The free and independent individual

The free and independent individual

by Jon Rappoport

July 26, 2017

In Ayn Rand’s 1943 novel, The Fountainhead, newspaper columnist, arch manipulator, and promoter of absolute collectivism, Ellsworth Toohey, tells his social-climbing weak-kneed follower, Peter Keating: “If you learn how to rule one single man’s soul, you can get the rest of mankind. It’s the soul, Peter, the soul. Not whips or swords or fire or guns. That’s why the Caesars, the Attilas, the Napoleons were fools and did not last. We will. The soul, Peter, is that which can’t be ruled. It must be broken. Drive a wedge in, get your fingers on it—and the man is yours…enshrine mediocrity.”

There is a whole army of experts, whose job is to tell you success only comes with you being part of a group.

They imply your status as an individual is transmitted to you through some diabolical portion of your brain that is loaded with false messages. Therefore, give up. Take the elevator down to the basement, get off, and join The Group. That’s where the love is. That’s where your useless courage dissolves into sugar, and you discover a paradise of the lowest common denominator. You’re home. The sun never rises or sets. Nothing changes. Sameness rules.

Since the 1960s, many people have decided that, in order to create the future they want, they should engage in a certain amount of introspection.

Spiritual or psychological introspection.

I have encountered a large number of such people, who have swung the balance to the point where introspection has become indecision and paralysis.

There are “so many issues to consider.”

Starting in the 1960s, we saw the import of various Eastern philosophies and practices. They arrived here in diluted and distorted forms. They introduced their own versions of “karma” and “balance” and “surrender” and “abdication to the wishes of the universe.”

“If it doesn’t happen, it wasn’t meant to be.”

In the end, it amounts to waiting around in a cosmic station for a train that never arrives.

Or in psychological terms, it is: “I have to resolve my past before I can pursue my future.” “How can I know what I want if I’m trapped in past conflicts?”

The effect of all this was to diminish the potential realm of human action. It was a kind of court case where all the priors of the defendant were allowed into evidence and dominated the verdict.

More recently, another limiter came on to the scene. It is expressed this way: “Now I see through fake reality, I see how reality is being manipulated by the powers-that-be, so what can I do? We’re at the mercy of these forces.”

These vectors were and are an intentional operation, whose purpose is to demoralize the individual and cut him off from his own freedom, independence, and power.

Here is the superior principle: even if the individual determines, in a worst-case scenario, that all is hopeless, he should launch the life and future he desires ANYWAY. Despite all the good reasons to give up, he should ignore all of them and launch.

Because if he does that, he soon begins to see his own view change. It’s not the same anymore.

Many, many individuals, since the dawn of time, have thought themselves into smaller and smaller boxes until there was no space left—and then some of those individuals, who were spiritual riverboat gamblers, shoved in all their chips on projecting action into the world anyway…and they revolutionized their destinies.

We can go even deeper. What is the ultimate purpose of thought and reflection and introspection? Is it to arrive at certain conclusions, after which the thinker (the person) serves those conclusions like a slave? Or is thought itself a process through which ideas then serve the individual and his goals?

It is the latter.

The first great philosopher of the West, Plato, followed the first path. Which is to say, he applied his mind to understand the basis of reality, and he came to the conclusion that there were immortal and pure Ideas that existed in a higher realm, and they were unchangeable. Society, therefore, could only triumph if certain wise men, who could apprehend these Ideas directly, ruled over everyone else. Thus, the freedom and independence and power of open inquiry led to totalitarianism. Freedom led to slavery.

Give us your huddled masses yearning to be free. Masses? No. A mass can never be free. And even if a mass can successfully demand freedom, on whom does that outcome then fall? The individual. This is where the buck stops, and no one can change that truth.

There are those who believe a quiet lake is the marvelous end of all existence.

And then a boat comes along, and new ripples begin spreading. A dynamic individual has arrived.

You can be the person looking at the lake, banking on no-action, or you can be in the boat, forwarding your best ideas and visions and dreams, despite all the reasons not to.

In 1891, Oscar Wilde wrote: “Art is individualism, and individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine.”

Every individual has the potential to be an artist and maker of reality. He achieves this by walking through the corridors of what he has learned from others, until he emerges into the sun of his own self-generated thoughts.

No one else can tell him what his thoughts are. Those thoughts don’t follow machine patterns. They don’t cling to any system. They don’t wind up in some superficial trash of generalities.

An individual’s mind and imagination aren’t asking for convenient generalities.

The key question, as always, is: what do you want to create?

Answering the question and then acting on it transforms a life.


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.

The individual vs. the illusion of consensus reality

The individual vs. the illusion of consensus reality

by Jon Rappoport

July 21, 2017

This is such a supercharged subject, I could start from a dozen places.

But let’s begin here: the individual is unique, because he is himself. He is unique because he has his own ideas, because he has his own desires, because he has his own power. That power belongs to no one else.

In particular, it doesn’t belong to the State. The State will always try to suggest that it is granting power to the individual, but this is a lie. A lie broadcast with ill-intent.

While everyone else is trying to manufacture connections to the group, under the banner of a false sense of community, the individual is going in the opposite direction.

Philip K Dick: “Insanity—to have to construct a picture of one’s life, by making inquiries of others.”

Consensus reality is the reality of sacrifice. It is coagulating energy, form, content, substance that takes on amorphous shapes studded with slots into which people can fit themselves.

The independent individual thinks what he wants to think. Over time, he keeps graduating into new, more nearly unique levels of what he wants to think.

He rises to his own thoughts.

There is no subject and no substance which is not infiltrated by consensus reality. Wherever you look, you will encounter it. The group is the basis of consensus reality, and the group-pact extends everywhere. The group fears a sector where only individual thought can tread.

That would be dangerous to the illusion. “Well, we’ve got things well in hand in most places, but over there and over here we’re not in charge.”

No, that doesn’t work for the group. The exceptions would blow a hole in the rule.

“Stay away from the corner of Lexington Avenue and 34th Street. Something too weird is going on there. We come in and try to inject consensus on that spot and it doesn’t work. Our ‘sharing’ energy bounces off that corner. We may have to call in the troops to surround the place and cordon it off.”

“Group consensus is fraying and fragmenting in Area 768-B! Call the professors and pundits! Discredit the individual! Call him a monster! Do something fast!”

Consensus reality is an illusion in the sense that you can see it and I can see it, but we didn’t sign up for it.

The individual can opt out. That doesn’t necessarily mean the consensus disappears; you can still see it, but you see it without accepting it.

You can see the oasis in the desert and know it is a mirage. You have your own water, you don’t have to run toward the mirage and fall down on your knees and try to drink from the pool.

Philip K. Dick: “Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups…increasingly, we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated electronic mechanisms…And this is an astounding power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.”

The strong and free individual evolves. He doesn’t stay the same. He continues to emerge with new ideas, new energy, new invention. He becomes larger. He gains more power.

When the illusion of consensus reality attains a level beyond mere slogan, it enters the realm of systems. This is its most convincing format. A system appears to be watertight. Each one of its parts has relations with the whole.

This is interesting, because that mirrors what a group is. Each member is a part that connects to the whole.

Consensus as a system is like a game of chess that plays the same moves over and over. Game one is the same as game two, three, four…

That’s where its illusion of power comes from.

The individual, though, doesn’t proceed according to systems. He isn’t moving from one closed context to another.

Consensus is the coin of the realm. It is forced from the top, and it is signed up for at the bottom. One hand washes the other.

Societies may begin through consensus, but if they have any courage, they shift focus to the job of pulling away coercive restraints on the individual. Regardless, the individual asserts his freedom. It is his to begin with, not the group’s. No one gives it to him.

Earth’s societies have moved rapidly to an inverse, an upside down structure, in which freedom is looked upon as a privilege grudgingly accorded in the absence of a reason to take it away.

The group has conception of Normal. Normal is like a message passed around, from hand to hand, and when you look at it closely, for content, it dissolves. There was really nothing there.

Group consensus is mindless hive-action covering a vacuum.

Here is what occasionally happens to people who have hidebound political ideologies. The people on the Left move further and further to the Left, and the people on the Right move further and further to the Right. Finally, they are both so distant from the State they meet and stare at each other in shock. At that point, they are just individuals.

“But society runs on groups! It must have groups!”

And what? The individual must give in and join and belong?

Consensus reality is a cartoon that is trying to become as real as steel. What deconstructs the steel and exposes the cartoon? There is only one thing that can do that. Nothing and no one else is going to do that.

The individual does it.


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.

My conversation with Jeff Rense

My conversation with Jeff Rense

by Jon Rappoport

July 19, 2017

Last night, I was a guest on Jeff Rense’s show. We had a wonderful wide-ranging conversation about education, the joys of reading, the decline of civilization, and the long view of the future.

I said: at some point the whole issue of human destiny will revolve around whether individuals accumulate wisdom or keep accepting the cycle of rise and fall of societies—and Jeff came up with an electric phrase—he said, we need a RENAISSANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL.

That need never goes away. We need it now, ten years from now, a hundred years from now, a thousand years from now.

I then read him several of the relevant quotes I included in yesterday’s article, from Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead.

So today, I found some notes I made perhaps 20 years ago—a long dialogue between two “unknown persons.” It started as an exercise, a warm-up one day, when I felt I had nothing to write. It evolved along several tracks. Here is an excerpt plucked from that dialogue that touches on a renaissance of the individual soul:

Unknown Person #1: You want this, you want that. You’re pressed for time. You want to be entertained. But suppose you could move from being a mildly concerned spectator…suppose you could create a fictional destiny for yourself and then make it real?

Unknown Person #2: I choose to be detached.

Unknown Person #1: Yes, and that’s my point. You see yourself right now as the final version of what you can be. You draw a line. But that line isn’t really there. It’s an illusion you’re buying. You’re buying it like the most rabid consumer. It’s the ultimate product for you. You guard it night and day, even in your dreams. If you suddenly dream about a majestic future, you close it down. You take that exhilarating destiny spread out like valleys and mountains and skies and you stand over it and pour acid on it. You dissolve it before it gets too real. You deny any connection between that vision and yourself. But there is a connection. Your psyche has no limits.

Unknown Person #2: When I was sixteen, my parents took me to a cathedral for a service. It was a gigantic dark place. During the sermon, I fell asleep. I had a dream about a mountain range. I was walking in that range, and the immediate power of the place…I was free. The feeling was sheer ecstasy. A few days later I decided, if freedom could be THAT, I would do anything to defend it. But then I crushed the dream. I rejected it. No one made me do it. I did it myself.

Unknown Person #1: And you still bury it and crush it.

Unknown Person #2: You want to know how I do that? I say the dream was wonderful. I say it’s “inspiring” even now. I even take pride in reminding myself I had the dream. But then I just let it lie there, like water, like a pool stagnating. That’s how I separate myself from it. I never take that energy and ecstasy as a clue about what I can do in this life.

Unknown Person #1: But you could take it as a clue.

Unknown Person #2: Yes. Instead I opt for nostalgia. I prefer nostalgia. That’s how I look at the dream, that’s how I escape using the dream as knowledge about what I am.

Unknown Person #1: And of course you say everyone has had a dream like that, and everyone has done what you did to it.

Unknown Person #2: I’m part of that “community.” The community has strength in numbers. Why would I desert that family? We all reject the meaning of the dream. I look in their eyes, and I see they left the dream behind, and they see it when they look in my eyes. It makes us happy, in a way, to know we all did the same thing.

Unknown Person #1: It’s never too late.

Unknown Person #2: Three days from now, I’ll forget we had this conversation. It won’t register. I’ll have new complaints, and I won’t make any connection between them and the dream I deserted.

Unknown Person #1: When I look in your eyes, I don’t see that you deserted—

Unknown Person: No, you see the dream. I understand. But now I’m going to walk away, I’m going to walk away, I’m going to walk away…


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.

Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead still survives

Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead still survives

by Jon Rappoport

July 18, 2017

This may seem like a strange way to start an article about Ayn Rand, but…

Sociologists and psychologists and other pseudo-academics miss the boat on almost every analysis of human culture they perform. They’re like surgeons reading the wrong X-rays before opening up the patient on the table.

For example, the “puppet factor” should loom large in studies of human endeavor. But it doesn’t. Puppets not only obey orders from above, they find other puppets and commiserate. They form groups. They share. They devote themselves to each other, struggling to believe that “human bonds” will mitigate and surpass the grinding years, during which they carry out the same orders and functions over and over.

“It’s not what you do in life, it’s the people you connect with. It’s expanding the sense of family.”

Somehow, the tedium of puppethood can be ignored, because people become people-people…and that’s sufficient, that’s what love is all about…you judge your value by what you can contribute to other marionettes…and the degree of appreciation you can garner from them…

I’ve written several articles about Ayn Rand and her work. No need to recapitulate my output here. Her 1943 novel still survives, as both the most hated and loved novel of the last three-quarters of a century.

Those who hate the book and want a hook for wounding it often say: the world Rand constructs isn’t real; it doesn’t and couldn’t exist; the people aren’t real, either.

How interesting. Novels are fiction, the last time I looked.

“Yes, but Rand is saying the world of her novels is the actual one.”

No, she’s saying her world is the underlying core of the real world. She’s claiming to reveal what’s percolating and boiling and steaming in back of mere social discourse and pretense and puppetry.

From people I’ve spoken to over the years, people who hate The Fountainhead, I would say they see themselves in a character in the novel, and they don’t like what they see.

For example, somewhere inside themselves, they see a no-hold-barred impulse for success without compromise, or they see a surrender to the flaccid norms of society and culture—and in either case, they’re disturbed.

Here is a sprinkling of quotes from Rand’s book. They challenge cultural platitude with a visceral and intellectual stroke of electricity. And that’s why The Fountainhead still lives, both for those love it or hate it:

Howard Roark (architect): “Every man creates his meaning and form and goal. Why is it so important—what others have done? Why does it become sacred by the mere fact of not being your own? Why is anyone and everyone right—so long as it’s not yourself?”

Roark: “I’ve chosen the work I want to do. If I find no joy in it, then I’m only condemning myself to sixty years of torture. And I can find the joy only if I do my work in the best way possible to me. But the best is a matter of standards—and I set my own standards. I inherit nothing. I stand at the end of no tradition. I may, perhaps, stand at the beginning of one.”

Roark: “I don’t intend to build in order to have clients; I intend to have clients in order to build.”

Rand: “Men hate passion, any great passion. Henry Cameron made a mistake: he loved his work.”

Dominque Francon: “Ask anything of men. Ask them to achieve wealth, fame, love, brutality, murder, self-sacrifice. But don’t ask them to achieve self-respect. They will hate your soul.”

Roark: I don’t make comparisons. I never think of myself in relation to anyone else. I just refuse to measure myself as part of anything.”

Ellsworth Toohey (newspaper columnist and social engineer, who sees his ultimate nemesis as Roark): “Happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient. Happy men have no time and no use for you. Happy men are free men. So kill their joy in living. Take away from them whatever is dear or important to them. Never let them have what they want. Make them feel that the mere fact of a personal desire is evil. Bring them to a state where saying ‘I want’ is no longer a natural right, but a shameful admission. Altruism is of great help in this. Unhappy men will come to you. They’ll need you. They’ll come for consolation, for support, for escape. Nature allows no vacuum. Empty man’s soul—and the space is yours to fill.”

Roark: “…the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone.”

Roark: “The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive.”

Roark: “Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.”

Roark: “As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egoism and altruism. Egoism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism—the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self…Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal—under the threat that sadism was his only alternative.”

These words are still capable of provoking thought—and not because they were merely intended to inflame or polarize.

And there are still people who will search for any reason under the sun to reject them—to avoid the need to read them, understand them, and make up their own minds about them.

(New piece up at my OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE blog entitled “I’m Putin, I’m the US president, I am Russia, hear me roar, I sit in the White House”)


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.

Suppose you’re an errant knight on your mission

Suppose you’re an errant knight on your mission

by Jon Rappoport

July 11, 2017

“The cosmos is a forgery of the individual.” (Visions of the Empire, Jon Rappoport)

If, late at night, or upon rising in the morning, a person can think of nothing that differentiates him from “the way the world thinks,” if he can imagine nothing that distinguishes him from “the culture,” then what does he have?

Well, he has passivity. He can be a spectator. He can be audience.

Or suppose he has a “vision” for his future that comes from somewhere else? It isn’t his. He imported it like a rug or a car or a block of cheese.

A personal vision implies action.

It doesn’t depend on a group.

A personal vision isn’t disconnected from self. It comes from self. It’s dreaming inside deep desire.

A personal vision is a person’s conscious entrance point into the world. It spells out a person’s difference from what “the world is proposing.”

Or…coming at this from a somewhat different angle:

“There are some people who hear the word CREATE and wake up, as if a new flashing music has begun. This lone word makes them see something majestic and untamed and astonishing. They feel the sound of a Niagara approaching. CREATE is a word that should be oceanic. It should shake and blow apart the pillars of the smug boredom of the soul. CREATE is about what the individual does when he is on fire and doesn’t care about concealing it. It’s about what the individual invents when he has thrown off the false front that is slowly strangling him. CREATE is about the end of mindless postponement. It’s about what happens when you burn up the pretty and petty little obsessions. It’s about emerging from the empty suit and empty machine of society that goes around and around and sucks away the vital bloodstream.”

Yes, that’s a little better.

Could you handle living as Gulliver in a land of Lilliputians?

Suppose you already are?

Suppose the Lilliputians are Gullivers who have misplaced that core fact?

Suppose the world is a giant repetitive game of tic-tac-toe, and you find yourself looking in from the outside, and you perceive your job is alerting the hypnotized players?

Suppose in the fog of your subconscious, there is a vision and a dream moving toward the surface, at which point, if you choose to pay attention, nothing will ever be the same?

Suppose you’re an errant knight on his mission, and you’re approaching, in a forest, a secret threshold, beyond which you’ll immediately apply all your years of training and discipline, to a series of mysteries also requiring you to respond with an undetermined number of absolutely spontaneous inventions, the potential for which has been waiting in silence inside you for centuries?

Suppose what has been commonly been called reality has been waiting for you to revolutionize it down to its core?

Suppose THESE questions are the actual substance of an education which is about to begin, and is solely in your hands?

Might that exceed a wide-screen movie at the multiplex and a slice of pizza?


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.

The world is not you

The world is not you

by Jon Rappoport

July 10, 2017

You meet a person who talks about elites’ war on the population, and this person, you realize, is doing two things: he’s speaking the truth; but he’s also canceling out his own life. It’s strange. It’s as if, in all his truth telling, he’s left a hole, and that hole is himself. The balance is gone. But it’s more than that. The decay and the disintegration of society is his excuse for his own absence. His own absence, even to himself.

You try to imagine what would happen if 100,000 people like him joined together in a great cause, and won. What would they do? It occurs to you that they wouldn’t suddenly reconstitute their own lives. They wouldn’t know how.

They wouldn’t be able to assert the value of the individual. They’d laid that aside and lost it along the way.

Societies and civilizations, if they have vitality, would be dedicated to the freedom and power and independence of the individual—and restoring THAT would be a noble cause.

When, in 1776, the American colonists declared independence, what was it for? What was the central core idea, the very best idea? And later, when the Constitution was written and ratified, what was the bottom line?

Liberation?

If so, for whom would that liberation be confirmed, for whom would it be acknowledged and protected?

Everyone, as a group? Or every individual?

As the decades after 1776 rolled on, and as more and more corruption set in, it became easier to think about the group than about the individual. It became easier for the individual to think about the group, rather than himself—in any profound way.

We are now living in the Time of the Blob. The Great Cheese Melt. Humans are perceived as groups. It’s a cultural imperative. Which group is preferred over which other group? Is the Cheddar Blob better than the Mozzarella Blob? Which side should one fight on?

From 1982-2001, I worked as a freelance reporter. When my articles were published, they appeared under the banner of a media organization. I gave it little thought, except when I couldn’t publish a piece because it was too controversial for the tastes and biases of editors. But once I broke away from that system and started my own site, I quickly realized that I was absolutely doing my own work, and I was the ultimate decision maker. And then I began to coalesce my ideas about The Individual.

Where is he? What are his best dreams?

Why is the culture trying to grind up the life-force of the individual?

Who will stand against THAT?

If so-called liberal institutions of higher learning suddenly dispensed with every shred of propaganda about groups and favored groups, what would they be left with? How many professors would be able to teach even an hour of coherent substance?

When you boil down the collectivist view of existence, it is a massive fraud. Persons pass, from mind to mind, empty ideas about The Group. The absence of these ideas’ true content is not a problem to them, because the sole action of passing and transmitting and “sharing” is the key feature. If that is culture, a donkey is a space ship pilot.

It always seemed to me that a person’s unique character and talent and desire were the foundation of a life. It always seemed to me that surrendering this foundation was a terrible mistake.

In a real culture, whatever can be done, voluntarily, to empower individuals to build and invent on that foundation is the central premise.

In the process of advancing such a culture, the individual would never lose sight of himself and the future he envisions. He would never lose sight of his deepest dreams. How could he? That is what he stands for, for himself and others.


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.

The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

by Jon Rappoport

July 9, 2017

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.

Beyond all political objectives, there is a simple fact: those group-mind addicts 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.

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.”

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. There is only 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 staged 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.

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, a 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.

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?

(New piece up at my OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE blog entitled “Maps of Consciousness as a Form of Mind Control”)


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.