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.

Collectivist mind control: “save the planet”

Collectivist mind control: “save the planet”

by Jon Rappoport

August 6, 2017

“The planet wouldn’t need saving if willing prosecutors had gone after high-level criminals (corporate, banking, war-mongering) with hammer and tongs. Now, the very people who escaped such prosecution have emerged as the leaders of the ‘save the planet’ movement. That’s called a clue.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

The word “collectivism” sounds old-fashioned today. It’s supposed to.

It’s supposed to sound like a label from a bygone age when people were combing US government offices for hidden Soviet spies.

Collectivism is tied to other obsolete slogans like “Better dead than Red” and “America, love it or leave it.” In other words, we’re supposed to think collectivism was simply a trendy idea that ran out of steam.

You know, a bunch of crazy paranoids were warning everybody the sky was falling, but it wasn’t. They yelled COLLECTIVISM IS COMING, WATCH OUT, but nothing happened.

Well, the truth is, collectivism won its war.

So it changed its name. It became a thousand names behind a thousand masks.

If we win this fight to preserve freedom in America, will people understand what The Individual means? Or will we they be so brainwashed that they’ll preach and teach freedom for The Group, the Collective?

Consider the actions and words of the last few presidents. Have any of them made The Individual the basis of their rhetoric?

The answer, of course, is no. And Obama has been the worst of them in that regard. Obama is, you might say, the natural evolution of the eradication of The Individual. He’s focused all his attention on groups.

He bemoaned the unemployment rate in “the public sector,” which is the drone-core of the collective. He emphatically demeaned the individual entrepreneur (“you didn’t build that”).

Under Obama, the collective became a messianic force. As if, in its vague and undefined way, it would save us all.

Yet, for every significant enterprise in human history, the individual vision comes first.

It is the launching pad.

The energy and inspiration of one person is the thing without which nothing happens.

Where is this taught in our schools? Where do we hear this in churches? What corporations explain this? How many parents make this clear to their children?

The major media certainly don’t bother with it. Psychologists don’t study it or comment on it. Who is funding studies on the power and vision of the free individual?

The Individual is supposedly passe.

An overwhelming number of Americans can no longer conceive of themselves as free and powerful individuals.

I, for one, think about the free and independent individual every day. The very idea is a North Star that allows a person to navigate his life.

In uncountable ways, we are being drawn into the orbit of The Group. One group or another. We are told, directly or subtly, that everything we do is connected to other people, and that connection is the defining impulse which shows us what we are. We are THAT and nothing else.

Why did George Orwell write 1984 about Winston Smith, one individual? Because he wanted to show the effect of the all-consuming State on its primary target: one person. Is that the way the book is read and taught now?

Operation Mind Control, or collectivism, has triumphed so fully in our time that most people can’t imagine themselves as distinct and separate and free and powerful individuals. They feel guilt when they try. They feel they are betraying the Mass. They feel they are breaking the law. They feel they must retreat back to a position of safety. They feel that, if they step out in front of The Group, they are losing their innate “religion.”

Through devious means, the media twists “individuals” into “lone individuals,” a phrase we’re all too familiar with. These are the mysterious psychopaths who commit vicious crimes.

According to collectivism, to be saved IS to recognize that one is a cell inside an interdependent collection of cells. That is the premise. That’s the trendy thing to believe.

What do you think Globalism and the New World Order are all about? They are the apotheosis of The Group, disguised as humanitarian service to The Good.

This is a cold calculated propaganda operation. It sells because people, when they become aware of suffering, want to reach out and end it. That impulse is preyed upon by the Globalist vultures, twisted, redirected, and harvested.

On a personal level, many individuals become aware they can discover and invent visions of grand achievements and futures; then they hesitate; they balk, they feel alone; they don’t have the staying power to rebel against the Mass. They find a group into which they can retreat. They remain there. They hide from themselves there. They hope their self-induced amnesia will last. They invent reasons and stories and myths to explain their retreat. They seek confirmation they’ve made the right choice. They find other individuals like themselves, who’ve surrendered. They form bonds. They collectivize.

Now we are told the individual’s highest aspiration or vision must be service to the group. Thus the whole matter of “the greatest life” is presumed to be settled. It’s no longer worth re-thinking.

This, of course, is propaganda. In many ways, from many angles, it’s taught and implied in our schools. Children learn to parrot the appropriate phrases. They utter them proudly.

Look at how “one world striving together” has been used by Globalists in the last 65 years. We have, for example, the GATT Treaty, which gave birth to the World Trade Organization. And we have lesser treaties, like NAFTA and CAFTA, which were designed along the same lines.

These treaties have led to the enormous outsourcing of jobs and the flight of industrial factories. As Sir James Goldsmith pointed out, this is a completely criminal and insane policy. It means that the industrial countries have had to compete on impossible terms with countries where workers will produce goods for next to nothing.

It is economic suicide—planned economic suicide. Behind the psyop, this is the real and brutal face of the slogan, “We’re all in this together on planet Earth.”

From the World Trade Organization has come the pernicious standard called Harmonization. It means that food policy and medical policy and health policy and trade policy—and eventually military policy and limited free-speech policy and judicial policy—are all arranged on an international basis. No more sovereign choices and no more sovereign nations. Again, this is the real and brutal face of the collectivist slogan, “We’re all in this together on planet Earth.”

At the heart of the operation is the premise that the free and powerful individual, seeking his highest vision, seeking his greatest achievements, is defunct.

Some people, reading this, will think I’m against any group action, that I don’t believe group action has ever been effective. They miss my point entirely. I’m not talking about REAL group action. I’m talking about ENGINEERED group action devised to destroy life, under the guise of saving it.

And most of all, I’m talking about the individual human being SURRENDERING to the idea that he is unimportant, that he only counts in reference to other people, that he has no real power, no real imagination, no great vision, no great status.

Status ultimately is reserved for the collective.

In my life, I’ve known people, and I’ve seen people, who’ve launched and built and created enterprises of one kind or another…and then turned around and preached the primacy of the group.

Instead of standing as an example of what one person can do, a TRUTHFUL example, they betrayed all that and became advocates for the collective.

Some of these people have been co-opted, but many just failed to understand their own psychology. And then there were people who refused to think of others as individuals:

“Well, yes, I built that, but I know you can’t. So I’m here to help you, to put you into the mass, the group, the collective.”

Could they be more patronizing?

“Yes, I’m a big person, but you’re a little person. Don’t worry. I’ll show you the way. WE’RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.”

And standing nearby, the real movers and shakers in the Globalist Club are cheering.

They live for the erasure of the individual. And they have lots of friends.

But here’s an irreversible clue. They don’t have THE INDIVIDUAL.

They never will.

This is why the father of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays, wrote: “It is sometimes possible to change the attitudes of millions but impossible to change the attitude of one man.”

Consider this idea: a college is formed on the basis of one question, aimed at each entering student: WHAT DO YOU REALLY WANT TO CREATE IN YOUR LIFE?

For four years, every student wrestles with that question, writes about it, talks about it—and every course comes back to that point of view. History, literature, biology, logic, mathematics—it’s all framed around the student learning and using that learning to answer the one burning question that will guide his future.

As an individual.

As an individual, shaking off the dead coils of The Collective.


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.

If the EU goes down, all life ceases to exist

If the EU goes down, all life ceases to exist

by Jon Rappoport

July 16, 2017

I’ll get to the European Union in a minute, but first a bit of background.

System building—how do you do it? In particular, how do you build a perverse structure?

There are three sequential steps:

One: Secretly create the system.

Two: Once it’s up and running and established, act as if you’re a mere participant in the system.

Three: Claim that the system is absolutely necessary, and without it, things would collapse.

When those three steps have been accomplished, you can add other flourishes. For example, sometimes you can get away with saying the system was never created at all; it arose organically because there was a need for it. That’s a good one.

THE EU IS SUCH A SYSTEM.

The propaganda: “It wasn’t planned from the top. It came about as a response to the need for peace among nations, the need for a common market and a uniform currency, the need for an end to brutal nationalism, etc.”

Actually, the EU was created as an extension of World War 2 by other means. Hitler’s dream of a united Europe was accomplished, with a reborn Germany as the economic powerhouse. But other key players were involved: the Vatican, the City Of London, Swiss banks, etc. And after 1973, the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission. Globalists all.

The EU’s current support of the migrant flood into Europe is a case of: this is how we erase borders, destroy the traditions of separate cultures, take down separate nations once and for all, and make Europe into a single entity.

Brexit was “a disturbance in The Force,” but it is being used to advantage by the EU. In actual game theory (not the ludicrous version taught in universities), you must have threats to the system, in the wake of which the system survives. This “proves” the structure is sound and necessary, and continues to meet the needs of the people.

The EU is painted as a kind of heroic soldier who has endured many battles. This picture sells.

As time passes, expect more and more news stories featuring the propaganda theme, “The EU is on the comeback, stronger than ever.”

The truth is, the EU could vanish tomorrow, and the individual nations of Europe would find ways to connect, cooperate, and do business.

In fact, one or two adventurous countries could change the face of Europe (which tells you why the EU tries so hard to pass so many binding regulations that apply to all its members). Here is an example:

Suppose one European country decided to cancel all the odious EU regulations restricting the sale and use of nutritional supplements? Suppose the whole area of nutrition was turned over to the free choice of every citizen?

You can bet your bottom franc or pound that this nation would suddenly undergo an economic renaissance. Nutritional companies by the hundreds would set up shop. Citizens from all over Europe would move there. Jobs would multiply. In turn, this country would become a haven for all sorts of natural health practitioners and their clients.

Watching this happen, other European countries would follow suit. Suddenly, health freedom would become an economic tiger.

Big Pharma, one of the driving forces behind the EU, would be exposed as a pernicious monopoly. Never a bad thing.

Who knows how many other areas of the economy (aka free market) would suddenly reappear, free of repressive regulations?

What about GMO crops? From what I can discover, 50 GMO crops are permitted in Europe. A nation can submit a request to the EU to ban a GMO crop, and the EU makes the final decision. Suppose—if the EU vanished—one country stood up on its hind legs and declared: “We are banning ALL GMOs. If you live here, all your food will be non-GMO. That is our commitment.”

Do you think that might result in many people moving to that country?

Do you think the mega-agri GMO corporations favor the EU? Of course they do, because they believe that, in the long run, they can exert sufficient influence to have their way—whereas on a continent of separate and autonomous nations, the risk factor would be higher.

All ruthless mega-corporations embrace the EU. That is their preferred system: predators cooperating with other predators. Eventually, you look at the EU and the worst corporations in Europe, and you can’t tell the difference. They’re blood brothers.

Breaking up and dissolving the EU would smell very much like freedom, if enough citizens could remember the scent.

The EU is betting it can sustain control; its program of opening borders and letting in what amounts to a massive crime wave will somehow be given a pass by Europe’s traditional population. The EU is betting it has reduced the people of the continent to such a degree of passivity that any insult is accepted.

“The people don’t want freedom, they want the system.”

That’s a risky gamble.

The EU is showing its teeth for all to see. It’s essentially assaulting the population and daring it to rise up in rebellion.

Which is another aspect of real game theory: launch a series of insults and challenges and tests to those under your rule and see if you can grind them down further and further.

Europe was the cradle of individual liberty. Not China, not India, not Argentina, not Japan, not Bolivia, not Egypt. Europe. That’s why the Globalist EU has Europe in its sights and wants to flatten it.


The Matrix Revealed

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


The biggest systems of control are often built after the biggest wars. Those who engineer and finance those wars, on both sides, understand this. They draw up those systems, in the ashes of the prior conflict. It was always their intention. Just as key members of the Rockefeller Council on Foreign Relations were tasked with designing the Union Nations before World War 2 was finished, key Globalist players were already laying out the roadmap to the European Union at the same time.

You could say World War 2 was instigated and fought for the very purpose of bringing in these huge systems of post-war control.

War creates the perceived need for the systems.

Make no mistake about it, the ultimate plan is to erase all separate nations and turn them into distant memories.

Freedom would be the other distant memory.

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.

Robots are inventing their own languages

Robots are inventing their own languages

The programming and design of artificial intelligence

by Jon Rappoport

July 14, 2017

Along with assurances that we’re facing an imminent takeover of industrial production by robots and other artificial intelligence (AI), we’re also being told that AI can develop its own systems of communication and operation, without help from humans.

Here is a sprinkling of quotes from the mainstream and technical press:

The Atlantic, June 15, 2017: “When Facebook designed chatbots to negotiate with one another, the bots made up their own way of communicating.”

Tech Crunch, November 22, 2016: “Google’s AI translation tool seems to have invented its own secret internal language.”

Wired, March 16, 2017: “It Begins: Bots Are Learning to Chat in Their Own Language.”

The suggestion is: AI can innovate. It can size up situations and invent unforeseen and un-programmed strategies, in order to accomplish set goals.

Who benefits from making such suggestions? Those companies and researchers who want to make the public believe AI is quite, quite powerful, and despite the downside risks (AI takes over its own fate), holds great promise for the human race in the immediate future. “Don’t worry, folks, we’ll rein in AI and make it work for us.”

Beyond that, the beneficiaries are technocratic Globalists who are in the process of bringing about a new society in which AI is intelligent and prescient enough to regulate human affairs at all levels. It’s the science fiction “populations ruled by machines” fantasy made into fact.

“AI doesn’t just follow orders. It sees what humans can’t see, and it runs things with greater efficiency.”

Let’s move past the propaganda and state a few facts.

AI is not running its own show.

It isn’t innovating.

It isn’t creating its own languages.

It isn’t doing any of that.

AI operates within the parameters its human inventors establish.

Any honest AI designer will tell you that.

If, for example, an AI system is given a goal and a set of “options” for achieving the goal, AI will select which option is best ACCORDING TO STANDARDS ITS HUMAN OPERATORS HAVE PROGRAMMED INTO THE SYSTEM.

Think of it this way: AI is given a set of options; but it is also given instructions on how to select what is presumably the most effective option. So AI is bounded.

There is no choice. There is no freedom. AI isn’t “jumping ship.”

“We gave our robot Charlie the task of getting from Chicago to New York. The whole plan was laid out as a vast hiking trip, with internal street maps built in. But then Charlie suddenly took a cab to O’Hare and boarded a United jet for JFK…”

No he didn’t.

AI performs as it is programmed to perform, within set parameters.

“We sent Charlie to LA to marry the actress who ordered and paid for him. But then, at the church, Charlie suddenly said, “This is a mistake. You should go back to your first husband. He never had sex with that waitress in St, Louis. She was his sister, and he was trying to help her escape from a terrorist cell. He never told you that because then he would have had to tell you he isn’t a banker, he actually works for the CIA. He’s a good guy. Talk to him. The truth will set you both free…”

Won’t happen.

But this kind of thing will happen: “According to scientists at Blah-Blah University, programmed robots are not only capable of inventing solutions to problems that ‘go beyond their internal software,’ the robots also make choices that benefit people. They’re very similar to people, except they tend to be smarter and invent more effective courses of action…”

Sell it, sell it.

“Alice, a medical technician in Minneapolis, claims her robot saved her life. ‘I was on the verge of swallowing a whole bunch of pills, but Charlie came to the rescue. He showed up in my bathroom and took the pills out of my hand. I learned something important that day. My free choice is important, but kindness and concern are more important. Charlie is the most vital companion in my life…’”

Sell it, sell it.

And of course, we’ll see more debates and court cases featuring questions about robots having rights, “just like humans.”

***Actually, in an entirely illogical fashion, we’ll see more and more “evidence” showing humans don’t have free will, because their brains dictate all thought and action, while robots will be touted as “free and creative.”

Some college professor will argue robots should be granted more “privileges” than humans, because the robots aren’t inherently “prejudiced.”

Another professor will insist that robots must be subjected to committee investigations, to make sure they aren’t “racist.”

“Today, in New York, a former Burger King employee, who is a refugee from Somalia, filed suit against a robot named Charlie, claiming Charlie uttered a racial slur while ordering a cheeseburger for his employer, a wealthy real estate developer…”

Behind all this, the fact remains that, no matter how many complex layers of “decision-making” are programmed into AI, the machine is always acting within rules and guidelines laid out in advance. It is never choosing.

Individual humans are capable of free choice, and are also capable of changing their own rules and standards.

Humans are free to say they aren’t free, as well, if they want to.

Let me make a psychological point here. There are many people who want to dominate relationships. They want to be in charge. They will want robots. They will want sophisticated robots THAT SEEM TO BE CHOOSING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR EVERY WISH AND DEMAND. These people will believe the robots are real and alive and human, in order to fulfill a fantasy in which they have found partners who want to go along with their agenda.

This is a pretty good definition of psychosis.

The AI designers and inventors and technicians tend to have their own bias. They want to believe they are creating life. They don’t want to think they are just putting together machines. That isn’t enough. The technocratic impulse involves faith in MACHINES AS LIVING ENTITIES.

Thus, we arrive at all sorts of myths and fairy tales about humans merging with machines, to arrive at a new frontier, where, for example, human brains hooked up to super-computers will result in higher consciousness and even the invocation of God.

Technocrats will say, do, and believe anything to turn machines into what machines aren’t.

They’ve crucially abandoned THEMSELVES and their own potential; so all they have left is THE MACHINE.

And if you think these technocrats should be allowed within a thousand miles of State power, I have communes for sale on Jupiter. Naturally, these utopias are run from the top by robots. They know what’s best for you.

Finally, understand this about propaganda: Those who control the output of information will admit to problems and mistakes with the issue they are promoting. Such confessions add to the “reality” of the information. And naturally, the propagandists will also claim that the problems can be solved. In the case of robots and AI, the problems are couched in terms of bots taking power into their own hands—but this “unexpected” situation a) demonstrates how capable bots are, and b) the power can be dialed back and modulated. So all is well. The future is bright.

It’s bright, if you want planned societies run by AI, where humans are fitted into slots, and algorithms determine who eats, who doesn’t, who has access to water and who doesn’t, how much energy can be used by each human, and all production and distribution are controlled from a central planning center.

Unless freedom lives—human freedom—you’ll be treated to something like this:

“Today, executives at the North American Union headquarters announced that several key bots broke through their programming and invented a new solution for clean water distribution to the population. This innovation will guarantee a more equitable water supply for millions of citizens. Control over the ‘rebel bots’ has been re-established, and their ‘amazing solution’ will now be incorporated into their standard operating framework. Three polls indicate that a lofty 68% of respondents support the bots in their efforts to better serve us…”


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside 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.

Australia: marijuana doctor arrested for helping children

Australia: marijuana doctor arrested for helping children

The Australian underground is growing

by Jon Rappoport

June 5, 2017

Crazzfiles.com has the story (5/31):

“Dr Andrew Katelaris, will appear in the Hornsby Local Court today after being arrested yesterday.”

“Chief Inspector David Hogg confirmed to Echonetdaily that Dr. Katelaris had been charged with a number of offences including drug possession, having an indictable quantity of cannabis, and having proceeds of crime.”

“On Sunday Dr Katelaris featured in a Channel Seven report in which he was shown giving cannabis oil to a four-year-old boy, who has since been taken from his parents.”

“He had spent the weekend at a Hemp Industry forum at Rosehill in Sydney, where police arrived on the final day after reports that a large crop of cannabis was on display.”

“No arrests were made as the ‘cannabis display’, which consisted of low-THC plants for hemp production, had been approved prior to the forum.”

“Dr Katelaris has been a staunch advocate of medical cannabis, having been researching its effects since 1990.”

“He has been arrested numerous times in the past and openly admits to supplying CBD dominant cannabis to over 50 children with serious seizure disorders.”

“Just last year the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) determined Dr Katelaris, who also holds a doctorate, had been involved in more breaches of a code of conduct for non-registered health professionals after injecting two women with cannabis oil to treat ovarian cancer.”

At crazzfiles.com you can watch a short video featuring Dr. Katelaris and make up your own mind about his sincerity, skill, and competence.

The numerous government attacks against him are inevitably based on the fact that marijuana is a natural substance, and can’t be patented in that form. Having an effective medicine floating around that people can freely use for themselves contradicts the goals of the pharmaceutical money machine:

“We know what’s good for you, and what’s not good for you. The government has given us a monopoly on healing, and you’d better go along with it.”

Yes, even if a medicine kills you, it’s still the best that “science” can offer at the present moment.

And by the way, parents have no say in how their children are treated. They have no inherent rights. The government owns those children. As proof, if health authorities don’t like what the parents are doing, they can come in and take the children away and put them in foster care, where they’ll be drugged up to their eyeballs.

Medically speaking, Australia is on lockdown. The majority of citizens appear to be unaware or unconcerned. But those who are aware are looking for, and using, alternatives. They are forming a growing underground.

The Australian government is advised to study the history of police states. In the long run, they fail. People will stand for only so much, particularly when their health and the health of their children are on the line.

The police state appears to be invincible…until one day it isn’t, because huge numbers of people, who have been dealing with their very survival, outflank totalitarian departments and bureaus.

The top-down control factor disintegrates. A belittled and minimized impulse re-emerges.

It’s called freedom.

It turns out that the “market” in freedom is forever.

The mind never forgets 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.

New book: “If I Were King, Advice for President Trump”

New book: “If I Were King, Advice for President Trump”

by Jon Rappoport

May 2, 2017

This is about answers, and visions of a better country.

Editor Harry Blazer has assembled a book in which a number of authors discuss what they would do if they were King. I have a chapter in the book. Among the other authors: Catherine Austin Fitts; Pepe Escobar; Dmitry Orlov.

Here is the intro at Amazon, where you can order the book:

“Leading alternative researchers and authors weigh in on the new administration in If I Were King: Advice for Donald Trump. From humor to detailed analysis, If I Were King is first introduced through the economic lens of investment analyst Catherine Austin Fitts, after which The Premise takes charge: ‘You have been elected King of the USA by a supermajority of the popular vote and have the support of the masses and a mandate for change. You have full authority to do whatever you want. There is no Congress. There is no Supreme Court. Whatever you declare becomes “the way.” You cannot be assassinated. You can choose the amount of time you want to rule, and when you are ready to step down, you can put in place whatever form of government you think will best serve the nation going forward. What would you do?’”

The book not only offers a wide range of solutions to problems, it provokes the reader to come up with his own ideas.

Why not answers? Why not visions? Why not a better country?

This book ultimately taps into a universal desire to change the way “business” is done in the world. It also provokes the reader to go beyond piecemeal ideas and actually flesh out his own big picture. This is something that should be happening at every college in the world, and wherever citizens gather.

I would like to see the book form the basis for ongoing discussion groups. Start one yourself. Help others shake out the cobwebs so they can think about a country and a world that truly reflects hearts, intelligent minds, and creative innovations.


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.

Trump: the man vs. his ideas

Trump: the man vs. his ideas

by Jon Rappoport

April 23, 2017

“Well, my hero failed to live up to his promises. He has feet of clay. So why should I care about his ideas? They’re unimportant. All I really wanted in the first place was a hero. That was the only dream that mattered.”

In past articles, I’ve praised Trump and criticized him. Here I want to make a few remarks about his best effects and the ripples that have spread from his words—but not necessarily from his present and future actions.

Why do I make that distinction?

Because I’m far more interested in the millions of people who decided to support Trump than I am in Trump himself. Those millions will carry freight in the years to come, here in the US and in other countries. If they turn passive, the so-called populist movement will die on the vine.

Trump has raised the issue of Globalism as no other modern president has. Specifically, he’s spoken about the horrendous consequences of: shipping jobs overseas, throwing huge numbers of willing domestic workers on to unemployment lines; and failing to lay on tariffs when corporations who have gone overseas send their products back here for sale.

He’s pointed to Globalist trade treaties as the source of this calamity, and he has killed the TPP treaty.

More generally, he’s spoken about Globalism vs. Nationalism; i.e., solving problems at home vs. trying to incorporate America into an international framework of governance.

His words have helped stimulate, confirm, and support the Brexit decision in the UK, and the rise of pro-nationalism anti-EU movements in Europe.

Trump has attacked the prime source of fake news, major media, as no other president ever has. Time and time again, he has gone after these scurrilous creatures as liars and purveyors of false realities. In this effort, he has lent a considerable hand to the expansion of independent media.

From the inception of major media here in America and other countries, their news has functioned as the eyes, ears, mouths, and brains for the public. How can authentic change for the better occur as long as this preposterous proxy-condition persists?

Trump has planted seeds for a revolutionary shift in foreign policy, based on non-interference in the affairs of other nations. Regardless of how far he moves in the opposite direction (e.g., Syria, Russia), his initial position on non-interference acknowledged untold numbers of people in many countries who have been waiting to hear that message.

To say, because Trump abandoned that stance, his proclamation against Empire-building was wrong is a fool’s errand. In the same way, people have claimed that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are meaningless because some of the Framers owned slaves.

Failing to distinguish between ideas and the people who espouse them is a sign of the lowest possible level of intelligence.

The mainstream press displays that level every day.

Trump has pointed out, over and over, that an open borders immigration policy is madness. The financial burden it imposes; the open invitation it offers to immigrants, to take advantage of free government services (never before the intent of any US immigration program); the seeding of communities with immigrants who have no intention of becoming part of American society; the indifference toward crimes and terrorist acts that result from non-vetting; these and other factors demand a change of approach.

For the so-called political Left, a sense of idealism implies there will never be a ceiling on immigration. It is unlimited and forever. Separate nations are a fiction. The world is One Nation. These sentiments are, in fact, Globalism’s wet dream, which by the way has nothing to do with kindness and sharing. It has to do with top-down control of civilization, from one end of the planet to the other.

Trump has built strong pillars with his words.

He has confirmed what untold numbers of people in many nations believe and want.

There is every danger that, if Trump fails to live up to what he has said, these people, many of them, will decide his words mean nothing. His ideas mean nothing.

Again, that is because they can’t distinguish between ideas and the individuals who espouse them. They have neither the capacity nor the desire. They’re trapped along a fault-line of their own cynicism; they’re looking for a reason to say destiny is doom.

This attitude has plagued humanity since the beginning. Those who championed freedom and the individual have fought against it.

“Well, my hero failed to live up to his promises. He has feet of clay. So why should I care about his ideas? They’re unimportant. All I really wanted in the first place was a hero. That was the only dream that mattered.”

Really?

Those are the words of a disappointed child.


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.