Independence Day of the Soul

by Jon Rappoport

July 4, 2018

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

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.” “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.”

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.

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.


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?

Other pick up the shout.

And the banners begin to catch fire and melt. They drip 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 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?

Will he understand he has the power to create a new far-reaching reality of his own choosing?

WILL HE DECLARE HIS INDEPENDENCE?

THE INDEPENDENCE OF HIS CREATIVE SOUL?


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.

Is this the century of secession?

by Jon Rappoport

June 20, 2018

Here is the political question of our time: Will it be one future for all, or many futures side by side? Read on.

—Any movement toward secession is a good thing, no matter how ill-conceived. It puts a different idea in minds: defect, decentralize, opt out, strive to become more self-sufficient. This idea can spawn many new strategies, over the long run.

For example, there is a lot of noise about California seceding from the Union.

One plan would split the state up into three parts. This is currently the strongest initiative, because those three parts wouldn’t actually secede; they would become new states.

However, Congress has to OK the formation of new states, and it will never do so.

All this interesting and fertile chaos obscures something else that is happening in California. The Mercury News reports (4/24/18):

“At least 14 Southern California cities and two counties have passed ordinances, and in some cases filed lawsuits, against the state’s controversial sanctuary laws that largely prohibit local and state authorities from cooperating with federal immigration officers [who want to deport illegal immigrants].”

“While the anti-sanctuary wave is rolling across some of California’s most Republican strongholds [Orange and San Diego counties], they aren’t an aftershock from the 2016 election: Democrat Hillary Clinton trounced Trump in Orange County by 8 percentage points and San Diego County by 20 percentage points [if you believe the legitimacy of the vote count].”

According to the Mercury News, here are the local entities that have rebelled against California sanctuary-immigration policy:

Orange County Board of Supervisors
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
Beaumont — Riverside County
Dana Point — Orange County
Ripon — San Joaquin County
Los Alamitos — Orange County
Laguna Niguel — Orange County
San Juan Capistrano — Orange County
Aliso Viejo — Orange County
Mission Viejo — Orange County
Yorba Linda — Orange County
Newport Beach — Orange County
Westminster — Orange County
Huntington Beach — Orange County
Orange — Orange, County
Fountain Valley — Orange County
Escondido –San Diego County

This is where the action is. This movement has legs. It could spread even further.

For example, suppose these rebelling communities get together? Suppose a few leaders have working imaginations? Who knows what they might come up with?

Suppose a few communities in CA decide they don’t like the state’s mandatory child-vaccine law, and they want to refuse its provisions?

One idea (even an unworkable one) gives birth to other ideas. A contagion begins. For example, people consider the original notion of limited government and a Constitutional Republic. Unconscionable government meddlers are seen as meddlers and criminals. A wave builds. People experience glimpses of freedom. They hunger for more. They feel something new stirring in their bones.

They contemplate the possibility that doom is not inevitable.

What would 1776 look like, and how might it play out, today, in a state (California) that once celebrated cutting-edge innovation, before an elite fungal infection rolled in?

The best estimate of the 13 colonies’ population in 1776 is 2.5 million. A federal Republic was designed for a small group, not 325 million people. Jefferson envisioned a ladder of independent Republics—from village to ward to county to state to federal—each emphasizing freedom of the individual, each hamstringing the power of government to the strictest degree possible.

He was not alone. The whole freedom movement of the time was conscious of the danger of unchecked government and corporate control.

It fell to state legislatures to limit corporations by chartering them to do business. If a corporation harmed the public good, the legislature could, without a trial, exile it from the state. This was in line with the prevailing concept (eventually overturned by corrupt judges and business monopolists) that a corporation was not a person, and did not have the rights of an individual.

Any effort in the direction of DECENTRALIZATION is a good thing. We are long overdue in that regard.

And as far Europe is concerned—the countries who birthed the idea of individual freedom after centuries of struggle—from whom the American Founders took their political innovations—the present European Union is a lurching monster—it is a direct contradiction to the profound concept of liberty. It should be repealed on every front and summarily dumped and left at the side of the road—a relic of fascism that once posed as a purveyor of the public good.

DECENTRALIZATION really becomes fascinating when you consider the formation of intentional communities based on political ideas of every stripe. The inhabitants themselves decide the principles that apply. Some version of share and care and equality for all? A Constitutional Republic? A monarchy? Experiments proliferate and stand and fall on their own. With the advance of technology, it’s possible to outfit a local community with its own power supply, its own digital platforms, etc., on behalf of increased self-sufficiency.

The octopoid reach of overweening central governments loses strength. New cultures evolve, side by side. Whatever shapes the political structures of communities take, the underlying effort is pro-independence.

That would be authentic secession.

The vector moves toward the individual and away from the collective.

On the education front, this is already happening, as parents, disgusted with the crime, drugs, social indoctrination, and political correctness in public brainwashing centers, are opting for home schooling.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know the so-called Health Freedom movement has been expanding for many decades. It is based on the concept that every person has the right to manage his own health and seek out unconventional treatments. Despite government efforts to corral the population into Big Pharma medicine, citizens have broken out of that mold. In a big way.

Then there is “alternative news.” Untold numbers of decentralized outlets have bloomed across the world. Of course, they are labeled “fake news,” because the mainstream monopolists are terrified they are losing their grip on the minds of populations. In 2001, when I launched my site, nomorefakenews.com, I was acutely aware of mainstream brainwashing in the arena of information. I defected from print journalism and went out on my own. Seventeen years later, I’m still here.

Decentralization on every front is occurring. It isn’t always pretty, and it isn’t always on target, but that’s what you get when you get freedom. Life pushes through worn ground and explores new possibilities.

It all comes back to the individual mind. Is that mind free and wide-ranging or is it programmed? When free minds cooperate, the choices are extensive, and success is possible in many directions.

DECENTRALIZATION IS ALL ABOUT IMAGINATION. That is the key. When individuals conceive the futures they want, by imagining and projecting them, doors and windows into the future open. Not one future for all—but many futures side by side.

One future for all is the totalitarian nightmare. The Globalist nightmare.

Cracking that monolith is the job of this century.


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.

Facebook censorship: the grotesque mainstream solution

Facebook censorship: the grotesque mainstream solution

by Jon Rappoport

April 11, 2018

The problem with Facebook started a long time ago. They used their money to promote their social media operations, and tons of users jumped on board, believing that conventional rules of free speech applied.

That was a mistake.

The mistake was on the level of believing the military-industrial complex is only interested in legitimate defense of the nation; or believing the pharmaceutical industry is only interested in alleviating existing illness with safe drugs.

Some lawyers and scholars are trying to “correct” Facebook. But beware: most of them are arguing that, since the Internet is a new platform, far beyond the ability of the Founding Fathers to have anticipated, we now have to change the meaning of the 1st Amendment, in order to make social media “more responsible” about the content they permit. In other words, Facebook should eliminate “more fake news.” This is the road to disaster, as any sane person can see.

Who decides what is fake? Government appointed fact checkers? The CIA? Either of the two major political parties? A biased hate speech organization?

These scholars and attorneys want social media to be defined as “public square, town hall, news media”—but not so public that all political views are allowed through the door. No. They only want “reasonable” content, to protect “robust debate in a democracy.” This is pure baloney.

We’re also seeing increasing calls for government regulation of social media. This means more censorship. We’re witnessing that in California, where State Senator Richard Pan has introduced a bill (SB 1424), designed to force all Internet activity based in California to use designated fact checkers and issue warnings about fake news.

It may seem like a good move to redefine social media giants as “more than private companies,” but that direction is dangerous. In the main, it’s not being shaped by true free-speech advocates, it’s controlled by mainstream operatives who want their news to dominate the scene.

A 10/11/17 Wired article contains this stunning piece: “’You cannot run a democratic system unless you have a well-informed public, or a public prepared to defer to well-informed elites,’ says Larry Kramer, president of the Hewlett Foundation and an expert in constitutional law. ‘And we are now rapidly heading toward neither. Without one or the other, our constitutional system and our liberal democracy will end, perhaps not imminently, but over time’.”

Defer to well-informed elites? Really? This is the mainstream argument right out in the open: The vaunted traditional news outlets speak the truth and we must listen to them. We must censor all the extraneous “noise” on the Internet. The NY Times and the Washington Post and CNN and CBS would never lie. They vet their stories and fact check them. They are objective. They light the lamp of truth and point the way. They protect democracy.

To mainstream scholars, improving social media means destroying the 1st Amendment under the guise of “adjusting and updating it.”

Eliminating hate speech includes censoring material that contradicts the “progressive culture” on issues like immigration, open borders, gun control, vaccination, and gender identity.

“Free speech” is replaced by “better speech.”

“I don’t like what you say” is replaced by “you have no right to say it.”

The very popular pro-Trump Diamond and Silk duo recently reacted to Facebook censorship: “…giving us the run around, Facebook gave us another bogus reason why Millions of people who have liked and/or followed our page no longer receives notification and why our page, post and video reach was reduced by a very large percentage. Here is the reply from Facebook. Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM: ‘The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community’.”

I guess Diamond and Silk are part of the dangerous noise that distracts the American people from “responsible journalism” so necessary to maintaining a robust democracy.

Yes, that must be it.

As far as I can tell, the following quote about the news was written before the Internet and Facebook existed, and therefore—heaven forbid—was actually aimed at mainstream sources:

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. . . . I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors.” (Thomas Jefferson, June 11, 1807)

Censor Jefferson! He’s contributing to doubt and disbelief in our most trusted streams of information. Ban him from Facebook! He’s unsafe to the community. He’s a corrosive influence. He’s obstructing democracy. He’s a conspiracy lunatic. The new and improved 1st Amendment doesn’t protect him. How can we conduct intelligent and proper debate on serious matters in the face of such blanket condemnations which he spews?

Yes, ban him, so we can be safe again.


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.

What is the immune system of the mind?

What is the immune system of the mind?

by Jon Rappoport

March 21, 2018

We’re familiar with the body’s immune system. It mounts a reaction to intruders, and in the process it swings into a full inflammatory response. Swelling occurs. Fever. The result, if the immune system is healthy, is the banishing of the intruders and a return to well-being. The body gains a victory—and the person builds confidence in his ability to stave off attacks.

The mind has the potential to operate in a similar fashion. But there are prerequisites. The mind needs basic ideas and principles on which to erect its response.

These basics are inherent in a healthy mind: the desire for freedom, for self-sufficiency, for the creation of a desired future, for committed work in that direction.

In the absence of these strong fundamentals, the mind will not mount a direct immune response against intruders. It will be clueless.

What are the intruders? Well, they are precisely the external influences that lessen, minimize, squelch, and sideline the inherent basics.

Whatever would challenge freedom, self-sufficiency, committed work on behalf of creating a desired future—THESE are the factors the mind’s immune system responds against.

But if the mind has been tuned to DEPENDENCE, all bets are off. The immune system is confused. It doesn’t respond swiftly and decisively. It is looking for, and favoring, more dependence, and so it is essentially working backwards. It has already let the opponent in the door.

When intruding ideas enter—ideas that try to reject freedom and self-sufficiency—the mind’s immune system allows them deep inside. There is no defense. There is no full inflammatory response.

When the mind is fortified with the basics, it sees these destructive ideas for what they are, and it nullifies them. There may be a period of crisis, during which the mind is sorting out thorny deceptions and coming to terms with them. But finally, it sees with clarity, and it wins.

What now passes for education plays a role here. If schools downplay the strength of the mind, if they offer a flabby flaccid curriculum over a period of years, the mind tends toward surrender. And the stepchild of surrender is dependence. Game over.

In the culture, these things used to be understood fairly well. That day is gone.

Now, it’s up to the individual.


Exit From the Matrix

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


(New piece up at my OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE blog entitled
“Physics, free will, and imagination”)


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.

Would the government let Jesus cure cancer?

Would the government let Jesus cure cancer?

by Jon Rappoport

March 14, 2018

In the 1990s, I watched a federal trial in a Los Angeles courtroom. The defendant was charged with selling medical drugs without a license to practice medicine.

The defendant was prepared to argue that a) the substance he was selling was naturally produced in the body and b) it was effective.

The prosecution moved to exclude such testimony, on the grounds that it was irrelevant.

The judge agreed. Therefore, the trial was nasty, brutish, and short. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to prison for several years.

This is how the federal bureaucracy operates. “Do you have a government-issued license to heal? No? You’re a criminal. End of story.”

I believe that if Jesus of Nazareth were walking the Earth today, in the United States, he would be arrested on the same grounds.

This would be particularly so if he were curing cancer.

Imagine this extreme case: In a stadium packed with 50,000 people who have been diagnosed with cancer, Jesus of Nazareth waves his hand and cures all of them in a few seconds.

Now he is threatening the profits of many companies, to say nothing of the power of the government, which backs the chemo-radiation-surgery monopoly to the hilt.

So he is arrested. He is put on trial. He opts to defend himself without an attorney. He tells the court that curing cancer is no crime.

The prosecuting attorney objects. “Your Honor,” he says, “whether or not this man has cured cancer is beside the point. He has no license to practice medicine. That is why we are here today. We are simply establishing that a) he was practicing medicine and b) he has no government-issued license. That is the scope of this proceeding.”

The judge agrees. The verdict is issued. Guilty.

Of course, on another front, the major media, who depend for their existence on pharmaceutical advertising, take the ball and run with it. The networks and major newspapers seek out “experts,” who emphatically state that what Jesus of Nazareth “performed” in the stadium was mere hypnotism. It was placebo effect. Whatever sudden “remissions” may have occurred are just temporary. Tragically, the cancers will return.

Not only that, these 50,000 people have effectively been sidetracked and diverted from seeking “real care from real doctors.” With chemo, with radiation, with surgery, they would have stood a chance of surviving and living long normal lives.

Other media pundits send up this flag: “Many of those present in the stadium were clinging bitterly to their religion. They refuse to accept science. They are living in the past. They favor superstition over real medical care. In fact, they are threatening the whole basis of healthcare, since other confused and deluded Americans may now turn away from doctors and seek snake-oil salesmen and preachers for healing.”

From the highest perches of political power in this country, the word quietly goes out to the media: don’t follow up on those people who were in the stadium; don’t try to track them; don’t compile statistics on their survival rates; move on to other stories (distractions); let this whole madness die down.

But among the citizenry, an awareness spreads: the government is controlling healing through its issuance of licenses. That’s how the government is essentially protecting one form of “healing” and enabling it to become an all-encompassing cartel.

What would be the alternative to licenses?

Contracts.

Contracts are agreements entered into by consenting adults, who assume responsibility for the outcomes. In the case of healing, a contract would specify that people have a right to be wrong.

Let’s say two consenting adults, Jim and Frank, agree to allow Frank to treat Jim for his arthritis with water from a well on Frank’s land.

The two men acknowledge that no liability will be attached to the outcome. In other words, whether Jim gets better or gets worse, no one is going file a suit. No one is going to go to the government for redress of wrongs.

The well water may be wonderful or it may be completely useless. Both men understand and acknowledge that. But they assert a right to try the treatment, because they are free.

Immediately people say, “This is ridiculous. Water can’t cure arthritis. Frank is cheating Jim. Jim is a victim. He needs to see a doctor. He needs to go on arthritis drugs.”

No, Jim doesn’t have to do anything. He is free.

To put it another way, Jim has the right to be right or wrong. It’s his decision, which is beyond the scope of any authority.

If government tries to remove that right from all of us, it is essentially saying it knows what is correct, it knows what is true, it knows what we need and require, and it’s going to give it to us even if it has to shove it down our throats. Does that sound like freedom to you?

If Jesus of Nazareth lived in the United States today, and if he went around curing cancer, he would be arrested. He wouldn’t be charged with blasphemy or treason. He would be charged with something much simpler and more mundane: practicing medicine without a license.

And he would be convicted and sentenced.

Because the government, in its throne of corruption, in its partnership with corporations, wants to monopolize proprietary and illegal interests.


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.

Bill Gates vs. freedom

Bill Gates vs. freedom

by Jon Rappoport

March 6, 2018

“Under the surface of this global civilization, a great and secret war is taking place. The two opponents hold different conceptions of Reality. On one side, those who claim that humans operate purely on the basis of stimulus-response, like machines; on the other side, those who believe there is a gigantic thing called freedom. Phase One of the war is already over. The stimulus-response people have won. In Phase Two, people are waking up to the far-reaching and devastating consequences of the Pavlovian program.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

“From the moment the first leader of the first clan in human history took charge, he busied himself with this question: ‘What can I say and do that will make my people react the way I want them to.’ He was the first Pavlov. He was the first psychologist, the first propagandist, the first mind-control boss. His was the first little empire. Since then, only the means and methods have changed.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

A thought-form is a picture-plus concept in the mind that tends to guide behavior.

A dominant thought-form in Earth civilization today is: universal rule through gigantic, highly organized structures; e.g., mega-corporations that owe no allegiance to any nation.

Imagine a few thousand such corporations with interlocking boards and directorates; colluding with super-regional governments and their honeycombed bureaucracies; combined with regional armies, intelligence agencies and technological elites; hooked to a global surveillance operation; in control of media; cooperating with the largest organized religions on Earth.

Imagine all this as essentially one organization—and you see the thought-form in its wide-screen version.

Top-down as top-down has never been before.

Functions and compartments defined and specialized at every level, and coordinated in order to carry out policy decisions.

As to why such a thought-form should come to dominate human affairs, the simplest explanation is: because it works.

But beneath that answer, for those who can see, there is much, much more.

Individuals come to think that “effective” and “instrumental” and “efficient” are more important than any other issues.

Keep building, keep expanding, keep consolidating gains—and above all else, keep organizing.

Such notions and thought-forms replace life itself.

The Machine has come to the fore. All questions are now about how the individual sees himself fitting into the structure and function of The Machine.

Are human beings becoming social constructs?

Populations are undergoing a quiet revolution. We can cite some of the reasons: television; education; job training and employment requirements; the Surveillance State; government organizations who follow a “zero tolerance” policy; inundation with advertising.

Yes, it’s all geared to produce people who are artificial constructs.

And this is just the beginning. There are a number of companies (see, for example, affectiva.com) who are dedicated to measuring “audience response” to ads and other public messages. I’m talking about electronic measuring. The use of bracelets, for instance, that record students’ emotional responses to teachers in classrooms, in real time. (Bill Gates shoveled grant money into several of these studies.)

Then there is facial recognition geared to the task of revealing how people are reacting when they sit at their computers.

Push-pull, ring the bell, watch the dog drool for his food. Stimulus-response.

It’s not much of a stretch to envision, up the road a few years, whole populations more than willing to volunteer for this kind of mass experimentation. But further than that, we could see society itself embrace, culturally, the ongoing measurement of stimuli and responses.

“Yes, I want to live like this. I want to be inside the system. I want to be analyzed. I want to be evaluated. I want to accept the results. I want to be part of the new culture. Put bracelets on me. Measure my eye movements, my throat twitches that indicate what I’m thinking, and my brain waves. Going to a movie should include the experience of wearing electrodes that record my second-to-second reactions to what’s happening on the screen. I like that. I look forward to it…”

In such a culture, “Surveillance State” would take on a whole new dimension.

“Sir, I want to report a malfunction in my television set. I notice the monitoring equipment that tracks my responses to programs has gone on the blink. I want it reattached as soon as possible. Can you fix it remotely, or do you need to send a repair person out to the house? I’ll be here all day…”

People will take pride in their ongoing role as social constructs, just as they now take pride in owning a quality brand of car.

The thought process behind this, in so far as any thought at all takes place, goes something like: “If I’m really a bundle of responses to stimuli and nothing more, then I want to be inside a system that champions that fact and records it…I don’t want to be left out in the cold.”

Here is a sample school situation of the near future: for six months, Mr. Jones, the teacher, has been videotaped, moment by moment, as he instructs his class in English. All the students have been wearing electronic bracelets, and their real time emotional responses (interest, boredom, aversion) have also been recorded. A team of specialists has analyzed the six months of video, matching it up, second by second, to the students’ responses. The teacher is called in for a conference.

“Mr. Jones, we now know what you’re doing that works and what you’re doing that doesn’t work. We know exactly what students are positively reacting to, and what bores them. Therefore, we’re going to put you into a re-ed seminar, where you’ll learn precisely how to teach your classes from now on, to maximize your effectiveness. We’ll show you how to move your hands, what tone of voice to use, how to stand, when to make eye contact, and so on…”

Mr. Jones is now a quacking duck. He will be trained how to quack “for the greater good.” He is now a machine toy. Whatever is left of his passion, his intelligence, his free will, his spontaneous insights, his drive to make students actually understand what they’re learning…all subordinated for the sake of supposed efficiency.

Think this is an extreme fantasy? See the Chicago Tribune, June 12, 2012, “Biosensors to monitor students’ attentiveness”:

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has poured more than $4 billion into efforts to transform public education in the U.S., is pushing to develop an ‘engagement pedometer.’ Biometric devices wrapped around the wrists of students would identify which classroom moments excite and interest them — and which fall flat.”

“The foundation has given $1.4 million in grants to several university researchers to begin testing the devices in middle-school classrooms this fall [2012].”

“The biometric bracelets, produced by a Massachusetts startup company, Affectiva Inc, send a small current across the skin and then measure subtle changes in electrical charges as the sympathetic nervous system responds to stimuli. The wireless devices have been used in pilot tests to gauge consumers’ emotional response to advertising.”

“Gates officials hope the devices, known as Q Sensors, can become a common classroom tool, enabling teachers to see, in real time, which kids are tuned in and which are zoned out.”

“Existing measures of student engagement, such as videotaping classes for expert review or simply asking kids what they liked in a lesson, ‘only get us so far,’ said Debbie Robinson, a spokeswoman for the Gates Foundation. To truly improve teaching and learning, she said, ‘we need universal, valid, reliable and practical instruments’ such as the biosensors.”

“The Gates Foundation has spent two years videotaping 20,000 classroom lessons and breaking them down, minute by minute, to analyze how each teacher presents material and how those techniques affect student test scores.”

“Clemson received about $500,000 in Gates funding. Another $620,000 will support an MIT scientist, John Gabrieli, who aims to develop a scale to measure degrees of student engagement by comparing biosensor data to functional MRI brain scans [!] (using college students as subjects).”

When you boil it down, the world-view represented here has nothing to do with “caring about students.” It has everything to do with the Pavlovian view of humans as biological machines.

What input yields what response? How can people be shaped into predictable constructs?

As far as Gates is concerned, the underlying theme, as always, is: control.

In this new world, the process of thinking and comparing and independently judging, and the freedom to make individual choices…well, for whatever that was worth, we can’t encourage it for a whole society. It’s too unpredictable. We don’t have time for that sort of thing. No, we have to achieve reduction. We have to seek out lowest common denominators.

This is what universal surveillance is all about; the observation of those denominators and the variances from them—the outlying and therefore dangerous departures from the norm.

“Well, we’ve tracked Mr. Jones’ classroom for a year now, and we’ve collated all the measurements of reactions from the students. It was a wonderful study. But we did notice one thing. All the students showed similar patterns of reactions over time…except two students. We couldn’t fit them into the algorithms. They seemed to be responding oppositely. It was almost as if they were intentionally defecting from the group. This signals some kind of disorder. We need a name for it. Is it Oppositional Defiance Disorder, or is it new? We recommend attaching electrodes to those two students’ skulls, so we can get a better readout of their brain activity in real time.”

You see, everything must be analyzed on the basis of stimulus response. Those two students are suffering from a brain problem. They must be. Because if they aren’t, if they have the ability to choose and decide how to respond, then they have free will, and that can’t be measured. Much deeper, that also suggests an X-factor in humans, wherein the flow of chemicals and atoms and quarks and mesons and photons don’t tell the whole story. The rest of the story would imply the existence of something that is…non-material…above and beyond push-pull cause and effect.

The gatekeepers of this world are obsessed with ruling that out. They guard Reality itself, which is to say, their conception of Reality. They are willing to spend untold amounts of money to make that Pavlovian conception universally accepted and universally loved.

Because they own that conception. They are the self-appointed title holders. They are the kings of that domain.

I feel obligated to inform them that their domain is much, much smaller than they think it is. And in the fullness of time, which is very long, the domain is going to fall and crack and collapse and disintegrate. And all their horses and all their men won’t be able to put it back together.

Eventually, a man like Bill Gates will be forgotten. He’ll be a small footnote on a dusty page in a crumbling book in a dark room on a remote island.

A morbid venal fool who chased, for a brief moment, fool’s gold.

There is an irreducible thing. It’s called freedom. It is native to every individual.

Sometimes it rears its head in the middle of the night, and the dreamer awakes.

And he asks himself: what is my freedom for?

And then he begins a voyage that no device can record, measure, or analyze.

If he pursues it long enough, it takes him out of the labyrinth.

Pavlov wrote: “Mankind will possess incalculable advantages and extraordinary control over human behavior when the scientific investigator will be able to subject his fellow men to the same external analysis he would employ for any natural object…”

Basically, Pavlov was promoting the idea that whatever an individual perceives and feels about his own experience is a confused mess and an obstruction.

Rather, the individual should ignore all that tripe, and instead, allow himself to be a “natural object,” see himself as a clean and simple response mechanism, as planned inputs cause him to behave in various ways.

In other words, then he will have no life.

Bill Gates and other elite planners are working toward this end.

When Ray Kurzweil talks about hooking brains up to super-computers, he is envisioning a process of downloading that goes beyond choice. Somehow, automatically, the brain and the individual (he apparently believes they are the same thing) will receive inputs that translate into knowledge and even talent. This is another fatuous version of Pavlov.

In Brave New World, Huxley wrote: “Hot tunnels alternated with cool tunnels. Coolness was wedded to discomfort in the form of hard X-rays. By the time they were decanted the embryos had a horror of cold. They were predestined to emigrate to the tropics, to be miner[s] and acetate silk spinners and steel workers. Later on their minds would be made to endorse the judgment of their bodies. ‘We condition them to thrive on heat’, concluded Mr. Foster. ‘Our colleagues upstairs will teach them to love it’.”

Stimulus-response.

If researchers developed this technology, who could doubt that elite planners would push it forward? It would be the culmination of their dream.

The freedom of the individual, his innate capacity to make wide-ranging choices, is the monkey wrench in the program. It is anti-stimulus-response.

This is why you would have to search far and wide to find, in one school, anywhere, on any level, a course that examines and promotes individual freedom.

It is anathema to the plan.

It is the silver bullet for the vampire.

Freedom comes from Within the individual, not from Without.

On the level of political control, freedom emerged and broke through during centuries of struggle.

Now, and in the future, every individual carries that torch.

So it is incumbent on the individual to understand the scope and meaning and power of his own freedom, and to decide for himself what his freedom is FOR.

What will he choose to launch from that great space?


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.

Australian anti-vaxxers provide new model for the world

Australian anti-vaxxers provide new model for the world

by Jon Rappoport

March 4, 2018

Out of the ashes of government tyranny comes a solution.

In the Australian state of Queensland, childcare facilities can refuse to allow unvaccinated children to attend, so…

Parents there have formed their own community, which has already grown to 800 members. As ABC (Australia) reports:

“Sunshine Coast vaccine refuser and leader of the Natural Immunity Community, Allona Lahn, said her anti-vaccine network had grown to 800 members and was becoming stronger since the regulations were introduced.”

“’Out of sheer necessity we’ve created a community base to support families — we’ve had no choice other than to start our own social services’.”

“Ms Lahn said the network with like-minded families included their own childcare, schools and health services away from the mainstream.”

“’We organise group childcare arrangements and we’re now devising our own combined homeschooling system,’ she said.”

“’We use health practitioners within the anti-vaccine networks around Australia and ‘anti-vaccination-friendly’ doctors in the community’.”

“Ms Lahn said network members were turning away from mainstream health services because they faced intimidation and coercion.”

This is decentralization par excellence.

If like-minded parents in other countries take notice and launch their own communities, who knows how strong this movement could become?

Islands of resistance—but more than that. New answers, new strategies, new victories. And ongoing proof that parents can raise healthy children without vaccinations.

That proof is the dagger to the incessant lies about vaccines being absolutely necessary. Mainstream media promote those lies day and night—but the truth is, parents can and do raise unvaccinated children with strong immune systems, which is the natural defense against harm from disease.

The medical establishment has done NO proper, long-term studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children’s health outcomes. And the real reason is: they don’t want to face the results of such studies. They rightly fear the facts that would emerge.

I’m sure Allona Lahn, the leader of the Queensland network, doesn’t think of herself as a hero. She’s just doing what she knows is right, and she and her compatriot parents are, above all, protecting their children from the well-established toxic effects of vaccines. But she is a hero.

Every aware parent should salute her.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, 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.