Is the individual an outmoded idea?

Is the individual an outmoded idea?

LIVE IN THE COLLECTIVE AND FORGET WHO YOU ARE

by Jon Rappoport

September 17, 2017

We are now told it’s selfish and greedy to promote freedom for the individual. It’s old-fashioned. It’s passe. It’s dangerous. It’s nothing more than a ruse floated by the rich to hold down the poor.

Forget about the fact that the next Einstein or Tesla, growing up in what has become a collectivist society, could be slammed with Ritalin, Prozac, and even heavier drugs—because they’re “abnormal.”

Someday, an anthropologist will write a celebrated history of this country, and it’ll be all about cultural trends and group customs, and no one will even remember there was such an idea as The Individual.

By that time, the population of what was once the United States will live in a theocracy dedicated to Mother Earth, and every day for half an hour, the people will kneel and pray, together, from coast to coast, for mercy from this Mother.

And the people will be happy doing it—such as they understand happiness. They will glorify The Group. They will live under the great dome of the Flying Drones and they will rejoice in their solidarity.

They will willingly submit to all forms of surveillance, because it is in the interest of the Whole, the collective, the mass. After all, who would depart from the rules and sentiments of The Group? Only the outcasts. Only those bitter clingers who still believe they are unique individuals and have desires and power. Who needs them? Who wants them? They’re primitive throwbacks. They’re sick and they need treatment.

If you look, you can see the changes taking place right in front of your own eyes. You can see The Individual fading out as a concept. You can see its replacement—the group and its needs—coming on strong. You can know where we’re heading.

One day, you’ll be able to tell your grandchildren there was once a time when there was a completely different conception of existence, and you’ll be able to regale them with stories of the impossible. Stories of individuals.

Of course, they won’t believe you. They won’t be able to fathom what in the world you’re talking about. But that doesn’t matter. They’ll listen in rapt wonder, just as we now admiringly contemplate tales of strange creatures and mountain gods of the ancient Greeks.

It’ll be fun to look back on our time.

Don’t worry. It doesn’t matter. History is merely an anthropological catalog of trends, a series of customs. We pass from one epoch to another. What was true and important in one time becomes meaningless later.

Just “come together for the great healing.” That’s all you need to think about now. It’ll all work out. And if it doesn’t, you won’t remember the failure anyway.

Coda: What’s that? I can’t hear you. Speak a little louder. Oh…I see. You’re saying we the people are getting ripped off by our leaders and their secret controllers. Yes. Well, sure, that’s true.

And yes…if we all came together perhaps we could throw off these controllers and assert our independence once again. Yes.

But then I ask you this:

After we’ve won the great battle, what do we do next? Do we parade around, from town to town, from city to city, a hundred million of us, a great caravan, extolling our group victory? Is that what we do for the rest of eternity?

Or did we fight and win the great battle for another reason?

Did we perhaps fight and win so we could reestablish the individual as the basis and the object of freedom?

Wasn’t that really the reason we were in this fight?

If you’re going to fight and fight to win, it helps to know why you’re in the battle, why you’re really in 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.

Obsolete phrase: “independence of mind”

Obsolete phrase: “independence of mind”

by Jon Rappoport

August 22, 2017

Like a car with high fins and long protruding tail lights, the phrase “independence of mind” has gone out of style, especially at colleges and universities where it ought to be the most profound ideal. The thugs have taken over.

As recently as 2008, a professor of Jurisprudence at King’s College London, Timothy Macklem, described the phrase in this fashion:

“Independence of Mind [explores] the ways in which the fundamental freedoms help us to achieve something even more profound, by enabling us to arrive at beliefs, convictions and voices of our own, so that we truly come to think, believe, and speak for ourselves in the rich and various ways that the freedoms then protect. Privacy grants us the distance and refuge from others necessary to develop views of our own; freedom of speech calls on us to imagine ways of expressing ourselves that are both true to the views we have developed and innovative in their own right; freedom of conscience enables each of us to create a distinctive rational personality in which to embed the convictions that we wish to treat as non-negotiable…”

If the professor taught at one of many American “liberal colleges” today, a mere nine years after he wrote that description, he would be pilloried and subjected to prolonged attacks from students and even other faculty.

That’s the pace of change these days.

I started NoMoreFakeNews.com in 2001. Independence of mind was a given for me. As the years passed, I saw the need for promoting it and defending it. I still do. More than ever.

What drives the human spirit isn’t sameness from individual to individual. It’s difference. It’s uniqueness. The people who know that and embody it are the lights that burn and keep burning. They’re inextinguishable.

The betrayal of independence of mind is fantastical in the culture. It raises a stink to the heavens. It oozes fanaticism.

Many of the little academic intellects who support that betrayal and play its tunes are Marxists in disguise, who seek revenge on humanity for their own failures and shortcomings, by putting populations under the totalitarian gun of political correctness. This is “progressivism.”

Without knowing it, I grew up on the legacy of Emerson and Thoreau and Walt Whitman. These giants of literature and philosophy had breathed the air of independence and knew what it meant in their blood and brains and souls and minds. They heralded an age that came and then went, buried in a growing landfill of collectivism.

The myth that the onrushing political Left was composed of millions of awake and aware individuals was eventually exposed as a gigantic lie.

There is a choice: the glory of the individual or the glory of the mob?

Whoever takes his own independent ideas and prizes them has something the mob can never fathom.

What does censorship mean to a person who has nothing that could be censored? Why would he be concerned about shutting up other people, since he has nothing of his own to express that might be censored?

What does “having an idea” mean to a person who has never considered making a distinction between what he thinks and what others, to whom he attaches himself, think?

In the description of independence of mind I quoted above, what would the following phrase mean to a person who is always surrounded with allies who mimic each other’s thoughts: “Privacy grants us the distance and refuge from others necessary to develop views of our own.”

Privacy? What is that? What is it for? Who needs it? Why would anyone seek it?

Therefore, what harm could come from spying on others?

Who stands up for something on his own when he has nothing to stand up for on his own?

In the delirium of the collective, it is always overcast and dim, and the occasional joys come from acts of destruction against the vague “other.”

The first sacrifice by the true believer is the sacrifice of self. From that, everything else follows with dead certainty.

No matter what the state of the culture, independence of mind is a virtue of the highest order.

It is there for anyone who wants to achieve 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.

The Individual vs. Globalism

The Individual vs. Globalism

by Jon Rappoport

August 20, 2017

“Global solution” means the individual is cut out of the equation, he doesn’t count, he doesn’t mean anything in the larger scheme of things, he’s just another pawn and cipher to move around on the board.

This is purposeful.

This is the script for the future: create problems whose only solution appears to be collective.

Psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually divert the individual’s attention from his own vision, his own profound desires, his own imagination—and place it within The Group (“all of humanity”).

Propagandize the idea that, if the individual concerns himself with anything other than The Group, he is selfish, greedy, inhumane. He is a criminal.

More and more, this is how the young are being trained these days.

The grand “we” is being sold to them like a cheap street drug. They buy in. They believe this “we” is real, instead of a hollow con designed to drag them into a Globalist framework owned and operated by mega-corporations, banks, foundations, governments, and ubiquitous Rockefeller interests.

And what of the individual, his mind, his unique perception, his independent ideas, his originality, his life-force?

Swept away in the rush toward “a better world.”

I have breaking news. Earth is not a spaceship and we are not crew members. If Earth is a spaceship, it has serious design flaws, because it keeps making the same trip around the same sun every year.

Each one of us does not have a specified function, as a crew member would.

Going back as far as you want to in history, shortage and scarcity in the world that engendered a crisis was either created by some elite or maintained by them, for the purpose of eradicating dissent and fomenting a collectivist solution. Meaning a solution that came from the top. Meaning a solution that reduced individual freedom.

In recent human history, a different idea emerged: establish severely hamstrung government, in order to protect the individual against it.

This idea has had a very tough time. Collectivists have fought it every step of the way.

But regardless of circumstances, the individual can author his own freedom and what it implies. He can discover, within himself, extraordinary possibilities. He can contemplate what it means to create reality that expresses his most profound desires.

And then he can begin a voyage that no one and no group can stop.

Civilizations come and go, rise and fall; the individual remains.

The word “imagination,” when properly understood, indicates that the individual can envision and then create futures that never were, and never would be, unless he invented them.

Imagination is the opposite of “provincial,” “restricted,” “well-known,” “familiar,” “accepted.”

That is its challenge to the status quo.

That is the true threat the individual poses to all predictive systems.

Therefore, “it’s all just information” is a psyop code-phrase. Ideas, thoughts—nothing is original, nothing is new; we all “share” information floating in the collective consciousness; the individual invents nothing.

Which is the opposite of the truth. The individual invents everything.

He can’t be predicted when he is himself. He is not a pattern. He is not a system.

He is not anyone else.

He thrives on his own inspiration.

He is the ultimate riverboat gambler. He bets the house on his own as-yet uncreated future.

He is not a piece of universe.

He is not a humble servant of Order.

He invents the space and time of his own time to come.

As early as 1961, a brilliant healer, Richard Jenkins, whom I write about in my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies (part of the Exit From The Matrix collection), explained what was to come. He wrote me a note, which I’m paraphrasing from memory: “People are confusing their own empathy for others with some inflated idea about group-identity. They aren’t the same. People are becoming afraid of their own unique and distinct existence. This is a social fear. A new social contract is being foisted on the population. Either you belong, or you have no rights. This is a totalitarian concept. It’s coming in through the back door.”

Well, now, it’s right there at the front door.

The individual still has a choice. But he has to make it.

Explore his own power, or give it away for nothing more than an illusion of belonging.

Stoke the fires within, or form a diluted image of self, and bow down to The Group.

The “I” is not isolated. He can reach out to others whenever and however he wants to. The question is, is he moving on the ground of his own independence, or is he searching for a group life raft, to which he will attach himself without thought or hesitation?

Beyond economics or politics, Globalism is a system that offers a life raft which is heading toward a machine-future. Disembark and find the great We, a construct of integrated parts, each of which is an individual, in a state of spiritual amnesia.

Happiness there is function and sedation, shadowless, wiped clean of distinctions.

This is the elitist end-game of social justice and equality.

It’s a fake culture.

(A new short story is now up on my other blog OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE entitled “The Cosmic Bathroom.” Click here.)


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.

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.

Medical drug effects in a world organized on Scarcity

Medical drug effects in a world organized on Scarcity

by Jon Rappoport

June 12, 2017

First, I want to give you a quick overview of the devastating effects of medical drugs.

The article is, “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and is the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.

Donald Light: “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [6.6 million annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014 — see link above)

The statistics I’m quoting reveal a problem on the level of a tsunami sweeping across the whole of America and Europe—while somehow, people carry on with their lives as if nothing is happening. Unless it’s happening to them or those they love.

In past articles, I’ve explained how and why this crime is ongoing, from several perspectives (profit motive, indifference to human life, the need to control populations and render them weak, etc.). Here, I want to focus on an underlying principle:

THE CONDITION OF GOOD HEALTH IS SCARCE; THE CONDITION OF SICKNESS IS ABUNDANT.

This principle doesn’t merely attempt to describe the way things are. It also reflects a mindset that assumes this is the way the world operates. WHAT WE MOST DESIRE IS SCARCE. WHAT WE MOST WANT TO AVOID IS ABUNDANT.

Adopting that mindset leads to all sorts of dire consequences. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Reversing the mindset can only be achieved by understanding a deep and buried level of individual spiritual psychology. At that level, the individual perceives a quite different reality. He perceives the potential of abundance on the side of The Good.

I’m not talking about some shallow New Age “rainbows and marshmallows” premise. I’m talking about a profound realization of Creative Force—the capacity to create positive outcomes without limit.

And of course, one of those outcomes would be good health and well-being.

If that idea took hold, the horrifically destructive effects of modern medicine would go the way of extinct species.

A future historian would conclude: “For a time, the universal treatment of sickness gave rise to the notion that ill-health was a basic human condition, from cradle to grave. This was the staggering conception of abundance, applied in a most perverse way. Fortunately, an awakening occurred. Finally, humans perceived that health was, in fact, the abundant underlying power…”

Which kind of abundance does each individual see and choose and act upon? The type that saps strength or the type that funnels unlimited amounts of amounts of energy into inventing a better future?

This is not a theoretical or academic question. This is as real as real gets, because it goes to the heart of what the individual will do or not do.

Will he decide all is lost, or will he decide all can be gained?


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.