Nationalism, Globalism, Empire, and the vision of self-sufficiency

Nationalism, Globalism, Empire, and the vision of self-sufficiency

by Jon Rappoport

January 24, 2017

Nationalism is not Empire. Nationalism is solving problems at home.

Globalism is the non-partisan effort to immerse nations in a regional and planetary management system; mega-corporations and banks steer the ship.

Freedom includes the ability to choose between Nationalism and Globalism.

Globalism is not an organic grass-roots movement. It is imposed from above. (See my work on the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission to gain a view of “above.”)

Empire here implies the effort by a government (e.g., the US, China) to extend its control over other nations and peoples. It is not an intrinsic part of Nationalism. Dick Cheney was intent on building an American Empire. A factory worker in Ohio isn’t.

Nationalism doesn’t mean the government is running a vast Welfare State. It isn’t running a charity without limits. It isn’t promising a utopia based on “share and care.”

Solving problems at home implies restoring jobs stolen by corporations who left the country and set up shop in foreign lands. They committed this deed under terms of Globalist trade treaties. The corporations weren’t exercising freedom. They were navigating loopholes designed by their friends in high places. The major loophole was:

“You can manufacture your products in a hell hole overseas with slave labor, and then you can export those products back to your former home country and sell them without paying a tariff.”

Solving problems at home implies the robust expansion of independent media, who become a watchdog on government, corporations, and major media.

Solving problems at home implies the eradication of a Surveillance State which, under the cover of protecting the citizenry against terrorism, is actually collecting massive amounts of information on all citizens.

Solving problems at home implies eliminating gangs who are holding millions of citizens in inner cities hostage in their own residences.

Solving problems at home implies securing the nation’s borders against incursion by people intent on committing crimes, collecting free money and services from the government, and subverting freedom.

Solving problems at home implies doing whatever can be done to encourage a culture in which individual freedom and vision and power motivates as many people as possible to invent their own futures, in order to fulfill their most profound desires.

Solving problems at home implies prosecuting, to the fullest extent of the law, companies that pollute and poison the land, sea, and air with their “by-products.” This effort does not require a return to some universal Pagan religion of Nature.

Solving problems at home implies prosecuting, to the fullest extent of the law, companies who manufacture and sell compounds that purport to cure disease, but actually destroy health and life.

Historically, the first time a banker or corporate leader was discovered to have financed an American war on both sides, he should have been tried and convicted of treason. That would have sent a suitable message.

And so forth and so on.

This is all common sense.

It is obscured by waves of mouthy propaganda, featuring high-flying generalities and ideals, which turn into demands and vicious attacks: “Everybody has to love one another right now and share everything for free, and if they don’t, we’ll blast them into the stratosphere.”

These waves are planned, organized, and funded by people like George Soros, and they are meant to disrupt nations and push them into the arms of the Globalist agenda.

The number of unconscious dupes and pawns in this operation is legion.

In his 1796 Farewell Address, President George Washington provided exceptional recommendations about nationalism:

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…”

“But even our commercial [trade] policy [with foreign nations] should hold an equal and impartial hand…diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing…constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character…There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.”

“…Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest…?”

“With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.”

Whenever Washington mentions Europe, he is essentially referring to any foreign country.

Nationalism: stay at home. Strengthen the home country. No Empire. No entangling alliances.

And certainly, no Globalism, which amounts to surrender of the home country to foreign interests.

What is wrong with George Washington’s policy? Nothing.

The policy has been called isolationism, which, via propaganda, has been given a nasty edge. It has no edge. It has concern for America.

Every country could learn from George Washington’s wisdom.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Utopian dreams aside, no country’s history is pure. Its governments and leaders have committed terrible crimes. But that fact doesn’t imply that the country should be destroyed or dismantled, or attached to some deceptive supra-national program of “harmony for all.”

Nationalism, in George Washington’s description of it, is a practical vision for realizing a degree of self-sufficiency no modern country has ever achieved.

The vision is still there to be pursued.

It has always been there, since the ancient nomads first settled down in sunlit valleys and began to grow their crops.

Self-sufficiency, freedom, prosperity.

Advanced technology has complicated matters. I’m not talking about instant communication among all points on Earth. I’m talking about a surfeit of weapons which can destroy life at the push of a button. But even there, leaders will be far more likely to negotiate and talk in good faith if they have the genuine interest of their own people at heart, where they live, in their home nations.

In a half-sane world, there would be, by now, courses in taught in every school, on the meaning of greed, avarice, meddling, and the obsession for minding everyone else’s business…

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The individual vs. the staged collective

The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

by Jon Rappoport

December 26, 2016

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

WE.

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

There are denizens among us.

They present themselves as the Normals.

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

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

I don’t call William Thompson an unsullied hero. Far from it. He lied, he committed fraud, he hid the fraud for 10 years, he buried evidence that the MMR vaccine increased the risk of autism in children, and finally, perhaps because he was caught in his own web, he confessed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This usage reflects an unending psyop.

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

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

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

The goal? Submerge the individual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That starts a cacophony of howling.

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

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

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

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


Exit From the Matrix

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


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

Going back is the psyop.

The intended psyop.

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

Someone shouts: WHAT IS WE?

Others pick up the shout.

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

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

The delusion, in pieces, is drifting away…

The cover: gone.

Behind it is The Individual.

What will he do now?

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

Will he?

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

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Natural health is a silver bullet to medical vampires

Natural health is a silver bullet to medical vampires

The medical vampires’ vaccine vision is unnatural and perverse

by Jon Rappoport

October 4, 2016

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

It turns out that unvaccinated children aren’t little time bombs walking around ready to blow and spread devastating disease in their wake.

That’s a myth. It’s told by the medical cartel, for their own obvious reasons.

And it turns out that children raised in a healthy way are strong, and have strong immune systems.

This was once viscerally known and understood and accepted as a truism.

Those who insist on 50 or 60 shots of germs and toxic chemicals for every child, like it or not, are participating in an ongoing criminal enterprise.

Their vision is unnatural and perverse.

It turns out that stimulating the production of antibodies—which is the purpose of vaccines—is not the be-all and end-all of existence. It isn’t the road to health. It isn’t an automatic lease on life.

Every aspect of a child’s life contributes to, or detracts from, his immune-system health and strength. This is traditional knowledge. This basic tree of knowledge has been shaken and hacked at by decades of remorseless propaganda from official medical/government/corporate mob bosses.

The vaccine establishment has become a protection racket. Take your shots or pay the social and political consequences.

Natural health is a reality. It isn’t a stunt.

When smallpox ravaged England, it wasn’t the lone work of a virus. It was sewage in the city streets, horrendous overcrowding, lack of basic nutrition, grinding poverty. It was also the smallpox vaccine:

“Smallpox, like typhus, has been dying out (in England) since 1780. Vaccination in this country has largely fallen into disuse since people began to realize how its value was discredited by the great smallpox epidemic of 1871-2 (which occurred after extensive vaccination).” (W. Scott Webb, A Century of Vaccination, Swan Sonnenschein, 1898.)

And then there is this: “The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977

Improve environmental conditions and the standard of living, and you pave the way for natural health. It’s not a mystery. It never was.

—The basic purpose of promoting these dud “epidemics” that come down the pipeline every few years is: to convince the population that they can’t live in a state of natural health; there is no such thing as natural health; everyone must live their lives under the constant supervision of doctors.

This is becoming the central myth of our times.

It is becoming the primary form of surrender.

Natural health is a silver bullet to medical vampires.


Exit From the Matrix


How many studies can you find that investigate the factors of health in children who do quite well without overriding medical attention? How many studies in peer reviewed journals examine large groups of healthy unvaccinated children? None.

Health is basically a non-medical condition.

The primary medical psyop is the effort to erase that understanding.

Every healthy unvaccinated child is a refutation of the medical cartel.

If your business is sickness, and you’re unscrupulous, it stands to reason you’ll try to find more and more sickness, even, and especially, where it doesn’t exist.

You’ll never study health, because it would put you out of business.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Part 2: The secret political issue: Health freedom

Part 2: The secret political issue: Health Freedom

A call from the wilderness

by Jon Rappoport

October 3, 2016

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

For Part 1, and, for the backstory regarding the re-posting of this two part series, click here.

(NOVEMBER 10, 2010) Millions of advocates of health freedom see that no major political candidate, with one or two exceptions, voices their concerns or stands up for their right to improve their health by any and all self-chosen methods.

To understand the landscape in which this deafening silence continues, we need to realize that the one industry which could and should make a difference—the nutritional supplement sector—is dominated by ostriches.

Once a powerful voice for health freedom, the industry has stepped back into the shadows. It nurtures the illusion that it is safe from government intervention. It even supposes it has sufficient allies within the government to stave off attacks by the FDA.

Since 1993, I have been calling for the creation of a powerful “PR wing” funded by nutritional companies. This group would dedicate itself to obtaining ongoing media coverage, showing that nutrition scores many victories in preserving and expanding health, that nutrition is a brilliant success.

At first glance, this may not seem very important. But, in fact, it is THE vital way to turn public, media, and political opinion to the side of nutrition.

The FDA and other government bodies see no reason to curtail their attacks on nutritional supplements if the media aren’t even covering the issue.

Every PR campaign works toward a tipping point, where the very idea of opposing its goals is politically suicidal.

If you don’t understand that, you know nothing about PR.

And what is a campaign? Is it a one-time promotion? Is it a vaguely flailing effort to marshal support? Is it a token outreach? For amateurs, perhaps. For dreamers.

But the reality is far different. A campaign is a well-funded, sustained, and highly organized operation, aimed at gradually creating a shift in widespread perception.

In this case, the campaign TELLS THE TRUTH. That is its weapon. That is its intrinsic strength.

NUTRITION WORKS.

Media outlets, editors, reporters are always looking for interesting stories. The brutal fact of life is, they need copy to fill space and time. They must have it.

What about a boy in Arkansas who was ill for three years, unable to learn or play with his friends, who was brought back from the brink by supplements?

Is that a story?

You bet it is.

What about a husband who had to quit his job and go on the dole, because he no longer had the strength to put in eight hours in a factory? And then he regained his strength with nutrients. Is that a story? It sure is.

Does a fledgling PR campaign start from the top of the media chain? Does a story suddenly appear on the front page of The New York Times? In a fantasy world, perhaps.

No, you build up your book of clippings. You gradually move up the ladder.

You establish a foothold. You lay a firm foundation.

You find experts who will give you favorable and truthful quotes.

You shove in your chips for the long haul, and you don’t back out because you wish paradise would come tomorrow.

On the other side of this PR campaign, you tell the truth about your target, your opponent, your nemesis, your threat. The FDA.

You build up an accurate dossier documenting the widespread damage this agency had done over the years. And it’s there, believe me. For the past 20 years, I’ve been finding it and reporting it.

FDA-certified drugs have been killing American citizens at the rate of 100,000 a year. That’s a good place to start. (Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000; “Is US health really the best in the world?”)

You put your opponent, your threat back on its heels. You force it to play defense. Instead of trying to limit people’s access to supplements, the agency is busy warding off truthful, pointed attacks.

You obtain the right, correct, and honest coverage of the FDA in the press. On an ongoing basis.

This is the double-pronged PR campaign. There is much more to say about it, but you get the idea.

You want politicians to aggressively support health freedom? You have to show them they would have public opinion on their side. And how do you do that? You obtain TRUTHFUL media coverage.

Coverage isn’t accomplished by waving a magical wand. It’s done through PR.

Over the years, since I ran, in 1994, for a Congressional seat in Los Angeles on the issue of health freedom, I’ve seen the most haphazard, amateurish, wasteful, silly, and delusional PR launched out there, in the stratosphere, on behalf of health freedom. Drunken men with no tools would have a better chance of building a mansion than this kind of demented PR would have in congealing public opinion.

This must change. The nutritional industry must come into the 20th, and then the 21st century.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the basic ideal of individual freedom is under assault from many quarters. Health freedom will not escape this net.

Something EFFECTIVE needs to be done.

Read my long interview with brilliant constitutional attorney, Jonathan Emord of Emord and Associates. He spells out what the FDA is doing and planning to do to nutritional supplements in this country.

Jonathan explains the situation in detail.

Naysayers out there will give you a litany of reasons why the media will never cover health freedom or the massive success of nutritional supplements. “Media ad space is dominated by drug companies.” “Media are controlled by the government.” “Medical power is too great.”

I’ve heard all the excuses. Mostly, they are offered by people who refuse to believe any good change can happen in any sphere. But the fundamental flaw in their arguments lies in a complete misunderstanding about the way PR works.

Here is the secret. Most PR DOES work. If the people behind it are smart, if they have money, if they put in the time and the effort, if they aren’t scared away by a few failures, they will come out on top.

Every PR campaign knocks its head on the ceiling many times. “We can’t break through!” “They won’t listen to us!”

You complain, and then you roll up your sleeves and keep going. Because the goal is worth it. Because you truly want the desired end result. And because PR works.


The Matrix Revealed


When I began writing as a reporter almost 30 years ago, I knew nothing about the business. I quickly learned that media need copy. That was the basic reality. Media need stories. They will respond.

PR works the same way. You dig in for the long haul, and you gain success.

Of course, the other advantage of an excellent PR campaign is, no one person has to stick his neck out and take the heat. Instead a whole industry is involved. “You want a battle? Then come after all of us.”

Then can you imagine how the millions of people who buy those supplements would appear in full view, ready to stake their claim for freedom?

In the early 1990s, this is exactly what happened. A few nutritional executives bankrolled a massive outreach program, enlisting American citizens, who wrote millions of letters to Congress demanding a new law protecting supplements.

Congressional sponsors were lined up. They felt confident because the outcry from citizens was huge. The law was passed. It didn’t offer us the guarantees we really needed, but it was better than nothing.

Now we need more. Better laws, and also a PR campaign that doesn’t fold up its tent just because the Congress moved in a somewhat positive direction.

This time, we may need all those citizens to write to supplement companies demanding their action. I have sketched out that action in this article.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The individual and the covert op

The individual and the covert op

Nine notes that clarify freedom

by Jon Rappoport

May 2, 2016

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

“The mind has no obligation to be a container.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

ONE: The elite men who manipulate the masses do stand outside The Collective, but they’re not free. Their only power comes from diminishing the power of others.

They don’t know any other kind of power.

The idea that, within themselves, as individuals, they have creative fire is completely and utterly foreign to them.

TWO: Every major covert op has the same concealed objective: “defeat the enemy and thereby gain more control.”

But control over what?

Beyond the usual answers, the root answer is: “control over the mind.”

Why? Because if perception and thought can be channeled, directed, reduced, and weakened, then it doesn’t matter what humans do to resist other types of control. They will always go down the wrong path. They will always operate within limited and bounded territory. They will always ignore their own authentic power.

I’m talking about power that exceeds the “normal” and “average” ability to influence the stream of cause and effect.

The “prison” of cause and effect is a concept that is floated as part of the basic covert op to convince people they are small, diminished, and at the mercy of larger forces.

But underneath it all, humans have the capacity to “jump the chain” and become, as it were, “first causes.”

And not in some minor way.

Unfortunately, the popular view of how this can be accomplished is often rooted in New Age notions: the instantaneous fix; the Disneyesque manifestation; the “surrender to the universe.”

These are psy-op versions of the real thing, floated as part of the overall covert op to engage the gullible among us.

“Jumping the chain” is actually a matter of reversing the op. In other words, instead of accepting the mural of reality that has been created for us, each person creates his own.

Without compromise.

Beyond the covert op, every human has the capacity to act in ways that change the flow of time, the architecture of space, and the sources of energy.

The degree to which an individual believes this is impossible mirrors his acceptance of the basic covert op on planet Earth.

THREE: When people speak about “hope for all of us,” they rarely refer to the power of the individual.

That’s because they are blinded by the Group. They have no other option.

They’re looking through the lens of the collective.

They judge their work solely by the effect it has on others, and they judge themselves solely by the effect others have on them.

FOUR: When the individual sets a goal that is outside the consensus and the status quo, he himself is outside the consensus.

The degree of organization he creates, in order to achieve the goal, doesn’t have to be traditional, symmetrical, balanced. Organization should be a function of the actions that will achieve the goal. The actions should dictate the organization.

FIVE: Freedom means the individual can change his mind at any moment. It also means that, if he doesn’t change his mind, and instead follows a straight path, he is going to have to keep referring back to the original vision that gave birth to the enterprise he’s engaged in. He’s going to have to keep inspiring himself in that way. Otherwise, his energy will stagnate. He will become less important than the pattern.


exit from the matrix


SIX: Storyline, when applied to a person’s life, makes no sense unless he is inventing it. Otherwise, it’s random, and the only forward motion is like something a machine would produce as it grinds ahead.

SEVEN: Many people are slaves of pattern. They believe if they do A, they should then do B, and then C. They see no other options. It makes sense to them to follow pattern. But the pattern doesn’t lead to a desired outcome. It just circles around and puts a person back where he started from.

EIGHT: If “things as they are” has any life at all, it comes from anticipating that imagination is going to transform it.

NINE: So-called Enlightenment isn’t a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. It’s the result of the individual freely creating new realities.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The shock of the American Revolution

The shock of the American Revolution

by Jon Rappoport

January 1, 2011

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

It was one thing to separate from England; it was another thing entirely to produce the idea of individual freedom as a natural fact and a political goal.

The first act did not necessarily lead to the second.

Indeed, the exile of the King from American affairs and the cancellation of the taxes laid on by the monarchy could have been the prelude to a new state of tyranny on these shores.

In several respects, this turned out to be the case, but not before the idea of freedom was enunciated for all time.

With the ringing of that bell, definite principles and consequences flowed with great surety.

One person living in freedom could not legally limit the freedom of another.

Freedom meant a condition of self-sufficiency. It meant independence from any invasive and crowding authority.

It meant responsibility for one’s actions, rather than excuses to escape consequences.

It meant that decisions on how to live one’s life were unique to each individual—and if this principle was followed, society would reflect an astonishing diversity.

It meant that social conformity was no longer a desirable goal.

It meant that wide consensus was not a necessary requirement for individual actions.

With these ideas in tow, one would expect a nation in which ideas, innovations, modes of living, and communities were extraordinarily various—each difference and distinction backed up by energetic passion.

Creativity and imagination would play out to the fullest extent on a wide field.

Is that what happened?

In many respects, the answer is no.

But time does not destroy ideas.

Everything stated and implied by the shocking establishment of freedom is as true today as it was 200-plus years ago.

In that sense, philosophy always trumps life.

Anyone, at any time, can pick up the torch.

Implicit in the idea of freedom is the question: what is freedom for?

That question arises, because freedom is not an action. It is a feeling, a state of mind, a potential.

It is the setting for whatever is to come, whatever will be done by the individual.

Freedom, obviously, is for making choices. If those choices are spooled out by some sort of inner necessity and compelling impulse, then the whole idea of freedom is negated in the cradle.

Therefore, the very notion of freedom implies that the choices made are, or can be, freely taken.

Freely made choices open the door to an understanding of what “choice” really means.

It means “created.”

A person does not merely choose. He creates those choices.

He is essentially and deeply creative.

And this changes everything.

No longer are we envisioning an individual who is bound and irresistibly driven forward by inner forces, or by a past whose events predetermine his future.

None of this speculative “psychcologizing” is relevant.

Free is free.

There is latitude. There is space.

Imagination and creativity overlap.

All of this is implied and derived from the declaration of individual freedom that is at the heart of the formation of the American Republic.

Then why do we see a surprisingly uniform landscape in this country?

Why haven’t the unique creations of millions of individuals caused a stunningly wide diversity of outcomes that are quite visible?

Why are we caught up in a spreading sameness?

Ultimately, the answer is simple: people have chosen to be like one another.

Adducing reasons for this are really beside the point. If the individual does have the freedom to make his own unique creation of his future, then he can change his decision to be like his neighbor.

He can change that.

That change is also part of what freedom means.

An unconscionable tonnage of literature and verbiage have been spent describing all the ways in which the individual is limited and hemmed in and shaped by forces over which he has no control. Indeed, in some quarters, this notion of determinism is applauded and elevated to a high perch.

It is all, in the end, wasted, because the individual can be free.

The expanse of that freedom has no psychological boundaries.

This idea strikes fear in the hearts of people who want to pile complexity on complexity in deciphering the so-called human condition. Inevitably, such “investigations” consign the individual to an unfree status.


exit from the matrix


But two centuries ago, a small group of men announced to the world that a different destiny awaited us.

They made political separation from a monarchy into a far more profound declaration.

We hold that legacy today, not only as an historical connection, but also as a depiction of what we really are.

What we do with it is up to each one of us.

No potential anywhere has the power of individual freedom.

When we consult our desires in deciding what we want to create in this world, we would do well to consider the enormous breadth and depth of the freedom on which all creation is based—so that our choices and actions do more than scratch the surface of our imaginations.

We are not small; we are, when all is said and done, infinite.

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.

Why is it called freedom?

Why is it called freedom?

An essay on America

For unhurried minds

by Jon Rappoport

October 27, 2010

The free, powerful, intensely creative, and moral individual is the ideal that flows from the meaning of the American Republic.

When that ideal is abandoned, what replaces it is the individual who has the LICENSE to do anything—to diminish, manipulate, and control the freedom of another.

The difference between freedom and license is the difference between living blood in the veins, versus a synthetic plastic approximation. The android thus created always yearns for the real thing, and in its absence, he drives himself into a state of anarchic frustration, violence, and the desire to enact revenge.

The “man of license,” not freedom, forms a character that is at once servile and self-assertive, meek and bloated, guilt-ridden and criminally aggressive.

And what flows from that? The entirely artificial, enterprising, cheating, skulking, compromising, self-flagellating, miserable, brutal, aggrandizing, masochistic citizen—often found in, among many other places, positions of leadership. In government, business, law, academia.

Do you need a better formula for creating criminals?

A society packed with such persons is going to carry out the vision of a self-sufficient nation and individual at about the same rate of success as a colony of primates is going to give birth to Thomas Paine.

From “the man of license” came a parade of crimes:

The rise of the robber barons, the slave-wage conditions in factories; the continuation of black slavery; Indian conquests; the monopolistic practices that led to secret control over entire industries; the capture of the US financial system; the yellow/tabloid American press; criminal corporate adventurism in foreign lands; the support of foreign dictatorships; so-called nation-building; false-flag operations aimed at casting blame on the wrong parties; endless wars; covert intelligence operations targeting both foreign opponents and American citizens; support of death squads to forward US corporate goals abroad; the surrender of our borders; the rise of massive entitlements; the enshrinement of victimhood; rigged elections; the bankrupting of the nation; the manipulation of markets; engineered recessions and depressions; misplaced tolerance shown toward aggressive religious fundamentalisms; the descent into state corporatism and socialism; shadow governments…

These and other acts all stem from one basic cause: the flight from the notion and reality of the free, powerful, moral, and intensely creative individual. And the substitution of the man of license.

The doors were opened to manipulation on every level. The crimes and the conspiracies to commit crimes have not ended and will never end, so long as the truly free individual is a dead issue in the eyes of walking dead men.

Few historians have grasped the import of George Washington’s final warning, to the American people, to avoid entangling foreign alliances. The ignorance on this point is staggering.

It is clear that America could have found a way to remove itself from foreign affairs to such a degree that it would have constructed, at home, a society the likes of which has never been seen on the face of the Earth:

A moral and ethical society, devoted to the inculcation of as many free and powerful individuals as possible, none of whom would be tempted to cheat, lie, and steal his way “to the top.” Which is to say, a SELF-SUFFICIENT country, in all conceivable ways. Raw materials, manufacturing, industry, agriculture, technology.

And in this society, there would have been swift and strong punishment for any person, company, or corporation that decided to circumvent the law and commit criminal acts by hindering or fraudulently repressing any individual.

A free and powerful and creative individual, contrary to popular myths, has an ethical stature which legislates against perverse actions undertaken at the expense of others.

Let me present a theoretical, fictional example of what George Washington called foreign entanglement—except I’ll cast it in the form of US corporate action. We have a nation, X. In X, for a thousand years, land ownership has been a matter of tribal squabbles, bloody conflicts, and periodic land takeovers by strong-armed government administrations, many of which have fallen as a result of revolutions. We also have a few powerful families who have owned the bulk of the nation’s arable land for several centuries and employ private armies and death squads to maintain control of the land and the virtual slaves who work it. Into this situation steps US corporation Y. It is seeking to purchase and lease land for the production of grain. It has to deal with the present dictator, who is more than happy to make an arrangement, for the right price (bribe). He will also help defend these corporate lands with his sadistic police and repel protestors by killing them. Corporation Y also pays off several tribal leaders to stay away from these leased lands. The tribal leaders will, of course, need better weapons. These are forthcoming. The tribes will kill each other with them, on the side. Then the corporation hires a security group which supplies mercenaries. Then the dictator, who is basically a bloodthirsty lunatic, decides he wants bigger bribe money, and a new highway built from the central airport right to his palace. Eventually, corporation Y, which is receiving intelligence from a local CIA bureau, decides the dictator is too large a headache, so discussions begin about a military coup. However, the new leader would have close ties to a group that wants to nationalize oil fields. In this, he is supported by several terrorist regimes who have already paid him large sums of money…

FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS.

There was no way to avoid these realities once corporation Y entered the scene, if they wanted to make a handsome profit on their investment. They had come into a society that was brutal and criminal on many levels.

Are we really to believe that Washington, Jefferson, Paine, and Madison would have sanctioned and applauded this kind of dealing as “the expression of free enterprise?”

Through the propaganda mills, we are fed a constant stream of persuasion masked as fact, which assures us that, without each other, globally, we will all go down. The whole world. We are one planet with one need—each other. The idea that one people in one country could achieve an overall self-sufficiency is considered dangerous insanity.

Instead, we must somehow merge with peoples and nations who have a long history of oppression, violence, murder, and a grossly limited or absent concept of individual freedom.

Behind this propaganda operation sits the aim of melting us down into one mass of humanity. No one stands out. We all are reduced down to lowest common denominators. No one has power. No one is truly free, because freedom is ALWAYS taken at the expense of someone else. Freedom means criminality.

This is the myth.

Against all this, let me juxtapose another fictional illustration, an entry written in a journal by an educated American citizen in the year 1880—living in a nation that had rejected ANY business or government dealing with any foreign country, that had remained, yes, completely isolated, and had dedicated itself to the free, powerful, moral, and intensely creative individual, as the ideal of the Republic. In this alternative America, the “man of license” had been squashed and sidelined.

“It was apparent to us, from the beginning of the Republic, that, in order to carry out the mandate of freedom, difficult choices would have to be made.

“Tom Paine eventually carried the banner of George Washington by convincing us that engaging in foreign trade, any foreign trade, would be a mistake that would compound into further, more serious errors. Not through government, but through business, we would inevitably be drawn back into the circle of corruption and old enmities among groups and nations. How could we walk into a decadent swamp without incurring infection?

“The debates on this point were heated. In the end, Paine and Madison gave us a picture of an alternative: We would turn inward and utilize our burgeoning productive capacity to do business within our own borders, thus enriching the lives of our own citizens. It would be a step, Paine said, toward the establishment of the first wholly self-sufficient nation in human history—and this example would shine brightly for the rest of the world.

“An equally difficult problem was the so-called Indian Proposition, because it involved negotiating and signing land and border treaties with a number of tribes. The expansion westward had provoked armed conflicts with several of these tribes. In the aftermath, a group of us was able to influence Congress to declare a cessation of warfare, on the notion that no ethical people should countenance bloodshed when diplomacy might carry the day. In the end, it did, and I firmly believe we are the better for it. Does the new free man on this continent wish to carry on the warring tradition of his European ancestors? Is that what we stand for?

“The abolition of slavery in 1807, again led by Paine, who had spoken out against it years earlier, during the Constitutional debates, provoked a radical alteration in the economy of the South. Cotton plantations were converted into farms, fruit orchards, and cattle ranches, and the South, accepting workers from the North as long-term leaseholders and part-owners of their own acreage, became the Food Basket of the nation, wealthy beyond all expectation.

“Now, we have a new enterprise, and it may bring us all into an unimaginable future. Following experiments conducted by several companies off the Northeast Coast, it has been announced that the flow of powerful currents in ocean narrows can be harnessed to produce immense quantities of electricity, and there is the prospect that this electricity can be transmitted considerable distances over land. Nearly a hundred promising locations on the East Coast and along our Southern shores are candidates for the innovation. There is the vision of thus developing enough energy for the entire Republic.

“I recall some words written by Mr. Paine shortly before his death: ‘There will come a day when we Americans, through our ingenuity, make scientific discoveries that stagger the soul and delight the mind. Our first tendency will be to profit from these inventions by peddling them abroad, in violation of our promise to resist foreign trade of any kind. Instead, this is what I suggest, and I believe it will make a point. Offer the theoretical innovations, the blueprints, in pure unrealized form, to the rest of the world, as our gift, and let them make of it what they will. My calculation is they will further their intentions to benefit the few at the expense of the many, because that is their way, the old way. Let them. To withhold our advances and try to protect them against all outside discovery will only raise the enmity of others toward us, and it will tempt some of us to deliver this knowledge in secrecy—a thing to be avoided at all cost.’

“Mr. Paine concluded: ‘We are a nation of builders and creators, and we have inherited this ability from our own joy in discovering what true freedom is, and enshrining it in the highest ramparts of our imaginations. We are close on the time when the entire territory of these United States will be blooming with abundance of every type. Then, however, we will not stop. We will go on, and in doing so we will continue to give shape to the freedom we earned. The greatness of this present campaign, I note, has come with never a sacrifice of the individual to the mob. In fact, it was and is individual genius that has sustained us all along, and will continue to reflect our devotion to that very principle, against which we may judge the propriety, reason, and common sense of any action. Our nation is alive at the very core, and may it always remain so.’

“In certain respects, Mr. Paine’s prediction was correct. As we have made our brilliant scientific inventions available to foreign nations, in blueprint form, those nations have utilized them to the ends tyrannies always do. But gradually, there has arisen, abroad, a notion that America needs to be understood at a more profound level. It is not so much that the fruits from our tree of liberty should be plucked at random; instead, these foreign peoples are learning that they must undergo a revolution of mind. They must dedicate themselves to the free individual, just as we did. They must engage in a new philosophy, whereby Free, Powerful, Moral, Creative, Individual are all the joining fires of their own liberty. They are heartened. They realize this philosophy is more than mere dreaming and useless speculation, because for the first time in human history, a nation has brought those ideas to life and sustained them, on its own soil. Our isolation was never bound in hatred of the human being, but only constituted an aversion to the age-old practices that brought pain, suffering, and destruction, as men considered they had License to commit any crimes and call those crimes just and proper. This is what we built walls against. And now we are the example, the living proof of a different way.

“We are strong. Our defenses against invasion and subterfuge are unshakable. We entertain no illusions that our very example to the rest of the world is alone sufficient to protect us.

“We go about our lives and our work, knowing how great our freedom is, and we look forward to the day when other peoples and nations will show us that they, too, have crossed their own chasms of despair. On that day, there will be no need for treaties or alliances. Firm friendship will suffice.

“To the rest of the world we say: This is who we are. This is what we have done. Our hopes go out to you. There is no sacrifice we can make to bring you into a new state of mind. That is your own prospect. Your attainments must be your own. There is no other path, because freedom, by its very nature, cannot be a gift. Build your own compass and navigate by it. If we are your North Star, our happiness is thereby increased…”


Exit From the Matrix


Could such an America have existed? I believe the answer revolves around the distinction between the free individual and the “individual of license.” That is the philosophical and psychological crux of the American Republic, and it was a debate that never took place in serious terms.

America, indeed, entangled itself in foreign adventures and alliances in many ways. It succumbed to a self-defeating version of free enterprise, and it paid the price.

Dare we even think about trying to restore what American could have been, at this late date? For such a massive and seeming impossible task, we first need to envision and comprehend the Ideal, the North Star, and in this article I have presented a preliminary sketch of it.

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.