Individual power and ethics: the conversation that never was

Individual power and ethics: the conversation that never was

by Jon Rappoport

August 7, 2017

It’s no accident that the concept of individual power is surrounded by clouds of timidity and fear and cultural resentment.

People are warned that touching it produces a substantial electric shock.

“Me? Individual power? I never said I was in favor of it. Great individual power? Don’t pin that on me. Who’s accusing me? I’ll sue them! I’m for humility in all things.”

Perhaps the most famous statement ever delivered on this subject came from Lord Acton (1887): “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

For many, this closes the book on discussion.

But in fact, it is a wobbling prelude.

What about the creative power of the individual?

Especially, what about that power when it is deployed by a person who has a personal code of ethics?

What if that code is summarized in the simple statement: I am free to do what I want to, as long as I don’t interfere with another person’s freedom?

We’re not talking about what happens when a king has a position of ultimate authority. That throne, of course, carries with it an implication of interfering with the freedom of the king’s subjects. The corruption is there from the start.

But the creative power of the individual, his goal to exert as much power as possible to fulfill his desires in the world, to launch and sustain an enterprise of his own choosing, to imagine and extend the reaches of such an enterprise—suppose he possesses ethics—suppose he refuses to interfere with, and override, the freedom of another person.

Many people have a fear of their own creative power, of what they would do if they removed the constraints on their own “proper place in the world.” Therefore, because of that fear, they oppose others having power.

Organized religion has always stuck its nose into the drama as well. What a religion claims is the ultimate power, and where it comes from, is inserted into the mix. A religion always assumes its picture of the Deity is the correct one, AND IT OWNS THAT PICTURE.

The notion of unlimited individual power, backed up by personal ethics, is anathema. It threatens the spiritual monopoly. So the religion invents cautionary tales that pile up into the sky.

One of the tales, time-honored, and adopted in one form or another by governments and “humanitarian groups” is: people are inherently weak and greedy, so allowing them to exercise ANY kind of power at all is madness. Instead, power must be managed by “the people,” by “those who care,” by “the needs of Mother Earth,” by “the Universe,” by “socialists,” by “economic and political planners (technocrats),” by “the oppressed (it’s their turn),” by “the big We,” by “international cooperation,” by “a wise global court (who runs it?),” by the man in the moon, by the beneficent aliens from the Galactic League…

Then there is language manipulation. An individual seeking to imagine and create his most profound dream as fact in the world is “acting like a god”—and that is a cardinal sin of the first order. (Therefore, be humble, be weak, be passive. You’ll earn a cosmic gold star on the blackboard.)

Or such an individual must be “a greedy capitalist,” representing “the worst system ever devised for human interaction.”

Or such an individual is “dangerous,” because “he places his needs before the needs of others.”

Or such an individual is “mentally ill,” because no one in his right mind would display such confidence in his own vision of his future.

In every case, the people behind promoting these perverse distortions want to wield power over others themselves. Quite a coincidence.

They’re always playing a shell game. They’re trying to take power from the individual and transfer it to themselves or those they support.

They always assume they know who “the good people” are, the people who won’t abuse power.

To put it in a slightly different way, they believe they don’t have the capacity to create and build an enterprise based on their deepest desires, if left to their own devices. Therefore, no one else should be allowed to.

They have no substantial ethics. Therefore, no one else has authentic ethics, either.

This discussion moves into the realm of “the many” vs. “the few.” It goes this way: suppose there are a few individuals who can, in fact, take their most profound vision and turn it into reality. They are the exception. For most of humanity, this is impossible. THEREFORE, stop the few. Why? Because their ability is inherently unfair.

That argument, rarely voiced, champions “democracy” as the lowest common denominator. Lift no one up. Instead, sink everyone in a shared swamp.

These days, this perverse approach has added a new topping: every difference of talent, will power, determination, ambition, imagination, creativity, refusal to surrender is a sign of privilege. Privilege is society’s bias. Eliminate it, thereby eliminating all the above qualities.

Then what remains? Nothing of substance.

If the independent individual looked outward to discover what standard he should uphold, what voice he should adopt, what theory he should cling to, what behavior he should imitate, he would cease being what he is in an hour.

He would order himself to stop thinking about power. It is the most loaded word and concept in this culture.

And naturally, it is also one of the most fruitful to contemplate, apart from the madding crowd.

Within it can be born great achievements and futures.

Exit From the Matrix

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

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.

9 comments on “Individual power and ethics: the conversation that never was

  1. davidgaskill says:

    Except for “Nazi,” I agree that “power” is the most loaded word and concept in our culture.

  2. James Freeman says:

    A passage from ‘A course in Miracles’, “I am not a body, I am free, for I still as God has created me”, has given me a knowing that has given me whatever power that I may have.

  3. SamAdamsGhost says:

    The globalist paychopaths fancy themselves as ‘masters’. They are the opposite of this. JD Rockefeller Sr kept a notebook with every penny he spent written down. He could not fathom that men actually might risk their lives to save a stranger. His was the heart of a bookkeeper combined with that of his patent medicine hawking father. One who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
    America has been a nation enamored by money from the very beginning. They are a people who cannot imagine a society where money does not rule. (There have been such societies – – such as ancient Sparta, medieval Japan, and medieval Europe under the Christian popes.)
    The globalists want a monopoly of power, thought, and control. They seek to build a gray world without creativity or independence that might later threaten them or their inbred progeny. In this, they will either fail or manipulate the population to destroy the world. (Its the brainwashed order followers who actually push the thermonuclear launch buttons.) The globalist psychopaths fight against human nature, so they will lose. It may take centuries for this to happen, however. If there’s a planet left.

  4. rightwingconservativenewsblog says:

  5. Thank you Jon. Spot on as usual.

  6. jhpace1 says:

    This has been played out in DC Comics and anime from Japan for decades (I don’t read Marvel enough, but looking at the movies, it’s there too). Humans are allowed to have a little more power to make them heroes. If they save people with that power, they are superheroes. Or super-villains. But a common plot theme is the US government wants “their” heroes. Politically correct. Never disobeying orders. Able to assassinate troublemakers clandestinely. Always making the politicians (and their employer corporations) look good. Military, not civilian. Obeying the President, no matter who he (or she) is. Never breaking the current paradigm. A super-robot with no conscience.

    Superheroes who have enough power to break the current paradigm in real life are seen as threats by everyone but the common man. Look at the latest Superman movies. Superman arrested by the military. A starship from his home world confiscated by the military, who then turn it over to a megalomaniac (Lex Luthor), who tries to kill Superman with a cloned creature. In Marvel, you have the military chasing Bruce Banner aka The Incredible Hulk, as well as S.H.E.I.L.D. hiding alien technologies from the common people and making contingency plans against…everybody. Even patriotic Captain America wasn’t patriotic enough in The Winter Soldier. Or demanding Tony Stark turn over his Iron Man technology to the military.

    As Catherine Austin Fitts says, we have the people who can kill others with impunity vs. everyone else who has to obey the common laws. The real world wouldn’t allow a moral Captain America or Superman to stop the corporations’ worldwide agendas. And the comic book writers are too cowed to right such a plot that might actually educate their audience, instead of entertaining them with common tropes.

    • Terri says:

      But is it really “us vs them” when the “us” is complicit and participates and aids and abets “them” to commit these crimes against all people and in America, commit treason with impunity. Us vs them is a lie to allow peasants to feel good about being helpless victims and continue to give away their power to an authority so they do not have to take responsibility.

      Catherine is brilliant, and I do not think the us vs them as you put it is her message.She is very clear about how we must demand our public servants obey their oath and serve and protect the people and the people MUST participate actively with intelligence, or our republic can not work. She is an advocate for the people and seeks to educate them so they can fulfill their responsibilities and duties as sovereign powerful individuals.

      As she said the other day about the nonsense of a constitutional convention, all we have to do is abide by the laws as written, which is not being done. So to say lets have more laws, which still wont be enforced, means nothing. If the Supreme law of the land is not being upheld now, why would it be upheld in the future?

  7. An excellent study of “parasitism”, Jon.

    But are there any “ethics”? Isn’t that who tosses the coin the angriest?


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.