by Jon Rappoport

September 29, 2012



Maybe somebody inside Obama’s re-election campaign is spreading disinfo about the president giving away free cell phones, but if so, it isn’t true.


Poor people aren’t getting free phones or discounted service fees from the Obama administration.


People voting for Obama because they have a free cell phone are way off. They should try voting instead for a giant telecom company—only that company isn’t running for president.


Since 1997, people below the poverty line have been getting discounted phone service, because big telecom companies have been making it possible, by charging everybody else a few bucks extra on their monthly phone bills. That’s how it works.


The basic program is called Lifeline, a branch of a non-profit company, Universal Service Administrative Company, set up by the FCC in 1997, as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed by Congress. That’s how the poor get discounted phone bills.


The Constitutionality of the federal government setting up a non-profit company is another story for another time. Suffice it to say, it should be illegal.


Free cell phones for the poor come from SafeLink which, according to FactCheck.org, is operated by America Movil, a giant wireless company. SafeLink, however, is paid for by that non-profit the FCC set up, Universal Service Administrative Company, which in turn gets its money from the big telecoms, who charge everybody who isn’t poor a few extra bucks on their phone bills. Got it?


Nothing to do with Obama. There is no Obama Phone.


But what a windfall for the Obama campaign when poor people believe the president gave them their phones. In Ohio alone, a key election state, there are now a million people who have some kind of discounted phone service.


Are government-funded community groups and community organizers out there, across America, recruiting poor people and telling them they can get Obama Phones? There are now 16.5 million people in the US receiving discounted phone services. Between 20 and 30 million Americans are eligible. That’s quite a nice election-vote bump.


Obama re-elected! It was the phones, pollsters say.”


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.





By Jon Rappoport

September 27, 2012



Yes, of course it was the Federal Reserve. Paul wanted to investigate it and audit it thoroughly, and if by some remote chance he became president, he would have had the leverage to go deep and deeper. And then the global banksters would have tumbled out of the woodwork, for all to see.


But Paul also wanted to bring all the American troops home and get them out of foreign wars. That was just as big a deal. He was stepping on some huge toes there.


So let’s explore a few pieces of America’s current military adventurism and see who’s hiding under what rocks.


Once you laugh off the ridiculous idea that the government is promoting democracy through the Arab Spring, strange questions surface.


Who’s running the real op in the Middle East, and what is their goal?


Obama’s obvious propensity for all things Islamic…how does that fit in?


According to one sensible scenario, the spreading Arab Spring is merely a front for a covert op, whose real ambition—using Libyan and other trained terrorists and NATO surrogates—is a US takeover of the Middle East and North Africa.


And then? Previous dictators in that region, overthrown, will give way to Muslim states, and new Islamic leadership will pay back under-the-table promises to US elites, who want…what?


A better oil deal?


What’s really going on here?


There are those who believe US ambitions in the Middle East have everything to do with establishing a ring of military bases close to Russia. Such moves on the planetary chessboard would signify an enduring competition between the two primary Cold War players. If true, is the only way to achieve American military hegemony through igniting the whole Muslim world? Isn’t that a bit risky? A bit crazy?


Assuming the current chaos in the Middle East and parts of Africa is all a US plan to utilize Islamic proxies, how sensible and pragmatic is the strategy, given the unpredictable range of future consequences? Is this a genius maneuver?


With countries in the Middle East coming, for example, under Muslim Brotherhood control, is the US more likely or less likely to preserve the unimpeded flow of oil? Is a “better oil deal” really in the offing?


Is there another way to look at US actions in the Middle East over the last two presidencies?


One thing is clear. George W Bush and Barack Obama are not highly rated war planners or foreign policy pros. They’re neophytes. They’re also, of course, like the whole parade of modern US presidents, instruments of higher forces. They’re front men.


This doesn’t mean Bush and Obama really comprehend who they’re actually working for. It simply means they’re dupes.


Just as it was eminently predictable that Bush, after 9/11, would want to invade Iraq (“Saddam tried to kill my dad”) and would go along with plans that were on the drawing board long before 9/11, it has been predictable that Obama would show “warm support” for and special treatment to Islam, imagining its modern destiny in terms of “a great self-determined uprising.” Hence, Obama’s key role in Arab Spring.


In other words, both Bush and Obama were carefully profiled long before they ever took office as president.


Profiled by whom?


If we draw an arc of power, extending at least as far back as Vietnam (or from the beginning of the 20th century), coming forward through the latter stages of the Cold War, and then into “the age of terrorism,” the question of who benefits has an answer.


It is the same answer you would get if you inquired into the objectives of the Rockefeller family, the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the elite bankers who breathe life into economies and take life away, according to their private timetable.


Who benefits from the last decade of manipulated US foreign policy and military wars?


The military-industrial complex? Yes.


But above and beyond that?


The great beneficiaries are the elite Globalists who are determined to establish a planetary management system, a political New World Order.


And by using tools like Obama and Bush, they have made headway toward achieving a major item on their agenda: degrade and sink and weaken, and ultimately destroy the United States by keeping it at war.


The United States, from the Globalist perspective, needs to be brought down. It needs to have its pillars crumble. It needs to go away.


There are two reasons. One, it is the primary place in the world where the idea of individual freedom is still alive. And two, its government’s persistent ambition to create unilateral Empire is a threat to international Globalist control of the planet.


American empire and Globalist empire are not exactly the same thing. In the long run, as far as the Rockefellers of this world are concerned, they are mutually exclusive.


So what better way to weaken America than to cater to its government’s empire-building obsession, and to use that obsession to propel it into high-risk military adventures that dead-end in disasters?


Disasters such as:


Huge budget expenditures on wars and ensuing debt. Demoralization of American citizens through wars, to say nothing of the injuries and deaths and debilitation of soldiers. An embrace with radical Islam, and all the blowback that brings. The eventual pinching off of oil supplies in the Middle East. International chaos. Engendering hatred of America abroad. Inculcating self-hatred of the US among Americans at home. Confusion, passivity, despair.


A classic takedown.


In his Memoirs (2003), David Rockefeller wrote: Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”


Did you think David was just playing patty-cake, that his plan was only about subverting the money supply, that this was going to be a gentlemanly world domination scheme? No. This is also blood and guts and fear and terror.


The Globalists play for keeps.


US foreign policy and military aggression over the last decade makes no sense because it wasn’t supposed to. That policy was using two dupes, Bush and Obama, to achieve something these preposterous presidents were only dimly aware of.


Of the two, Obama, with his Marxist background, is more cognizant. But he, too, is caught up in his private vision. For him, it is all about some grand “liberation” scheme and imagined “payback” for past oppression.


He was chosen to be president because that is his character.


No, the Arab Spring isn’t ultimately about American hegemony and domination in the Middle East. It’s about a grand American failure there. That’s what’s on page one of the grand Globalist plan. And it’s coming true.


The American war-mongers are following their playbook, and they are being directed, unknowingly, by the Globalist princes, who are using that war-mongering to sink America.


From that perspective, what is happening in the Middle East makes sense.


If Romney wins the election, he will fit neatly into the Bush mold. He’ll join the war party. He’ll see America defeating evil everywhere by continued force. He’ll jump right into the trap.


Only Ron Paul had it right. Bring home everybody. Bring home all the soldiers and stop the madness. That’s why the Bilderberg people hate him so much. He sees a bigger picture. The whole defamation of the Tea Party makes sense, too, at a much deeper level. The Tea Party supported Ron Paul. Many of them, too, saw there was something very, very wrong about Americans For a New Military Century.


Paul and the Tea Party had to be stopped. They had to be stopped, because the Globalist elite wanted the American government-military-contractor-corporate nexus to pursue their insane goals of Middle East domination and fail.


Does this sound too complicated to be real? It’s no more complicated than using a bully’s force to defeat him. Only in this case, the victor is a larger bully.


See? These crazy American war-mongers want to invade everybody and defeat the world. Why stop them? We have to encourage them. We have to engineer what they’re doing so it makes some kind of sense to the American people, so the people don’t rebel. We’ll supply the presidents who’ll supply the rationale, and we’ll keep stoking the fire. Sooner or later, the war-mongers will run out of steam. They’ll crash on the rocks and we’ll pick up the pieces. Let’s make sure they go to the Middle East. There isn’t a better place to fail utterly. Except maybe Afghanistan. Oh, let’s make sure they go there, too, for a long time. Fantastic! Let’s support and massage and polish and push those mad goals!”


Of course, the picture I’ve drawn here becomes a little more complicated when you factor in the role of mega-corporations, who want their considerable piece of the global pie. The American War Mongers and the Globalist Princes “share” certain corporations. Yes, there are overlapping interests. But there is a strong division between those who want American Power and those who want Globalist Power.


The picture of America supporting the Arab Spring and encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood and covertly using terrorists to overthrow dictators in Egypt, Libya, and Syria looks crazy because it is crazy. It’s failure waiting to happen. Obama is presently going along with it, because he is predisposed to want “the liberation of Islam.”


The neocons stand for American empire. People like David Rockefeller stand for destruction of America.


I know there is a tendency to say, “Oh, they’re all bastards and traitors, who cares what their goals are. They’re our enemies. We don’t need to draw subtle differences.”


I suggest the differences aren’t subtle at all. In the first case, you have the government-corporate nexus of the United States directing its energies to become a Roman Caesar extending unilateral empire to far horizons. In the second case, you have Globalist agents pushing those ambitions forward because they know the failure will be huge and spectacular.


Do you think Julius Caesar was entirely alone in his tent cooking up plans to stretch the Roman Empire to the ends of the Earth? Don’t you think there were a few key people planted in his circle of advisors who wanted to take Rome down? These covert agents bolstered Caesar, encouraged him, showed him why Rome could only survive by conquering more lands and people. They fed him whatever worked to egg him on toward an eventual future of ruin.


To boil it down to a stark analogy: one crazy man drives his car every day across a plateau toward a cliff. He’s convinced he can go faster and faster and still stop in time. The second man, who is his covert enemy and who is crazy like a fox, tells him, yes, driving faster is a great idea, keep going, don’t stop at 80mph, take it up to 90 and 100, you’re a fantastic driver, I bet you can go 200mph and still stop in time…


The neocons of America actually believe they can take over and transform the whole world through military force. Their remaining shreds of common sense are blasted away by Globalists, breathing down their necks telling them how great and powerful they (the neocons) are, showing them how they can extend empire right into…gigantic failure.


Ron Paul and his supporters saw pieces and sections of this whole insane situation and said, “Stop it all. Bring all our soldiers home. End the madness.”


They threatened everybody in power on all levels. They cut to the chase. That’s why they had to be scrubbed from the picture and sent to the bleachers, like embarrassing cousins from the hills.


That’s why, for example, the idiots at MSNBC pounded on the Tea Party night after night and never mentioned that many, many of these “hicks and racists and bitter clingers” wanted an end to American wars much more fervently than MSNBC’s Messiah, Barack Obama, did. That fact was never brought up. It went against the script.


FOX and CNN never brought it up in any serious way, either. The three other major networks stayed away from it like the plague, too.


Ron Paul, before he dropped out of the race, was educating millions of Americans about war. In the history of outsider “peace candidates” for president, there has never been anyone at his level.


Historically, several peace candidates have been socialists. They wanted an end to American aggression so the Soviet Union could advance its agenda more easily. Ron Paul wanted peace because the Constitution was framed to permit war only on the basis of defense of the nation—and not on the basis of empire-building.


And to media agents of Globalism, the Constitution is like a silver bullet to a vampire. The Constitution promotes life and decimates the Walking Undead.


I believe there is a lot more to this story, including the future role of multinational corporations under a Globalist New World Order. But this is a start. And it offers a reason (among several other reasons) why Ron Paul was stopped in his tracks, a reason not cited nearly enough.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.





By Jon Rappoport

September 27, 2012



Official science doesn’t really care about your experience or perception. It cares about its own paradigm.


That paradigm, in order to work, excludes your subjective knowledge.


Two basic questions are eliminated from scientific exploration: what is freedom and what is mind?


A strange embrace among the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and academic philosophy has blocked an understanding of the mind.


Prior to 1970, the discipline of psychology considered several interesting models of mind. Then, psychiatry, struggling to survive in the face of declining public interest, hatched a staggering deal with the pharmaceutical empire.


Drug companies would bankroll the profession of psychiatry as never before. Conferences, research grants, journals, professorships, advertising, PR—money would pour in.


On their part, psychiatric researchers would be obliged to publish studies that “proved” all mental disorders stemmed from chemical imbalances in the brain; these imbalances could be remedied by new drugs. Naturally, Pharma would develop and sell such drugs.


From that moment on, adventurous theories about mind went begging. As far as “science” was concerned, mind was nothing more than the brain. A severely limited materialist view of human life moved solidly to center stage.


It was soon bolstered by a new generation of computer devotees, who assumed that mind was merely an apparatus that functioned on the basis of hardware/software applications—and any notions of individual freedom were possibly delusions “built into the equipment” or bugs that needed to be found and scrubbed away.


It was assumed that only “professionals” had the necessary tools to investigate the mind, and anything a layperson might discover or say about the subject was as important as a street sweeper speculating on nuclear physics.


As a student of philosophy at Amherst College in the late 1950s, I was exposed to a series of sophistries that attempted to skirt the whole question of individual freedom, substituting instead two major premises:


Human beings could only know what they could see with their eyes and measure; it was permissible to continue talking about freedom as if it existed, but this permission was simply an acknowledgment that language consisted of all sorts of quirky habits, and it might be useful to catalog those quirks, like sub-species of butterflies, as long as one didn’t take their meaning seriously.


I wasn’t pleased by either of these admonitions. I’d entered the field of philosophy because I felt freedom was a vital thing, and I sensed it was being attacked on many fronts.


As I wended my way through college, I became aware of the odd fact that, while the philosophy department was doing all it could to avoid squarely facing the issue of individual freedom, the political science department was assigning students original-source material on the founding of the American Republic.


This material (the Declaration, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers), of course, was deeply engaged in establishing freedom as an incontrovertible principle.


When I inquired about the obvious contradiction at the College, I was told it was “one of those inter-departmental differences” that was unavoidable. After all, what should political scientists do? Teach nothing about freedom?


As a young and inexperienced student, 50-plus years ago, I thought perhaps a professor in the psychology department might be able to clear up the confusion.


A practicing therapist on campus fielded my questions and said, “Freedom really isn’t our issue. We want to understand how the mind operates.” He went on to say that the goal of therapy was “happiness and adjustment.”


That pretty much ended my adventure of learning in college. Fortunately, life isn’t college.


Three years after I left Amherst, I was living in Los Angeles, and I had a small studio where I was painting. One night (and I can see this very clearly), I was sitting at my table. There was a piece of blank paper in front of me. To my left, there was a box of oil crayons. I was looking at the sheet of paper, wondering what I might draw on it, when suddenly, and for no discernible reason, I knew that I had the freedom to draw anything.


Sounds silly. But this was not an intellectual observation. Of course I or anyone else can draw anything. That isn’t news. No, this was something much deeper and more expansive. It was as if some interior space, in my mind, a space I’d never realized existed before, made its presence known. And the essence and core of that space was freedom. Was liberation. Was an unbounded and direct knowing about freedom. That space imparted to me one of the most immediate feelings of freedom I’ve ever had. It was luxurious and adventurous and intensely exhilarating. And it came out of nowhere.


The feeling lasted for about a minute, and then it slowly faded away. Ever since that moment, I’ve remembered that, whenever politicians or their allies are obviously trying to discount or dump freedom, when they are trying to sell some substitute, when they are raising some phony banner under which we’re all supposed to march toward our collective destiny…I’ve remembered that freedom is REAL and it has to be defended. To do otherwise would betray a fantastic quality of the space we call Mind.


I’ve also known that freedom isn’t just an effect of a cause, like one billiard ball moving into a pocket after being hit by another ball; it isn’t one electron being kicked by another electron. If freedom can be said to be anywhere, it’s behind all the cause-and-effect activity of matter and energy. Freedom isn’t just another event in a long chain of events; it’s free.


Obviously, I don’t know what your experience of freedom has been. But I’d be willing to bet that, as a child, you had moments and even hours where, perhaps, playing in a field or on the street, you realized you were free and alive and something apart from any restricted, pinched, limited existence.


The feelings you felt were enormous and ecstatic. You understood, at a level no one could challenge, what life was about.


And yet, this is nowhere reflected in the approved studies of psychiatry, psychology, or academic philosophy. It’s discounted as “anecdotal” and spurious and even delusional.


Having a tremendous and stunning experience of freedom might qualify you for psychiatric help. It appears we’re heading in that direction.


These days, many mainstream brain researchers will insist that freedom is nothing more than a “thought generated by brain activity,” no more important than any other thought.


If you’re looking to explain how technocrats can possibly envision a world in which humans are only cogs in a machine, you’ve found the answer. These scientists refuse to admit that freedom is real. As bizarre as this sounds, it’s true. To them we’re all already cogs in a machine. They just want to change the arrangement, the configuration of parts.


You see, and this is where philosophy pokes its head into the fray, to say that freedom is real is to acknowledge that it lies beyond all formulations and theories of cause and effect. And such a confession would torpedo the authoritarian and privileged status of modern science.


No, you say, this couldn’t be true, everybody knows that freedom exists. Everybody knows that you can choose A or B. You can make decisions about your future. I’m sorry to say, not everybody knows this—and the disturbing thing is, the people who are doing the most advanced research on the brain, the kind of research that could shape and fence in our future world, quite definitely do not know freedom exists.


Freedom and “mind independent of the brain” are, to them, maddening little questions they want to get rid of. They want to sweep them under the carpet. They want to chart and map every possible action of the brain and then, inevitably, make those changes in it they deem proper “for the good of All.”


So, first on the list of things I would recommend is, take inventory of your own experience. Remember moments when, beyond your normal level of daily consciousness, you experienced freedom directly and powerfully. No filters. No intellectual assumptions. Just undeniable encounters.


Why? Because you need to know what you are defending when you defend freedom against attack. Yes, freedom is the right to choose your life. Yes, it’s the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Yes, it’s all those assertions in the Bill of Rights. Yes, the Constitution delineates what the central government can and can’t do. Yes, we know that. But then there is YOU. There is your existence. There is your experience of freedom. Those times, those moments when you felt it so strongly you were thrilled to your core to be alive.


That is natural freedom. That is mind freedom. That is why the founding documents of the Republic have any meaning. They flow from something that is already there, in each one of us. A potential that is already there.


And if you forget that, you defend freedom for an incomplete reason.


I knew a man in his late forties whose life was a complete mess. This was a man you wouldn’t want to be around. He somehow managed to turn every conversation and situation in his life into an unsolvable problem. He annoyed everyone he came into contact with. He was one of those “difficult people,” and his life was falling apart at the seams. He couldn’t hold a job for more than a few months. His bosses would fire him for any reason they could. Anything to get him out the door. He was a classic self-created victim.


In an act of desperation, he went on a vegetarian diet, without really believing it would do any good. It didn’t. He persisted for a month or two, and then he scraped together enough money to go to a spa where he could stay for two weeks and do yoga and fast on fruits and vegetables.


In his second week at the spa, he was walking from yoga class to his room, and suddenly, as he told me, he “felt his body was well-oiled and elastic.” He felt as if he were 10 years old again, on summer vacation from school, with unbounded possibilities stretching out in front of him.


In a matter of moments, his entire framework of unending complaints vanished without a trace. It left no residue in its wake. He could clearly contemplate what he most wanted to do with his life, and he could see his way to achieving it. His sense of grappling with a bottomless inscrutable problem was gone.


This feeling lasted a few days. But even after it dissolved, he was positioned in a new way. He dropped his “whole act,” as he put it. He went on to launch a career, and he made it a success.


A bookish woman in her 30s, who had never worked at a job she enjoyed, decided to sell cars. She got a job at a dealership in Southern California, and after a month she was coming up empty on sales. She saw no chance of breaking through.


Her manager pulled her into his office and suggested she try something a little easier. He helped get her a job in a large store selling home appliances.


Her first day at the store, she swore to herself she would do more to connect with prospective customers. She would treat them “as if they were real people,” she said. Forgetting about landing immediate sales, she made a herculean effort to “climb out of her cave” and chat with people in the store.


After two days, she felt a surge of energy, as if she’d come alive in a new way. For the first time in memory, she was relating to strangers.


The feeling lasted for a month, during which she incidentally racked up many sales. She described her state of mind as “completely open and free,” as if she’d cracked through a barrier.


She quit her job, enrolled at a college, and eventually got her degree in architecture.


I tell these stories because, in each case, the experience of freedom was intense and life-changing, and because the people came to it in radically different ways.


Freedom exists.


It can be drawn out of hiding. It can be felt beyond any structure or pattern, and it most certainly doesn’t depend on permission granted by a government or Official Science.


One can’t explain these experiences by citing specific brain activity. Freedom isn’t a brain phenomenon. It isn’t a delusion. One might say the reverse: everything except freedom is a delusion or the result of oppression.


People tend to believe the mind is either a trap or a “device” for thinking. It can certainly be those things, but it is also a gateway into freedom.


Mind is a kind of space dotted with familiar outposts we visit. Each outpost is a collection of feelings, ideas, preferences, and aversions. We move from one outpost to another, looking for a way out, a way to go beyond our present state.


Then, something unforeseen happens. On our way to a particular outpost for the thousandth time, we make a detour, and we arrive at a spot that contains of none of those feelings, ideas, preferences, or aversions. Instead, we are in a gorgeously empty place. And being there, we experience a joy that expands. We experience ourselves in a natural state.


We know we are free.


Everyone is entitled and equipped to explore what this means because, after all, we aren’t simply talking about a generalized notion; we’re talking about intimate knowledge of what we are.


This is not the province of science. It’s the wide open territory of self. It’s more real than real.


We can become discouraged. We can become cynical. We can lower our expectations and options. But we can’t ultimately avoid what we are. Coming to grips with that is our destiny, as much as motion is the destiny of the body.


The elites who, increasingly, run this planet long ago abandoned any search for their own freedom as individuals. They falsely believe they’re already there. That’s what they keep telling themselves, and that’s why they feel compelled to control everything they can. Control is a substitute for freedom. It’s a false card in the deck. It’s the iron mask that hides the truth. It’s a drug that can induce amnesia about the existence of freedom. It’s the ultimate expression of self-denial.


Before psychiatry, brain research, and pharmaceutical empire-building crowded out truly independent research on the mind, there were two great 20th-century psychologists. They both understood freedom and sought it with stunning intensity. Wilhelm Reich, a breakaway student of Freud, was arrested and put in jail, where he died. JL Moreno, the founder of Psychodrama, was largely ignored by the Freudians coming into power.


In his autobiography, Moreno recounts a 1912 encounter: “I attended one of Freud’s lectures…As the students filed out, he singled me out from the crowd and asked me what I was doing. I responded, ‘Well, Dr. Freud, I start where you leave off…You analyze [patients’] dreams. I give them the courage to dream again…’”


The dream is about freedom. Experiencing it. Creating a life from it.


Taking instructional cues from media about what emotions we are supposed to invest and project into images (mass mind control), we discover that the list of emotions is rather short. It’s stunted. Not only are we supposed to respond with these feelings, we’re all taught we have to “share” them. If we don’t, we’re looked at as strange, as outsiders.


But when we experience freedom directly, we immediately realize such feelings are misplaced. They’re props in a bad play. What we feel when we are standing in the middle of our own freedom is beyond labels. It’s another level of mind. Perhaps it’s beyond mind entirely.


In the old stories of Zen masters, we find teachers who put irrational pressures on students until the “catalog of familiar emotional outposts” in their minds blew apart. At that moment, the students experienced “satori,” which roughly means “seeing into one’s true nature.”


What is that nature? Is it a particular thing, a prior established thing…or is it really freedom?


If it’s freedom, then the world suddenly appears as unending possibility.


Isn’t that what we really want? Isn’t that part and parcel of what we remember, when we reflect on past moments when we felt truly alive?


There is nothing esoteric about this. It is stripping off a layer of fabricated synthetic substance, and finding underneath the ecstatic energy that was always there, waiting for us to return from our long strange trip.


Our nature is to be free.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.


Meet Monsanto’s number one lobbyist: Barack Obama

Meet Monsanto’s number one lobbyist: Barack Obama

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2012


During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.

These activists weren’t just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said:

“Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”

Making the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama, unlike the FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.

Beyond that, Obama was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant in promising that, if elected, his administration wouldn’t do business in “the old way.” He would be “responsive to people’s needs.”

Then came the reality.

After the election, and during Obama’s term as president, people who had been working to label GMO food and warn the public of its huge dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had been pulling a bait and switch.

The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had preciously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

A GMO papaya strain.

And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

The Matrix Revealed

This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.

You don’t attain that position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

From this perspective, Michelle Obama’s campaign for home gardens and clean nutritious food suddenly looks like a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.

Nor does it seem coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Because this is an election season, people will say, “But what about Romney? Is he any better?” I see no indication that he is. The point, however, is that we are talking about a sitting president here, a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual.

Not only was that a wrong assessment, Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto’s man in Washington.

To those people who fight for GMO labeling, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:

Wake up.








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 OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Have US Officials agreed to “clean routes” for Mexican drugs into America?

Have US Officials agreed to “clean routes” for Mexican drugs into America?

By Jon Rappoport

September 22, 2012


In Chicago, Mexican Sinaloa drug-cartel member, Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, sits in prison.

He’s waiting for his October trial to begin, after three years of delays. DEA agents arrested him in Mexico City in 2009, on drug-trafficking charges.

Why all the postponements? US national security issues are involved.

Niebla wants to introduce evidence he says will show he, and the entire Sinaloa cartel, the most power drug-trafficking organization in Mexico, were given immunity from prosecution by the US government.

In return, Sinaloa has been providing US officials with intelligence on lesser drug cartels in Mexico, so they can be taken down.

If this sounds like a deal to permit Sinaloa to bring huge quantities of drugs into the US, that’s exactly what defendant Niebla is implying.

Federal prosecutors admit there are national-security issues in the Niebla trial. They deny Niebla or Sinaloa were ever granted immunity by the US government. However, they have made motions to keep unspecified classified information out of court proceedings.

Bill Conroy, who has been writing groundbreaking articles for The Narco News Bulletin, quotes Niebla’s lawyers: “The United States government considered the arrangement with the Sinaloa cartel an acceptable price to pay, because the principal objective was the destruction and dismantling of rival cartels by using the assistance of the Sinaloa Cartel—without regard for the fact that tons of illicit drugs continued to be smuggled [by Sinaloa] into Chicago and other parts of the United States and corruption continued unabated.”


Does this in part explain the rising tide of violence in Chicago? Are we looking at an exact parallel to what the late journalist Gary Webb described, in his explosive Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion, about US officials opening the door to massive drug-trafficking in South Central Los Angeles?

Journalist Conroy goes on to reveal a number of relevant emails captured by Wikileaks from Stratfor, a private intelligence company based in Austin, Texas. Stratfor refuses to comment on the emails. The company indicates that, in general, this type of email may be factual or may be intentionally fictitious.

The emails are the observations of a Mexican diplomat code-named MX1. Noting his probable identity has already been published online, Conroy writes, “[Fernando de la Mora Salcedo is] a Mexican foreign service officer who…served in the Mexican Consulate in El Paso, Texas, and is currently stationed [or has recently been recalled] in the Mexican Consulate in Phoenix.”

The Matrix Revealed

Here are choice excerpts from Salcedo’s emails, allegedly sent to Stratfor between 2008 and 2011. They bolster the idea that the US government is supporting the Sinaloa Cartel.

April 19, 2010: “…I think the US sent a signal that might be construed as follows: ‘To the VCF [Vicente Carrillo Fuentes] and Sinaloa cartels: Thank you for providing our market with drugs over the years…please know that Sinaloa is bigger and better than VCF…let’s all get back to business [and stop the violence.]’”

June 3, 2010: “They [the US and Mexican governments] want the CARTELS to negotiate with EACH OTHER…if they can do this, violence will drop and the [US and Mexican] governments will allow controlled [drug] trades…The major routes and methods for bulk shipping [of drugs] have already been negotiated with US authorities. In this sense, the message that Sinaloa was winning was, in my view, intended to tell SEDENA [the Mexican military] to stop taking down large trucks full of dope as they made their way into the US. These large shipments were Sinaloa’s, and they are OK with the Americans.”

The explosive nature of the upcoming Niebla trial in Chicago could shed light on Operation Fast&Furious. After all the reasons that have been given for walking guns into Mexico, suppose the true explanation is the most simple? The US government supports Sinaloa, the biggest drug cartel in the world. Therefore, they gave Sinaloa guns.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com




by Jon Rappoport


September 21, 2012



Frank Palmer, the newly elected president of the United States, stood in an empty room he never knew existed.


It was located six levels below ground in the Ark Silo of Strong Farms, in the center of Kansas.


The room was fifty feet square. The walls, floor, and ceiling were white, and the illumination from overhead banks of fluorescents eliminated the possibility of shadows.


Mark Pastor, the director of NSA, stood at the president’s side. He motioned to Palmer, who sat down at a small metal table, opened a laptop, and typed in a password. A blue screen appeared inside a border of black.


At the bottom of the screen sat a yellow forked-lightning icon. The president clicked on it. The screen turned white. The word GRANGE appeared.


That’s your search engine,” Pastor said.


In the window below the title, the president typed in “Google.”


Nothing happened.


The president typed “Drudge.” Nothing happened.


He typed “NBC.” Nothing happened.


What’s going on?” the president said.


Pastor smiled.


The president typed “CBS.” Nothing happened.


Type ‘America,’” Pastor said.


The president did.


A page appeared:


Welcome to Internet 2.0. Information is exchanged. You have a password. We identify you. You are permitted to continue. Press any key.”


The president pressed Enter.


A window covering two-thirds of the current page faded in. A new message read:


Owing to the EMP attack on America, all electronic devices have been disabled. The federal government has instituted a new Internet.”


Hit ‘Enter,’” Pastor said.


The president did. Another message appeared:


Anyone may apply to participate in Internet 2.0. See xADHS2gov for details. You will be issued an ID package, a list of requirements, and a statement of conditions of use. Free speech is protected, subject to I2 formats. Hate speech is not permitted. Fabricated attacks on public institutions are described in a warnings section. Read carefully.”


There are license fees and taxes,” Pastor said.


An EMP attack?” the president said.


We expect it.”




Pastor shrugged. “It ranks high on our list of priorities.”


This is a whole new Internet?”


Yes,” Pastor said. “It’s built from the ground up. It has two basic sectors, which are kept separate. There is commercial use, and there is exchange of information. The latter sector is closely monitored.”


Is Internet 2.0 functioning right now?”


Pastor shook his head. “Only a handful of people are on it. They’re essentially testing it.”


To see if it works?”


Pastor grinned. “Hell no. It works. They’re seeing how quickly and precisely they can identify and scrub anti-social and disruptive data.”


These few people who are on it,” the president said. “What are they doing?”


Checking automatic equipment at Los Alamos. The equipment carries out continuous searches to locate and sideline illegitimate data, and refer sources to DHS.”


Well,” the president said, “but what are the standards for a ruling of illegitimacy?”


Good question,” Pastor said. “We err on the side of caution. We’ve developed algorithms to make those calls.”


And when a user or source has been identified?”


The monitoring systems link to packages and dossiers on an offender. An instant profile is turned out, referencing everything from bumper stickers and recorded phone calls to medical records and work and sexual history.”


How many prepared packages do you have now?” the president asked.


Close to three hundred million. Within a year, we’ll have a package on every person living in the US.”


For posting illegitimate data, what are the penalties?” the president asked.


It’s a sliding scale. For example, you’ve got misdemeanor, which is a fine, and you’ve got terrorism, which is indefinite detention.”


Any right of appeal?”


It would clog the court system. All hearings are DHS tribunals. They’re tasked with confirming that a post broke a law. Once that’s established, sentence is passed. It’s very clear-cut and very fast. Most tribunals are conducted online. They don’t need human judges. An automatic matching system issues verdicts and sentences.”


Wikileaks. What would that be?”


Treason. Death sentence.”


The president stood up and walked around the room. He could feel perspiration on his face.


This EMP attack,” he said. “Who’s going to launch it?”


That’s something you don’t need to know,” Pastor said.


The president frowned. “I don’t care about plausible deniability in this case.”


Then I guess you’ve figured it out,” Pastor said. “We have two choices, sir, and only two. We can wait until one of our enemies strikes, in which case we’ll be scrambling to cope. Or we can launch it ourselves and get it over with. We’ll know everything beforehand, and we’ll know exactly what to do. It’s a no-brainer.”


The president nodded slowly.


Of course,” Pastor said, “we have our patsy all set up to go. Massive evidence to confirm his guilt.”


And who would that be?” the president said.


This is going to be a non-nuclear EMP, so the list was wide open. We narrowed it down to Libyan and Syrian al Qaeda. In the end, we went with Libya.”


Appropriate choice.”


The president sat down at the computer. “I want to try something,” he said. “How do I enter data?”


The NSA director walked over, bent down, leaned in front of the president, and typed “Flux Test.” A blank page appeared. “Go ahead, sir,” he said, backing away.


President Palmer typed, “A planned EMP attack will be launched”—


The page turned bright red and the words quickly faded.


In heavy black font, a message took their place:


YOUR POST HAS BEEN DELETED, PENDING AN INQUIRY. Your ID package has been suspended. A number will be assigned to your case, and you will be notified of a hearing date.


After a brief pause, a second message appeared:


Your hearing code is SAM1W23. Stand by.


The NSA director said, “Sir, type in, ‘Uber9wh001.’”


The president did.


A new message immediately appeared on the screen:




The screen went black.


The president turned in his chair. “Impressive,” he said.


Yes,” Pastor said. “We’re cooking this one right.”


The door to the room opened, and six Secret Service agents entered with their weapons drawn.


The lead agent said, “Mr. President, we’ve lost contact with the outside. All numbers are down.”


The president looked at Pastor, who held his arms out, palms up.


It’s true, Mr. President,” he said. “It’s happening now. This is a good place for you to be. The facilities are first-class. Your family has already arrived in Virginia. They’re safe. Ninety days from now, we’ll go topside and see what we have.”


The president scowled. “You think I would have leaked it?” he said.


Of course not,” Pastor said. “We just like to play it tight and dry.”


Without missing a beat, the president said, “What does my ID package look like?”


WH001 is a blank,” Pastor said. “It’s an empty set. You’re good to go.”


The president nodded.


I have no past,” he said.


Only present and future, sir.”


Well,” he said, “I suspect you’re bullshitting me, but I’ll take it on faith for now.


Pastor smiled. “Suspicion is part of the human condition, Mr. President. It’ll always be with us.”


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.


The basis of mass mind control

The basis of mass mind control

by Jon Rappoport

September 18, 2012


It’s so simple. And everybody knows it.

Mass mind control focuses on two elements: image and feeling.

By linking the two primary elements, it is possible to short-circuit thought and “cut to the chase,” when it comes to enlisting the allegiance of huge populations.

Two seemingly unrelated events spurred my interest in mass mind control.

On the evening of April 12, 1945, I listened to a radio report on the death of Franklin D Roosevelt. I was seven years old.

I became upset. I didn’t know why. I was angry at my own reaction.

Forty years later, I pulled into a gas station near my apartment in West Los Angeles. I got out of my car and took the cap off my gas tank. I looked to my right and saw Tony Curtis sitting in his car. I was shocked.

A few days later, I began making notes under the heading of “image-emotion cues.” At the time, I had just started working as a reporter, writing articles for LA Weekly. I knew next to nothing about mind control, MKULTRA, Soviet psychiatric gulags, Chinese re-education programs, or US psychological warfare operations.

But because I had been painting for 25 years, I knew something about the power of images.

I remembered my first exhibition of paintings in LA, at my friend Hadidjah Lamas’ house. We had hung my work in her large living room and dining room. Hadidjah had enlisted the services of a friend who had videotaped me painting in my studio, and at the exhibition she set up a television set out on her patio and continuously played the videocassette.

People came through her front door, almost automatically walked through the house to the patio, as if guided by an unseen hand, and watched the video; then they came back inside and looked at the paintings.

They would stop at a painting and say: “That picture was in the video!” “ You see that one? It was in his studio!”

My first note on “image-emotion cues” was, “Investing an image with importance. Projecting emotion into an image.”

Projecting emotion into a newspaper image of the president, FDR. Projecting emotion into the screen image of Tony Curtis. Projecting emotion into a video of a painter working in his studio.

When people encounter an image, when they invest it with importance, they project feeling into the image—and this all happens in a private sphere, a private space.

If this didn’t happen, there would be no way to control populations through images. It wouldn’t work. It all starts with a person setting up his own personal feedback loop that travels from him to an image and back again.

Coming out of World War 2, US psychological warfare operatives knew they could turn their skills to political purposes. They had just succeeded in making Americans believe that all Japanese and German people were horribly evil. They had been able to manipulate imagery successfully in that area. Why couldn’t they shape America’s view of a whole planet that lay beyond personal experience?

They could and they did. But the power to do that emanated from the fact that every person invests images with feeling. That’s where it really starts.

I had seen the 1957 film, Sweet Smell of Success, a number of times. I admired it. Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis gave tremendous performances. When, decades later, I saw Curtis sitting in his car at that gas station, I was “working from” the emotion I had invested in his onscreen image. It produced a sense of shock and paralysis for a few seconds.

Other people might have rushed up to Curtis and asked for his autograph. With me, it was shock, cognitive dissonance. Ditto for the death of FDR. I was working off newspaper pictures I’d seen of him, and the feeling I’d invested in those presidential images. Other people, when FDR died, went out into the street and hugged their neighbors and wept openly. For me, it was upset and shock and anger.

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with investing emotion in images. It can be exhilarating. It can be uplifting. As a painter, I know this in spades. Putting emotion into images can, in fact, vault you into a different perception of reality.

But on the downside, it can also take you into lockstep with what media operatives want you to experience, second-hand.

We focus to such a degree on how we are being manipulated that we don’t stop to consider how we are participating in the operation. And our own role is clear and stark: we invest images with feeling.

So how does one individual’s projection of feeling into an image become a uniform projection of the same feeling into one image, by millions of people? How does what one person invests privately become mass mind control?

Through external instruction or cues.

Why does this work? Why do millions of people fall into line?

Because they don’t realize they started the whole ball rolling themselves. All they know is: images are connected to feelings.

If they knew they were the real power in the whole operation, if they knew they were investing feelings into images all day long, if they could actually slow down enough to see how they do this….then they would be far less prone to taking instruction about what feelings they “ought to” invest in second-hand images.

Hypnotherapist Jack True unceremoniously put it to me this way: “If a dog could analyze how he got from eating meat to drooling at the sound of a bell that came at feeding time, he could stop drooling.”

I would add: If Chris Matthews could analyze how his own voluntary investment of feeling in the image of Barack Obama sends a tingle up his leg, he could stop tingling.

We’re now seeing images of people rioting all over the Middle East. We’re seeing burning flags and crowds outside embassies. We’re supposed to invest our own anger into those images. Outrage.

We see an image of miles of flat farmland and wheat waving in the breeze. We’re supposed to invest that image with feelings of happiness and pride.

Nowhere are we told we can back up a step and realize that we are the ones who begin the whole process, by projecting feelings into images. Any images.

Imagine a thought-experiment. You’re watching your computer screen. It holds an image of a tall blue vase. With purpose, you project the feeling of joy into the vase. Then you project the feeling of disgust. Then, fear. Then, worry. Then, pleasure…on purpose.

The objective is to gain some measure of consciousness about an unconscious process.

When I was 19, I was sent to a trained expert in New York to take a Rorschach (ink-blot) Test. I was displaying signs of what would now be called Oppositional Defiance Disorder.

The expert said he wanted me to tell him everything I saw in each ink-blot. I took him at his word.

An hour later, I was still working on the first blot. I was describing everything from bats and owls and chickens to space ships and buckets of hidden treasure in caves.

Well, I was cheating a little. I wasn’t really describing what I saw. I was imagining. I was taking off from what was on the page and improvising. This was outside the bounds of the Test.

The expert was seething. He was sweating, because he had many other blots to show me, and it was late in the afternoon, and he was looking at spending the entire evening with me. Finally, he held up his hand and put an end to the Test.

I wasn’t playing his game. Among other sins, I wasn’t investing feelings in the images. Therefore, my choices of “what to see” in the blots expanded greatly.

When I go to a museum, I like to watch people stand in front of abstract paintings. Many of them are stumped. They’re trying to figure out what feelings they “are supposed to” project into the painting. They’re looking for “instruction,” and there isn’t any. They’re asking for mind control, and they’re not getting it.

Fanaticism of any kind begins with individuals projecting feelings into images. This is harnessed by leaders, who then choose the images and direct which feelings are permitted. The tempting prospect for the follower is: participation in a drama that goes beyond what he would ordinarily experience in life. This is bolstered by the idea that what he is doing is moral.

In this election season, people on the left are urged to project messianic feelings into images of Barack Obama. People on the right are cued to invest feelings of pride, hope, and “tradition” into images of Mitt Romney. On both sides, it is principally images that are presented. The real candidates aren’t actually experienced.

Since Vietnam, shooting wars have been more difficult to sustain among soldiers. “In the old days,” feelings of hatred could be projected into images of enemies that included civilians, so overtly killing everybody on foreign soil was easier to accept. Now, soldiers are taught “enemy combatant” and “civilian” are two different images that require the injection of two different feelings.

Here at home, police and military are taught, more and more, to invest feelings of suspicion into images of American civilians. This is a acceleration of mass mind control for law enforcement.

The astonishing number of civilians who participate in government and corporate surveillance of the public, through technological means, learn to invest “dead empty feelings” into images of citizens, as if these targets are nothing more than ciphers, units.

The recent bizarre instances of police detaining and questioning parents who allow their children to play unsupervised reveal another accelerating trend. These confrontations start with neighbors snitching on the parents. The neighbors have learned to invest feelings of panic, suspicion, and anger in images of “free children.”

In all these cases, there is no real experience. It’s all second-hand. It’s all feeling-projected-into-image.

In the medical arena, countless advertisements and news stories are geared to convince people to invest feelings of trust in images of doctors. The suggestion, “Ask your doctor if X is right for you,” is framed as the solution to a little problem. The problem is set this way: Drug X is wonderful; drug X has serious adverse effects; what to do? Solution: ask your doctor; trust him; he knows.

As the class of victims in society has grown by leaps and bounds, including any group that can organize and promote itself as needing help or justice—going miles beyond the people who really do need assistance—citizens have been trained to invest feelings of sympathy and concern for all images of victims everywhere, real or imagined. This, too, is mass mind control.

Pick an image; invest feelings in it. Facts don’t matter. Evidence doesn’t matter.

We shouldn’t leave out a peculiar twist on the feeling-image op. The very people who are portrayed, image-wise, as objects for us to invest feelings into, take their cues from this game as well: doctors act like the doctors on television; gangsters acts like gangsters on television; FBI agents and cops act like law-enforcement officers on television. They’re roped in, just like everyone else.

You’ve heard people say, So-and-so has become a caricature of himself. Well, that’s what it means. The person has projected massive feelings of approval into an image of himself—often an image shown on television.

As a society, we can go on this way until we become a horrific cartoon of ourselves (some people believe we’re already there), or we can step back and discover how we invest emotion into images, and then use that process to pour feeling into visions of our own choosing and invent better futures.

Since the dawn of time, leaders have portrayed themselves as gods. They’ve assembled teams to promote that image, so their followers could project powerful emotion into the image and thereby cement the leaders’ control and power.

The game isn’t new. Understanding the roots of it within each individual could, however, break the trance of mass mind control.

During the first West Nile “outbreak” of 1999, I spoke with a student who had just dropped out of medical school. He told me he’d been looking at electron-microscope photos of the West Nile Virus, and he suddenly realized he was “supposed to” invest feelings of fear in those images.

Somehow, he broke free from the image-feeling link. He was rather stunned at the experience. His entire conditioning as a medical student evaporated.

Parents all over the world are having the same experience vis-a-vis vaccines. They realize they’re supposed to invest fear in images of germs and disease, and they’re also supposed to invest feelings of hope and confidence in images of needles and vaccines. They see the game. They’re supposed to ignore evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. They’re supposed to remain victims of mass mind control.

But they’ve awakened.

We’ve all been taught that what we feel is always and everywhere out of our control. These feelings are simply part of us, and we have to act on them. The alternative would be to sit on them and repress them and turn into androids, robots.

This is simply not true. There are an infinite number of feelings, and as strange as it may sound, we can literally invent them.

This, it is said, is inhuman. It’s a bad idea. It’s wrong. It would lead us to “deserting the human community.”

Nonsense. That’s part of the propaganda of mind control. If the controllers can convince us that we’re working from a limited map of emotions and we have to stay within that territory, they can manipulate that limited set of feelings and trap us.

The power of art is that it shows us there are so many more emotions than we had previously imagined. We can be much freer than we supposed.

The synthetic world of mind control and the handful of feelings that are linked to images is what keeps us in thrall.

The natural world—the world of what we can be—is so much wider and more thrilling and revealing.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.