The individual radiating power: enemy of the State?

The individual radiating power: enemy of the State?

Power Outside The Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

September 4, 2015

If you were to add up all the crises currently emerging around us, you would see that the individual is being “asked” to slide down into abject misery and defeat.

That must not happen.

The individual is the target because he potentially stands outside the system of mass control.

He has a mind. He can use it. He has imagination. He can conceive of better futures. He has creative-force. He can implement those undiluted visions of the future and make them into fact in the world.

Whereas, if he sees himself as nothing more than a cog in the machine, what is done to the machine is done to him.

In myths of the Knight on his journey, there comes a point where the Knight abandons the original mission and stands on his own, discovering what it is he most wants to achieve. The decision is his alone; he is no longer beholden to a master.

Through his capacity to explore and analyze the world, and through his creative-force, he becomes an architect of the future.

That was my intent in putting together my third collection, Power Outside The Matrix: equipping the individual for this journey, so he could take it with his potential restored.

And a world populated by unique individuals, not groups burdened with group-think? As improbable as this outcome may seem, it has been the vision of many, many artists, thinkers, and independent men and women down through history. It is still alive.


power outside the matrix


Here are the particulars 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 them upon purchase. You’ll receive an email with a link to the entire collection.)

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.

New World Citizen on Trial

New World Citizen on Trial

~a short story~

by Jon Rappoport

September 3, 2015

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

“A system of control uses groups to put the system into action. These groups learn how to work together as One—which is yet another layer of control. Breaking out of this painful joke therefore falls to the individual. It has always been so.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

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

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

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

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

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

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

A portion of the trial transcript follows:

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

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

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

Palmer: Yes, sir.

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

Palmer: I did.

Judge: And this is not the first time.

Palmer: No, sir.

Judge Regis: What happened, Mr. Palmer?

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

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

Palmer: Yes, sir. That was my mistake.

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

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

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

Palmer: Yes, sir.

Judge Regis: Which can be psychologically devastating.

Palmer: Correct.

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

Palmer: So I understand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Regis: That would be appropriate.

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

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

Palmer: Yes, sir?

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

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

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

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

Judge Regis: Excuse me?

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


power outside the matrix


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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Regis: Remember that.

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

Judge Regis: And that must never happen.

Palmer: “We” is advanced form of “I.”

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

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

Judge Regis: Now you’re getting the idea.

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

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

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

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

Palmer: Yes, sir, I am.

And thus David Palmer achieved a new level of consciousness. He could now proceed with his work, which involved expanding the reach of State spying on workers—and he could participate in that work wholeheartedly, as a member of his team.

This is the way. The group learns to cooperate as it devises new systems to monitor groups.

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.

Media Matrix: an ancient Tibetan perspective on the evening network news

Media Matrix: an ancient Tibetan perspective on the evening network news

by Jon Rappoport

September 2, 2015

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

“A long time ago, teachers and students in Tibet considered themselves artists of reality. They practiced inventing it. And then, separating themselves from every other spiritual system, they practiced destroying what they created. Back and forth, back and forth, with the goal of achieving an intimate knowledge of their own existence.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

For the early Tibetan adepts, the Void was a vital concept.

Stripped of its metaphysical baggage and embroidery, Void was the place where creating stopped. The constant “noise of existence” went away.

The ongoing parade of inner thoughts, sentiments, propensities—vanished.

For as long as a person wanted to stay there. And experience the greatest “vacation” he’d ever known. If he could handle it.

But humans felt a great need to avoid the Void. They demanded activity, flow, information.

They eventually sank to the level of passivity…and then they simply wanted input, more input, and still more input.

From an authoritative unimpeachable external source.

Hence, from the earliest societies onward, there was a thing called: the news.

It was updated. It was ongoing. It was forever.

Priests delivered it. Kings delivered it. Their minions delivered it.

If the news stopped, people felt anxiety, which, at bottom, was a fear of Void.

There is much more to say about the Tibetans and their understanding of Void and its twin, ongoing Creation, but I’ll save that for another time.

Now, in these times, the global population has television news.

The imitations of life called anchors are the arbiters. How they speak, how they look, how they themselves experience emotion—all this is planted deep in the minds of the viewers.

Much of the world can’t imagine the evening news could look and sound any other way.

That’s how solid the long-term brainwashing is.

The elite anchors, from John Daly, in the early days of television, all the way to Lester Holt and Scott Pelley, have set the style. They define the genre.

The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience’s psyche that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect. (In the Void, of course, cause and effect dissolve.)

The network anchor is the wizard of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable truth.

Ultimately, he is paving over Void.

On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.

This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.

All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion. These days, it was, until his downfall, Brian Williams.

The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor great. Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow. Huntley was a just a touch too masculine, so they teamed him up with David Brinkley, a medium-boiled egg. Brinkley supplied twinkles of comic relief.

There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”

Television news is really all segue all the time. That’s what it comes down to.

The word “segue,” pronounced “segway,” refers to a transition from one thing to another, a blend.

Ed McMahon once referred to Johnny Carson as the prince of blends, because Carson could tell a clunker of a joke, step on it three times, and still move to the next joke without losing his audience.

Television news is very serious business. A reporter who can’t handle segues is dead in the water. He’s a gross liability.

The good anchors can take two stories that have no connection whatsoever and create a sense of smooth transition.

Brian Williams could say, “The planes were recalled later in the afternoon…And a man was cut in two in a horrific accident in Idaho today…And in Seattle (smile), three people reported seeing turtles falling from the sky.”

And it works. The segue works. The blends from one story to another seem reasonable somehow.

The networks basically have, on a daily basis, radically fragmented stories, and they need an anchor who can do the blends, the segues, and get away with it, to promote the sense of one continuous flow. So the audience doesn’t say, “This is just an odd collection of surreal moments, this is Salvador Dali on my television screen.”

The news is all segue all the time. The voice of the anchor is the non-stop blending machine that ties all news stories together. That’s why the elite network stars earn their paychecks.

It’s often been said of certain actors, “He could read from the phone book and you’d listen.” Well, an elite anchor can hold the viewer’s mind as he reads a sentence from the phone book, another one from a car-repair manual, a third from a cookbook, and a fourth from a funeral-home brochure. Without stopping.

And afterward, the viewer would have no questions.

The news is surreal because the stories are mostly fool’s gold to begin with; and they’re unrelated. They’re rocks lying around. The anchor picks them up and invents the illusion of One Flowing Stream.

This is what the audience wants. The news feels like a story. It feels like unity. It feels like a stage play or a movie. It feels, when all is said and done, good.

You can’t pull just anyone off the street and have him describe car crashes, murders, storms, threats of war, political squabbles, 300 cats living in a one-room apartment, a new piece of Medicare legislation, genitalia picture tweets, and the dedication of a new library, while keeping the audience in a light trance.

Katie Couric couldn’t do it. People were waiting for her to break out into an attack of Perky and giggle and cross her legs. Diane Sawyer had her bad nights. She seemed to be affecting somber personal grief as her basic segue-thread. Scott Pelley is competent, but he has his off-moments, too, when he’s suddenly sitting like a surgeon ready to signal the anesthesiologist to clamp a mask on your face, before he cuts into your stomach.

Whereas, a true and authentic version of the news would go something like this: “Well, folks, just now I moved from a tornado in Kansas to the removal of restrictions on condom sales, and I’m blending directly into penguins in Antarctica. I’m doing Salvador Dali and you’re not noticing a thing.”

The anchor is basically saying to the audience, “I’m a few feet inside your personal landscape, your mind, feeding you all the turns in the river, and I’ll always be here…papering over the Void.”


exit from the matrix


Elite anchors invent and maintain certain tones of voice, certain rhythms, certain cadences, certain variations of musical pitch, in order to sustain the sense of continuity.

They’re mechanics of voice.

They can know they’re actors on television, but they can believe (in direct contradiction) they’re delivering the truth.

“Okay, look,” the producer says to the veteran actor he’s interviewing for the lead, in a billion-dollar production called The News. “This may sound strange, but you’re going to have to do Normal as it’s never been done before. That’s what the audience wants. You’ve got to come across as very, very smart and very, very Normal. Get it? Pretend you’re the brain of every other brain. You’re the conscience of every other conscience. You’re just as walled off from the conspiracy to own every inch of America as Americans are walled off from knowing about it. You know as little as they do. You’re clean, sanitary, loyal as a dog, dumb as fog, but very smart. You spew absolute nonsense every second of your time on stage, but it sounds eminently plausible. You constantly change subjects, and the subjects are in no way related to each other, but you make it all Liquid Flow. It’s a joke. But you’re serious. And you’ll get rich.”

And people, with their inordinate and strange fear of dropping down into the gorgeous silence of Void, will watch and listen. They’ll roll up their sleeves and shoot themselves up with the news every night.

Here’s a parting tidbit: The early Tibetans, with their stout, strong, and implacable techniques and exercises, were artists of reality. They were saying, “If you practice inventing reality to the hilt, with great intensity, and then practice not inventing it, you’ll grasp the twin pillars of this existence. You’ll become immune to fear of the Void. You’ll recognize bullshit, on both the daily and cosmic levels, as you’ve never known them before. As a side effect, you’ll be able to analyze information with a keener gaze than you imagined was possible.”

Or you can have the network evening news.

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.

Psychiatrists drugging children for “social justice”

Bombshell: Mind-control engineers drugging children for “Social Justice”

by Jon Rappoport

September 2, 2015

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

It’s the latest thing. Psychiatrists are giving children in poor neighborhoods Adderall, a dangerous stimulant, by making false diagnoses of ADHD, or no diagnoses at all. Their aim? To “promote social justice,” to improve academic performance in school.

The rationale is, the drugged kids will now be able to compete with children from wealthier families who attend better schools.

Leading the way is Dr. Michael Anderson, a pediatrician in the Atlanta area. Incredibly, Anderson told the New York Times (“Attention Disorder or Not, Pills to Help in School”) his diagnoses of ADHD are “made up,” “an excuse” to hand out the drugs.

“We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid,” Anderson said.

It would be hard to find a clearer mission statement from a psychiatrist: mind control.

A researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, Dr. Ramesh Raghavan, goes even further with this chilling comment: “We are effectively forcing local community psychiatrists to use the only tool at their disposal [to ‘level the playing field’ in low-income neighborhoods], which is psychotropic medicine.”

So pressure is being brought to bear on psychiatrists to launch a heinous behavior modification program, using drugs, against children in inner cities.

It’s important to realize that all psychotropic stimulants, like Adderal and Ritalin, can cause aggressive behavior, violent behavior.

What we’re seeing here is a direct parallel to the old CIA program, exposed by the late journalist, Gary Webb, who detailed the importing of crack cocaine (another kind of stimulant) into South Central Los Angeles, which went a long way toward destroying that community.

It is widely acknowledged, and admitted in the Times article, that the effects of ADHD drugs on children’s still-developing brains are unknown. Therefore, the risks of the drugs are great. At least one leading psychiatrist, Peter Breggin, believes there is significant evidence that these stimulants can cause atrophy of the brain.

Deploying the ADHD drugs creates symptoms which may then be treated with compounds like Risperdal, a powerful anti-psychotic, which can cause motor brain damage.

All this, in service of “social justice” for the poor.

And what about the claim that ADHD drugs can enhance school performance?

The following pronouncement makes a number of things clear: The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard): “Stimulants [given for ADHD] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”

So the whole basis for this “social justice” program in low-income communities—that the ADHD drugs will improve school performance of kids and “level the playing field,” so they can compete academically with children from wealthier families—this whole program is based on a lie to begin with.

Meddling with the brains of children via these chemicals constitutes criminal assault, and it’s time it was recognized for what it is.


the matrix revealed


In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841]. Adderall and other ADHD medications are all in the same basic class; they are stimulants, amphetamine-type substances.

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

  • Paranoid delusions
  • Paranoid psychosis
  • Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
  • Activation of psychotic symptoms
  • Toxic psychosis
  • Visual hallucinations
  • Auditory hallucinations
  • Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
  • Effects pathological thought processes
  • Extreme withdrawal
  • Terrified affect
  • Started screaming
  • Aggressiveness
  • Insomnia
  • Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
  • Psychic dependence
  • High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
  • Decreased REM sleep
  • When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
  • Convulsions
  • Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

In what sense are the ADHD drugs “social justice?” The reality is, they are chemical warfare. Licensed predators are preying on the poor.

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.

Elections in Australia, Canada, England, Germany, Netherlands

Elections in Australia, Canada, England, Germany, Netherlands

by Jon Rappoport

September 1, 2015

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

“National election campaigns are media events. Media run them. Media pump ratings. They produce the soap opera. They construct the illusion. Many people hate hearing this, because they prefer to believe the few candidates who can actually win are real. No one with that much face time on national television is real.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

I’ve just completed a flurry of articles on how elections work as media events in the US (archived here, under “elections”). But why leave out other countries, where the process is essentially the same?

You have to look at these major election seasons as television series produced by the major networks.

Then it begins to make sense.

The casting of characters tends to follow the same pattern, over and over. You have two major candidates (for president, premier, prime minister). Writing their parts is a bit of a challenge, because any intelligent person can see there is really not much to choose between them.

That’s a ratings killer. The networks need opposition and sharp differences. So while both of these “leaders,” behind the scenes, are Globalists and favor huge corporations and huge government bureaucracies, “free trade,” sending jobs overseas where workers will toil for virtually no pay in execrable conditions, etc., the networks will find issues on which they disagree.

Then you have a cast of minor characters running for the top office in the land. A couple of them are fiery and feisty, more “radical” or “radically conservative” in their views. They’ll never make it, but hope springs eternal, and a significant proportion of the population is drawn to them—for a while.

The television networks, as usual, adopt the horse race mode of reporting. Because, when all is said and done, that’s the main theme: who is going to win? Who really cares about exploring the issues in depth? There’s no juice or excitement there.

But watching two creatures gallop along a track toward the finish line moves the adrenaline.

And the networks, day after day, can point to what the candidates are doing or wearing or saying that is affecting their position in the race.

Did candidate A just utter a possibly politically incorrect phrase? Let’s interview three experts and find out.

Did candidate B once have dinner with a financier who cheated investors out of their life savings? No? It was lunch? A brief breakfast? Hmm. A professor of statistics explains how long a brief breakfast averages out to be.

Why has candidate A shifted from wearing blue to red?

To bolster all this, we have the polls, which seem to be taking place three times a day. Numbers to report. Breakdowns of the numbers in key voter areas of the country.

Meanwhile, the networks keep searching out differences between candidates A and B. A’s wet dream is wholescale bombing missions. B prefers thousands of drone strikes. Of course, this difference isn’t presented that way. B is a “peace candidate.” A is a “hawk.”

A wants the “free market.” B wants government to create millions of new jobs. On closer inspection, they’re both pushing the dominance of mega-corporations. But there is no closer inspection in the television series called Election.

At the root of all this insanity is the fact that television networks produce the series. As long as the viewing audience tunes in, as long as the ratings are respectable, the illusion continues.

The viewer, the voter, projects his hopes and dreams on to the television image of a candidate. It never occurs to him that a) he is now a fan of a soap opera and b) his adored candidate is part of an immense political system in which only minor deviations from the norm are permitted.

Entering that system and participating in it is like walking into a tailor’s shop where, by magic, the customer (participant, candidate) automatically shrinks to half his former size in an instant. And from there it only gets worse.

Television is there to obscure the actual size of the political system and its culture. The soap opera highlights the two major characters (candidates), as if they alone can work great changes in the direction the oil tanker called Politics takes.

Television relies on the fact that a majority of the population favors watching competition— rather than learning about the collaboration, behind the scenes, between characters who seem to be on opposing sides.

The election IS television.

Why is that not understood?

Perhaps for the same reason people can sit in a dark movie theater and look up at a large screen and forget, for a few moments, that they are sitting in a movie theater.

They are captured by the story and the images and the characters. And they want to be captured and taken away.

They want to believe, in the case of elections, that they are participating in something important simply by watching television.

You might say election campaigns are the original reality-shows. They’re soap opera, but the main characters are not actors. (Of course, they are actors.)

Perhaps you remember the 1972 American film, The Candidate, starring Robert Redford. The key moment occurs as Redford, who is running for a seat in the US Senate, watches a commercial he claims to favor, one that expresses his real convictions. Within moments he realizes it’s a dud. He comes across as a stammering lightweight. No, from now on, he’ll have to accept ads in which he appears authoritative (but vague), on top of his game, and handsome. The die is cast. He is now an artifact of television.

And then there is the best film ever made about television: Network (1976), written by Paddy Chayefsky. The embittered, half-mad, disintegrating news anchor, Howard Beale, assaults his viewing audience:

“We deal in illusions, man…We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. In God’s name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion.”

Unfortunately, the television audience is insulted if someone tells them the characters they’re watching are synthetic and artificial.

Something strange is happening here. It’s more than the flicker of the images or the frequency or the brain wave-states television induces. It’s a counterpart to what people dream when they’re asleep.

The story lines of dreams, the vividness, the intimate proximity to characters.

At the extreme edge, it’s what makes people who watch candidates on television write them adoring fan letters (just as they write letters to convicted killers in prison). It’s what makes people dress up at night to sit in front of their sets and watch late-night talk-show hosts—as if the hosts could see them in their living rooms.

Truth may be stranger than fiction, but fiction is more compelling.

The whole television exhibition called Election is, in every moment, a living rolling artifice of melodrama. Staged from end to end.

Consider this exchange, in the 1997 film, Wag the Dog, between movie producer, Stanley Motss, and the shadowy White House agent, Conrad Brean:

Motss: What do you think about lining the President up for the Peace Prize?

Brean: Our job’s over come election day.

Motss: Yeah, but c’mon…

Brean: What, just for the symmetry of the thing? [Motss nods] Well, if Kissinger can win the Peace Prize, I wouldn’t be surprised if I woke up and found I’d won the Preakness.

Motss: Yeah, but our guy did bring peace.

Brean: There was never a war.

Motss: All the greater accomplishment.

The believable political face of the candidate is turned toward the camera, and television records it and sends it out to the millions. The other face, the secret face, is never shown on television; or if it is, the audience misses it, because they are trained to think only good political intentions are displayed on the screen. And they believe these intentions are the substance of election campaigns; the things worth voting for; the things the winners will try to bring into being in the world.

The audience believes television is democratic. Therefore, how could it deceive? Democracy is the only fair system ever devised.

Such illusions pile up and up.

When one fades, another takes its place.


power outside the matrix


Most citizens prefer to fight out elections inside the system ruled by television. They prefer to attack and defend the images on the screen.

And they prefer to imagine that the entire political landscape will make room for their hero, this one time, after which he will transform it.

Midway through my 1994 campaign for a seat in the US Congress, I woke up from my hallucination and realized that, if I won, my job ought to be exposing the corrupt system in the best way I could.

My job wouldn’t be battling for better legislation or more money for my constituents. It would solely consist of:

Renting large trucks we would drive slowly through the traffic-crowded streets of Washington DC, every day. Those trucks would sport huge posters on their sides:

“Corrupt Congressman of the Week” would be the headline, underneath which a photo of the man in question would float; and then: a list of bills he had voted on, and the money he’d received from the special interests to vote that way.

Every week, more trucks, new posters, new revelations, in the streets of the capital.

Biting the hand that feeds, biting the hand that takes.

Making it personal. Not abstract.

The television series called Election is dedicated to making candidates appear forward-looking. “Yes, mistakes have been made, but now things will be better.”

That delusion needs to be shattered. The system is so corrupt that attacking it and exposing it to extreme embarrassment is the only reasonable strategy.

It’s possible to get on television with that message, but only after forcing television to take notice and after staging a different kind of show.

Hence, the trucks. For starters.

Crack the delusion. Crack the egg.

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.

Is Trump a stage prop to hand Hillary the election?

Is Trump a stage prop to hand Hillary the election?

by Jon Rappoport

September 1, 2015

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

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

Like it or not, accept it or not, there is a code you have to crack, in order to understand big elections.

They’re fixed. And in this piece, I’m not talking about rigged voting machines. On psychological, mental, and spiritual levels, the fix is in, because of one overriding factor:

The voters are oh so sincere.

And they shouldn’t be. It’s killing them.

Yes, that’s right.

The media presentation called The Election is a straight con from the get-go. Anyone who is sucked into it is a rube, a yokel, a hick.

So the question about whether Donald Trump is running to suck votes away from other Republican candidates or win the nomination himself, in order to deliver the presidency to Hillary? That’s a non-starter.

Who cares? What are we talking about here?

What’s the alternative if Trump isn’t running? Jeb vs. Hillary in November? The Bush crime family versus the Clinton crime family? That would be the “good” election?

How many more of these hideous campaigns do we have to endure before people wake up to the con? A hundred? A thousand?

“This fall, it looks like Lizardi Venom and Scorpion Ooze are the two parties’ choices. It promises to be a tightly contested race. Mr. Venom, of course, is for a utopian social-justice meter installed in the brain of every citizen, while his opponent, Ms. Ooze, promises to place four million dollars in a special account for every person who claims he or she has been ‘injured, defamed, or insulted by the system’. Both candidates agree that sincere voters who care about the future of this great nation must come out to the polls on Election Day and make their voices heard…”

“But wait. Some billionaire cowboy with a very spotty past has entered the lists. He’s reckless. He’s all over the place. He’s insulting the sacred media stars. He’s ruining The Show. He’s making a mockery out of it. He’s torpedoing everybody. He’s scamming the scammers. He’s upsetting The Sincere Voters who believe in the system like babies believe in Mommy and Daddy. And some claim that—wait for it—the cowboy is there to deliver the election to Ms. Ooze instead of Mr. Venom. This is shocking, I tell you. Shocking. And there’s more. This cowboy has been charged with making promises he doesn’t intend to keep. My God. Has any candidate in recent memory done that? A revered critic for the New York Times, Calder A Hogsniffer, takes it a step further. Higsniffer proposes that the cowboy is, in fact, raising several legitimate issues, but by lending his name to them he is degrading those issues and postponing the day when they’ll be taken seriously by the electorate. Certainly, no presidential candidate has ever tried that before. Heavens no. This cowboy is, well, crashing the party and spoiling it for everybody.”

Yes, he is. It was serious and sober and on-track and oh-so-sincere before he came through the wall with his hair and his shit-eating grin and his guns blazing.

Before he showed up, we could attack Hillary and Jeb and argue about whether Rand (who’ll never make it) really has the right ideas, and we could argue about the niceties of Bernie’s version of socialism…and we could watch the whole election, as usual, go right down the toilet.

Then we would have fulfilled our duty to The Process and we could sit back and nod wisely. Yes.

But this slug Trump gets on television (which is of course the holy medium through which we understand the sacred sincere election process); Trump gets on television and seems to be assaulting television itself. And that’s going too far. That’s out of bounds. That’s putting an unharmonious disruption in The Field.

I mean, who knows? If he ever made it to the religious hush of the final debates, he might turn around and start lobbing grenades at the moderators, the high priests—Scott (“I’m doing brain surgery on you without anesthetic because I really want to”) Pelley; Lester (“I’ve been in a state of deep hypnosis since the early days of MKULTRA”) Holt; Wolf (“I made my reputation during the first war in the Persian Gulf because my name meshes nicely with the US bombing runs”) Blitzer.

Voters’ sincerity in this whole election story is a plague.

The voters believe in the media show. They believe in the major candidates. They believe campaign statements and promises and policy positions. They believe that stage magic is real and three-card monte on a streetcorner is an honest game.


power outside the matrix


The solution, of course, if it could be engineered, would be: stay home on Election Day.

That’s the sane course.

If, by some miracle, only 19% of eligible voters showed up at the polls, that would constitute a national vote of no-confidence. That would say: we don’t believe in this media-election-cartoon. We woke up. We saw the con and the shuck and the jive.

Washington DC would experience a psychotic break. It would unhinge.

The television networks would undergo collective cardiac arrest. Their produced series, called Election, bombed. It was a ratings disaster.

The plague of misplaced, puerile, glazed-over, low-IQ, idiots-delight sincerity would begin to cure itself.

But the likelihood of 80% of the voters staying home is 100000000000000 to 1. It’s too real an answer. It’s too effective. And it requires a depth of perception that bypasses thousands of propaganda terminals.

Major media in general, and television in particular, are set up to substitute for the eyes and ears and brains and minds of the populace. To the degree that Donald Trump can turn the game around and run for president against the media, he’s providing a public service, and I don’t care how many blanks he’s shooting when he says he stands for this and that.

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.

What about Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul?

What about Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul?

by Jon Rappoport

August 31, 2015

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

“If you discovered a major institution of society absolutely devoted to reducing humans down to androids, would you say that was a significant problem? Would you admit that institution could radically alter life and send it careening in the wrong direction?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

This article isn’t about campaign issues or policy issues or who is qualified to lead. It’s about the presidential election season and who runs that show:

Big media.

Get used to it. Every few years in the US (and other countries), the television production teams swing into gear with their wall-to-wall series called:

“Let’s have our robots talk to the robot candidates.”

This is what is delivered, and this is what the audience expects, in the same way you expect to be served bad food every time you go to the same bad restaurant.

And in case you haven’t noticed, huge numbers of people keep going to bad restaurants.

Now, the robot presidential candidates may not have started out that way. Perhaps a few of them were genuinely passionate about this or that. But the show called “Let’s have our robots…” will fix that. By the time the actual debates are broadcast, the debates that count, all the candidates are blown dry and coiffed and powdered and reduced to a few minutes of spouting ghoulish empty generalities.

There’s no juice left. Brains have been shifted into neutral. Castrations have been performed. Any idiosyncrasy or sign of an actual individual present on stage in front of the lights has been rubbed away. You in your home, sitting in front of the box, could feel more life staring at a roll of toilet paper.

This, mind you, is all by design. The candidate’s advisors, the pollsters, the party hacks, the donors all contribute to the outcome. But the television networks, who devise the formats, bring on the moderators, arrange the podiums, light the stage, place the cameras, and construct a rolling image of “what the American people need” from their candidates are the producers. They synthesize and fabricate. They execute their android manipulations.

The media don’t just bury the truth inside of information. They obscure humans by making them over into psychological, mental, and spiritual eunuchs (like the elite television anchor is).

That’s why this whole set up needs to be punctured like an old colostomy bag.

So let’s start with Rand Paul. What are the chances, if he somehow arrives at the final debates, that he can wreak havoc and disrupt the whole show?

Close to zero. He’s talking like a politician. Forget his ideas for the moment. He’s unwilling or unable to express how he really feels in a way that causes sudden and irreversible impact. He still seems to believe in the process. He may be on the wrong train with right ticket, but he won’t get off the train.

He can show up with a buzz saw and cut through the IRS tome of regulations, and he can say he’ll close down a huge NSA facility if elected, but in boxing terms, he’s not mixing it up with his opponent. He’s not bringing the crowd to their feet.

Bernie Sanders is a slightly more elusive case. He is attracting larger and larger crowds, and he is getting them up out of their seats. But Bernie is still committed to Washington DC because he’s been there for 150 years, and if you listen to him talk you can hear the ding-dong of programmatic politics.

Bernie has a fiery edge, but he’s a kind of a rebel Commissar. If he makes it to the final Primary debates, he’ll come across on television like a little walrus on a modest dose of meth.

He won’t tear the grotesque media format to tatters.

Understand this distinction. A candidate can make himself look like an exception to the rule, while still following the rules. Or he can torpedo the whole show and reveal it for the vicious farce it is.

Like it or not, the latter is what we need.

Think of it this way. The television networks erect a funnel. At the wide end, anybody with half an idea can get in. But as the funnel narrows and the process moves along to major coverage and the major debates, the survivors are scrubbed and sanitized and de-balled and shortened in terms of how much time they’re allotted and which execrable drone is interviewing them and moderating them—until at the end they’re a slice of Wonder Bread with a thin coat of mayo.

Busting a real move in this situation takes—and this may sound odd—indifference to the whole show. Serene indifference. That coupled with authentic passion. Then you can be in the moment. Then you can look around and expose the charade itself. Then you can let the audience know what, underneath it all, they already know. They’re watching a hideous cartoon.

They’re watching a police chief standing outside City Hall saying, “The vehicle was entered and controlled substances were recovered by officers. At this juncture, this is all we can report, because the investigation is ongoing.”

They’re watching a corporate spokesman standing in an office miles from the chemical explosion that killed 100 people saying, “We’re cooperating fully with authorities in the investigation. We are confident our tests of the product were correct and the product is safe for home use.”

Destroying the cartoon isn’t something Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders will do. They’ll fail. They’ll stay in the cartoon.

“Oh, but who cares about the media. I’m voting for the candidate who’ll being us positive change. That’s all that counts.”

How has that been working out?


exit from the matrix


I don’t care how many bankers and CEOs and war hawks and CFR big shots and so on have been pulling candidates’ strings behind the scenes. The media show covers up the possibility of finding out what cheaters and liars and deceivers and lunatics these presidential politicians actually are.

Taking down that façade with a crash would shed some light on the scene—and the best people to do that are the candidates themselves; the candidates who can, who are able to.

Bernie? Rand? No.

Whether you love them or hate them, they don’t have what it takes.

For that, you need a candidate who runs against the media and knows how to create his own compelling and riveting show. And not just a tempest in a teacup, but a storm that reaches down into the repressed cesspool where millions of people live every day.

This presidential election isn’t itself going to produce a major change in American life. But exposing the television series that is the election campaign is a place to start.

Android television produces the show called Election, and then android voters vote for android candidates.

That’s what’s happening.

Breaking that pattern and formula is job one.

The old “who’s the best candidate” and “who is running to suck votes away from another candidate” are outmoded.

The one candidate—and there is only one—is NBC/CBS/CNN/FOX/ABC. That’s who needs to lose.

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.