Winner of last night’s debate was Lester Holt

Winner of last night’s debate was Lester Holt

by Jon Rappoport

September 27, 2016

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

As I wrote before the debate yesterday, it’s all about the staging.

I won’t go over everything NBC moderator Lester Holt did to tilt the debate to Hillary. Others are covering his performance. I’ll point out one vital thing. It happened right at the beginning.

Holt framed the debate by stating that the US economy, particularly employment, has recovered well since the 2007-8 meltdown. Of course, he lied. When you factor in how many people now have low-paying jobs who formerly had good jobs; and when you also consider that people who give up trying to find jobs are eventually no longer listed as unemployed, you get the true picture: the US economy hasn’t recovered. Not by a long shot.

Understandably, Trump was focused, at the moment when Holt lied, on Hillary and the audience in the hall. He was blindsided. From the get-go, he should have pinned Holt and denied Holt’s “facts.” He should have exposed Holt as an errant “fact-checker” and put him back on his heels. That could have changed the whole tone of the evening. Holt’s stone-faced “objective” calm would have been broken. He would have been under the gun.

The tight debate format does not suit Trump. The whole set-up goes against his style. Brief statements, the back-and-forth between candidates, the moderator questions and interruptions—it plays against his energy and rhythms.

Within that structure, Trump tended to talk to Hillary and Holt—instead of directly to the American people.

That created problems for him throughout the evening.

Trump’s whole campaign has been based on him going out there, from city to city, talking to large crowds.

In the debates, he has to maintain that position. He’s still speaking directly to the American people, even though he’s in a small hall, with network coverage, with Hillary standing near him, with a media moderator running the show. He has to make that clear—he’s speaking to The People.

The debate set-up is 2 against 1. Holt (or any network moderator) is the anchor. Hillary, with her polished delivery (she’s spoken these lines hundreds of times), functions, in a sense, as another anchor. That leaves Trump as the “disgruntled guest” on the show, trying to make his points and go against the grain.


Exit From the Matrix


An old word describes what Trump should be doing: “oratory.” It’s what elevates a speaker beyond his immediate circumstances and environment, imparting the sense that he’s talking to “everybody.” Forget Hillary. Forget Holt. Forget the people in the hall. Many of them are political pros. Talk to America.

Trump is supposed to be a populist. He’s supposed to be speaking to, and on behalf of, the citizens who feel they have no voice. If that’s true, he can’t leave them out during the debates.

For her part, Hillary was sheer empty perfection. She used all the buzzwords and generalities, while maintaining a cheery and bright attitude. She delivered exactly what she’s been delivering for years and years, straight from memory.

It doesn’t matter what the debate after-polls show. As this campaign moves to its final moments, her anchor-like gloss is going to make serious inroads on Trump, if he continues to be the disgruntled guest on the show.

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.

Tonight’s debate: watch the staging

Tonight’s debate: watch the staging

Every television newscast: staged reality

by Jon Rappoport

September 26, 2016

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

Watch how tonight’s Trump-Hillary debate is set up.

Are the two podiums the same size? No? Who has the bigger podium?

Is the lighting even, or are there shadows? Where do the shadows fall?

Is there blue color in the background, which exudes a “calming effect?”

How is the moderator, Lester Holt, lit? Is he spotlighted, haloed, to impart the sense that he’s the ultimate authority in the room?

What about camera angles on the two candidates? Are they receiving the same coverage, or is one more prominent? Are there close-ups?

Will cameras impart a sense of distance, in order to reduce dramatic effect and give the impression that the whole event is somewhat monotonous?

Will the audience be allowed to applaud and boo, or will Lester Holt control that?

To what degree will the candidates be allowed to wander off-topic? Will the reins be tight or loose?

How much time will each candidate be given to make statements? Will either or both of them be pinched, so they can’t say anything of substance?

Ah yes, substance. Context. Network news is famous for thin context:

The news is all about artificially manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it. If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time…

Let’s consider some general background on the news:

The network evening news. This is where the staging is done well.

First, we have the image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style. The overall effect: hypnotic, yet stimulating.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the (thin) context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition, and this trend has jumped quickly since the recent school-shooting tragedy…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns.”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

It would never occur to him to wonder: are the squabbling political legislators really two branches of the same Party? Does government have the Constitutional right to incur this much debt? Where is all that money coming from? Taxes? Other sources? Who invents money?

Is the flu dangerous for most people? If not, why not? Do governments overstate case numbers? How do they actually test patients for the flu? Are the tests accurate? Are they just trying to convince us to get vaccines?

What happens when the government has overwhelming force and citizens have no guns?

When researchers keep saying “may” and “could,” does that mean they’ve actually discovered something useful about autism, or are they just hyping their own work and trying to get funding for their next project?


power outside the matrix


These are only a few of the many questions the typical viewer never considers.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is: small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

The average viewer, having been entrained through years of watching the news, is going to come to tonight’s Presidential debate ready for thin context and no depth.

That’s the subconscious expectation.

Can this expectation be reversed in 90 minutes, regardless of what either candidate says?

And if either candidate suddenly punches a hole in that expectation, will the average viewer welcome it, or will he feel shocked and disturbed by the intrusion? Will he resent it?

Or to put it another way, which candidate more closely resembles a network news anchor—the familiar words, the familiar generalities, the thin context.

The networks that will broadcast the debate consider it a media/news event.

They will try to keep it within that space.

They think they own that space, which includes the viewer’s mind.

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.

How the liberal press will game the Trump-Hillary debate

How the liberal press will game the Trump-Hillary debate

—assuming Hillary shows up—

by Jon Rappoport

September 25, 2016

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

I didn’t invent the liberal press. If the MSM were overwhelmingly conservative, I’d be writing about how they’re going to game Monday night’s debate.

Here’s the problem the MSM faces. Most Presidential debates are snoozefests during which the two candidates float high-flying, empty, vapid, brainless generalities. The press can then easily pick their favorite person, in the aftermath, because neither one said anything. But here we have something different:

Trump is famous for potent wise cracks; dismissive comments aimed at his opponents and the media; and sharp-tongued critiques of policies (e.g., Globalism) which are never aired during election campaigns. He’s a fast-talking cowboy who starts shooting as he’s walks through the door of the saloon.

So the MSM will have to scramble, to slant perception away from Trump and for Hillary.

It’s quite possible that, during the debate itself, a little army of liberal fact-checkers will analyze a Trump statement, decide it’s false, and relay the information to Lester Holt, the moderator, who will frame an accusatory question for Trump on the spot, hoping to catch him up and expose him.

Holt may also try to pop Trump for interrupting Hillary; portraying him as a rude, over-weaning, coarse jackass.

And if Hillary criticizes Trump on a foreign policy issue, and he comes back with one of his patented bombs—“You should talk, Hillary, you destroyed Libya and turned it into a hellhole”—Holt could insist Trump is going off the reservation and not replying directly to Hillary.

“Mr. Trump, I keep trying to bring you back to the subject at hand, and you keep wandering away from it…” (The MSM would replay that clip hundreds of times.)

Holt could do a lot of things to try to upset Trump’s rhythm and tempo and cast him in a negative light. You can bet Hillary’s people have been sending messages through to Holt, urging him to keep Trump on-topic, “so the debate doesn’t turn into an unseemly circus.”

Post-debate, the liberal press will certainly refrain from mentioning that many of Hillary’s remarks were substanceless generalities (her stock-in-trade). They’ll actually fill in the blanks for her. They always have.

If Hillary shows up and endures the full 90 minutes, without collapsing or leaving the stage in a coughing fit, the liberal press will automatically claim “she looked strong and fit” and her health is not a problem. “Apparently, those questions have been answered.”

If Hillary energetically pushes back against Trump just once, during the whole evening, even if she’s telling an egregious lie in the process, the MSM will seize on it, play it over and over, and crow about her “toughness.”

If Trump decides to tone it down and look and sound “Presidential,” the MSM will say he was “subdued” and off his game. If he attacks, they’ll say he was “un-Presidential,” as well as “sexist.”

If Hillary physically survives the debate, the MSM will say she’s “on track” to becoming the next President, “as the polls have indicated, despite Trump’s recent surge.” In other words, they’ll try to make it look as if she’s been running a seamless and successful campaign all along, based on her “vast experience”—instead of ducking reporters, hiding out, canceling events, and trying to find enough energy to carry on.

If Trump stumbles at any point, the MSM will punch that up, highlight it, run the clip over and over, and claim it shows he’s really unprepared for “the major leagues.” “He was exposed.” “He’s really an amateur, as many critics have warned all along.”

As usual, based on zero evidence, the MSM will claim Hillary played well to certain voting blocs: the young, unions, minorities, the elderly.

Any sort of vaguely competent performance by Hillary will be hailed as a major victory, as if a coma patient in an ER suddenly sat up and spoke a few complete sentences.

The MSM are well aware of her fragile health (“fragile” is an understatement), but they’re trying to sit on the information, despite huge pressure from independent reporters all over the Web. At this point, the MSM is like a starving dog that will seize on any bone in its vicinity and make it into a full-course banquet: “She walked, she talked, she was coherent. Therefore, she’s a genius.”

“Despite her recent bout with pneumonia, she appeared strong and in charge.”

If Hillary can’t finish the debate, if she has to leave the stage or collapses, the MSM will try to blame it on Trump.

Who will be in the house Monday night? Will we see a stacked deck? Will people shower Trump with boos? If things get very rough for Hillary, will a protest break out against Trump to give her cover?

Anything is possible, including lights in the hall going out; spotty audio; cutting the televised feed, due to “technical problems” or even “a mysterious hacker.” The MSM are quite aware that Trump has no respect for them. They’re terrified that, if Trump is scoring heavily at the debate, their status as dispensers of truth for the masses will take another major torpedo. They know the public’s regard for them is already plummeting.


power outside the matrix


I have reason to believe media honchos have been in touch with the Trump campaign, on the issue of “credibility.” They’re telling Trump people the debates must be conducted in a dignified manner, in order to preserve the reputation of the office of the Presidency.

Obviously, this effort is aimed at toning Trump down, convincing him to behave. In other words, the media are trying to get him to abandon his most popular approach and turn him into another android candidate.

If he falls for that one, he’s done.

You can be sure, as well, that people inside Trump’s own campaign (infiltrators and typically standard fools) are urging him to back off, act Presidential, and consolidate his gains. They’re telling him his best hope is to build better trust with voters by “acting normal.”

“Too many people are still scared of you, Donald.”

If he falls for that one, he’s done.

They may as well be telling him, “Act more like Hillary.” Hillary has a patent on that act. He can’t match it.

On Monday night, the MSM will be looking for any possible Trump sliver they can use to claim, “The man revealed himself as dangerous.”

That’s their hole card. That’s what they want to sell: “People all over America are feeling fear and disgust. They’re reluctant to believe what Trump is saying—and they doubt his ability to perform competently as President.”

Post-debate, the liberal press will try to take that position, based on something Trump said or did.

Trump can view all these obstructions as a mine-field he must navigate carefully.

But if he does, he’s done.

This is a national debate. For many, many viewers, this will be their first lengthy exposure to the candidates. Hillary will keep (vaguely) emphasizing her experience and credibility as a political leader, versus Trump’s complete lack of real knowledge. She’ll try to act like a frontrunner, a fount of confidence. Trump has to crash that celebration and ruin it.

And the liberal media have to characterize his attacks as something on the order of childish tantrums.

“Trump offered little in the way of substance. He was mostly bluster, and people could see it. Hillary, on the other hand, displayed restraint befitting a veteran who, certainly, based on the record, knows foreign policy like the back of her hand…”

Hillary, on stage, will have a few zingers ready to go, if things start to turn against her, if Trump’s energy is overwhelming her. Something like, “Donald, I know you. I’ve known you for years. How you can even think about running for President? The whole world is watching. Millions of people know you and your campaign are a sham, a fake. Why don’t you make everybody happy, pick up your marbles, and go home. Go back to your Tower and forget about it!”

Applause will break out in the hall, and the liberal press will hope and pray it spells the end of the Trump fantasy.

They’ve been trying to put this guy away ever since he announced his candidacy, and everything they’ve done has not only failed, it’s backfired.

Hillary should be their ultimate backup. She should be the one to seal his fate. After all, she’s supposed to be the next President, isn’t she?

Does she have what it takes to be a closer? Or is she so burned out and ill she can barely make it to the show?

According to reports, Gennifer Flowers, one of Bill’s former girlfriends, has accepted Trump’s invitation to sit in the front row at the debate. If so, it appears Trump is doubling down, and remains in full attack mode.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Analyzing information in the age of disinformation

Analyzing information in the age of disinformation

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2016

My “ordeal by fire” came in 1987, while I was writing my first book, AIDS INC.

I had dozens of sources telling me contradictory stories about HIV, what HIV really was and wasn’t; and that was just the beginning of the AIDS information/opinion flooding in from all quarters.

I had to find a way to judge all these data. I had to separate value from non-value. I had to discover a few bottom lines that would serve as context, against which I could make judgments.

When the dust cleared, I knew I had reached a high point. I knew I was launched. Never again would serious disinformation and misinformation cook my brain.

Since then, I’ve made extensive notes on “analyzing information in the age of disinformation”—which happens to be the title of one section of my collection, Power Outside The Matrix.


power outside the matrix


Here are the contents of Power Outside The Matrix:

These are audio presentations. 55 total hours.

* Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation (11.5-hours)

* Writer’s Tutorial (8.5-hours)

* Power Outside The Matrix and The Invention of New Reality (6.5-hours)

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

* The Third Philosophy of Imagination (1-hour)

* The Infinite Imagination (3-hours)

* The Mass Projection of Events (1.5-hours)

* The Decentralization of Power (1.5-hours)

* Creating the Future (6-hours)

* Pictures of Reality (6-hours)

* The Real History of America (2-hours)

* Corporations: The New Gods (7.5-hours)

I have included an additional bonus section:

* 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 (and how to analyze them). 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.

* A 2-hour radio interview I did on AIDS in Dec 1987 with host Roy Tuckman on KPFK in Los Angeles, California.

* My book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies

(All the audio presentations are mp3 files and the books are pdf files. You download the files upon purchase. You’ll receive an email with a link to the entire collection.)

At the core of consciousness, there are two impulses in the individual. The first is: give in, surrender. The second is: express power without limit.

The teaching of every civilization and society is: don’t use your power. When you follow the second path, when you express your power without limits, remarkable things happen.

The veil of illusion melts away.

You meet yourself on new ground.

You know what your freedom is for.

Without imposing on the freedom of others, you live the life you always wanted.

That’s what Power Outside The Matrix is all about.

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.

Consciousness as a problem solver supreme

Consciousness as a problem solver supreme

by Jon Rappoport

September 23, 2016

These are notes I wrote preparing my second mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix:

“Consciousness is a problem solver supreme because consciousness isn’t a static unchanging quality. It is dynamic. It moves, and it moves through imagination.”

“Imagination finds a way through or around problems, when problems are the issue at hand. Imagination makes a leap out in front of a problem and conceives of new ideas, data, approaches.”

“Imagination specializes in leaps across rivers where there are no bridges. Imagination is a quality that goes beyond ‘information at hand’.”

“Every enterprise needs someone with imagination in spades. He may not be understood, but he supplies what the enterprise can’t get anywhere else: the leap. The leap beyond the facts into a future where the problem is solved or dissolved entirely. I’m not talking about an aimless wish or a fairy tale. The imaginer is more real than real.”

“Why not have imagination exercises and techniques a person can practice every day, in order to expand his creative power? In this way, the seemingly impossible becomes palpable.”

“Imagination exercises would also cure the addiction to What Already Is. They would cure the addiction to the past. They would open up the future as invented space and time.”

My collection, Exit From The Matrix, contains more than 50 fully explained and specific imagination exercises I’ve developed over the past 20 years. You practice them on a daily basis.


exit from the matrix


Here are the contents of Exit From The Matrix:

First, my new audio presentations:

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

* EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* 50 IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* FURTHER IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* ANESTHESIA, BOREDOM, EXCITEMENT, ECSTASY

* ANCIENT TIBET AND THE UNIVERSE AS A PRODUCT OF MIND

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

* PARANORMAL EXPERIMENTS AND EXERCISES

* CHILDREN AND IMAGINATION

* THE CREATIVE LIFE AND THE MATRIX/IMAGINATION

* PICTURES OF REALITY AND ESCAPE VELOCITY FROM THE MATRIX

* THIS WOULD BE A VERY DIFFERENT FUTURE

* MODERN ZEN

* THE GREAT PASSIONS AND THE GREAT ANDROIDS

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

* Mind Control, Mind Freedom

* The Transformations

* Desire, Manifestation and Fulfillment

* Altered States, Consciousness, and Magic

* Beyond Structures

* The Mystery and Magic of Dialogue

* The Voyage of Merlin

* Modern Alchemy and Imagination

* Imagination and Spiritual Enlightenment

* Dissolving Stress

* The Paranormal Project

* Zen Painting for Everyone Now

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

* Expression of Self

* Imagination Exercises for a Lifetime

* Old Planet, New Planet, New Mind

* The Era of Magic Returns

* Your Power Revealed

* Universes Without End

* Relationships

* Building a Business for Success

I have included an additional bonus section:

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

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

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

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

And these audio seminars:

* The Role of Medical Drugs in Human Illness

* Longevity One: The Mind-Body Connection

* Longevity Two: The Nutritional Factors

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

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

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

Selling perception of terror attacks (and everything else) on the mind-control superhighway—and immortal you

Selling perception of terror attacks (and everything else) on the mind-control superhighway—and immortal you

by Jon Rappoport

September 22, 2016

I’ve written several introductions and postscripts to my collection, Exit From The Matrix. Here is the latest postscript:

Public relations adepts understand that you can take a genuine positive sentiment and make a cartoon out of it.

And then you can make a cartoon out of THAT, and you can go on with this multiplying process for many years. And people will totally lose track of where and when the genuine was replaced by the fake.

Worse yet, people will sculpt their own personalities to fit some sixth-generation “positive” cartoon, believing all the while they’re embracing the highest Good in the cosmos.

This article is about selling perception, not fact.

When enough images, cues, and symbols are placed in the mind, the owner of that mind will basically have an excuse to sacrifice his independence, surrender, and adopt a “peaceful” role in the stage play of his life.

He will even go so far as to embrace a wholly fake messianic agenda for a “better world”—because it looks like it fits his new role.

Now he’s inside a cartoon bubble.

Social propaganda operatives understand these factors. On this basis, they pick up their paychecks. One such retired operative once told me, “I made my living from the idea of unity. That’s it. I sold it for years like Big Macs.”

—The bomb in NY, the bombs in New Jersey, the stabbing attack in Minnesota…no matter what major media call them or don’t call them, the American people call them terrorist acts.

And that seems to play into the hands of Donald Trump.

But you can be sure Hillary Clinton’s inner circle are telling her a different story. A familiar story, because they’ve been operating on this basis for a long time: “You, Hillary, are the moderate candidate. You’re in the center. You’re for unity. That’s how the majority of the voters see you. So these attacks benefit you, not Trump, because America wants peace and unity and caring at any cost. And they see you as the President who can give those things to them. Trump is the wild cowboy. He stands for retribution and violence and revenge. That’s not what the people want, because they’re afraid his actions would bring down more terror attacks. Don’t worry, be happy, Hillary. You’re going to win the White House…”

For decades now, the mood in America has been shifted over into endless compromise and political correctness and counterfeit love and caring—as a result of a purposeful multi-front propaganda operation:

“Everybody is good, respect diversity, automatically love everyone who is different, be nice, think positive, embrace hope, don’t make waves, and peace will come.”

I hope you understand that all the key words in the preceding sentence are crafted as fake versions of the real thing. I can’t say it more plainly than that.

“No one is evil. When met with love, all differences and enmities dissolve.” This is another crafted propaganda cartoon. Its purpose is to convince people to surrender.

This is how defeat is sold on the superhighway of PR.

Then, another step is taken. Cues are installed in people’s minds that trigger surrender as if it is “love.” Cues such as: waves of migrants (among whom are un-vetted terrorists); inner cities devastated by a combination of Globalism and gangs; violent riots in the streets—these and other cues bring about a response of “share and care” surrender.

—Love them, care for them, give them everything they want, and all will be well. (And even if it isn’t, you’ve donned the visible and admirable cloak of a “good person,” and what else matters?)

To the degree that this massive society-transforming mind-control op works, political candidates who present themselves as cartoons of faith, hope, charity, love, peace, and equality gather much, much support.

Facts don’t matter. Perception matters.

If Hillary Clinton, present or absent and ailing at home, can be sold as that all-kind and all-caring cartoon, she will win the election.

“She’s even-minded, she won’t go to extremes, she cares about everybody.”

Her ultimate backers are quite of the aware of the decades-old propaganda op I’ve outlined above, and they’re betting their candidate will be the caricature that fits the bill.

How many voters will buy Trump as the “brutal cop on the beat,” looking to “shoot an unarmed boy?” And how many voters will buy Hillary as the candidate of peace who can “bring unity to a divided nation” and “greet well-meaning immigrants to our shores?”

This op goes further than Hillary and Trump. Politicians and their advisors all over Washington DC and America are sculpting their positions based on which set of cartoons they believe the people of this country have bought.

The actual safety and security of the United States is not the issue. “Actual” isn’t in the political playbook.

Meanwhile, on another level of false perception, since the assassination of JFK, a coterie of what we now call neocons has sold its aggressive wars as “defending freedom” and “establishing democracies.” This propaganda op targets, at home, American individuals who refuse to accept fake cartoons of peace and unity. This op is for those who want action, decisive victories—another whole set of cartoons.

So we have two ops on the propaganda superhighway, and together they form a pincer movement, a squeeze play. “You must pick one side or the other.”

But whether it seems possible or not, the truth is: the long-term future of civilization rests on the independent individual who rejects fake cartoons, no matter what their messages are.

Through his rational powers, and his innate imagination, he becomes an island in the stream of history. He works to turn the False upside down and shake out the True.

He conceives of, and projects, and builds new and better and freer realities in the world.

It may seem he is working against impossible odds, but if that is so, why have propagandists been laboring on and on, with such great resources behind them, to win their war of mind control?

The answer is: the soul of freedom, logic, and creative force offers awesome resistance to the takeover.

The individual is far more potent than even he believes.

Binding him with false caricatures and false idols forever…turns out to be untenable and impossible.

That is what I’ve concluded after 30 years of research and investigation.

As I keep saying: the game is afoot, time is long, the game is never over.

Never.


Exit From the Matrix


The physical shell you inhabit may receive slings and arrows, but like it or not, you’re immortal, and nothing can change that fact.

Get used to it: you’re in it for the long haul.

The only question is, what will the haul look like? Or better put: what will you create?

What will you create now, ten years from now, a hundred years from now, a thousand years from now?

Absurd? You’re just organized dust with a few years of action and thought before you fall back to disorganized dust?

You, who knows right now you’re conscious and reading these words; you who feeds your family, who drives to work, who jumps in the ocean and swims; you who who stands in the forest and looks at the trees as the dawn breaks; you who stands at your bedroom window at 3 in the morning and looks out over the city and envisions a fabulous new enterprise and future—you’re just the organized dust of remorseless atoms flowing in unconscious cause-and-effect, and after a few years you’ll fall back into disorganized dust?

Now THAT’S supreme high high level propaganda. That’s the crown of propaganda, brought to you by the scientific materialists who insist you’re nothing more than an accidental temporary machine outfitted with faulty programming, who needs to be returned to the factory for complete restructuring.

And if you buy that one, I have a company building space rockets made out of sand in the Sahara, and I’m looking for investors who recognize a tremendous opportunity when they see it…

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.

Hillary-Trump debates: resurrection of IQ

Hillary-Trump debates: resurrection of IQ

by Jon Rappoport

September 21, 2016

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

We are approaching the 2016 Presidential debates. Hillary and Trump.

So I want to remind you of another time, another debate format, another capacity of the public mind. Way back when.

Consider the 1858 Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas face-off—when apparently citizens still had a semblance of intelligence. Both men were running for a US Senate seat in Illinois. In those days, state legislatures chose US Senators.

But the issue in the debates was slavery, so the interest was intense and it was national. Here was the agreed-upon format—get this: seven debates in seven Illinois towns over the course of three weeks; in each debate, the opening candidate would speak for 60 minutes, his opponent would speak for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate would return for 30 minutes.

The debates drew large crowds. Chicago newspapers had stenographers in each town. The stenos took down every word, and newspapers across the nation printed, in full, the texts.

Those were debates. No moderator. The men talked. And talked.

They weren’t asked questions.

They didn’t interrupt each other with insults and wise cracks.

They didn’t shift from issue to issue.

And when they were done in each town, denizens of the media weren’t around to weigh in on how “Presidential” they sounded and looked.

Current TV debates preclude the possibility of something dangerous happening. For example, in a real contest, suppose the single issue was Syria and a candidate stepped up to the podium and said:

“During my remarks in the next ninety minutes, with no interruptions—yes, we’re going back to a much older format—I’ll be the making the case that the current US administration has essentially created ISIS, in part for the purpose of overthrowing the present government of Syria. Consider this fact alongside our declared ‘war’ against ISIS. This is more than an outrageous contradiction. It’s an intentional deception, and a crime of the highest order, considering what ISIS has been carrying out in terms of the destruction of human life. Now, I’m not just saying these things. I have evidence in the form of documents, which I’ll be explaining in detail. Some of these documents and reports are already public. Others are not. I also have statements, on the record, from US military officers and Pentagon executives. So bear with me, stay with me, I’m going to take this one step at a time…”

There are many ways to keep this sort of thing from happening. The easiest way: never let a true debate occur.

And just in case you think the American public is so addled they wouldn’t be able to follow such a presentation, I have a secret for you. At first, it would be a problem, yes. But if more and more true debates took place, a change would bleed in. People would begin to wake up. They’d find themselves, bit by bit, intensely interested in the proceedings.

After all, part of the reason the public is brainwashed springs directly from the fact that so few politicians explore any issue in depth. Reverse that trend and the mind begins to reassemble itself.

How about something like this? Crossing party lines, Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul debated, seven times, as Lincoln and Douglas had, the following: “What is socialism, and is it good for America?”

If either candidate had been unable to do more than spout vapid generalities and programmatic fumes during his seven hours, it would surely have become obvious.

How about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, in the same format, debating the question: “Describe in detail the best immigration policy for America.” If their seven events turn into a Niagara of opposing non-sequiturs and self-inflating jive, so be it. It’ll be on parade for all to see.

People wonder whether Hillary can get from her van to the podium without a golf cart and three assistants. Forget about it. This would be seven debates in three weeks, during which she would speak for a total of 630 minutes.

That would be real.

She and Trump would have to lay out their positions in full.

The public would have to pay attention. And if they couldn’t or wouldn’t, so be it. Maybe next time they would.

Pandering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence is a grotesque side-show that has taken center stage.

The point is to aim high and force things.

Bring back meaningful debate.

Get used to the long form again.

Push this nation up, not down.


The Matrix Revealed


I would certainly like to see Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Bill O’Reilly compelled to analyze each of seven full debates. That alone would be worth the price of admission.

Even more thrilling, let Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for President, do the full seven debates against, well, anyone. The Libertarians are supposed to be true intellectuals. Well, let’s see IQ on parade, as their leading nitwit engages on an issue of vital interest. Then cut up his presentation and make a sit-com out of it.

Let’s have a few dozen intrepid college professors tell their classes: “We’re going to take apart all seven, long-form, Lincoln-Douglas-type debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Piece by piece, step by step. I don’t want to hear any nonsense about ‘being triggered’ or ‘needing safe spaces’. If you can’t handle it, you get an F for the course. If you know nothing about traditional logical fallacies, you’d better bone up quickly, because I have a feeling we’re going to be exploring those fallacies. And don’t bother feeding me vapid generalities and slogans when you write your papers. You’re on the hook. I expect you to be alert and smart. If that’s beyond your capacity, you shouldn’t be here. Go back to high school or middle school or wherever it was you checked out of your education. Play time is over. Whining is over. This is college…”

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.