Journey into the unknown
~a short story~
by Jon Rappoport
November 11, 2015
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
Citizen John Q Jones was flagged by NetSquid. Agents approached him outside his apartment and brought him into a small room at Inquiry Headquarters.
Jones sat in a small chair and waited. After an hour, a man in a suit walked in and sat down across from him.
“I’m Inquiry Specialist Washburn, Mr. Jones,” he said. “We’ve picked up some odd chatter from you.”
“Where?” Jones said.
Washburn: On your computer. You’re apparently writing an essay.
Jones: Something wrong with that?
Washburn: In it, you mention the word “unknown,”
Jones: Yes? So?
Washburn: The word, as you’re using it, doesn’t fit normal contexts.
Jones: How could it? Unknown means unknown.
Washburn: Yes, but the latest official definition pertains to “that which hasn’t yet been reduced to a precise reference, according to pre-established sociological parameters and algorithms.”
Jones: You lost me.
Washburn: Something can only be called unknown if it is “on the way to being known.”
Jones: That seems absurd.
Washburn: To you, perhaps. But that’s why you’re here. You must be aware that, these days, the very concept of a planned society involves the elimination of so-called imponderables.
Jones: Could you repeat that?
Washburn: The underlying principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number of people” must be adhered to. Therefore, when we see an event or an idea which falls into a gray area, which is vague, we try our best to clarify it, in order to decide whether it does, in fact, align with the underlying principle.
Jones: I must be missing something. I’m still in the dark.
Washburn: Mr. Jones, I hope you’re not pretending to be confused. Society is an organization. Planning how it will operate depends on defining a series of “knowns.” When a so-called “unknown” enters the scene, we investigate it for possible problems.
Jones: Sounds pretty abstract.
Washburn: Not at all. Think of a game like chess. All the pieces have defined functions. If you suddenly introduced a new piece with new functions, the whole game would change. The State must guard against that.
Jones: But how does my mere mention of the word “unknown” pose a potential threat?
Washburn: It poses a threat because we don’t understand what you mean by it.
Jones: I might be throwing a monkey wrench into the smooth operation of a machine?
Washburn: I wouldn’t put it that way, but all right, yes.
Jones: So when I say “unknown,” I might be going outside your parameters. I might be referring to something outside the boundaries of the State.
Washburn: You might be, yes. That’s why we’re here. To inquire into this possibility. So why don’t you tell me, now, what you mean when you use the word “unknown.”
Jones: I mean that which hasn’t yet been created.
Washburn: Created by whom?
Jones: By anyone.
Washburn: By an individual?
Washburn: That’s a Section 32 violation. What you call “creating” is done by groups, not individuals.
Jones: Since when?
Washburn: Since June 4th, 2051, when the President signed the new Budget bill into law. Section 32 specifies the psychological basis for innovation.
Jones: How can a law affect the way things are?
Washburn: That all depends on what the definition of “are” is.
Jones: In my essay, I give great attention to the fact that the individual has the power to invent something new and unprecedented, something no one could have predicted—something “unknown” before it came into being. I call this the prime factor.
Washburn: And you seem to be celebrating this notion.
Jones: It’s not a notion. It’s the way life works, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Washburn: Are you sure about that? Imagine what would happen if every person believed you, and took action based on that belief. We would have sheer chaos. Do you think the State would just stand by and watch such madness?
Jones: I think the State, such as it is now, would begin to undergo a great change.
Washburn: Yes, exactly. And that is why we can’t allow things to move in the direction you prescribe.
Jones: You should welcome the unknown.
Washburn: It would cripple every predictive model we have.
Jones: “The unknown is the greatest aspect of existence.” I wrote that.
Washburn: Where did you get such an idea?
Jones: I don’t think I got it from anywhere. One day it occurred to me. What is as yet unformed in the imagination is much greater than anything that has yet happened in our entire history. That was the idea.
Washburn: But you’re not referring to the collective imagination.
Jones: I don’t think the collective imagination exists. It’s a fairy tale. Imagination belongs to the individual.
Washburn: Do you realize the potential danger of these ideas?
Jones: No, I don’t.
Washburn: You define “unknown” as a potential that exists in the imagination.
Jones: I do.
Washburn: The State directs imagination, so it moves toward the achievement of prescribed goals.
Jones: Can I quote you on that?
Washburn: Please, don’t be frivolous. This is a serious matter. You could be charged with a crime.
Jones: Would I have my day in open court?
Washburn: For the class of felonies we’re discussing here, you would appear before a judge in a private chamber. He would interview you and pass sentence.
Jones: A guilty verdict is preordained?
Washburn: In a planned society, some offenses are obvious and irreversible. There is no need to argue the outcome.
Jones: So what do you want me to do?
Washburn: Recant your essay.
Jones: It isn’t even finished. I haven’t published any part of it.
Washburn: You have to make a sign of good faith.
Jones: Let me make this clear: I have faith in the imagination and creative force of the free individual.
Washburn: …There might be one way out of your problem.
Jones: What is it?
Washburn: Register with the State as a 501c non-profit church. At that point, your beliefs would be protected by the Constitution.
Washburn: Yes. Of course, you would have to say your core ideas come from God or The Universe or some other higher being whom you’re channeling.
Jones: I don’t like the sound of that.
Washburn: You would be granted a license as a minister of a religious organization.
Jones: I have no interest in becoming a minister.
Washburn: The State would monitor your operation closely. We would apply surveillance to determine what we call the Passivity Index, in your flock.
Jones: Meaning what?
Washburn: The thrust of your preaching must bring about a high level of surrender and passivity among your members.
Jones: But the whole idea of individual creative force moves in the opposite direction.
Washburn: I understand. However, when you combine that idea with God, gods, prophets, whatever, the overall effect should induce “passive enthusiasm.” In other words, people are inspired by your message but they don’t do anything about it.
Jones: I become an entertainer.
Washburn: You said it. I didn’t.
Jones: You know, I used to teach at a university.
Washburn: Yes, Yale. We have your records. In your eighth year, during a small seminar, you used the word “she” six times. Your students protested against the offensive gender-based pronoun, which had been outlawed by the College Council. You wouldn’t back down.
Jones: I wrote a defense of my position for the College newspaper. Before that edition was printed or the essay could go online, the paper was shut down. Nevertheless, I was dragged into a student court and charged with “emotional hijacking.” I don’t even know what that means.
Washburn: The massive student protests across America, in those days, were a precursor to the bundle of heroic Equality laws passed by Congress. “Equal emotions, equal treatment.”
Jones: Another term whose meaning completely escapes me.
Washburn: You’re a chronic outlier, Mr. Jones. I’m offering you a way out of your mess. Join us. Be part of us. We’re the solution.
Washburn: Excuse me?
Jones: That’s a piece of verbal code. A colleague once passed it along to me. I’m betting you’re responding to it.
Jones: It eliminates oppositional speech in androids. Non-humans. Machines designed to look like humans.
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.