Brave New Mind Control: everyone belongs to everyone else

Brave New Mind Control: everyone belongs to everyone else

by Jon Rappoport

March 28, 2014

From my work-in-progress, The Magician Awakes, here is a relevant quote:

“The modern assumption is, each person’s consciousness is connected to every other person’s consciousness. And following from that, enlightenment comes from seeing the connection and surrendering to it.

“The truth is, we are talking about theater. You can take on a role, you can ‘become’ someone else, just as an actor slips into character in a play. But you can also put aside that role. There is nothing final about it.

“On a political level, the idea that we are all one unity is just another corrupt piece of propaganda, intentionally promoted to convince people that their individual independence is a delusion.

“And on a personal level, many, many people are all too eager to lay down their own power, to stop exploring what that power is really capable of, to short-circuit that power and instead join up with an Image of ‘all consciousness.’”

“Every one belongs to every one else” is a quote from Huxley’s novel, Brave New World. Is this slogan a genuine humanitarian effort on the part of the State, or a weapon directed at the individual?

The answer in the novel is given by the characterof the “Director”:

“…at last the child’s mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child’s mind. And not the child’s mind only. The adult’s mind too—all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides—made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!”

The State is the shaper, the groomer, the proponent of all-encompassing mind control.

In our time, such phrases as “it takes a village,” “you didn’t build that,” and “we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to their communities” are suggestions pumped out by the State and its allies.

There are millions of people who resemble the naïve citizens of Brave New World, who accept the above communitarian sentiments as genuine and true and even messianic.

The State (and its media fronts), in our time, wants to impart a “spiritual tone” to its pronouncements. This comes in two basic forms. One, we are holy crusaders who must drop bombs on those who refuse to accept our traditional religion (Bush). And two, we are a single unified consciousness who must diminish the notion of the independent individual (Obama).

Coming from the State and its minions, these are straight cons.

They carry the moral weight of a mafia rep who promises a grocery-store owner protection for a weekly cut of his income.

A common theme runs through Orwell’s 1984, Huxley’s Brave New World, and Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange: there is an overwhelming problem that must be solved for the benefit of all humanity.

The problem could be described as poverty or suffering or irrational resistance to leadership or crime. The solution, though, always produces something far worse than the problem.

And the solution always involves mind control, thought control, conditioning, programming.

There was a reason Edward Bernays, the father of modern public relations wrote, “It is sometimes possible to change the attitudes of millions but impossible to change the attitude of one man.”

Mind control is directed at the mass, the group, the collective, the community, the population.

Bernays also wrote, “The three main elements of public relations are practically as old as society: informing people, persuading people, or integrating people with people.”

Integrating people with people. In other words, to make mind control propaganda work, people must cease thinking of themselves as independent individuals. That’s the key. They must think of themselves, first and foremost, as part of a group. Then the propaganda works beautifully.

Therefore, the first order of business, for propaganda, is launching suggestion after suggestion that “we’re all together.”

This “meta-suggestion” must appear to be made with the greatest sincerity and concern for the general good.

Mustapha Mond, the World Controller of Western Europe in Brave New World, comments: “Sleep teaching was actually prohibited in England…Parliament, if you know what that was, passed a law against it. The records survive. Speeches about liberty of the subject [individual person]. [Which was really] Liberty to be inefficient and miserable. Freedom to be a round peg in a square hole.”

In the novel, sleep teaching was a series of vocal repetitions, thousands of them, which added up to the insertion of State-sponsored thought in the mind of the sleeper.

Mustapha Mond is reflecting on the old world. He’s linking the ancient concept of freedom to inevitable consequences of inefficiency, suffering, and isolation. And of course the State solves all these conditions by reshaping the minds of the people, engineering them in the womb, treating them with a drug, called Soma, which relieves and banishes unhappiness, and teaching (hypnotizing) them in their sleep.

“Every one works for every one else. We can’t do without any one…for I am you and you are I.” These are the sentiments of the Brave New World. These are the thoughts produced by sleep teaching. These are the utopian principles. This is mind control.

The Matrix Revealed

Exit From the Matrix

These principles cut far deeper than, say, worker-owned businesses or intentional communities. They seek to eliminate the individual’s consciousness that he is an independent individual. In fact, they seek to cause confusion whenever an individual does consider the possibility that he is independent.

Another character in Brave new World, Bernard Marx, expresses this confusion: “How is it that I can’t, or rather—because I know quite well why I can’t—what would it be like if I could, if I were free—not enslaved by my conditioning.”

He can’t conceive what his own freedom would be.

Another Brave New World slogan capsulizes the threat freedom poses: “When the individual feels, the community reels.”

Mond, the Controller, describes the essence of Brave New World. Ask yourself how many people would opt for this kind of life, if they could have it now:

“…you’re so conditioned that you can’t help doing what you ought to do. And what you ought to do is on the whole so pleasant, so many of the natural impulses are allowed free play, that there really aren’t any temptations to resist. And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there’s always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there’s always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your morality about in a bottle…”

And how about this feature of the New World? “Men and women must have their adrenals stimulated from time to time…It’s one of the conditions of perfect health. That’s why we’ve made the V.P.S. treatments compulsory…Violent Passion Surrogate. Regularly once a month. We flood the whole system with adrenalin. It’s the complete physiological equivalent of fear and rage. All the tonic effects of murdering Desdemona and being murdered by Othello, without any of the inconveniences.” (Video games, anyone?)

Every day, week, month, year, more people are coming around to a preference for a synthetic mind-controlled “utopia,” even if they don’t realize it. They would take the Brave New World existence if it were offered to them.

And if the price to pay was the acceptance of conditioning? “Everyone belongs to everyone else”? Oh well, why not?

It’s highly significant that, in Brave New World, even with every fetus subjected to genetic engineering, there was still a need to condition people, through repetitive sleep learning, to accept The Group as all and everything.

That’s how deep the idea of the independent individual goes.

That’s The Problem for the controllers. And no matter what they try, they will never solve it with finality.

Everyone doesn’t belong to everyone else. The individual is irreducible.

He has the power to invent new reality. He has the power to join with others—without invoking mind control—to outdistance the reality of the State.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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

A Clockwork Orange, Eden, guilt, sin, mind control

A Clockwork Orange, Eden, guilt, sin, mind control

by Jon Rappoport

March 26, 2014

Here’s a short quote from my unfinished manuscript, The Magician Awakes:

“How do you view a single life? Is it a platform from which a human launches his future, or must he double back and find out what is wrong with him?

“Is he compelled, through social training, to think of himself as flawed? Is that what we’re all coming to? Three or four generations from now, will everyone automatically see their lives as a mistake that demands correction?”

Whether it’s the administration of toxic psychiatric drugs; experiments in changing thought and behavior through electromagnetic transmissions to the brain; genetic modifications, transhuman hook-ups between humans and machines; or other forms of operant conditioning; the message from corporations and government and society is clear:

Something is basically faulty with human beings, and it needs to be remedied.

It’s the modern version of Original Sin and redemption, via science.

Both Orwell and Huxley covered the subject in their novels, 1984 and Brave New World.

The 1962 novel, by Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange, takes up the same assumption. Its young, violent, vicious criminal is put through aversion therapy as a cure—not only for him, but also, potentially, for society.

Here are several key quotes from Burgess’ novel:

“We’re not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime—and…with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He will be your true Christian: ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the very heart at the thought even of killing a fly! Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it works.”

“Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses to be bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him?”

“He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice.”

And then from the 1971 film, A Clockwork Orange, written and directed by Stanley Kubrick:

“Our subject [the criminal] is impelled towards the good by paradoxically being impelled towards evil. The intention to act violently is accompanied by strong feelings of physical distress [during aversion therapy]. To counter these [feelings of distress], the subject has to switch to a diametrically opposed attitude. Any questions?”

There are many questions, and too few people who, now, want to think about them seriously.

Slogans, political correctness, turning to The Group for all answers, denying the existence of the individual—these are all signs that Guilt is still being used as the impetus for building the society of the future.

Laid on top of that grid is the program to “enhance” humans. Those who can afford it will undergo genetic alteration, and poof, they will suddenly have talents they only could dream of before.

This is the modern version of buying indulgences from the Roman Church to gain a place in heaven.

And it is just as fanciful.

People are being educated to believe that standing out from The Group is a crime. They must not reveal themselves in that way. Achievement is wrong. It makes The Group look small.

Much better to huddle in a mass, dependent on mind control—and our leaders will determine the form and content of that new programming.

Forget about freedom. It’s an illusion. Confess that we are all fatally misshapen. Submit to “aversion therapy.” In that way, we’ll be restored.

The Matrix Revealed

In one way or another, these propaganda operations are all versions of the Garden of Eden story. But I take the fable this way:

In the Garden, Adam and Eve were delighted with each other and with all they saw. They woke up every morning without a stain of regret or remorse. When the mind-control operative, the serpent, came along, he said:

“You don’t understand. I have other knowledge for you. There are other people over the hill. I’ll take you to them. They’re all suffering.

“And you, Adam and Eve, are the cause of that suffering, because you set yourselves apart from them. As long as you are different, they are trapped. But if you join them, and experience what they experience, you’ll change the nature of life. All of you will wait together, and a new program of existence will be given to you.”

That was the con, and it worked. The snake led Adam and Eve out of the Garden, and they joined The Group.

But everyone over the hill, huddled in a quivering mass, had once been an Adam and Eve. Everyone.

And all those Adams and Eves had once lived in a Garden. And the snake had come to all of them and told them the same story.

And they had fallen for it. Fallen.

As for the very first Adam and the first Eve, when the snake had taken them over the hill, he said: “You see, there is Nothing there. No one is there. And that Nothing is intolerable.

“There must be rules. There must be regulations. There must be boundaries. Otherwise, how will you know how to live?

“So you will stay here and suffer. Because suffering is the way to reach out and ask for rules that will save you. And after a time, those rules will be delivered to you. They’ll be printed in your minds.”

Exit From the Matrix

How many people would consider the possibility that, without mind control and without rules and without propaganda and without a priest class, they already know how to live, they already know how to invent their own realities?

How many people would believe they are already artists of great power?

How many would believe they can invent endlessly, from Nothing?

Versus: how many people would rather embed and embroil themselves in The Group, to suffer there, to scheme and connive and submit, to make war, to demand relief from pain, to wait…

Until leaders with grand solutions come along and program them to live “the life of goodness.”

This is what society is being led to. The principle that so-called goodness must be programmed into people. They can’t choose. There is no choice. There is only the mind control.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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

You can have consciousness made out of poetry or brain surgery

You can have consciousness made out of poetry or brain surgery

by Jon Rappoport

March 22, 2014

~recounted as a dialogue~

Well, Jim, we found a few interesting things when we went into your brain.”


Yes. A whole lot of poems, in fact.”

What?! Impossible. That has to be a mistake. I’m just an ordinary guy. I go to work, have a few beers, take the train home, eat dinner, read the paper, do a little note-writing on experiments at the lab, go to bed around midnight…”

Jim, I’m not asking for your biography—”

I know, Doc, but what you’re telling me is crazy. I like a limerick now and then, but the weird stuff…Shakespeare and Milton…that’s for the dome heads. I’m just…”

You’re a regular guy. Got that, Jim. However, I can show you X-rays. Scans. There’s poetry in your brain, and it’s threatening to take over your cerebral cortex unless we go in and do a second surgery.”

Take over? You’re joking.”

You have to face up to a few things, Jimbo. You’re actually posing as just another Joe, and it’s a good impression, I’m sure, but inside you there are poems waiting to come out. And if they do, it’s going to get ugly, believe me. For one thing, you’ll see more.”

See more what?”

More of what existence can be.”

THERE ISN’T ANYTHING MORE. There’s what I do every day. My work. My family. My salary. Beers with the boys. Football. I love football.”

Yes, we all love football, Jim. It’s mandatory. But you…let me read one of the poems we found in your brain.”


It won’t hurt that much.”

I don’t want to hear it.”

Now as I was young and easy, under the apple boughs, about the lilting house, and happy as the grass was green—”


Okay, Jim, take it easy, it’s in your head, don’t blame me. We’ve discovered that…how I can put this…on some level you’re always thinking in poetry. Your whole consciousness is involved, and if we were to take the poems away, you’d go into a deep sleep, a kind of amnesia, perhaps a coma, and you’d never wake up. So we can’t surgically remove the poems. At best we can bury them deeper.”

Do it. Bury them. Bury them all.”

Yes, Jim, but hear me out. If we do that, you’ll lose something.”

You mean I won’t like football anymore?”

No, Jim. You’ll still have football. But you might not have beer. Just kidding. Ha-ha. What you might lose is your interest in life.”

What do you mean?”

You may not feel alive in the same way. You could become very dull.”

How’s that possible, Doc. You’re just getting rid of poems. Who cares?”

Well, Jim, apparently you do. As much as you’d like to deny it, your existence, your feeling about what it means to be alive—even though you’re trying to emphasize how ordinary you are—is wrapped up in a certain poetic consciousness. I know, it’s strange. But again, don’t blame me.”

Look, Doc, you went into my skull to remove some kind of little blockage. And then you came up with these poems. And now you want to bury them. But you say if you do, I might turn into a zombie.”

In the surgery, Jim, there was a leakage. Poems started to come through. We put in a plug, but it’s just temporary. It’s a delicate situation. Going back in a second time, we either let out all the poems, or we build a thicker wall.”

Let me ask you a question, Doc. This thing, consciousness. What is it?”

It’s two things, Jim. It’s what makes you know you’re alive, and it’s also how you’re alive. That second part is tricky. You’re connecting with the rhythm and sound of certain thoughts, certain energies. And these energies would NEVER come through to you if it weren’t for language, and that language is poetic. It’s much greater than the reality we see around us. You dampen down that language, Jim, because you want to appear normal. It’s your goal in life, to pretend not to understand anything about this. Do you see? You want to come off like a regular guy, who’s smart and good at his job, and who knows what’s happening in the world. But you don’t want to admit you’re connected to…that thing you’re afraid of.”

But LOOK. I AM a regular guy. All right, so I read the newspaper and I can look behind the stories and I can see a lot of the con games the government is playing on people. I know something about who’s running the show, who’s behind the curtain. I take pride in that. But this poetry thing. It’s crazy.”

Yes, I understand, Jim. But that’s not going to cut it in this case. We’re at a serious crossroad. We have to do something. You’re playing with fire, trying to deny your connection. Because on some level, you’re participating in a greater reality. You’re thinking on a different plane, and that thinking is what we call poetry. We could call it Budweiser, but it wouldn’t make any difference. It’s thought with higher force. And it’s coming from you, from your mind. You want to say you’re living in a pond, but you’re living in the ocean. Let me put it this way. If you weren’t accessing oceanic consciousness, you couldn’t step it all down and appear to be a normal very smart guy. It wouldn’t work. You’d have nothing to step down from.”

What would I be?”

A broccoli. A head of lettuce.”

You’re serious?”

As serious as an aneurism, Jim.”

Geez, Doc, this is bad. My whole reputation, my whole rep with MYSELF is riding on the fact that I’m a hardheaded realist. Do you get what’s at stake here?”

Of course I do. That’s why I’m being so forthcoming. I could have put you under without you knowing it and just cut into your skull again. But I wanted to explain the whole thing to you and give you a choice. You see, Jim, the truth is we’re all living in a charade. We’re all faking it. We’re pretending we don’t have these fantastic energies in us. We’re all stepping it down to average and normal and smart.

It just so happens that, by the luck of the draw, my assistant in the OR nicked a little piece of your brain and opened up a portal into what we’re all trying to avoid. We’re all hooked up to our own poetic centers. I don’t mean little stupid rhymes. I mean great language that vaults us up into atmospheres and spaces that…well, I can’t really do it justice sitting here talking to you. But this is mind control here, Jim. The most profound kind. Self-induced. We do it to ourselves. We cut off access. We keep ourselves ignorant about the language we have…the genuine language that comes out of imagination. If I operate on you again, there’s a chance the wall we build will be too thick, and you’ll wake up with very little awareness. You’ll be regular and normal and average for REAL. And trust me, Jim, that’s a nightmare. I’ve seen it.

What should I do, Doc?”

Take a chance, Jim. Let us clear away any scar tissue and just leave an open portal. Let the language and the energies come through. From one faker to another, go for it. Go for the great adventure. Who knows what’ll it be? One thing’s for sure. You won’t be sitting here whining to me. You’ll be you. Dealing with that won’t be easy, but with enough guts, you could make it through. You could show us what we don’t want to see.”

Doesn’t sound very appealing.”

That won’t be your problem, Jim. I guarantee it. The problem is, it’ll be too appealing.”

Sounds dangerous.”

I wouldn’t put it that way. Being who you are is what you’ve sacrificed your whole life. You’re going to retract that sacrifice. Think of it that way. You’re going to pull away the sacrifice like an old coat and burn it in the fire of a thousand new suns…”

Or else come back as a carrot.”

In which case, people around you will still think you’re Jim, but inside you won’t be anybody or anything. You’ll be a robot with no real consciousness.”

I hate poetry, Doc.”

Why do you think that is, Jim?”

I don’t know. I want things to be simple and clear. Like a story. Beginning, middle, end.”

Wrapped up like a nice neat package.”

That’s right.”

Like your life.”

Why not?”

You tell me.”

I hate poetry.”

We all do, Jim. It reminds us of something we’d rather forget.”

So help me forget it, Doc.”

You want to be a zombie.”

If that’s what it takes.”

Imagine a world full of zombies, Jim. Everybody cut off from their oceanic consciousness.”

Sounds good. Sounds like realism. No more conflict. No more demons.”

Demons? Is that what you think I’m talking about, Jim? Your greatest thoughts and energies expressed with their greatest force, with—”

They’re not RATIONAL, Doc. They’re meaningless. I don’t understand those thoughts. They don’t make any sense.”

If we build that wall in your brain, Jim, what’s left of you will be a machine. Do you get that?”

That’s what I want. I want to be a machine. I’ll be fine.”

Well…okay, kid. Your choice. Your destiny. We’ll prep you for surgery. We’ll make those trillion watts of energy shrink down to a ten-watt bulb.”

This thing you call poetic consciousness, Doc? It’s just a delusion. And I want to get rid of it.”

Okay, Jim, I’ll put the genie back in the bottle.”

Nice talking to you, Doc.”


See, Doc. That’s just what I mean. What the hell kind of talk is that? I don’t understand it! Get rid of it!”

Sorry, kid, it just slipped out. I’ll go get ready. Relax. The nurse’ll be in in a minute. Piece of cake.”

Poetry. Ridiculous. It’s for idiots.”

Sure, kid.”

We don’t need poets.”

Exit From the Matrix

Of course not. One world is aware and by far the largest to me, and that is
And whether I come to my own to-day or in ten thousand or
ten million years,
I can cheerfully take it now, or with equal cheerfulness I can

My foothold is tenon’d and mortis’d in granite,
I laugh at what you call dissolution,
And I know the amplitude of time.

I am the poet of the Body and I am the poet of the Soul,
Earth of the slumbering and liquid trees!
Earth of departed sunset…Earth of the vitreous pour of the full moon!…

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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

Nuts and bolts of The Matrix Revealed


by Jon Rappoport

March 21, 2014

This is the introduction to one of my two products, The Matrix Revealed. It spans 25 years of research dedicated to learning how this Matrix is put together.

It’s not a list of groups who “run things.” It’s about Matrix construction, how false realities are built, and it’s also about the human mind and its two competing tendencies: the desire to be in the Matrix and the desire to escape it.

Matrix IS as much about the mind as it is about external reality.

Here are the nuts and bolts of The Matrix Revealed. It is enormous in scope and size.

250 megabytes of information.

Over 1100 pages of text.

Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

My complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and audio to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

EILLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages.

Then there are several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix. 53 pages.

The ten and a half hours of mp3 audio are my solo presentation, based on these interviews and my own research. Title: The Multi-Dimensional Planetary Chessboard—The Matrix Vs. the Un-Conditioning of the Individual.

Here is some background on the product and my own history:

In 2001, I essentially left a career as an investigative reporter and rolled the dice on the emerging internet. I started a site called

I didn’t stop investigating and publishing, but my field of operation widened. My first big question was: Who really runs the world?

And my second was: Whoever they are, how do they manufacture reality for the population of Earth?

I was prepared to deal with these enormous questions, because I had contacts. These were people I had come to know well during my days as a reporter, writing for LA Weekly and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe—and also during a stint on radio at KPFK in Los Angeles.

These people, these contacts, were insiders.

They had deep knowledge in their fields:

Propaganda, finance, hypnotism, mind control, medicine, intelligence operations…

They were unwilling to be cited as on-the-record sources in my articles. They knew they would suffer consequences if they went public.

Once I started my website, I did extensive research to confirm the credentials of my insiders. I wanted to make sure they were who they said they were. I wanted to verify they had worked where they said they had worked. This was a laborious process.

When I was sure, I began to interview them.

I wasn’t certain where all this would go.

But gradually, I realized I was getting very high-level information on The Matrix. But this was the real Matrix.

As one of my sources described it:

“Imagine a factory that turns out illusions. And these illusions are woven together to make up what we think the world is.”

The Matrix Revealed

(All the audio presentations are mp3 files and the documents and books are pdf files. You download the files upon purchase.)

The actual Matrix involves a number of areas: government; money; energy; the military; intelligence agencies; medicine; mega-corporations; psychology and mind control; science…

I started a members-only newsletter, and word quickly spread. Every Friday, I would email a newsletter to subscribers. Many of these newsletters were interviews with my insiders.

It was quite a job, keeping up with writing (public) daily articles for my site and also putting out the (private) newsletter. I was also collating the high-level information from my sources and making maps of the expanding territory.

I saw that I was looking at global cartels. As you will discover in reading this material, these cartels are not frozen organizations. They are evolving.

So now I’ve had some very competent assistance, and I’ve assembled the most important newsletter-interviews for you.

But in addition to that, I’m publishing, for the first time, interviews that never made it into those newsletters.

It’s very instructive to talk to people who have been there on the inside. They are bright, they are informative, they convey the depth of situations they were involved with. They go beyond relaying dry facts, and in doing so, you learn how elite players play the game. You receive a rounded and three-dimensional picture of: the process of constructing The Matrix. How it’s built.

In every case, each insider was relieved to be able to talk with utter frankness, with no fear that his words would be twisted or taken out of context or deleted. So you’re getting the full story.

I met my first two insiders while I was writing my first book, AIDS Inc., Scandal of the Century, in 1987-88. The book was my initial experience in putting together a vast amount of data—which contradicted every official position on a supposedly rock-hard subject: medical science.

At the time, I didn’t really understand how deep I was drilling down into a cardinal aspect of The Matrix. I only knew I was I digging up and exposing long-held delusions broadcast as facts by the Medical Cartel. These false realities went far beyond the subject of AIDS.

That first book of mine started as a pure lark. I had just published a piece in LA Weekly about certain televangelists and their support of an intentionally staged Armageddon in Israel. When the piece was published, I sat back and thought, “Where do I go from here? What could be weirder than this?”

Like other investigative reporters, I was excited by strange and bizarre stories that could blow readers’ minds. I was motivated by that.

So, in 1987, I wondered what could be stranger than the Armageddon story I had just done.

Sitting in my Los Angeles studio, a thought popped into my head. “AIDS. I bet there’s something about that whole thing that’s pretty weird.”

Little did I know…

That was my first big leap.

I had studied logic extensively in college. I had been taught by a philosophy professor who was a very generous soul and a relentless thinker. If you were an inch from accuracy, he would point it out, and he would give you the full reason and understanding that pulled you back to the straight and narrow.

Once I dove into research for AIDS, Inc., I was amazed at the sloppy thinking and contradiction that was posing as science.

And then I met my first two insiders.

Their basic message to me was: keep going; you’re on the right track; we have a great deal more to share with you.

They weren’t just talking about medical issues.

They were talking about the whole construction of reality from a number of angles.

Each of the insiders I have gotten to know over the subsequent years has a different personal story. They have all left their particular corner of The Matrix-Construction Group. Jack True, my late friend and colleague, was a different man altogether. He was never part of that Group. He was the most informed and brilliant researcher I’ve ever come across on the subject of the mind—the essential link that makes The Matrix work.

Jack started the ball rolling. He was instrumental in making the deal that got AIDS Inc. published. He introduced me to a few key figures along the way—insiders who proved invaluable.

Why did these insiders want to talk and spill secrets? Well, the process of interviewing them wasn’t always easy. They could be thorny at times. But they all had seen, finally, the abyss toward which they were heading, toward which they were leading the population. And they pulled back.


This Volume is for individuals.


Beyond The Matrix is true individual power.

Despite all the illusions, it has always been there.

It waits for you.

And it is your power.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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

The strange fear of symbols

The fear of symbols

by Jon Rappoport

March 13, 2014

Groups use symbols.

But symbols have no inherent power.


They have power only when people believe in them. In which case it’s the belief that is the power.

Just as important, symbols have no inherent meaning. They only have the meaning given to them.

So, for example, the famous eye and pyramid mean zero. Zilch. They only have meaning because Masons and other groups have assigned it.

There is no closed secret world of symbols that has magic in it.

There are no universally good symbols or bad symbols. A symbol is a word, term, sign, shape. It’s injected with meaning by a group. The group adopts a consensus about the symbol.

To a surprising degree, people think in terms of symbols. They operate as if they understand what they’re doing, but they don’t. They fear the power of certain symbols and attach themselves to the power of other “good” symbols. They’re hooked.

You could make a picture of a sun emanating three rays and call it Oobladee, and invent a whole mythology around it. You could claim it comes from Atlantis, or a secret society embedded in the old KGB, or an ancient Babylonian priesthood.

And then some people would react when they saw it. They would feel fear or anger or excitement.

It’s a con.

If you took this even further and created a whole set of symbols, dozens of them, and made up meanings for them, and worked with this game, you would eventually experience an interesting kind of liberation. You would see, to a greater extent, how arbitrary symbols are, how people trap themselves in “internal symbolic spaces.”

The whole point of frozen symbols is to enclose consciousness.

Let’s say you devised a picture of an eyeball hovering in a forest. A tear is dropping from the eye. The literal mind is looking for specific meaning. The literal mind wants an answer. It can’t find one.

The eyeball and the forest and the tear don’t add up. They provoke all sorts of associations, but no particular meaning, and the literal mind is frustrated.

So THEN you come along and assign a meaning. You say, “Well, this symbol was painted on masks in 834BC by the ancient Egyptian founders of a cult of pyramid builders. The eye and the tear stand for the tragedy caused by lack of faith in eternal life…”

And so forth and so on.

Now you’ve assigned specific meaning to the symbol. Now the literal mind breathes a sigh of relief. It has an answer. It can suck up that meaning and take it in and accept it. And now you can embellish the story and sell it to the literal mind. You can make that symbol into an object of fear and repulsion, if that’s the reaction you want to provoke in your audience, or you can make the symbol into an object of victory that stands for redemption.

You can twist and turn the symbol any way you want to.

The literal mind wants an answer to the mystery, a solution, and you provided it.

We’re talking about a very primitive form of art. When people operate at this level, buying symbols and their assigned meanings, it’s an indication they can’t appreciate or fathom more complex art.

They can’t read and fathom a novel or watch a stage play. That’s too much. There isn’t a clear one-to-one connecting pipeline between symbol and meaning, and so they’re confused. They’re frustrated.

The Matrix Revealed

I remember sitting in a movie theater watching a crime drama. The cops arrested the wrong man and framed him for a killing. A guy sitting next to me blew his top. He started telling his girl friend about how the cops were railroading this suspect and how bad the cops were, how the suspect was a victim of police brutality.

Well, yes. That was, in fact, the whole point of the movie. The movie was showing the audience how the police operated to create a false scenario and frame an innocent man. That’s what the movie was saying.

But this guy couldn’t get to that level. He thought the movie was actually on the cops’ side. He thought the movie was praising the arrest of the wrong man.

The literal mind at work.

In the same way, people accept the meanings that are assigned to symbols, and they react to those meanings in a reflex fashion.

In truth, symbols are open. They have no intrinsic meaning. People can inject any meaning they want to.

But when they’re trapped in a layer of symbolic thinking, they can’t see that. They’re determined to accept the already-assigned meaning and react to it.

Which is an invitation to propagandists.

Worse yet, it’s a fixation that artificially defines the limits of mind.

Symbols form a matrix-shell inside which minds live. Until they don’t.

In case you hadn’t noticed, lunatic school officials have been punishing students for symbols of guns. Pop tart chewed into the shape of a gun. Screen saver showing a picture of a gun. T-shirt with a message supporting the 2nd Amendment.

Then there are widening definitions of so-called hate speech. People want to ban the word “bossy.” They want to take any bland utterance and analyze it for possible “hate content.”

Among other things, this is puerile symbol-addiction.

A story about someone burning an American flag receives far more coverage and more reaction than a statement that the federal government violates the Constitution in a hundred ways.

Presidents are symbols. That is, the public reacts to the meanings broadly assigned to their images. The last time I looked, Americans in Kansas and Ohio weren’t sitting in the Oval Office having long conversations with Presidents.

Neither, I dare say, are Americans sitting down and talking with Satan. They’re reacting to meanings assigned to images of Satan painted by others.

Artists are in a unique position. They can make and unmake symbols at will. They can imbue symbols with meaning and then change the meanings or destroy the symbols. They don’t have to live under the dome of consensus symbols and their assigned meanings.

There are people who will argue that some symbols have “inherent meaning.” As if “the universe” sits around and writes down descriptions in a book, which is irrefutable.

Even if this were true, why do people have to accept those meanings?

Some symbols point to things that actually exist. Other symbols are fabricated with the intent of referring to fictions as if they were real. In both cases, the symbols are cooked and plumped up with meanings to impart a reaction.

I suppose God is the most widespread symbol on Earth. But instead of standing back and allowing the individual to decide what, if anything, it means to him, priest classes move in and organize religions to tell their stories, to embellish and codify the meaning of that symbol. And then to fight and kill to defend it.

Here is the symbol-maker’s proposition: “I’ll give you a symbol and tell you what it means and what it refers to. Then I want you to accept it, yes, but also to imbue it with feeling and awe and power. Give that power to the symbol. Make that investment. It’s your duty. Don’t vary or quibble.”

This is how humans are made into ciphers. This is mind control.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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

Psychology and the creative force

Psychology and the creative force

by Jon Rappoport

February 18, 2014

The whole thrust of psychology, during its history, has been “resolution of the negative.”

I fully realize that psychology covers a wide territory, and there are exceptions to the rule. But all in all, the modern field of therapy is focused on “solving issues.”

Remedying problems whose roots are thought to be in the past.

Psychological “research” is fashioned to resemble the conventional practice of medicine, in which “negative elements are removed.”

Psychology’s public relations fronts and political connections have enabled it to gain an astonishing position in society. And this helps make people believe its central premise is true.

But is it? People, particularly patients, are malleable. Tell them that negative factors, traumas or conflicts out of the past are the reason they’re unhappy in the present, and they may well sign on the dotted line.

Well, that makes sense. For instance, my father and I…and then there was my grandmother…she lived with us for a while…she was a martinet…always hounding me…”

Psychology maintains that “resolving” these past relationships will bring a greater sense of peace and normalcy to life.

But suppose there is a much larger unexplored territory in consciousness where the concerns are quite different, and far more profound?

I’m talking about everything that involves living a truly creative life. Imagination, invention, vision, and vast untapped energy.

Most of what’s called psychology doesn’t tread in these deep waters.

And that is evidence of massive ignorance. Massive distraction.

It is futile to try to convince a conventional psychologist that the creative life should be his central focus.

If it were, it wouldn’t be psychology.

In the end, the overall effect of therapy, even at its best, is relatively superficial.

The creative life exceeds the norms of society. A life lived through and by imagination breaks through the ceiling of the universal fixation on problems.

James Hillman, psychologist and director of studies at the Jung Institute in Zurich, co-authored the book, We’ve Had a Hundred Years of Therapy & the World’s Getting Worse. Here are two Hillman quotes about psychology:

Where a case history presents a sequence of facts leading to diagnosis, soul history shows rather a concentric helter-skelter pointing always beyond itself … We cannot get a soul history through a case history.”

Our lives are determined less by our childhood than by the traumatic way we have learned to remember our childhoods.”

People learn how to “think about life” through the lens of psychology. People who should be keeping their heads down or, God forbid, reading a novel, are suddenly experts on human behavior.

As a result, a putrid kind of brain-addled pop psychology floats like a foam over the crest of society.

And when, in its own defense, advocates claim psychology is a science, they may as well be saying that an anthropologist, sitting in the jungle making notes on monkeys, is discovering vital facts about humans. The monkeys, if they knew what was happening, would, I’m sure, treat the whole enterprise as a fantastic joke. Just as we should, when shiny new psychology PhDs emerge from universities to treat the mind.

If all of psychology, its fatuous notions, and our memory of them disappeared from the earth tomorrow, much of society would come face to face with an interesting void. And then real exploration would begin. Again.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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

Stravinsky, Dali, and the revolution of imagination

Stravinsky, Dali, and the revolution of imagination

by Jon Rappoport

February 15, 2014

On May 29, 1913, in the Theatre des Champs-Elysees in Paris, a riot broke out.

After the curtain went up on the premiere of The Rite of Spring, it took only a few minutes for the tumult to begin.

Boos, hisses, catcalls, people throwing objects at the stage… The roar of the crowd quickly became so loud, the dancers lost their cues.

And the music. It was a whisper, a pounding scream, sheets of brass, harsh relentless rhythms breaking against one another, cliffs suddenly colliding and collapsing in the air.

The police arrived and shut the program down.

Stravinsky, at 28, had arrived on the world scene.

Never again would he compose music so challenging. Later in his life, after he had taken up a position as a champion of new classicism, he would conduct a recording of the Rite that was modulated to a bare shadow of its former self.

But the revolution had happened.

Much has been written about the premiere and the Rite. A great deal of programmatic explanation has been offered to “make sense” out of the piece of music: after all, it was a ballet with a plot, and the themes had to do with primitive ritual sacrifices in a fanciful pagan world.

You can also find scholarly work on the structure of the Rite, indicating a possible borrowed background of several Eastern European folk melodies.

Formidable creations of imagination are often diluted by referring the audience to other works and periods of time and influences—to explain the incomprehensible.

But the fact is, to absorb a work of imagination, one has to use his own imagination.

Since this is considered unlikely, pundits earnestly help us with step-down contexts, so that we can understand the work in pedestrian terms. In other words, so we can reduce it to nothing.

Fundamentally, it is its own world. It immediately and finally presents itself as a universe apart from easy references and tie-ins and links.

So when you listen to the Rite, you are, gratefully, alone with the music. In this regard, I recommend one recording. The 1958 Leonard Bernstein-New York Philharmonic, available as Sony SMK 47629. It’s the 1992 Bernstein Royal Edition. Le Sacre Du Printemps.

Bernstein, one of the geniuses of the 20th century, was no stranger to encountering imagination with imagination. And yet, as the conductor, he had no need to distort the score. If anything, he was more faithful to it and the composer’s great intent than any other conductor, past or present.

In 1912 and 1913, Stravinsky had composed the Rite in a reckless frame of mind. This did not mean he abandoned all he knew; it meant he wanted to show everyone how dim the perception of music had become. “To hell with all of them.”

He took the large orchestra and shredded the conventional relationships between its various sections. Instead, he made it an ocean in a storm. He crossed all lines. He crashed together old sounds and new sounds. He destroyed pleasant mesmerizing rhythms.

But there was nothing primitive about his undertaking. He made something new, something no one could have predicted.

As you listen to it, you may find one part of your mind repeating, this is not music, this is not music. Just keep listening. Five times, 50 times, 100 times.

There are artists like Stravinsky, like the Spanish architect Gaudi, like Edgar Varese, like the often-reviled American writer Henry Miller, like Walt Whitman (although Whitman has been grotesquely co-opted into a Norman Rockwell-like prefect), like the several great Mexican muralists—all of whom transmit an oceanic quality.

As in, The Flood.

There is a fear that, if such artists were unleashed to produce their work on a grand scale—and if the societal chains of perception were removed—they would take over the world.

This is the real reason there was a riot at the Theatre des Champs Elysees on May 29, 1913. Even though Stravinsky was presenting a universe of his own making, people instinctively felt that the music could spill over into the streets of Paris…and after that, where would it go? What would stop it?

Their fear was justified.

Our world, contrary to all consensus, is meant to be revolutionized by art, by imagination, right down to its core.

That this has not happened for the best is no sign that the process is irrelevant. It is only a testament to the collective resistance.

Who knows how many such revolutions have been shunted aside and rejected, in favor of the shape we now think of as central and eternal?

We are living in a default structure, the one that has been left over after all the prior revolutions have been put to sleep.

And still, it takes imagination and creating to give us what we have now. But often it is a harnessed imagination that accedes to a stolid esthetic that replaces daring and vast improvisation with classical forms and formats, long after their time.

We peek between the fluted columns to see what the future might hold. We speculate, for example, that information itself might be alive and might flow in from our own DNA to bring about a new cyber-brain step in evolution. Information? What further evidence do we need that our society is heading down a slope to the swamp?

If Rite of Spring and other works of that magnitude are information, a wooden duck on a doily is Shakespeare.

Mere information is the wood scrapings and the stone chips Brancusi swept up in his studio and put out in the alley. Information is the dried flattened tubes of paint Matisse disposed of with the old newspapers. Information is the heap of wires Tesla tossed in the garbage.

Information is the neutral boil-down left over after the artist has made his mark.

Creation is not neutral.

It flows out into the atmosphere with all its subjective force.

That is what happened on May 29, 1913.

And that is what evoked the mass fear.

The Matrix Revealed

Exit From the Matrix

The critics would have declared Salvador Dali a lunatic if he hadn’t had such formidable classical painting skills.

He placed his repeating images (the notorious melting watch, the face and body of his wife, the ornate and fierce skeletal structures of unknown creatures) on the canvas as if they had as much right to be there as any familiar object.

This was quite troubling to many people. If an immense jawbone that was also a rib or a forked femur could rival a perfectly rendered lamp or couch or book (on the same canvas), where were all the accoutrements and assurances of modern comfortable living?

Where was the pleasantly mesmerizing effect of a predictable existence?

Where was a protective class structure that depended on nothing more than money and cultural slogans?

Dali invented vast comedies on canvas. But the overall joke turned, as the viewer’s eye moved, into a nightmare, into an entrancing interlude of music, a memory of something that had never happened, a gang of genies coming out of corked bottles. A bewildering mix of attitudes sprang out from the paintings.

What was the man doing? Was he making fun of the audience? Was he simply showing off? Was he inventing waking dreams? Was he, God forbid, actually imagining something entirely new that resisted classification?

Words failed viewers and critics and colleagues and enemies.

But they didn’t fail Dali. He took every occasion to explain his work. However, his explications were handed out in a way that made it plain he was telling tall tales—interesting, hilarious, and preposterous tall tales.

Every interview and press conference he gave, gave birth to more attacks on him. Was he inviting scorn? Was he really above it all? Was he toying with the press like some perverse Olympian?

Critics flocked to make him persona non grata, but what was the persona they were exiling? They had no idea then, and they have no idea now.

It comes back to this: when you invent something truly novel, you know that you are going to stir the forces trapped within others that aspire to do the very same thing. You know that others are going to begin by denying that anything truly NEW even exists. That DOES make it a comedy, whether you want to admit it or not.

It is possible that every statement ever uttered in public by Dali was a lie. A fabrication. An invention dedicated to constructing a massive (and contradictory) persona.

Commentators who try to take on Dali’s life usually center on the early death of his young brother as the core explanation for Dali’s “basic confusion”—which resulted in his bizarre approach to his own fame.

However, these days, with good reason, we might more correctly say that Dali was playing the media game on his own terms, after realizing that no reporter wanted the real Dali (whatever that might mean)—some fiction was being asked for, and the artist was merely being accommodating.

He was creating a self that matched his paintings.

It is generally acknowledged that no artist of the 20th century was superior to Dali in the ability to render realistic detail.

But of course Dali’s work was not about realism.

The most complex paintings—see, for example, Christopher Columbus Discovering America and The Hallucinogenic Toreador—brilliantly orchestrated the interpenetration of various solidities/ realities, more or less occupying the same space.

I’m sure that if Dali were living today, he would execute a brain-bending UFO landing on the front lawn of the White House. Such a painting would envelop the viewer with simultaneous dimensions colliding outside the president’s mansion.

At some point in his career, Dali saw (decided) there was no limit to what he could assemble in the same space—and there was no limit to the number of spaces he could corral into the same canvas. A painting could become a science-fiction novel reaching into several pasts and futures. The protagonist (the viewer) could find himself in such a simultaneity.

Critics have attacked the paintings relentlessly. They are offended at Dali’s skill, which matches the best work of the meticulous Dutch Renaissance masters.

They hate the dissonance. They resent Dali’s mordant wit and rankle at the idea that Dali could carry out monstrous jokes in such fierce extended detail.

But above all, the sheer imagination harpoons the critics. How dare a painter turn reality upside down so blatantly, while rubbing their faces in it.

The cherry on the cake was: for every attack the critics launched at Dali the man (they really had no idea who he was), Dali would come back at them with yet another elaborate piece of fiction about himself. It was unfair. The scholars were “devoted to the truth.” The painter was free to invent himself over and over as many times as he fancied.

Dali was holding up a mirror. He was saying, “You people are like me. We’re all doing fiction. I’m much better at it. In the process, I get at a much deeper truth.”

Dali was the hallucinogenic toreador. He was holding off and skirting the charges of the critics and the historians. They rushed at him. He moved with his cape—and danced out of the way.

The principles of organized society dictate that a person must be who he is, even if that is a cartoon of a cartoon. A person must be one recognizable caricature forever, must be IDed, must have one basic function. Must—as a civilization goes down the trail of decline—be watched and taped and profiled.

When a person shows up who is many different things, who can invent himself at the drop of hat, who seems to stand in 14 different places at the same time, the Order trembles.

This is not acceptable.

(Fake) reality declares: what you said yesterday must synchronize absolutely with what you say today.

This rule (“being the only thing you are”) guarantees that human beings will resonate with the premise that we all live and think and work in one continuum of space and time. One. Only one. Forever. The biggest joke of all. The big lie.

Whatever he was, however despicable he may have been in certain respects, Dali broke that egg. Broke the cardinal rule.

He reveled in doing it. He made people wait for an answer about himself, and the answer never came. Instead, he gave them a hundred answers, improvised like odd-shaped and meticulous reveries.

He threw people back on their own resources, and those resources proved to be severely limited.

How harsh for conventional critics to discover that nothing in Dali’s education produced an explanation for his ability to render an object so perfectly on the canvas. It was almost as if, deciding that he would present competing circumstances inside one painting, he perversely ENABLED himself to do the job with such exacting skill, “making subversive photographs come to life.”

That was too much.

But there the paintings are.

Imagination realized.

Like it or not, Dali paved the way for many others. He opened doors and windows.

And the pressure has been building. The growing failure of major institutions (organized religion, psychology, education, government) to keep the cork in the bottle signals the prison break in progress.

More people understand that the veil is not really a veil of tears. It’s a curtain madly drawn across the creative force.

The pot is boiling. People want out.

Somewhere along the line we have to give the green light to our own creative power. That is the first great day. That’s the dawn of no coerced boundaries. Everything we’ve been taught tells us that a life lived entirely from creative power is impossible. We don’t have it within us. We should maintain silence and propriety in the face of greater official power and wisdom. We must abide by the rules. We must, at best, “surrender to the universe.”

But what if, when we come around the far turn, we see that the universe is us? Is simply one part of imagination? Is a twinkling rendition we installed to keep us titillated with dreams that would forever drift out of reach? What if it turns out that we are the perverse ones and Dali is quite normal?

What if we pop out of the fences of this culture and this continuum and this tired movie called planet Earth?

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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

Mind control research and freedom

Mind control research and freedom

by Jon Rappoport

February 12, 2014

There is a whole brand of mind control that is little more than torture.

In other words, by inflicting duress, coercion, making threats, causing pain and disorientation, an “expert” can make a victim do and say many things. That’s no secret. There are obviously drugs and hypnotic techniques that will soften up a person and/or put him into tremendous confusion, where he is pliable. And microwaves create pain.

One of the foremost lunatic practitioners of torture was world-famous Canadian psychiatrist, Ewen Cameron, who carried out experiments on unwitting patients during the 1950s. Partially funded by a CIA front, Cameron’s method was called psychic driving.

After horrendous electric shocks, very heavy drugs were given to place patients in days of prolonged sleep. Cameron then subjected them to audio tapes he made, in which he repeated phrases thousands of times, in order to produce “new personalities” for them.

This is murderous coercion. There is nothing sophisticated about it.

A 2012 lawsuit filed by veterans’ groups, against the CIA and the DOD, refers to Cameron’s methods. The suit also states that two researchers, Dr. Louis West and Dr. Jose Delgado, working together under the early CIA MKULTRA subproject 95, utilized two protocols: brain implants (“stimoceivers”) and RHIC-EDOM to program the minds of victims. RHIC-EDOM stands for Radio Hypnotic Intracerebral Control-Electronic Dissolution of Memory.

Translation: bury memory, and insert new data. But here again, burying memory, the first phase, is achieved through force. The force of subjecting the brain to massive electromagnetic disruption.

Later and more sophisticated means of mind control can utilize loops, during which a person’s own brainwaves are fed back to him, along with suggestions.

But different people have different degrees of consciousness about their own thoughts and feelings.

No system exists which would make every person believe a thought planted in his brain is his own thought.

There is another gap. Just because certain naturally occurring brain waves can be read and recorded, this does not mean that feeding back those waves will result in “perfect reception” and integration by every person.

The third gap can be enormous, depending on the person. Thought in its basic form isn’t a product of the brain at all. The brain REFLECTS thought that is created by the person in a non-material space.

People who are aware of this wouldn’t fooled by brainwaves fed to them with suggestions.

As I’ve written before, the entire obsession with the brain is misplaced. If this organ is viewed as the fountainhead of all thought, then there is no such thing as freedom. Why? Because the brain, like every material object, is made up of tiny particles or waves that move according to physical laws—in which case the brain is just “another object” where the particles aggregate and mix and match.

There is absolutely nothing inherent in sub-atomic particles that would lead to a notion of free will.

The existence of freedom (choice) directly implies a non-material space. And a non-material individual who is inhabiting a physical form.

Mind control is most successful when inflicted on people who ALREADY have trouble making the distinction between what they think and believe, and what other people around them think and believe.

The Matrix Revealed

Ongoing research to take real-time pictures of brain activity is likely to focus on two major targets: people who hold very strong individualistic beliefs and those who are intensely creative.

The aim here is to introduce new brain activity that will cumulatively erode “the determination to believe” and the commitment to create. Why? Because those are distinct threats to a controlled status quo.

This research direction parallels a social propaganda campaign to eliminate the whole concept of “will power.” That phrase has become passe. It is now viewed by many people as a negative and essentially meaningless notion. In its place? Genetic determinism. DNA rules all. A person is what a person is because of his genes, and that’s the beginning and end of the story.

Never mind the fact that research along these lines has turned up precious little to explain human behavior. It’s a propagated myth of “science.” And it’s promoted for its social impact: “you can’t change what you are.”

It has always been true, since the dawn of time, that one person can force another person to take certain actions. But this is no mystery.

These days, with the use, say, of acoustic weapons or other forms of wave-disruption broadcasting, criminals can make people sick, make them feel pain or anger or fatigue—but this is really on the level of an electromagnetic “fist” to the head. Is it dangerous? Of course. But so is a concussion or a heavy blow to the gut or a bullet to the leg.

The people at the CIA, the Pentagon, DARPA, and other agencies, who are trying to change thought and behavior, are even crazier than they appear to be. They assume that the process of thought is so directly a product of the brain that they can make Thought A turn into Thought B with the flip of a switch. They have many surprises in store for them.

The major problem for humanity, vis-a-vis mind control, is the large number of people who already are only dimly aware of what they’re thinking and feeling. They can be manipulated with relative ease. But that is no surprise.

Nor is it a shock when people who are members of a cult do something horrendous to others or themselves. They’ve been subjected to social conditioning every day. They’ve bought the package. They’ve sworn allegiance to a leader. It takes relatively little to push them over the edge.

The SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, etc.) are themselves a form of mind control. They elicit, in some people, suicide and homicide. But this isn’t a precise process of switching off one thought and inserting another. This is the creation of a wholesale brain storm, in which neurotransmitters go haywire and scramble the brain and the nervous system. The person is literally being tortured, and he responds with violence.

The bottom-line issue in all these heinous methods is freedom of the individual. Freedom to think his thoughts, act on the basis of his chosen goals. Mind control advocates and researchers deny such freedom exists. For them, it’s just a matter of replacing one piece of equipment for another in what they believe humans are: biological machines.

It’s the end-game of philosophic Materialism.

See that. Know that. Understand it.

(See Scott Noble’s film Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century (posted at YouTube)).

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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

Mind control and mind chaos: the troll and the non sequitur

Mind control and mind chaos: the troll and the non sequitur

by Jon Rappoport

February 10, 2014

On a mass level, one of the most efficient methods of mind control is the creation of the non sequitur.

Non sequitur is Latin for “it does not follow.” In logic, this is a statement that doesn’t validly flow from previous assertions.

Example: “All presidents are crazy.” “Sam is crazy.” “Therefore, Sam is a president.”

Wrong. The final “Sam is a president” is a non sequitur.

In an education system where logic is absent, the student has no center. He drifts. He comes to rely on what other people tell him. He can’t think and reason for himself. He opts for ideas that seem superficially attractive.

In ordinary usage, this could be an exaggerated non sequitur: you’re parked in a lot outside a market, and a car hits you from behind. You get out and walk over to the driver and say, “Hey, you hit me.” And he says, “My sister was tested for tuberculosis and she’s clean.”

Or you write a piece about a medical drug recall, and a reader responds, “Jesus is the light of the world.”

These days, more and more people believe information is something you’re supposed to plug into at any level…and respond to with whatever comes to mind. This is the new logic.

As in the last example, non sequitur can issue forth from people who have an overwhelming agenda they refer to, no matter what the situation.

Example: “A last second-shot saved the LA Lakers from going down to another defeat.” And the response is, “When humanity rejects Islam, we will finally find peace.”

An online troll (see many comments sections all over the Net) has an overwhelming agenda or is being paid to distract people and lead them off course.

An example of this last might be: After an article about fraud at the Federal Reserve and several relevant comments, there suddenly comes, “All you conspiracy theorists are crazy Ron Paul followers. Money is money. Get over yourselves. Try leaving your mother’s basement.”

The troll hopes he’ll stir up enough animosity to take people away from the issue of fraud at the Fed, while painting Ron Paul as a nutcase.

If, in any situation, you take the bait and try to reason with a person who is entrenched in non sequitur, you waste your time and energy. It won’t work.

In Washington, non sequitur is SOP.

Senator, we’re still waiting for answers about what really happened in Benghazi.”

My boy, the whole Middle East and North Africa are tied together in age-old conflicts. It’s our job to untangle that mess, sort it out, and establish beachheads of Democracy.”

Say what??

In casual conversation at a party, where six or seven people are all talking at once and laughing, non sequitur is a hell of a lot of fun. But when it comes to grasping information, it’s about as useful as a spavined horse in the Preakness.

To which someone will reply, in perfect non sequitur, “Horses should never run at racetracks. It’s cruel.”

The Matrix Revealed

I once gave a talk about methods of analyzing information. I used, as an example, the Oklahoma Bombing case (1995). The responses from the audience were all opinions about the Bombing case. The people failed to connect with the real subject of the lecture because they weren’t aware there was such a thing as logic. For them, that was just some inexplicable icing on the cake.

They were products of the American educational system.

Television news is perfect non sequitur, in the sense that the anchor is paid to provide smooth transitions from one story to another unrelated story: “In the Middle East today, peace talks broke down again…a St. Louis housewife was shot in a drive-by…and did you know that some clothes dryers may not be safe…a body was found in a row boat off the coast of Virginia…it’s snowing in Florida…”

Turn a mind into a universal magnet that randomly picks up iron, wood, bits of paper, cigarette butts, orange peels, leaves, sand, mice, sugar, and shoes, it doesn’t matter what questions you present. The answers will be irrelevant.

This is a unique form of control.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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

Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelley, and Salvador Dali

Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelley, and Salvador Dali

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2014

Salvador Dali was one of the most reviled painters of the 20th century.

He disturbed Conventional Folk who just wanted to see an apple in a bowl on a table.

Dali’s apples and bowls were executed with a technical skill few artists could match—except that the apples were coming out of a woman’s nose while she was ironing the back of a giraffe, who was on fire. Sin! Mortal sin!

It doesn’t go together! It doesn’t make sense! He’s Satan!”

Yet, these same Folk sit in front of the television screen every night and watch the network news. Elite anchors seamlessly and quickly move from blood running in the streets of a distant land to a hairdryer product recall to an unseasonal hail storm in Michigan to a debate about public policy on pedophiles to genetically engineered mosquitoes in Florida to a possible breakthrough in storing computer simulations of human brains for later recapture to squirrels gathering nuts in New Jersey.

Nothing surreal about this??

Cognitive dissonance, imprinted on minds that accept every flip and jip and fancy. Why not? It’s the news. It has to be normal.

The best of the best mind control is applied by the three major network anchors: Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer.

They don’t do it as well as Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, and Edward R Murrow once worked their magic, but they’re fairly good practitioners of the art. Brian Williams is the current champion.

Dan Rather was an interesting case. At one time, he was quite convincing. He was a “trusted voice.” But then he faltered and stumbled over the George W Bush military-service scandal, and he went down in flames. Even before that, you could see occasional cracks in his armor. He was questioning his own faith. He was flickering a bit here and there, like a doubting priest in the Roman Church who had no one to confess to.

When the elite anchor goes on air and digs in, he’s seamless. He could be transitioning from mass killings in East Asia to sub-standard air conditioners, and he makes the audience track through the absurd curve in the road.

Then there is the voice itself. The elite anchor has a voice that soothes just a bit but brooks no resistance. It’s authoritative but not demanding. Scott Pelley (CBS) is careful to watch himself on this count, because his tendency is to shove the message down the viewer’s throat like a surgeon making an incision with an icepick.

Pelley used to look down his nose at the great unwashed. He’s been working to correct that. He’s a high-IQ android who’s training himself to be human.

Diane Sawyer wanders into sloppiness, like a housewife who’s still wearing her bathrobe at 4 in the afternoon. She exudes sympathetic syrup, as if she’s had a few cocktails for lunch. And she affects a pose of “caring too much.”

Brian Williams is head and shoulders above his two competitors. You have to look and listen hard to spot a speck of confusion in his delivery. He knows exactly how to believe his act is real. He can also flick a little aw-shucks apple-pie at the viewer. Country boy who moved to the big city.

If none of these anchors could have “pulled the country together” after JFK’s assassination, it’s in part because that country doesn’t exist anymore. America doesn’t want a Cronkite daddy.

The vocal delivery of an elite anchor has to work minor poetic rhythms into prose. Shallow hills and valleys. Clip it here and there. Give the important words a pop. Make no mistake about it, this is hypnosis at work. Not the cheesy stage act with three rubes sitting in chairs, waiting to be made into fools by the used-car- salesman type waving a pendulum. This is higher-class stuff. It flows with certainty. It entrains and conditions brains. The audience tunes in every night to get their fix.

That’s the key. The audience doesn’t really care about content. They want the delivery, the sound, the voice of the face.

Brain Williams could do a story about three hookers getting thrown out of a restaurant by a doctor celebrating his anniversary with his wife, and it would come across like the Pentagon sending warships into the Gulf.

Diane Sawyer couldn’t. That’s why Williams’ ratings are higher.

Segues, blends are absolutely vital. These are the transitions between one story and another. “Earlier today, in Boston.” “Meanwhile, in New York, the police are reporting.” “But on the Hill, the news was somewhat disappointing for supporters of the president.”

Doing excellent blends can earn an anchor millions of dollars. The audience doesn’t wobble or falter or make distinctions between what went before and what’s coming now. It’s all one script. It’s one winding story every night.

Therefore, the viewer doesn’t need to think. Which is the acid test. If the ratings are high enough and the audience isn’t thinking, we have a winner.

Corollary: the audience doesn’t notice the parameters of stories, how they’re bounded and defined and artificially constructed to omit deeper themes and various criminals who are committing outrageous crimes that aren’t supposed to be exposed.

Brian Williams, with just a bit of his twanging emphasis, can say, “Today, pharmaceutical giant Glaxo was fined one-point-nine billions dollars,” but he can’t tie all the horrendous stories of medical-drug damage together in a searing indictment of the whole industry.

The audience needs to remain oblivious to this larger story. The anchor ensures and guarantees a clueless missing bottom line. That’s his job. That’s his underlying assignment.

It’s called, in intelligence circles, a limited hangout. You expose a piece of a crime, in order to transmit the illusion of guilt-and-justice, while the true RICO dimensions are kept out of view.

Elite anchors are the princes of limit hangouts. That is their stock in trade. Sell the illusion of justice while concealing the bulk of the iceberg that is under water.

The audience can watch and listen to hours of coverage on revolutions and counter-revolutions in the Middle East, but they can’t suspect that the US and NATO are funding terrorists dressed up as freedom fighters, in order destabilize and destroy nations in that region.

More gunfire and explosions in the capital city today…”

Then there is a little thing called conscience. The elite anchor can’t have one. He has to pretend to have one, but it isn’t real.

Every year, the anchor covers dozens of scandals that are left to wither and die on the vine and fall down the memory hole, never to be seen again, except perhaps for a much-later task-force or commission report that equivocates and exonerates the major players.

The anchor has to deal with this. He has to develop memory loss.

In editorial meetings at his own network offices, if someone mentions trillions in government bailouts to banks, he can frown slightly and thus impart, “It’s stale, it’s old.”

And when it comes to the elites the anchor is pledged to? CFR, Rockefeller interests, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, government-allied Big Medicine, Globalism, and so on? Nary a damaging word will be said. Nothing to see, nothing to say. No problem.

Therefore, the viewing audience doesn’t suspect these controlling entities are doing anything wrong or, in some cases, even exist.

Conspiracy? “Aw shucks, I really do have sympathy for the people who dig up this stuff. And I’m not saying all of it is wrong, either. But you know, journalism is about plumbing for facts and verifying them. That’s the hard truth we have to face in this business. Going on the air with a possible this and a possible that is ultimately irresponsible. If we who present the news feel an occasional impulse to wing it, we have to rein ourselves in. Restraint is part of our job…”

Show these jokers a few devastating books by Anthony Sutton or Caroll Quigley and they’ll nod and say, “I did read that one in college. It was interesting but a little thin, I thought…”

The anchors project a sense they’re doing science. Gathering facts, verifying, testing, repeating the study again to see if it holds up, checking the checkers, confirming the sources, tailoring the assertions to make sure there’s no wandering off the well-researched path.

It’s part of the act.

The elite anchor has to impart the impression that he’s personally familiar with the events he’s reporting. That’s nonsense. He isn’t touching actual events with a ten-foot pole. He isn’t doing journalism himself. But the audience must think he is.

Washington has been the scene of many battles. But the current tussle at the top of the fiscal cliff is becoming an exercise in outrage on both sides. Today, behind closed doors…”

Some anchors are managing editors of their own broadcasts. That means they sit around like newspaper editors and listen to lesser editors present the stories of the day. The anchors ask questions and pick and choose which pieces they’ll cover on the evening news, and they decide the sequence, but their hands never touch the events themselves.

It’s more illusion. A well-trained and literate high-school sophomore from Nome could go on air, with a decent haircut, and read the news.

But backed up by expert technicians, a good set decorator, and a pro make-up person, Williams, Pelley, and Sawyer will give you the kind of living fiction that has become its own genre.

The audience is delivered clues about what they are supposed to feel at every turn in the road, and they respond with their own unalloyed faith.

The Matrix Revealed

Exit From the Matrix

When Paddy Chaevsky wrote the definitive film about news, Network, he had his anchor, Howard Beale, break from the format and tell people to stick their heads out of their windows and shout, “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

Most people forget that Beale, with the highest ratings in news history, went on to host his own hybrid program, after the news division was turned over to the entertainment wing of the network. And this new show portrayed Beale as a kind of mesmerizing (wacko) priest, a religious figure.

The audience’s faith in the anchor was magnified.

Then, when confronted by a superior priest, Arthur Jensen, chairman of the holding company that owns the network, Beale learns that all of society is organized as one interlocked forever-corporation, and the universe itself wants it that way.

Beale succumbs and falls under Jensen’s spell. The anchor who hypnotizes millions of people every night becomes the hypnotized subject.

Today’s elite anchors have this dual aspect. They control minds and they also put themselves in a mind-controlled state, in order to believe in what they are doing. They don’t need an Arthur Jensen. It’s all self-inflicted. That’s one step better.

No need to censor stories from above. The anchors have a finely honed sense of what is permissible and what isn’t.

The mind-control flicker machine runs on its own.

In early human societies, the story teller was a principal figure. He wove the tribe’s experiences into a coherent whole, and built layers of cosmology. Story tellers formed an elite priest caste and spun official metaphysical doctrine.

Today, people feel the same need for narrators. The news anchors. Although these front men for the news no longer use metaphysics to control the masses, they do covertly obey the old rule: tell only part of story.

Guard the rest from public view.

In ancient times, the rationale for hiding key secrets was explained in terms of stages of privileged initiations into “the magic.” Today, millions of people are led to believe their news narrators are giving us everything there is. Other than their stories, there is nothing. So in this secular media religion, people believe they have only two choices: swallow the news reality, or face a cold vacuum.

Their bottomless need for a story teller survives.


Comes the Internet.

And then the whole world turns upside down.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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