The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2016

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

Trumpets blare. In the night sky, spotlights roam. A great confusion of smoke and dust and fog, and emerging banners, carrying the single message:

WE.

The great meltdown of all consciousness into a glob of utopian simplicity…

There are denizens among us.

They present themselves as the Normals.

And once again, I find it necessary to return to the subject of The Individual.

This time, I’m prompted by the current madness swirling around the film, Vaxxed (trailer). I’ve written about the film and the controversy from several angles, but here I want to point out another factor. The CDC whistleblower at the heart of the story is one man going up against The Group.

I don’t call William Thompson an unsullied hero. Far from it. He lied, he committed fraud, he hid the fraud for 10 years, and finally, perhaps because he was caught in his own web, he confessed.

But the group, his employer, the grotesque CDC, his fellow scientists—and especially the hideous rotting press, a dumping ground for professional agents, front men, con artists, shysters, wormy night crawlers (and I’m speaking more kindly of them than I should)—have attacked Thompson and the film mercilessly.

Beyond all political objectives in this attack, there is a simple fact: those who have given up their souls will rage against the faintest appearance of one who tries to keep his. And in this rage, the soulless ones will try to pull the other down to where they live.

And somehow, it all looks normal and proper and rational.

So this article isn’t about Thompson, it’s about the caverns of crime and the inhabitants.

In the 1950s, before television had numbed minds and turned them into jelly, there was a growing sense of: the Individual versus the Corporate State.

Something needed to be done. People were fitting into slots. They were surrendering their lives in increasing numbers. They were carving away their own idiosyncrasies and their independent ideas.

But television, under the control of psyops experts, became, as the 1950s droned on, the facile barrel of a weapon:

“What’s important is the group. Conform. Give in. Bathe in the great belonging…”

Recognize that every message television imparts is a proxy, a fabrication, a simulacrum, an imitation of life one step removed.

When this medium also broadcasts words and images of belonging and the need to belong, it’s engaged in revolutionary social engineering.

Whether it’s the happy-happy suburban-lawn family in an ad for the wonders of a toxic pesticide, or the mob family going to the mattresses to fend off a rival, it’s fantasy time in the land of mind control.

Television has carried its mission forward. The consciousness of the Individual versus the State has turned into: love the State. Love the State as family.

In the only study I have been able to find, Wictionary partially surveys the scripts of all television shows from the year 2006, to analyze the words most frequently broadcast to viewers in America.

Out of 29,713,800 words, including the massively used “a,” “an,” “the,” “you,” “me,” and the like, the word “home” ranks 179 from the top. “Mom” is 218. “Together” is 222. “Family” is 250.

This usage reflects an unending psyop.

Are you with the family or not? Are you with the group, the collective, or not? Those are the blunt parameters.

“When you get right down to it, all you have is family.” “Our team is really a family.” “You’re deserting the family.” “You fight for the guy next to you.” “Our department is like a family.” “Here at Corporation X, we’re a family.” “Above all, this is a community.”

The committee, the group, the company, the sector, the planet.

The goal? Submerge the individual.

Individual achievement, imagination, creative power? Not on the agenda. Something for the dustbin of history.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World: “‘Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines’! The voice was almost tremulous with enthusiasm. ‘You really know where you are. For the first time in history.’”

George Orwell, 1984: “The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.”

The soap opera is the apotheosis of television. The long-running characters in Anytown are irreversibly enmeshed in one another’s lives. There’s no escape. And with that comes mind-numbing meddling.

“I’m just trying to help you realize we all love you (in chains).”

“Your father, rest his soul, would never have wanted you to do this to yourself…”

“How dare you set yourself apart from us. Who do you think you are?”

For some people, the collective “WE” has a fragrant scent—until they get down in the trenches with it. There they discover odd odors and postures and mutations. There they discover self-distorted creatures scurrying around celebrating their twistedness.

The night becomes long. The ideals melt. The level of intelligence required to inhabit this cave-like realm is lower than expected, much lower.

Hypnotic perceptions, which are the glue that holds the territory together, begin to crack and fall apart, and all that is left is a grim determination to see things through.

As the night moves into its latter stages, some participants come to know that all their activity is taking place in a chimerical universe.

It is as if reality has been constructed to yield up gibberish.

Whose idea was it to become deaf, dumb, and blind in the first place?

And then perhaps one person in the cave suddenly says: I EXIST.

That starts a cacophony of howling.

In the aftermath of the 1963 assassination of JFK and the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the covert theme was the same: a lone individual did this.

A lone individual, detached from the group, did this. “Lone individuals are people who left the fold. They wandered from the communal hearth. Therefore, they inevitably became killers.”

In 1995, after the Oklahoma City Bombing, President Bill Clinton made a speech to the nation. He rescued his presidency by essentially saying, “Come home to the government. We will protect you and save you.”

He framed the crime in those terms. The individual versus the collective.

The history of human struggle on this planet is about the individual emerging FROM the group, from the tribe, from the clan. The history of struggle is not about the individual surrendering and going back into group identity.

Going back is the psyop.

The intended psyop.


Exit From the Matrix


As the trumpets blare in the night sky, as the fog-ridden spotlights roam, as the banners emerge carrying the single message, WE, as people below are magnetically drawn to this show, an unpredicted thing happens:

Someone shouts: WHAT IS WE?

Others pick up the shout.

And the banners begin to catch fire and melt. They drip steel and wax and the false grinding of hypnotic dreams breaks its rhythm.

The whole sky-scene stutters like a great weapon losing its capacity to contain heat. The sky itself drips and caves inward and collapses, and the trumpets tail off and there is a new fresh silence.

There is now the sky behind the sky, and the wind blowing.

The delusion, in pieces, is drifting away…

The cover: gone.

Behind it is The Individual.

What will he do now?

Will he seek to find his inherent power, the power he cast aside in his eagerness to join the collective?

Will he?

Or will he search for another staged melodrama designed to absorb him in an all-embracing WE?

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.

24 comments on “The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

  1. Conrad says:

    Yes, do indeed turn OFF the television. Stop being propagandized. But, those who venture into the woods alone get eaten. The Oligarchy doesn’t preach collectivism. The Republican party lauds the individual. They love those little guys who have bought the Trump image of the so-called entrepreneur, those who beat their little chests and proclaim they too can be a millionaire in this land of the free. Those who stand by passively as their beloved shoe factory closes up and goes off to Indonesia, How pathetic. Do we still have to explain why unions are demonized? My father worked for the newspaper industry when workers had some clout. They had worked out a modus vivendi with the industry. They were highly skilled , well paid and were respected even by management. Get this: if a worker wanted a vacation, any time, he/she put their name on a board and whoever was available could take their place for the alotted time off, and no job was lost. Business still made a huge profit, and workers lived a respectful life.
    You can band with others and still be an individual. In fact, when the collapse happens, you had better get to know your neighbor. See Cluborlov dot com.

    • binra says:

      Thanks for this. Your post triggered the following – which I greatly appreciate the journey of writing.

      An individual is relational being – that is integral and active within relationships including groups, family’s, organisations and cultures. But the “concept” of individuality can be falsely associated with an abstracted and disconnected power to judge and exploit relationships rather than live them. A withdrawal and withholding of true presence under pretext of focusing in what is ‘wrong with’ the other, the situation or the self. This may disguise itself in forms of apparently positive behavioural strokes and signs by which to pass off a presentation without having to actually connect or relate.

      This self-concept is a masked persona with which an individual can identify at expense of real relations and communication, and indeed is invoked or imposed upon the relationship when it is too painful, humiliating, traumatic, or unpleasant to abide or endure and so the sense of independent power is got from the denial of the relationship in which something believed loveless and threatening is being hidden or escaped. This is the basis for the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’, the monsters in the ‘unconscious, the ‘evil within’, the ‘sinner’, and the psychological ‘disease’.

      Communication breakdown is a relational split that then signifies itself in patterns of behaviour and even physical symptoms that persist until the underlying issue is resolved or re-cognized and re-intgrated to a true relational presence. But meanwhile such ‘lovelessness’ will spread and replicate by reaction, including being met with suppression, exclusion and denial.

      Societal rules operate a ‘collective’ agreement “not to go there” – as a surface evasion of depth that is generally felt entangling in obligation to be who you are not or to abide what you do not want. The mask allows a temporary form of relationship in which more is unsaid than shared and which soon wears thin, leading to pressure, stress, irritability or depression.

      But real relationship denotes a free or spontaneous willingness to share in the presence of life – which is a kind of dance in which we attune more deeply with that which moves us. For presence is not a ritual re-enactment of a past seeking to fill a sense of lack or right a sense of wrong.

      Political diatribe conceals a personal grievance in what appeals for collective acceptance and this personifies the breakdown of communication in society writ large. The yeast spreads through the whole batch.

      So reclaiming our individuality is a healing of our communication channel that has been redefined in terms of grievance, in which self-hatred always plays a part. This is firstly within our selves in relation to our inner thought, feeling and sensing. Waking up to a network of false thinking and reactive emotionality that operates a conditioned set of responses, is waking to the correction of error – in which thought, feeling and sensing, realign in unified purpose.

      It doesn’t matter that this awakens a quality of responsibility that seems too difficult. All that matters is the willingness to align in who you truly are and live that as best you can without judging it. The judgement or blame culture, is what is truly difficult. Enacting a ‘staged individual’ is the root of insanity if at expense of your true feeling being.

      Attend and abide in the Living – and let the ‘dead bury the dead’. Only the Living can hear this – and those at the cusp of their willingness to accept Life as it truly is. One can only raise from the dead, those who have come to recognize they do not want it, and put it behind them.

      Using our perceptions and judgement as a map to our own ‘unconscious’ or denied mind is bringing the symptom-messengers in that we used to deny and kill… and listening in the heart – in a willingness for wholeness in balance – that is recognisably and tangibly our Life and not a deceiving mind.

    • binra says:

      Terms can flip. Collectivism as I take it, means the subjugation of the individual to the rights of the collective – that are defined and enshrined in law by the oiligarchy (I like that typo, so I leave it in).
      Neo liberal – is anything but tolerant. Neo con is anything but conserving a Republic for and of individuals.
      The tv operates an extension and reflection of ‘push thinking’ and passively received image without relational communication, so as well as pulling that plug, we can actively pull or attract what is relevant and resonant to who we are – rather than force feed some notion of who we are ‘supposed to be’.

  2. I Am Janice says:

    Geronimo! You have been heard.

  3. ken says:

    Superb article capturing the essence of our times. I woke this morning imagining grabbing a microphone at a “debate” and pointing out the murderous Clinton who is surely guilty of high treason, to trump I would just say “Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein” and to the rest I would thank them for coming, they knew they were there only for the theatre. I would point out how the last landslide we probably had was gore defeating bush, which is why it ended in such a fiasco. I suspect Kerry really won pretty easily. Not that either of them would have done better, they probably are worse.

    I would end by saying that the media tells you to be part of the group that says JFK was killed by a lone nut, that RFK was killed by a lone nut, that Sara Jean Palfrey was a real suicide… So if you watch them, you are a moron.

    Show yourselves to be better than morons, turn off the addiction. TV.

    • OK, “ken”, I just wiki’ed “Sara Jean Palfrey” – lived 83 years, died of lung cancer, and aside from 3 marriages, one of which she ended because of his “cruelty”, I really found NOTHING to indicate serious controversy, let alone “suicide”…. What gives? What do YOU know about S.J.P., that wikipedia isn’t telling us? Just curious….

  4. binra says:

    When a waking individuality defied the Corporate Sell, The Corporate then sold “individuality” as identity-reinforcement. The video docs: “The Century of the Self” by Adam Curtis are worth following for this thread. (Freely online).

    A false individualism sells the idea one is free and self-defined while framing apparent choices to mere forms of differentiation that are simply part of the divide and rule of ‘identity politics’. A false identity is “thinking” based – without the visceral creative transformative Life within it.

    Indivisible and individual were once synonymous – you cannot be divided or split into parts. But the belief that you can and HAVE been – is the false or split fragmented sense of a Humpty Dumpty world.

    We can align with ‘all the King’s men’ if we want – but will never make or regain wholeness from any point outside the relationship of our true Indivisibility.

    You may align AGAINST all the King’s men if you want, there’s a ‘helluva drama going on’ and yet martyrdom awaits a god who never comes.

    Or you can walk out of any thinking – any framing of meanings and get down quiet in the silence of no reinforcement for your little identity what-so-ever – to be moved anew in a fresh perspective – that – without taking thought – is neither for or against – but WITH what is real in everyone and everything – because that’s where you are coming from.

    And then in some unguarded moment, reactions trigger a mind of ‘for and against’ and division rules in place of simple presence knowing right relation. For when coming from a place of self-judgement – one meets the same measure everywhere – without recognizing their part in it.

    Because hiding or outsourcing your part, so as to minimise your conflicted pain, is how you assert a sense of private individual authority and seek to validate it upon the world and conform it to reflect what? A justified sense of grievance? Is rage the power that runs the world? or is terror the compression that keeps Humpty in pieces when he could otherwise embrace his peace?

    It is good to let feelings rise and move that are denied – to a true acceptance. But important to pause their public or open expression – for until you Know where you are coming from, the deceiver can take you without your realizing until after you have woken from the spell to see the hurt and hurting re-enacted and guilt on your mind.

    Family can be a quality of Relationship – not coercion. Don’t be deceived by the concept or the form when it is hollow! Without Feeling awareness – there is no possibility of recognition. The capacity to identify in fragmented and distorted thought has tragic consequence while the identity runs.

    Are hate and envy bedfellows? Do we hate ‘power’ because we want it?

    Are we not humiliated and enraged in our impotence?
    Is that what it seems or can it be imagined and perceived differently?

    The vax-pharm runs a mind that is off the rails and so derails our world to run in its imaging. I don’t know about you – but I cannot feel myself at all in those tracks and I feel to reach out to others to say – “there is a choice in this much deeper than seems” – because I am grateful to all that reached or reaches to me in embrace of Life – amidst the split-mind in its fascination with disease, destruction and death.

    If medical pharma cant run an open honest shop – should it be running at all? But here’s the rub – there is an extraordinary investment of fear and guilt hidden within the belief and supply of “Power to Intervene, Suppress and Manage Symptoms”. And Vax has ‘generated’ this halo of foundational sacred science that is a kingpin in the new version of the old religion of power and sacrifice that took over before science had hardly a chance to draw breath.

    Freethinking? Try it! Open communication? If you are not peer previewed and published in the institutionalism of clinical data you are auto-invalidated – ie: a non-elite. You are done for and if you dissent you will be done to. Monoculture is clearly superior to natures profligate diversity – and anyway its the only way we can pretend any sense of control – by denying everything else than our own brand of truth.

    But beneath the changing forms of fear-religion that must coerce against exposure by denying the messenger symptoms of out-of-true, is the cult of sacrifice of Individuality – of joy in wholeness – to a Minotaur that rages in its maze – where it has been hidden; to a priesthood that rules in the name loveless image of the god of ‘The Law’; to a blind arrogance that re-defines truth to set its own crown – and none must laugh at Humpty – for demanding sacrifice to guilt is the secret of power over – and without it… Life restores to Joy. How can this be – when Herod smites so?
    I cant tell you but you have to live your life for yourself – true to to yourself and understand within the step you take and not in rehearsal before.

    • Michael Burns says:

      @Bin

      I am impressed, you are are gifted I see. Having the ability to see so deeply. And in a kind of grace with it, that is extraordinaire. What a capacity.
      You are very interesting thinker Bin, I think I like you alot.

      Myself, the flood gates are open most of time, it keeps me on my toes volleying what is mine and what is induced by others, or the machine. There are so many worlds here on planet earth, to explore, I have a tough time choosing which one to live.

      Sitting here in the morning digesting what I have had to read a number of times to get to the real taste of the words, the gist of it all. They are such fine words; when they are used correctly, or should I say, in art. And you do seem to be an artist of them.
      Magic is gift we all get, most I see never realize they have one.

      I discover mine (words) tend to be weapons at most times, instruments, tools, wingbangs and whirlygigs to advice I don’t know what? Really, rarely does the storm quell, to something that is not just from this life. But seems like leftovers from others. And so the words, help/hinder.

      Yes it is interesting that the alchemists are and have always been a religion, and curiously one of the first. Religion seems so important to the human mind, we like to worship and to make a belief out of everything that we fall in love with…even though I deny it, and would fit nicely into being called a nihilist. I believe. In, I don’t know in what? I know love is one of things I believe in, justice is another.
      But that is the excitement in the exploration. No use being an explorer if you already know were you are going. New lands, and fresh winds. And forgiving oneself and allowing one as many chances that neccessary.

      Thanks for the tip on the vids, I look forward and into them.
      This was a good piece you wrote to Jon. I will look for your website.
      I will leave you Blake, he was wiser than me.

      “The man who never in his mind and thoughts travel’d to heaven is no artist.” – William Blake

      • binra says:

        I prefer to see a co-creation or synchronicity in which we meet – and yet in a stirring that doesn’t fit into words and doesn’t need to.
        Just as you can discern the ‘weapon’ in your words at times – and thus be free to choose another way to say it – I can feel the separation of specialness – and whilst I celebrate uniqueness of being in all – I don’t feel to embody or attain the idea of an ‘elite-ist’.
        As for exploration of worlds – well perhaps instead of trying to fit anything into any kind of plan – you could simply allow and follow what you are attracted to, truly energized, excited or enlivened by and interested and passionate in – in any moment that a choice arises.
        It is what you believe in your heart that creates your experience – regardless what the mind presents. Conflicting beliefs and purposes bring a conflicted world. You might say that what I believe makes no difference, but to see a call for help where before I only saw an attack is a huge difference and draws an entirely different response. But I don’t ‘do’ belief from the outside in – as if they can be added to me by taking thought for myself. I release beliefs to what might be called a silence or void of self-assertion and listen and feel for the Life that rises of Itself to a true receptivity – for an instant of such ‘Life’ is so rich in Informational energy that if I lived to be a million I would not be able to write or act it all out and of course nor would I want to. However, as Neil Young sang “I see you give more than I can take, well I’ll only harvest some”. So I only need to know what I need to know, when I need to know it, and go with what resonates (there’s the joy recognition thing), and live this sense of unfolding – because it’s more about where I am coming from than where I’m going. If desire and imagination move me with the sense of inspiration to act then if I then don’t believe I can do it – the whole thing stagnates or constipates and no more inspiration can come in because I’m not listening truly to what I have – or I’d act on it.
        The thing about these knots or logjams is to accept them as teaching learning opportunities rather than defining as failures or obstructions.
        Blake access a wisdom that is available no less to you, but the nature of the receptive and expressive channel of communication may be less self-aware in you at this time in your life. But in your opening or letting of That Thou Art in Heaven to be right where you are – you will of course access a richness of being and wisdom to live it – if you remember to ask within rather than presume you have it – that will express in the unique way that might share vibrational resonances with all kinds of energetic connections – yet be recognisably Michael Burns. However – this is already unfolding as your life and if anything is ‘missing’ it is your conscious appreciation of it – which grows presence as mind is released from trying to manage or ‘control’ Reality – which it is not designed or capable of fulfilling – but it can generate great burden of suffering in the attempt and become ‘negatively polarised’ as a result. Generating a sense of disconnection from Life and as they say – the rest is history.
        Well met!

  5. tvfmontana says:

    Many years ago I stumbled across this novel. I put it right there with “1984” and “Brave New World”. Sometimes I wonder if they were just novels or warnings? History of the the future world? We (Russian: Мы) is a dystopian novel by Yevgeny Zamyatin completed in 1921.[1] The novel was first published in 1924 by E. P. Dutton in New York in an English translation by Gregory Zilboorg.

  6. Sometimes, Jon, you DO get carried away with your own high-falutin’ rhetoric. But WE love YOU, anyway! Isn’t it more true, to say each ONE of us, ALL of US, **WE**, need to recapitulate the duality, resolve the dichotomy, and realize that it is each *I*, *and* ALL of US? We need strong, healthy individuals, which create strong healthy societies, which create strong healthy individuals, which create strong healthy societies, which create strong healthy individuals, which create strong healthy societies, which create strong healthy individuals, which create strong healthy societies, which create….. WE NEED *BOTH* individuals, **AND** the group….. Only THAT will be truly sustainable….

  7. Michael Burns says:

    “I’m just trying to help you realize we all love you (in chains).”

    “Your father, rest his soul, would never have wanted you to do this to yourself…”

    “How dare you set yourself apart from us. Who do you think you are?” – JR

    LOL Aw…shucks..is that sentiment I read shining through. We love you (in chains)…what a great line.

    I would like to see the movie also Jon. Nothing should be censored, ever.

    “Wormy night crawlers!”…come on I am not one of those. I especially like your last line in this wonderful piece. I have taken to heart. I waste too much time tilting my lance at windmills.

    By the way, have I told you I am building a new studio. In between these little replies I write to you…

    It a great spot, the bottom half of my house. Backs onto a great piece of wetland, and the open land.
    Reed grasses and cottontails, finches and muskrats; the owls have move in, and that fox is near; he leaves his little boot prints all over my backyard, have’nt seen him as yet. I heard others have, good to hear he survive the winter.
    I have great ethuasism for the coming months. and I am scheming already about paint.
    I will have too put writing on hold for while; a man cannot be slaves to two masters.
    And painting is a woman, who is jealous of my attentions. She won’t share me with others…never.

  8. Greg C. says:

    The true individual is more than a non-conformist. More than someone who opposes the crowd. He or she can do much more than see through their foolishness. If you are an authentic individual, you do not suffer emotional anguish, nor give in to hatred because of their mendacity and blindness. You simply deal with it, then get on with your own life with good cheer. Two good examples of this character type can be found in literature: Cyrano de Bergerac in Rostand’s play, and Howard Roark in Rand’s The Fountainhead.

    Individualism is not a choice to be a loner. It is not playing the role of an outcast from society or a martyr for the truth. Rather, it is the ability not to be dissuaded from what you see and know first-hand. To not feel shame on that account, and not accept an inferior status from others. To not feel the sting of betrayal when even friends and family turn against you.

    Very few people feel that it is worthwhile to become this sort of person. Much better in their view to collect little merit badges of approval, to feel well-adjusted, having many people on your side. But those people are only on your side because they are exactly like you, with the same need for approval. So it’s not really approval, it’s merely an agreement to agree, a marriage of convenience.

    • binra says:

      A nice feel in what you write. I wont agree that an individual doesn’t feel (insert anything here) – because he or she doesn’t censor feeling – but nor do they use it to fuel emotional indulgence or manipulative and conflicted identity. If the sting of betrayal is felt – it is felt – but not allowed to persist in undermining individuality – but to uncover expectations demands and beliefs that are out-of-true. I cant require that people or life conform to my demands without setting up pain for myself and becoming a pain for others.

      I feel I meet the pattern you describe in those who demand equality….. from a sense of inferiority that wants to conform me to meet their conditions to make them feel better – rather than feel better and engage with me on equal terms. (And create conditions together).

      The gaining of ‘approval’ for presentation is not only a false appreciation – but lacking in intimacy of any real presence – and so the desire to be known and loved for who you ARE is frustrated by identifying in a presentation that you simply couldn’t keep up if you wanted to

      When we are embracing and accepting of ourselves – including that we have ‘negative’ facets within us, we are free of fearing or hating them – and can be unselfconsciously ‘loving’ without strings attached – because of being truly with whatever or whoever we meet or join with.

      So a divided self is subtly mis-ruled or at least sabotaged by a shadow-self that seeks light where it can not be found and is deceived thereby.

      I’m not an old time religionist – but increasingly I feel some of its terms are apt: the deceiver is the divider – the sower of doubt, division and war within self – through which the lie operates in substitution for true appreciation until the willingness for war and woe is released to a true desire – which is an undivided unconflicted and hence accepted will.

      That by no means implies being passive, or a doormat – but one who stands in an integrity and FOR an integrity of being amidst temptations to hate, hide or self-inflate.

      Joining in hate, hiding in false currency of mutual agreement, so as to inflate a sense of self righteousness – can only witness a sense of self-wrong – or there would be no movement or meaning in such acts. This is what I see as the overlay of a false overlay upon our perception of our world and each other.

      Loving to hate is always a sign of hating to love – and those who do not extend honour and integrity cannot know they have it – but take a false sense of power from focusing in the wrong in others and seeking to manipulate them.

      That we have hate feelings is not to be denied when they come up – or we become unreal. The attempt to be ‘loving’ and the fear of being invalidated ‘unloving’ has crystallized a very rigid, form based concept of love at our foundation that has denied the full and true evolution and unfolding of our Individuality. A false love breeds a disillusion and denial of love – but true disillusion wakes from the false frame – not merely opposing the false form.

      Very few have clear or ongoing access to a true sense of worth – while entranced by false thinking – and so haven’t the basis from which to consistently and persistently challenge and undo or release such thinking. But the way to have it is to grow it by using it – regardless the the mind sets up experience of guilt, invalidity or failure – as the reclaiming of a true foundation in life – that listens to and is open to information – but discerns within for what resonates true – without blame or hate for no longer resonates – or doesn’t resonate at all. But in this post – as an example – I felt a resonance in which to join in acknowledging our feeling being – which is generally heavily denied by a surface emotionalism – of manipulative undercurrent – that includes attempts to hide all witness to the feeling of being as emotional communication.

  9. alan obrien says:

    Jon, you forgot spineless weasels and liars when describing the press

  10. Sterling Spaulding says:

    We might confuse the need for human contact with a desire to be constantly surrounded by others. The difference begs clarity to any of his own mind, when the inevitable tensions arise signaling mental constraint and chaffing ideological conformity.

    • binra says:

      Well the ‘inevitable’ judgements lead to a fight or flight – and some form of flight are withdrawal into even deeper judgement. I recognize what you say – but perhaps the one who is sensitive to the constraint of conformity is the one who is best fitted to free the tension by speaking or acting from a different place – not an anti place.

  11. jill wallis says:

    I have a vague memory of a seminar I attended at Uni and we were discussing John Locke and the individual and society and I came to the conclusion that Locke (or the lecturer, or both) is/are right. He/they asserted that the will of the collective can only prevail with the acquiescence of the individual. So its simple, we all stop acquiescing and pull the plug on the collective.

    • Yes, “jill wallis”, and when, and IF that happens – when “we all stop acquiescing”, and “pull the plug on the collective”, then, WE WILL HAVE BECOME THE NEW COLLECTIVE. How will that be ANY different? It’s not a question of “either/or”. It’s NOT one or the other. It’s the individual AND the collective. After all, you didn’t teach yourself to read & write and type in English all by yourself, did you? Don’t you see how Rappoport functions as a “false prophet” to keep your head spinning, and your mind confused. Hey, I subscribe to this blog, Rappoport has a LOT good to say, But this is NOT one of his better, more well-thought out blogs. We need to RECONCILE the duality, not keep fighting it….Locke is an interesting historical artifact, but he grows more irrelevant with each passing day…….

      • binra says:

        Yes we are being in relation – whether we acknowledge and honour our relation or deny it for a sense of self-specialness.
        The Open dialogue video on youtube is inspiring but hidden in the ordinary – maybe start with Daniel Macklers documentary

        It isn’t trying to sell anything.

    • binra says:

      Go on then – do it now!

      You can withdraw you allegiance, willingness or subscription from self-illusion – by giving it where it is due.
      For what you give to ‘power in the world’ you take from Creative relationship.

      But if you try to make a ‘we’ out of a sacrificial act you actually revert to the old paradigm in order to ‘gain power’ through enlisting collective action. Be who you really are – just because. And not in order to get something for who you think you want to be.

      In being true to yourself and standing in your integrity – you will meet people differently and some will not like it if you don’t meet their social contracts – but others will appreciate a greater freedom – so what I am saying is that the ‘we’ who discover ourselves moving in shared purpose – are not an organisation – though we each and together are free to organize whatever we are moved in the purposes we set – but the renewal of culture that embodies individual worth and shares in it is not one of sacrificing the means to gain an end. We have to live and witness the fruits of this – not just think or talk about it as some ‘future’ event. Let it be now! “Because you’re worth it” – and if you are – who are nothing special – then its easy to see that everyone else is no less worthy of love’s awareness – which does not mean being unreal with others or being a doormat to unacceptable behaviour.

      It may seem like you are the only one and no one else is going to join you and you’ll become the scapegoat of the world for stepping out of line. But that is a script for NOT being who you really are and living the life that is here and now with you. Its a radical shift that operates incrementally – now and now. Hello Life!

      I see the core allegiance is not political but in running a consciousness based on guilt and fear dictates. And ‘THEY’ cannot be separated from the correspondences in your own patterns that operate like a net-bot of energy and support for lovelessness in the world in ways that are not obvious to a mind that has learned to save itself alone by concealment.
      But as J says – ‘sufficient unto the day be the evils thereof’. Embrace and use what comes up in living this day well as your teacher or higher self or future self bringing you messages and opportunities in the uncovering of the more of who you are – through the recognition and release of who you are not.
      The world is helping you see who you are not – but while you want it all OUT THERE for you to judge over – you are not at your post – noticing the thoughts and purposes that are running ‘below the surface’. If you have something that is supporting mayhem that is your power to withdraw – then you cant play an innocent victim who uses grievance not to look within. I’m not talking at all in terms of blame here, but of the origin of the fear/blame/hate/hurt/defence pattern or mechanism.
      No one can change what they don’t first own.

  12. Jon, as you are aware, they don’t come too much more individual than me. I’m a JR fan that occasionally disagrees with you. How good is that?

    This is one of your better efforts (perhaps the gravy on the cream?). and I am glad you have put Thompson “in perspective”. Isn’t it sad that the machine has so much power that “reason” can only come from one of its own?

    Best
    OT

    • Michael Burns says:

      @ OT
      Individual?…are you sure of that. It isn’t that half leprechaun side of yourself, and leprechauns are really only irish trolls dressed in short pants and a wee tall hat.
      Leprechaumns are over rated, nasty little fellows always stealing the sugar. At least that’s what they told me; that why we never had sugar in our house, for our tea.
      Thieven little bastards.

  13. Ha ha, Michael

    I must be a strange half leprechaun because I never add sugar to beverages. I’ve none in the house too. The other thing is I’ve tall pants and a hat so wee it is invisible, so as far as half leprechauns’ go, I’m very unusual, very individual😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s