait, the US and European bailouts have already been doing that. And now we have QE3 in America, which is a label for the endless “printing” of Bernanke dollars out of thin air.


Celebrities who think they have a grip on the real role of political parties in this country are absolutely clueless. In Mr. Jackson’s case, the fact that Barack Obama is black is about as important as a fragment of dust on Mars.


Obama and Romney are tools. Instruments. They front for forces over which they have no control.


When people like Matt Damon, Madonna, Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck, and Clint Eastwood make public pronouncements about their favorite politician of the moment, they’re doing nothing more than contributing to the confusion and deception in which American politics has been mired for generations.


They have the right to say anything they want to. But imagining they have the slightest clue about what is going on is laughable.


Wake the f**k up, America, in their mouths really means: go back to sleep for four more years. It means: be a sheep. It means: take your news from the mainstream media. It means: fall into the trap of believing one of two puppets will cure what ails us.


Haven’t we had enough of this nonsense and insanity? Haven’t we had enough of phony opposition that is created to keep us flailing away at each other? Haven’t we had enough of a federal government that is becoming more and more intrusive and controlling, no matter who is living in the White House, no matter who is playing golf or jogging or hosting galas?


Why aren’t these celebrities taking about the awesome power of the surveillance state? Why aren’t they mentioning the global takeover the food supply by Monsanto with its GMOs? Why aren’t they talking about the demise of the small farmer? Why aren’t they talking about the mass destruction being wreaked by the pharmaceutical empire with its oversold toxic drugs?


Are these issues, just to name a few, too hot to handle? Would coming out of the closet on these matters put a quick end to their careers? And if so, what, yes, global forces could cast those actors aside like so much debris in the wind?


Living inside the Hollywood bubble can be a precarious proposition, when the truth is on the table. That’s when these actors, who play fictional heroes, starting sweating for real, back up a step, and sense their fame and fortune is at stake. And then they feign ignorance and shut up. They disappear.


If you’re reading this article and are a committed Democrat or Republican, all I can say to you is: Wake the F**ck up.


Only I mean it.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.





by Jon Rappoport

July 6, 2012


Fifty years from now, if nothing is done to stop it, all food grown on planet Earth will be genetically modified. And children growing up in that era won’t be able to imagine food ever existed in another form.


In America, people think of the two-party system of politics in the same way. How else can you do business? It has to be candidate A versus candidate B. Sure, you can spin off small parties and people can run as Independents, but it never works, so why try? Get real. It’s Democrat or Republican. Choose one side. If you have to, hold your nose and pick the lesser of two evils. That’s life. That’s reality.


Even if choosing A or B is like choosing between the Corleone and the Barzini crime families, it’s all we have. Get used to it. Nothing else works. Nothing else stands a chance.


The inevitable is the inevitable.


However, suppose voting for Obama or Romney AND THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEY REPRESENT really IS like choosing between Corleone and Barzini. Is that choice, by any reasonable measure, sane?


Actually, it’s madness, and once you can accept that, certain strategies open up and become available.


If Ron Paul had been fully willing to look at the two dominant political parties FOR WHAT THEY ARE, he could have, as a maneuver, begun his run for the presidency as a Republican, and then, when it became apparent the GOP was trying to steal Iowa and Maine from him, he could have used that occasion to bolt and declare himself an Independent candidate.


Then he could have gone on the attack, full-bore, by which I mean he could have begun talking to the American people about the deep and intrinsic and terminal corruption of the Democratic and the Republican parties.


Then, instead of talking to crowds of five or 10 thousand people, he would have ended up in stadiums talking to 50,000 people.


Some analysts and historians actually presume that the checks and balances instituted in the Constitution, to keep the central government weak, were also supported, for the same checks-and-balance purpose, by the evolution of the two dominant political parties.


Nothing could be further from the truth.


These two parties do NOT have the primary function of creating gridlock or canceling out each other’s excesses. That’s not the game.


The Republican and Democratic parties, as they have existed for a very long time, actually ensure the prolongation of a vast criminal enterprise, in which the creation of an illusion of difference is foisted on the American people.


It’s rather easy to see how that happened. The generations of leaders of both parties quickly realized that this illusion of difference could define, in the public’s mind, what Democracy was supposed to be all about. And under that cover, money, property, freedom, and lives could be stolen.


And the size of government itself could expand voraciously, because when you own a criminal organization, don’t you want to rule more territory? Isn’t that your objective?


Ask Al Capone. Ask Meyer Lansky or Sam Giancana or Santo Trafficante.


When you own the whole game through a phony two-party apparatus, you have a license to steal.


Now, the bigger this two-party mob becomes, the more obvious it is that a line of propaganda is needed to explain the bigness. You have to explain that BIGNESS OF GOVERNMENT is a good thing. You must. Otherwise, people will catch on. So you say: “the greatest good for the greatest number.” You say: “We’re helping everybody.” You say: “We’re fulfilling needs.” You say: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”


Now you have Collectivism.












The two-party system as “the lifeblood of politics?” A giant steaming pile of propaganda.


The two-party system as “the only way to get things done in this country?” Another giant steaming pile.


The two-party system as “a proper reflection of the conscience of the people?” One more pile.


Whenever someone challenges the two-party apparatus, he is told about governments that have sixteen parties and the unworkability and corruption of that system. As if anyone in his right mind would suggest that more parties is the solution to two parties. It isn’t.


The solution to the two-party Collectivist concept is:










And the whole reason know-it-all high-IQ idiots will tell you this won’t ever work is because they no longer know what a free individual is. And when they vaguely sniff out a free individual, they recoil in horror.


That’s the bottom line.


If what I’m proposing seems unworkable or absurd or naïve, it’s because the two-party system has buried the American people under a low ceiling of Collectivist thought.


In order to run for office and win, you have to be affiliated with one of the two political parties.”


Translation: “You have to pledge allegiance to the political mafia, not the United States.”


If Ron Paul had declared himself a total and complete and absolute Independent, and if he had exposed to the hilt both parties, and explained what their game really is, he would have acquired at least 20 times the number of supporters he presently has.


But Ron thought he could be in and be out at the same time.


That was his problem. It still is his problem.


Imagine what America would have been like if, after the Constitution was ratified, NO POLITICAL PARTIES EMERGED AND ONLY INDIVIDUALS EMERGED AS CANDIDATES.




John Adams, in the early days of the Republic, saw it correctly and saw it exactly:


There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting [organizing] measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble opinion, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”


Even more tellingly, George Washington laid the system bare as he struggled to extricate himself from it: “…party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through which channel to seek it [truth]. This difficulty, to one [a person], who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented.”


Thomas Jefferson, who on a number of occasions registered his acceptance of political parties as inevitable and natural, broke ranks in this very personal assessment: “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men…where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction [to a party] is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go at all.”


Here is another myth: if all candidates for the presidency and the Congress were individuals and there were no parties, the range of opinion would be so great that nothing would ever get done in government.


I suppose that’s true IF the reference point of the Constitution is ignored. But it’s far more likely that 535 independent representatives and an an independent president would remember the Constitution.


Assessing the damage to liberty, private property, individual security, the honest prosecution of criminals at all levels, how has the two-party system fared? How has that system performed?


All major media outlets, and a surprising number of alternative outlets, will not declare the two-party system a hoax. People want to hold on hard to “reality.”


The philosophical underpinning of this “reality” is Collectivism itself. Specifically, it is collectivist perception, the means by which “everybody knows” becomes the consensus.


The primary feature of The Group is: its members look at events indirectly; they look at events in accordance with what they think other members are seeing; they don’t look at or judge an event through their own eyes or minds.


This method of seeing is, in fact, empty. It’s a fantasy. It’s like passing around an unknown object, from hand to hand, and describing it as you believe everyone else will describe it.


You are always listening for “an echo effect” before it happens.


And you claim the echo effect is what you perceive.


It’s a rank absurdity.


On the basis of this absurdity, people say the two-party system of politics is unshakable.


What they really mean, or should mean, is: the two-party system is an illusion, a zero.


Living on the foundation of such zeroes, in all areas of human life, and asserting they are obvious and factual, is the hallmark of The Matrix.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.




by Jon Rappoport

June 24, 2012


“I don’t doubt the sincerity of my Democratic friends. And they should not doubt ours.” — John McCain


“Never try to look into both eyes at the same time. Switch your gaze from one eye to the other. That signals warmth and sincerity.’ — Dorothy Sarnoff


“In acting, sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” — George Burns



This is about the oh-so sincere illusion of TWO when there is really only ONE. The public wants TWO. Two Parties. Two earnest candidates. Two ideas in opposition. Two debaters. Two warriors going up against each other in the arena. Two answers, one true and one false. A test. Can you choose the right answer?


Actually, there are an infinity of choices, but the ONE controlling elite presents TWO. Night or day. Coke or Pepsi. That’s what the public wants. Two is good. It’s simple. It’s Yin versus Yang. It’s two teams battling it out on the football field. Who do you root for? The Patriots or the Giants? Boil it down to two. It focuses the attention. Either-or. Item 1 or item 2. That’s reality.


Hey,” the Reality Designers say, as they put together The Matrix, “this is a great idea. Let’s give these human creatures A or B. Get it? They’ll think they HAVE TO take A or B. No other options. We’ll weave this duality and simple-minded opposition into The Matrix. We’ll make it seem like it’s always THIS OR THAT. It’s a winner. When they believe they have to go with A or B, their intelligence plummets. Their perception narrows down. Their minds shrink. It’s perfect!”


Let’s start here with a recent example of political sincerity.


Apparently, Obama and Eric Holder thought the ATF was writing a review of the movie, Fast and Furious—not some insane murderous operation in which the ATF sold thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels.


That must be the reason why Obama has asserted Executive Privilege and is withholding F and F documents from the Congress. He doesn’t want the movie review made public. He sincerely wants to protect the public from a bad movie review.


A new (questionable) Bloomberg poll shows Obama, at 55%, leading Romney by 13 points. However, 60% of the people polled said, simultaneously, “the nation [under Obama] is headed down the wrong track.”


Hmm. So this means Obama is wrong but Romney would be wronger?


Who to vote for? Wrong or wronger?


What about neither of the above? Can that be written in on ballots? “In a startling development, a candidate named ‘neither of the above’ is carrying thirty-seven states.”


The Bloomberg poll also revealed that 55% of the respondents believe “Mr. Romney is more out of touch with average Americans [than Obama].”


Subtle. The people polled weren’t asked what they thought. They were (sort of) asked what they thought “average Americans” thought.


It’s an interesting idea. The corollary would be: don’t vote for the candidate you prefer. Vote for the man you think nameless faceless average otherbodies prefer.


In which case, let the ballots reflect the real situation. We should have this sentence in bold black letters at the top of every paper ballot and touch-screen: WHO DO YOU THINK WILL WIN? INDICATE YOUR CHOICE BELOW. And this is how elections would be run.




Of course, “neither of the above” is far better. He’s a candidate I can really get behind. I admire him. He has principles. He doesn’t mess around. He doesn’t make false promises. He isn’t a tool (as far as I can tell) of the Globalist criminals.


When “neither of the above” walks into the Oval Office to take up the mantle of president, I’ll be a happy man. I’ll be happy day after day. Can you imagine a presidency in which zero-lies emanate from the White House? People will die from the shock, but every revolution spawns collateral damage.


Here’s how I see the current campaign. In the middle of 2005, four guys whose names we’ll never know sat in a bunker below a farm in Virginia. The chief honcho said, “Okay, we know this character Obama will be the next president in 2008. That’s settled. We have to start thinking about 2012, because we want to push racial tensions to a new height, as a viable distraction, while on the side we steal everything we can from the American people. We need a real whitebread candidate to run against Obama. You know, white versus black. It has to be an extreme contrast. Gingrich is out. He’s mainly viewed as a talker. Perry can’t get a word out of his mouth. Santorum is a schmuck. That’s his distinguishing characteristic. But Romney. He’s a white android. He’s stiff. He’s Leave It To Beaver. He’s perfect. Let’s go with him. Make sure whenever he’s photographed without his jacket on, he’s wearing a blinding white shirt…”


Of course, both Obama and Romney are Globalists. Their main job is to mention the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, the North American Union, and free trade as few times as possible. So far, they’re doing fine.


So fine, in fact, that “the lesser of two evils” doesn’t apply to either of them. They’re in the same Globalist Club. Conservative Republicans don’t care about the Club, because when they look at Globalism, they mistakenly see American empire, and they like that. Democrats look at Globalism and see Fulfilling Needs of the Downtrodden, another complete delusion, a goal that isn’t in the Globalist playbook at all.


Coming down both sides of the aisle, it’s the march of the idiots, against which “neither of the above” looks very, very good.


In a letter to Jonathan Jackson, written on October 2, 1789, John Adams stated: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”


In my experience, most people who say they are voting for the lesser of two evils are secretly in love with their “lesser.” They have a puerile adoration for a stereotype. They religiously believe. They look through a vision of a filter of a lens, and they melt hope into fact.


When I stack that up against “neither of the above,” it’s no contest. It’s as obvious as walking away from a conversation at a picnic where two people are earnestly discussing Oprah vs. Ellen, Maury vs. Jerry Springer.


Who do you want to captain the bureaucratically engorged ship of state? Obama or Romney? Is that really a question? Does it make any sense? How much externally and internally applied brainwashing does it take to believe it’s a choice? Tons and tons.


Yet, millions of Americans will gladly and sincerely and fiercely and selfishly and altruistically make that choice in November. Many of them will think they’re smart in doing so. And (paraphrasing George Carlin) they would tell me I’m forfeiting my right to complain after the election, because I didn’t vote. No, that’s backwards.


They are choosing to support the rotting gangrenous burning vessel that is moving in slow circles on the water. I’m not.


People are afraid of not voting. It makes them feel guilty. I suspect it comes from the same impulse that causes them to meddle. You know, “Someone somewhere may be making a mistake and I have to find him and make sure that doesn’t happen.”


If you draw it out far enough, the ultimate conclusion to meddling-thinking IS Globalism. The overarching plan. The Good for All. The single brilliant system that will include everybody. It’s a ruse, a con. It’s invented to diminish everybody.


When you approach the subject of choosing between two destructive alternatives, you’re brushing up against Matrix thinking. Matrix thinking is obsessively incremental. People believe they’re making an intelligent choice based on the assessment of consequences and so on, but really they’re in the swamp. They’re carrying out a line of reasoning based on false choices, bad choices, horrible competing premises. And why do so many people fall for this? Because they’re engaged on the level of systems. They believe in systems beyond the point of sanity. They are swimming and floundering in systematic thought-patterns, and they need to follow that course to its bitter end. And they do.


Colleges and universities are loaded with obsessive incremental thinkers. They are a sub-department of The Matrix. They live inside systems and they play those systems out, one drop and drip at a time. Eventually, they make their maze so complex no one can find a way out by following the accepted rules.


The ability to cast a vote of no-confidence (“neither of the above”) would have a tonic effect. It would start the adrenaline flowing.


In America, this amounts to treason, because we have to believe that one of the appointed leaders is right; otherwise nothing is right. That’s a hell of a precept. It was cut off at the knees once upon a time, when the Colonies created a limited government, a very small government, and within certain limitations tried to enshrine freedom, which meant that every person could make up his mind about most of the important issues. But somewhere along the line, America was bamboozled into giving up on that. Instead, it adopted leadership as the sacred object.


One of these morons/criminals running for president has to be right, and the other moron has to be wrong. One has to be the lesser evil. One has to be the greater evil.


But Obama was a disaster. Romney, if elected, will be a disaster.


You want to know how easy it is to co-opt either of these “opposites” into the Globalist Club? You tell one man Globalism is all about increasing the power of central government, so it can repair past inequities. You tell the other one Globalism is all about the right of big corporations to prosper and engage the free market. That’s it.


What you don’t say is that both routes are paved with bad intentions. Along both routes there is a funnel that sucks up populations (and national governments) into an overarching structure of global control, operated by men who care nothing about repairing inequities or engaging the free market.


By the time the presidential winner realizes what’s happening, his dissolute personality/character takes over, and he’s just another bad actor doing bad things in the parade. The vetting process that allows a man to win the nomination of one of the two political behemoths, in the first place, guarantees you’re going to have a pretty slimy creature out front carrying the banner.


Truth be told, he already suspected the political game, at the highest level, was a ruse, because he knows how to work a ruse. He knows. He’s already a gimcrack con artist. And the grooming period, if he had any doubts, let him know what was expected of him: to be an agent of the destruction of individual freedom.


This is where we are. A vote for Romney or a vote for Obama amounts to the same thing. You may feel more revulsion for one man than the other. That’s fine. But deploying that emotion in the service of accomplishing something good is a pipe dream of a very high order. It makes you a victim of your own irrational predisposition.


I believe millions of people know this, and they would exercise the “neither of the above” option if they had the chance. In fact, it would be sweet revenge.


Well, we do have that option. We may not be able to register it at the polls on election day, but we can stay home and make the point that way. We can abstain from the circus. We can even point out the insanity of voting for Slug One or Slug Two.


I know, it’s a long road to victory this way. Well, the road that got us to where we are now was long, too.


Ever since 1968, when I began paying attention to presidential elections and speeches, I was aware I was listening to two liars playing games every four years. At first, it was so obvious I imagined someone somehow would step into the fray and interrupt the charade and make arrests. Eventually, I put up with the cartoons.


Now, millions of us are aware that these campaign shows are cartoons. The actual human connection that flows from Obama/Romney to The People is sheer fantasy. Even if these two men were sincere, the distance at which they’re operating is too great to make a difference. They’re stereotypes spouting stereotypes to stereotypes. They’re outright frauds, down to their toes. One is pretending he’s a messiah; the other is pretending he’s a champion of freedom.


Which fraud is your fraud?


The tattered messiah, or the whitebread champion of liberty, whose coat would be tattered a year after he stepped into the Oval Office?


In The Matrix, when a person suddenly realizes he’s accepted the burden of choosing between two lies, a bit of an explosion occurs and he wakes up a little. It’s a start. The political arena is not a bad place to have one of those satori moments.


Bush-Gore. Bush-Kerry. McCain-Obama. Obama-Romney. Yin-Yang.


I’ll tell you a secret about political Yin-Yang. Merging the two opposing semicircles into a Whole isn’t the solution. No, the real answer comes from staring at the locked semicircles until, like a pricked balloon, the whole sphere blows up. Then you know something. Then you realize something. Then you feel a surge of freedom.


As I say, it’s a start. Politics 101, American style.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.




by Jon Rappoport

June 20, 2012


My new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, was assembled on the same basis as the suggestion that “None Of The Above” should be placed on all ballots at election polls.


The more you understand about how the Matrix is put together, the nuts and bolts of it, the closer you approach the decision that you want none of it.


And then you begin to think about and imagine and enact true alternatives.


It’s as if you enter a huge factory where machines run night and day, and you examine the highly complex operation at close range. The more details that emerge to your eye and mind, the fuller your penetration of the inescapable conclusion that all this activity is generated to fabricate an illusion:


An illusion that this is the only possible Reality.


That’s the objective of Matrix.


My objective is to explode that myth through 1) detailed knowledge of how Matrix is built and 2) the ascension of individual creative power to invent new realities.


With that in mind, here is an interview with my late colleague and friend, Jack True. Jack was a most brilliant and innovative hypnotherapist who eventually stopped using hypnosis in his practice. (I interview him 43 times in THE MATRIX REVEALED; 320 pages.) Jack developed extraordinary methods for waking people up beyond a point that is normally considered possible. I’ve published this interview before. Since then, I’ve found additional notes from the conversation and added them.


Before the interview, I want to say a relevant few words about the animated videos I’ve been making with my colleague, Theo Wesson. You can see them at There’s a new one, just out, on the Obama/Romney debates. We make these animations because the viewer has a chance to have a unique experience for a few minutes, where ordinary reality is blown apart.


Aside from all the usual reasons for making a cartoon, you can expose the lies of ordinary reality. People, whether they admit it or not, want a unique moment. A moment where the rules are suspended. The machine of ordinary reality-manufacture stops.


This is what Jack True is talking about in this interview. As a hypnotherapist, he was particularly adept at putting people in a light trance. Their minds would be open to new experience, but they wouldn’t be suggestible. That was the trick. To relax the mind and eliminate, for the moment, the clutter and the internal dialogue and the push-pull of competing automatic thoughts. Finding that sweet spot, Jack was then able to have his patients achieve some remarkable things, things they wouldn’t be able to do in their ordinary state of consciousness.


This is important to understand. When Jack talks about a patient being able “to conceive of something,” it might, on the surface, not sound so important. But Jack wasn’t working on the surface. The patient, conceiving of something in a light trance, was operating in a whole different theater of experience. The impact was magnified many times.


Okay, here we go.


Q: You’ve talked about “the habitual mind.” What do you mean?


A: It’s a mind that can’t get enough of predictability. It’s addicted to seeing the same thing over and over.


Q: Even if it doesn’t see it?


A: (laughs) That’s right. It will invent it.


Q: Why?


A: Because it’s avoiding something. It’s avoiding the possibility of a unique experience.


Q: Again, why?


A: Because a unique experience would open the door to the possibility that all the systems the mind has built up are insufficient or lacking.


Q: Why is it important to allow your patients to see “beyond ordinary reality?”


A: The answer to that is, of course, obvious. But I’ll try to give you a slightly different slant on it. You could say that everything a person believes or is conditioned to believe is held in place, held in one place, like a corral. The sheep in the corral are all his beliefs, and they stand there. There is a fence around the corral, and the gate is locked by the way he views reality. As long as he views reality in the same way, the gate is going to be locked. And his beliefs are going remain there. They’re not going to change. But if, for some reason, he begins to see reality in a new way, the lock on the gate is going to spring open, and the beliefs are going to scatter and disperse.


Q: So, in hypnotherapy, you try to get patients to–


A: Not through suggestions, but by other strategies.


Q: For example?


A: With certain patients who I feel are up to to it, I bring in the idea of a unique object. A singular object.


Q: What’s that?


A: A unique object, for my purposes, is a one-of-a-kind thing that never existed before and will never exist again. It could be anything.


Q: There are lots of unique objects.


A: Depends on how you look at that meaning. I’m talking about a thing that isn’t composed of whatever everything else is composed of. So a unique object isn’t made out of atoms. It’s different.


Q: Like a very strange chair?


A: Why not? It could be anything. But it’s utterly unlike anything else.


Q: Not sure I follow you.


A: I put a patient in a light trance. That means he’s aware, and it also means he can focus. His mind is, for the moment, uncluttered. He’s not thinking fifteen thoughts. He’s in a sort of zero state. Calm. He can think and he can respond, but he’s not distracted. His consciousness is relaxed and open. He’s not overly receptive to suggestions. He’s not in a Pavlovian condition. He’s in the moment.


Q: Okay. Then what?


A: Then I describe, in general terms, what a unique object is. And I ask him to conceive of one.


Q: Does he?


A: It varies. Some people work at it but they don’t come up with anything. Other people give me lots of objects, but nothing much happens. In some cases, though, a very interesting thing occurs. The patient begins to see or imagine or think about a truly unique thing. An object of great significance to him. It’s not me who is telling him the object has great meaning. He comes upon that by himself. It’s all subjective. You see? I give him the general idea of what a unique object is, and then he takes it from there. And what he describes to me isn’t a startling revelation, in terms of the object itself. It’s how he sees it and how he feels about it. It’s like trying to catch lightning in a bottle. When it happens, the patient experiences a change in perception. Right away.


Q: Because he feels he’s really seeing something unique.


A: That’s right. He feels that. You know, people go through their lives and they see all sorts of things, and nothing much registers with any great impact. It’s often just cultural responses, like, “Well, I’m standing here on top of a mountain, and I’m supposed to be enthralled, so I’ll act like I am.” Or “I’m walking through a forest and I’m supposed to feel the majesty of the tall trees, so I will.” My idea is to have a patient actually experience something in a spontaneous way.


Q: Give me an example.


A: One patient was quiet for a long time. Then he began talking slowly about…it seemed to be a musical instrument. He got this look in his eye, as if he was feeling something he had never felt before. As if he was making a real discovery. As if this object wasn’t part of the known world.


Q: And then what?


A: The next day, he told me his blood pressure, which had been high, was down to normal levels. His low-level chronic headache was gone. He didn’t need his glasses.


Q: Was this change permanent?


A: The blood pressure never went all the way back to the high level. For about a week, he didn’t need his glasses. The chronic headache eventually became a once-a-month headache. But he also began to see his life differently. His marriage really underwent a revolution. He reconciled with his wife, and they became much happier. His overall mood changed.


Q: All from…


A: From that experience.


Q: And you would say his beliefs changed.


A: Absolutely. Until that point, he had a very restricted view of his possibilities. That all shifted.


Q: Because he glimpsed a unique object.


A: It sounds strange, doesn’t it. But yes. It was a moment in a session. The “gap” between what he believed and what he could see just…fell apart. Here’s how I would characterize it. Perception is often an apparatus where you have whole strings of things that are deemed to be similar. The person sees A and subconsciously thinks, “Well, A is like B and B is like C and C is like D…” He’s not really seeing A. He’s linking A to other things he’s seen or heard about. It’s not true vivid perception. It’s perception plus memory and thought. It’s a hybrid. And it’s dull. It’s really uninteresting. Which has emotional implications. The person’s level of feeling becomes dull, too. So what happened in this case with the patient was, that whole pattern was broken. For a few minutes, the perception, the seeing was direct. He saw a unique object. Or to put it differently, he saw uniquely.


Q: And what caused his beliefs to change?


A: Well, if perception is dull, feeling is dull. If feeling is dull, then a person begins to adopt beliefs that will go along with that level of dull feeling. Limited beliefs. Limited ideas about the possibility of his life and even existence itself. So when that whole pattern broke apart, the sun came through. He perceived uniquely. He did it himself. Not through my suggestions. Not through drugs. He did it. And so, automatically, his dull beliefs began to slip away, because there was nothing to hold them in the corral.


Q: He perceived uniquely, so he felt uniquely, and then his beliefs, which were based on, as you say, dull feelings, were unsupported.


A: Right. Life tends to form into an un-unique pattern. That’s what characterizes it. The un-uniqueness is the glue that holds the pattern together. When you melt that glue, you get a chance at liberation.


Q: This reminds me of preconceived knowing. A person has a set of assumptions, and then anything he comes across—information, ideas, concepts—he fits them into the assumptions he already has and…grinds out a conclusion about whether these ideas are of value or not.


A: Yes, it’s the same thing, but what I do with patients relates to direct perception. Direct spontaneous experience.


[At this point, we took a long break. When we came back, we continued the conversation. Jack reiterated some of things he'd been saying, adding a few twists.]


Q: You were talking about political structures.


A: Yes. They are built in relation to public blindness.


Q: What does that mean?


A: To the degree that people think they are blind to what is going on in the world, the political structures that act on their behalf become larger.


Q: Governments are people’s eyes?


A: Absolutely. So the more complex the world becomes, the more people think they are blind, and they allow governments to expand. The formula works from both ends. Government is an apparatus of perception.


Q: Of course, what governments “see” is colored by their agendas.


A: Sure. I didn’t say the government is a reliable set of eyes. I just said it substitutes for people’s blindness. It’s second-hand perception. But I bring it up because it’s very much like what happens within an individual.


Q: How so?


A: A person tends to believe he can’t see what’s really going on, in front of his own eyes. This comes about because of disappointments the person suffers. He sees something and he wants it, and he tries, but he doesn’t get it. So he begins to believe there is something wrong with the way he sees.


Q: That’s a strange idea.


A: Yes, but it’s true. People start out with a simple formula—if I can see it and I want it, I can get it. When that formula doesn’t work enough times, the person begins to believe he isn’t seeing correctly. So he enters into a complex process with his mind, where he appoints a structure, an internal structure to see for him.


Q: A proxy.


A: Yes. And this structure is based on comparisons. A is like B, and B is like C, and C is like D. A person begins to see in categories. He doesn’t perceive directly. Instead of seeing A directly and uniquely, he sees the things A is compared to. He sees a concept. And he gets into cultural norms, seeing what the culture tells him he is supposed to see.


Q: You’re talking about a habit.


A: A deeply ingrained habit.


Q: Aside from your technique of “the unique object,” how would it be broken?


A: You’re the one who told me how.


Q: Through imagination.


A: Yes. Because imagination throws a monkey wrench into the apparatus of second-hand perception. It doesn’t go along with A is like B and B is like C. It comes from a different place. I once did an experiment with ink blots. You know, the ink blot test psychologists use. I took a small group of people and told them I wanted them to look at a few cards with ink blots on them and write down what they could imagine when they saw them. It was all imagination. The people knew that. So first, they wrote down a number, before they looked at any of the cards. The number represented their estimate of their “feeling of well-being” at that moment. It was a scale from 1 to 20, with 20 being highest. Then, after I showed them the cards, and they spent about an hour writing down what they imagined…they wrote down another number—their state of well-being at THAT moment. And in all cases, the second number was higher than the first. The well-being index. (laughs) Imagination raises the level of emotion. It raises energy. But it also creates perception. That’s the most important thing. So, essentially, imagination shreds the apparatus of second-hand perception by creating new perception.


Q: The culture isn’t set up to accommodate that.


A: The culture is all about showing people what they’re supposed to see, through sets of definitions and categorizations. That’s what a culture IS. An apparatus of perception. Imagination works at cross purposes to that.


Q: Because imagination doesn’t care what the culture says or thinks.


A: When you imagine something, you see it or feel it right away. You see what you imagine. Your perceive THAT. So it’s a different way of seeing.


Q: And it only applies to the individual.


A: Of course. As soon as it becomes a group enterprise, you’re building a culture. You’re building another second-hand perception apparatus.


Q: With this patient you were talking about, you asked him to conceive of a unique object. What do you think that meant to him?


A: Well, it was a puzzle to start with. He didn’t know exactly what to do. The gears of his ordinary mind stopped working in the usual way. See, I wasn’t asking him to remember his Social Security number. I wasn’t asking him to tell me what he thought about the weather or his trip to the Greek islands or some article in the Times. He knew how to come up with answers to those things. I was asking him to come up with something completely new and different.


Q: Very Zen.


A: You could say that, yes.


Q: So how did he do it?


A: I’m sure he scoured his memory. But there was no map. He had to come to grips with the idea that there was some other way to proceed, some way he wasn’t used to. He had to think in a different way.


Q: Suppose he couldn’t?


A: But he could. That’s the thing. You see? It’s possible. There is a way to get past all the usual categories of perception. It’s as if you’re walking down a street and everywhere you look there are gates. You can walk through the gates, but if you do, you’re going to come into territory you’re already familiar with. You’ve been through all those gates before, thousands of times. So you don’t do that. You look for something else. You don’t know what it is, but you look.


Q: Are you saying this is a natural process? Are you saying that the gates and the categories are unnatural?


A: The gates and the territories and the rest of it are the result of conditioning. A lot of the conditioning comes into us from the outside, but we also condition ourselves. When you look for a unique object, you’re going past the programming in a very direct way.


Q: Somehow, energy plays a role here.


A: When you come upon a unique object, energy is released. It’s not the usual pedestrian plodding energy.


Q: You’re talking about inspiration.


A: Yes, in a way. But the energy is also a kind of signal. It’s communicating to you. It’s telling you that you just “climbed the mountain.” You climbed the mountain and you floated off the top. That energy, that signal also is transmitted to the body. Your body is alerted to a new dimension of experience. The body responds.


Q: How?


A: It generates a new energy field. A more alive field. Endorphin release also occurs. But the energy field goes beyond that. Your ordinary categories of thought and perception, the normal associations you make…all this is plugged into processes of the body, and the body takes its cues from that grid. But when you supersede all this, as with the perception of a unique object, the old grid isn’t in the seat of control anymore. It isn’t the absolute dictator.


Q: With patients where you’ve been successful with this, I assume there’s no predicting what unique object they’ll come up with.


A: That’s the whole point. If the unique object were the same for everyone, it wouldn’t be unique. People get nervous about this idea. They want to know right away what the object would be. They want a plan. A pattern.


Q: They want a system.


A: “Yes, class, here is the unique object. Now everybody focus on it.” This is exactly what mysticism and religion give you. They tell you up front what the unique object is, because they know that’s what the majority of people want.


Q: And focus isn’t the issue, is it?


A: No, this has nothing to do with focus or concentration. And it certainly has nothing to do with repetition. It’s all about finding or inventing a unique object. Look, what I’m talking about here isn’t for the masses. The masses want symbols they can hang on to. They want symbols that seem to promise them rescue.


Q: You’re saying that all conditioning and programming have to do with sameness.


A: That’s what’s programmed into people. Do A and then A and then A and then A over and over again. People program themselves this way. So their perception of reality becomes stagnant. On one level, it really doesn’t matter how people program themselves. It’s the fact of the programming that’s important, because all conditioning has this feature. It repeats. It spits out the same answer every time. It has the same solutions, to the point where you don’t think any other solution is possible. The strategy of the unique object works in exactly the opposite direction. And in my clinical experience, when it works, it’s extraordinary what happens. One search, one finding of one unique object, and you get a shift. The programming begins to split open.


Q: Before we sat down to talk, you said something about second-hand existence.


A: People look at something or read something and right away they’re experts. They’re experts on what other people will think about it. So you show them something and they judge it by what they think other people will think about it. So they’re not looking at it for themselves. Their perception is geared to a category called “what other people will think.” Except those other people will do the same thing. They’ll look at it and decide its value on the basis of what still OTHER people will think about it. So you get this complete absurdity.


Q: Whereas when a patient of yours conceives of a unique object?


A: As you can see, it’s hard to describe that experience.


Q: Well, you can’t relate it to any system.


A: That’s the point. You have somebody who’s lived for fifty years without ever having considered the idea that there is a unique object. The whole premise seems ridiculous or trivial. But then one day in my office, he does it. He’s in a light trance, and he comes up with a unique object. When he does, there is no system. There is no conditioned apparatus for perceiving. He breaks through that. He’s in a space that is free in a way he’s never experienced freedom before. He’s “off the grid.” He feels like a combination of a treasure hunter who’s just arrived in the cave and opened the box full of gold and jewels, after tracking the place for a long time—and an artist who just made something on a canvas that was completely spontaneous and new and alive. That’s a transcendent moment. It’s his own experience. He did it.


Most of the time we operate inside the grid. Everything happens there, or we think so. Some things we like and some we don’t. We assemble all sorts of concepts and preferences and ideas to justify why we should be doing what we’re doing. But there is a whole universe of experience that lies outside this grid.


[A few comments. Later in his career, Jack True developed many other methods for achieving the kind of breakthrough he explains in this interview. In our many conversations, I also began to develop exercises and techniques for such breakthroughs. The starting point for gaining a grasp on this work is THE MATRIX REVEALED, followed by my audio seminars, MIND CONTROL, MIND FREEDOM, and THE TRANSFORMATIONS.]


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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.