What is Liberty? What is a Mind?

What is Liberty? What is a Mind?

by Jon Rappoport

February 10, 2017

“Liberty is the child of intelligence.” (Robert Ingersoll, 1877)

A mind that can’t grasp the concept of liberty wanders in a dark asylum of illusions.

The American Constitution wasn’t written to generate passive benefits. It wasn’t a philosophic food-stamp operation.

Originally, the aim of public education was to impart an understanding of what it meant to participate in a new Republic, as a citizen, in a great experiment.

And that experiment was liberty. With responsibility.

For each individual.

Plugging in arbitrary values is not education.

“Getting everything for nothing” is not education.

During the recent UC Berkeley campus shut-down of free speech, in what was apparently a major takeaway from classes at that august University, chanting students repeated, over and over: “No borders, no nations, f*ck deportations.”

Not exactly on the level of, say, John Adams’ letters and speeches, but these are different times.

Throwing a rock through a plate glass window for no reason is now a badge of pride.

You could take the theme of “individual liberty with accountability and responsibility,” and in two weeks, with willing students, accomplish far more than most liberal arts colleges achieve in four years.

Accountability implies a person is doing something with his life, and he knows what it is.

He’s making choices—exercising his liberty—and he stands behind those choices and actions. And he can tell you why.

He’s not primarily a recipient or a beneficiary.

But there is no way you can teach liberty-plus-responsibility, or engage in a discussion about it, with a person who is determined to accrue every government freebie he can hunt down and bring to ground.

For example, suppose, just suppose you wanted to have a reasonable conversation about the enumeration of federal powers in the Constitution, and how it was intended to preserve liberty. You wanted the forum to be held at a university.

If anyone showed up at all, you’d be lucky. If people became aware of the implications of the topic, they’d protest and set fires and smash cars and demand the university cancel the event. This is called “dialogue.”

When the primary goal of education is socialization and the ruthless inculcation of “values,” the corollary is: the student’s mind must shut down when anyone questions those values.

This is the strategy of a cult.

“I can’t discuss this issue with you. I’m forbidden. And even if I could, I wouldn’t be able to understand what you’re talking about.”

That is what education has come to. That is the fate of the ambition to teach the young what it means to live and participate in a Constitutional Republic.

It is no accident. It’s not merely a random outcome. It’s the result of people taking control of the education system and using it to create disabled minds.

A disabled mind always needs help. And that is precisely the kind of society that has been on the drawing boards for over a century. The Recipient Society.

“You all need help, and we the government exist for that purpose. Forget what the Constitution says. We’ll give you what you need. In return, you pledge your support for us. Don’t leave the fold.”

If you looked around at society and made a list of 10000000 major continuing high-level crimes, and if you then eliminated them in a stroke of pure genius—but the individual never fixed himself, never became both free and responsible, you would fail. The society would keep lapsing back.

Make no mistake, those 10000000000 major crimes need to be prosecuted and eliminated, but the individual doesn’t, therefore, undergo a sudden and miraculous spiritual cure.

The individual is passive or active. He is bright or dull. He is free or enslaved. He is a dynamo or a whisper. He is free and responsible or mired and terminally dependent.

Regardless of external circumstances, he makes those choices.

One might wish this were not so, but it is so.

The enormously positive prospect is: at any moment, he can make a new and better choice.

And then everything changes.

If you’re looking for the powerful lever in human life, there it is…

There is no reason for the free and responsible individual to wait until the whole society catches up to him. That would be a losing game.

If you, engaged in inventing the future you profoundly desire, put a hold on your actions and looked around and decided you were “cheating,” because others weren’t doing for themselves what you’re doing for yourself, you would no longer be free. You would no longer be responsible to yourself.

The race to the lowest common denominator is a picture of what societies have become.

There is no reason to share in this madness.


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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The psyop to neuter The Rebel

The psyop to neuter The Rebel

Notes on the evolution of caricatures

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2017

If you want to track a civilization as it collapses, watch what happens to the concept of the rebel.

From the 1960s onward—starting with Lee Oswald and the assassination of JFK—the whole idea of “the rebel” with power has been sequentially updated and repackaged. This is intentional.

The objective is to equate “rebel” with a whole host of qualities—e.g., runaway self-serving paranoia; random destruction; out-of-control drug use; generalized hatred; the commission of crimes…

On a lesser, “commercialized” level, the new rebel can define himself by merely showing up at a concert to scream and drink heavily and break something, having already dressed to make a dissident fashion statement. He can take an afternoon off from college classes and have his arms tattooed. All the while, of course, he functions as an avid consumer of mainstream corporate products.

You even have people who, considering themselves rebels of the first order, support a government that spies on its people 24/7, launches military attacks all over the world, and now funds a Manhattan Project to map every move of the 100 billion neurons of the brain, for the ultimate purpose of controlling it.

Even going back as far as the 1950s, the so-called decade of conformity, psyops professionals sculpted notions of The Rebel: He was the person who didn’t want to take part in the emerging bland corporate culture.

He was imagined and presented as troubled, morose; a wobbly unfocused JD Salinger Holden Caulfield, or a beatnik, a Madison Avenue caricature of somebody who opposed Madison Avenue.

In other words, the people who were shaping the consumer culture were creating the image of the rebel as a cartoon figure who just didn’t want to buy into “the good life.”

Time Magazine ran a cover story on the beatniks, and characterized them as a disaffected trend. Marlon Brando, heading up a bunch of moronic motorcycle riders, invaded a town of pleasant clueless citizens and took it over, wreaking destruction. The 1953 movie was The Wild One. James Dean, who had the same trouble Brando did in articulating a complete sentence, was “the rebel without a cause” in the “iconic film” of the same name. He raced cars toward cliffs because his father couldn’t understand him.

These were all puff pieces designed to make rebels look ridiculous, and they worked. They also functioned to transmit the idea to young people that being a rebel should be a showbiz affectation. That worked, too.

Then the late 1960s arrived. Flower children, in part invented by the major media, would surely take over the world and dethrone fascist authority with rainbows. San Francisco was the epicenter. But Haight-Ashbury, where the flowers and the weed were magically growing out of the sidewalks, turned into a speed, acid, and heroin nightmare, a playground for psychopaths to cash in and steal and destroy lives. The CIA, of course, gave the LSD culture a major push.

For all that the anti-war movement eventually accomplished in ending the Vietnam war-crime, in the aftermath many of those college students who had been in the streets—once the fear of being drafted was gone—scurried into counselors’ offices to see where they might fit into the job market after graduation. The military industrial complex took its profits and moved on, undeterred.

The idea of the rebel was gone. It later resurfaced as The Cocaine Dealer, the archangel of the 1980s.

And so forth and so on. All these incarnations of The Rebel were artificially created and sustained as psyops. At bottom, the idea was to discredit the Individual, in favor of The Group.

Now, in our collectivist society of 2016, The Group, as a rapidly expanding victim class, is the government’s number one project. It’s a straight con. “We’re here to make you worse off while we lift you up.”

In the psyop to demean, distort, and squash the rebel, there is a single obvious common denominator: the establishment media are doing the defining; they are the ones who are setting the parameters and making the descriptions; they are the ones who build the cartoons; looking down their noses, pretending to a degree of sympathy, they paint one unflattering picture after another of what the rebel is and does and says; they have co-opted the whole game.

These days, the ultimate rebels, the media would have you believe, are “gun-toting racist bitter clingers who have religion.” Another attempt to shape a distorted unflattering portrait

You can take a whole host of political films and television series of the past 50 years, and look at them for signs of the Rebel: Seven Days in May, Advise and Consent, The Candidate, The Seduction of Joe Tynan, Dave, Primary Colors, The Contender, Good Night and Good Luck, The American President, West Wing, Scandal, The Newsroom…

Good acting, bad acting, drama, message—at the end you’re looking for the core. What do the rebel heroes really stand for? What are their principles? It’s all bland. It’s vague. It has the posturing of importance, but little else.

As I was finishing this piece, a friend wrote with a quote attributed to Robert Anton Wilson: “The universe is a war between reality programmers.”

This is exactly where the real rebel enters the scene. He’s not trying to program people. Freedom means cutting loose from programming.

The Rebel doesn’t go to the market and choose which reality program he wants. They’re all used up as soon as they come out of the package.

Albert Camus once wrote: “The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. It would be easy, however, to destroy that good conscience by shouting to them: if you want the happiness of the people, let them speak out and tell what kind of happiness they want and what kind they don’t want! But, in truth, the very ones who make use of such alibis know they are lies; they leave to their intellectuals on duty the chore of believing in them and of proving that religion, patriotism, and justice need for their survival the sacrifice of freedom.”

“THIS or THAT” is the history of Earth: choose reality program A or B. The choice was always a con.


Exit From the Matrix

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


We’re well into a time period when the experts and scientific authorities are settling on the human being as a biological machine that can only respond to programming. That’s their view and their default position.

It’s sheer madness, of course, but what else do you expect? We’re in an intense technological age, and people are obsessed with making things run smoother. They treat their precious little algorithms for control like the Crown Jewels. They’re terribly enthusiastic about the problem they’re solving, and that problem is us.

We’re the wild cards, a fact which they take to be result of our improper and incomplete conditioning. They aim to fix that.

“Why not stop diddling around and just make the whole thing over? Why not reshape humans?”

Having decided that, the battle begins between competing programmers of the mind. Which program for humans is better?

The rebel is against all such programming, no matter how “good and right” it sounds. “Good” and “right” are the traps.

“Well, certainly we could make a list of qualities we want all people to have. You know, the best qualities, like bravery and determination. Who could be against that? So suppose we could actually program such qualities into humans? Wouldn’t that be a fine thing? Then people would just BE that way…”

The ultimate rebellion is against programming, whatever it looks like, wherever it occurs.

Programming is someone else’s idea of who and what you should be.

It is never your idea.

Your idea is where the power is.

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.

When virtue is the greatest crime

When virtue is the greatest crime

by Jon Rappoport

December 13, 2016

Who are they?

Behind their flaccid smiles is a roaring furnace of anger.

They believe love motivates them. Love, and the worship of some leader who stands for love.

This delusion can topple a society and a civilization.

They have been taught to be good. They been trained in that way, and they embrace their training as both a shield and a sword, as they set out to change the world.

There are millions of them.

Who are they?

They advocate “share and care” without limit. This is their religion. For them, there is no ceiling on supporting those in need, and there are no negative consequences. There is no taking from Peter to pay Paul. It doesn’t exist.

If you told these soldiers for the Good that they could open a door and let 30 million immigrants into the country overnight, they would open the door without hesitation. Downside? Irrelevant. Being good is all that matters. It is the imperative. To betray it would be an unpardonable sin and would destroy them, these holy soldiers.

On the other hand, if you said you had a plan to put two million unemployed Americans back to work tomorrow, they would register indifference. That idea doesn’t fit their world view. Back to work means WORK. Earning a living. Some measure of responsibility and accountability. Self-reliance. Strength. Where is the CHARITY in that? Where is the unlimited giving? Where is the love?

Where is “everything for nothing?” This is their motto. This is proof of their caring and goodness. Threaten to take that away from them and their expressions harden and they begin to spit venom.


Exit From the Matrix

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


You are now tapping into their secret: they are SELF-BLAMING failures. No one is doing it to them. They are doing it to themselves. This is their enduring psychology.

Their scheme has become: substitute “other for self.” This is the key. They have abandoned self for “giving everything to other.” This is the substitute vision.

As soon as they sense a plan or an idea or a promise is going to derail that formula, they boil over in anger.

They can be magnetized as a formidable political force. Easily. All they require is a figure who seems to represent “everything for nothing” and “other” rather than self.

They can stand in the streets holding candles, or given the signal, they can smash things.

They are the counter-revolution that has been building in this country for over a hundred years. It is being managed from elite platforms, and its goal is the destruction of every shred of the original ideas on which this country was founded. Destruction in fact, in thought, in action, and in memory. Wipe out the memory of…

Individual freedom…

And what freedom implies.

Wipe out self.

Replace it with an all-embracing societal machine dedicated to love.

As if such a thing could actually exist.

Jon Rappoport

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

Official reality is psychotic; you are not.

Official reality is psychotic; you are not.

by Jon Rappoport

October 21, 2016

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

Be mainstream. Go along with the mainstream tide. Adopt the position of the mainstream. If you waver, just watch more network news.

A well-known reporter once told me, “We don’t call lying lying. We call it editing.”

You can go back in history as far as you want to, and you’ll find the word WE used over and over by society’s leaders. We must do this, we must do that. We must unify, we must come together. What is this WE?

In the way it’s deployed, it isn’t anything. It’s a grand fiction. It’s the gateway into mind control.

If a hazy WE can replace an accountable, responsible, motivated, creative I, the goose is cooked. Because the WE is sugar for the brain.

The WE never turns out to be independent. Only the I can be independent.

As a result of a little thing called the 1960s, WE took over from I. A cooked, frazzled, diluted mix of Asian philosophies and spiritual teachings rolled out on to the scene. WE was now a catchy trendy idea. It gained power. It showed up on the radar of elite propaganda operatives. They were waiting for it, because they had played a role in making it fashionable in the first place.

The op was working. It was gaining traction. WE could replace I in many minds. Among the educated and “hip,” among intellectuals and academics and home-grown spiritual teachers, among Left critics of the establishment, among the drug addled and lazy hangars-on, the entire basis of the American Republic—protecting the freedom and rights of the independent individual—could be undermined. A “superior” WE could be installed.

As the years and decades passed, this notion of the WE—in truth, the Collective—and its requirements, in a “humane civilization,” expanded. “Share and care” took center stage. It reached to gobble up the whole stage.

On every level of society, people were urged to think of themselves as part of the WE—the “greater group.” The individual and his hopes, his unique dreams, his desires and energies, his determination and will power…all these were portrayed as relics of an unworkable and deluded past.

In certain cases, lone pioneers who were innovating in directions that could, in fact, benefit all of humanity, were absorbed into the one body of the collective, heralded as humane…and then dumped on the side of the road with their inventions and forgotten.

In the planned society of WE, no one rises above the mass, except those men who run and operate and propagandize the mass.


Exit From the Matrix


Eventually, it would come to something like this: Peter Callero, of the Department of Sociology, Western Oregon University, wrote a book titled: The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives (2013, 2nd Ed). His sentiments and those of his contemporary academics echoed back and forth.

Collero: “Most people today believe that an individual is a person with an independent and distinct identification. This, however, is a myth.”

Really? The historical record shows that a great struggle had been waged, over many centuries, for the liberation of the individual from the WE, the mass, the monolithic group.

And now, on the basis of a modern propagandized fantasy, each one of us should return to the past and embrace the chains of sameness?

Official reality says yes. Official reality says surrender. Official reality says a paradise is waiting for us if we dispense with our uniqueness and individuality.

Official reality is psychotic. Because the WE does not recognize YOU.

Jon Rappoport

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

Election: Life against Death in the mind control machine of politics and media

Election: Life against Death in the mind control machine of politics and media

by Jon Rappoport

October 11, 2016

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

When I first started writing about Donald Trump, I hammered on the fact that he was opposing the media and winning—and I said if he didn’t accomplish anything else along his swaggering path, that alone would be an unprecedented shocker. A major Presidential candidate putting the press in its place and not backing off.

I wrote that from 30 years of experience in the news business. So my perspective is deeper than average.

These execrable talking heads and print reporters of the mainstream are quite insane, you know—or they would be if they weren’t so sly. Their game is all about getting away with lying, with putting people’s attention on the wrong part of the story. They’re little demons who take delight in deceiving the public.

And THAT’S why they like the standard brand of political candidate. They all went to the same school. They all come from the same shit heap. They all wink and nudge and build the same fake sand castles and laugh about it. “Look, we fooled the idiots again.” The idiots, of course, being the public.

This is who the press is. Forget their pose of honesty. It’s a sham. They’re the tricksters. This is how they obtain their energy.

THEY SEE NO OTHER WAY TO FIND ENERGY.

That’s the key.

Finding energy is central to the life of an individual. Any individual.

In countless articles and talks, I emphasize PURE IMAGINATION as the profound source OF ENERGY AND INSPIRATION and POWER.

For the denizens of the press, it’s deception. It’s the glee of falsification. Knowing they have an audience whose minds they can twist into pretzels.

Trump essentially came along and said, “You’re a pack of idiots and everybody knows it. I’m breaking the hypnotic spell.”

Love him, hate him—that’s what he did. He fired many torpedoes into their bellies.

The denizens of the press also hate life. They’ve hated it from a young age, when they somehow came to the conclusion that feeling and experiencing life was impossible for them. And by life I mean, once again, energy. THE ENERGY WITHIN. Cut off from that, they decided to ruin and deface life wherever they could find it. Cleverly. Secretly. Successfully. In REVENGE.

In all my writing, underneath the issues, this is what I’m talking about. The authentic power of an individual who can and does sense and feel and use and project THE ENERGY WITHIN.

THIS is a road to travel. This is a spiritual and physical and mental and emotional path. This is the opposite of mind control.

Let me give you a glimpse of the opposite path, highly favored by the press and politicians. This is a revealing quote from Wikipedia. Read the whole thing:

“Woodward and Bernstein’s exposé All the President’s Men reports that many staffers who had attended the University of Southern California such as Donald Segretti, Tim Elbourne, Ronald Louis Ziegler, H. R. Haldeman and Dwight Chapin had participated in the highly-competitive student elections there. UPI reporter Karlyn Barker sent Woodward and Bernstein a memo “Notes On the USC Crowd” that outlined the connection. Fraternities, sororities and underground fraternal coordinating organizations such as Theta Nu Epsilon and their splintered rival “Trojans for Representative Government” engaged in creative tricks and underhanded tactics to win student elections. Officially, control over minor funding and decision-making on campus life was at stake but the positions also gave bragging rights and prestige.”

Get it?


Exit From the Matrix


Now here is the fabulous capper to the Wikipedia quote:

“It [the dirty tricks and cheating] was either promoted by or garnered the interest of major political figures on the USC board of trustees such as Dean Rusk and John A. McCone. It was here that the term ratfucking had its origin.”

Ratfucking. For glee and fun and deception. And the prestigious adults on the USC board—John McCone (head of the CIA—covert ops and dirty tricks taken to a new level) and Dean Rusk (Secretary of State)—promoted, or were intensely interested in, ratfucking.

“Go get them, kids!”

“Cold? Cut off from life? Nowhere to go? Want revenge against the world and life itself? Join the guild of RATFUCKERS. We understand. We have branch offices all over the world. We are in the press and we are in politics. We are the best and the brightest. We make wars for no reason. We giggle and laugh at the dire pain we visit on the heads of others. Step up to the big leagues, kids. Gaze at the pictures of the men on our walls. Some of the most famous figures, present and past. And now you are the future…”

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.

“I’m triggered, I’m triggered, I need a safe space”

‘I’m triggered, I’m triggered, I need a safe space’

by Jon Rappoport

August 30, 2016

(Three new poems now up on Outside The Reality Machine. Click here.)

Everyone needs a victim-story these days. Don’t leave home without one. Or two or three.

Colleges are institutionalizing victimhood.

HeatStreet reports on an innovation: “Brown University last year turned a room on campus into a safe space by outfitting it with cookies, coloring books, soft music, pillows and a video of frolicking puppies, along with trauma counselors, after students complained that a speaker invited to campus would be too upsetting.”

My, my.

Reason.com explains: “At Brown University last fall, for instance, the prospect of a debate between leftist-feminist Jessica Valenti and libertarian-feminist (and Reason contributor) Wendy McElroy was so horrifying to some students…that the creation of a ‘safe space’ was necessary.”

Sure it was necessary. These college kiddies are fragile. They can crack like eggs at the slightest provocation. A word here, a word there, and they require a vacation.

The whole notion of classes is obsolete. No teacher can avoid triggering students now and then. So send your child to Ooey-Gooey College, where he can lounge in a marshmallow annex for four years. Protect him. Keep him safe.

What’s the most prestigious college in America? Harvard, hands down. Let’s take a peek at what’s going on at the Harvard Law School, where the best and brightest college graduates in the land matriculate:

The New Yorker (12/15/14 and 12/11/15): “Individual [Harvard law] students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word ‘violate’ in class—as in ‘Does this conduct violate the law?’—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.”

Here’s what I envision:

One of these newly minted lawyers lands a job with a New York firm. The firm decides to take on a rape case, pro bono, and defend a suspect they believe has been wrongly accused. At a meeting, the CEO of the firm announces: “And we’re going to have one of our new attorneys, the very brilliant Harvard grad, Corky Muffy Zwicker-Landsman-Feldstein-Ho-Fernandez-Washington in the second chair.”

Corky replies: “Sorry, I can’t take this one. When they were teaching rape law at Harvard, I was wearing ear plugs.”

CEO: “What? Why?”

Corky: “Because the words ‘rape’ and ‘violate’ trigger me.”

CEO: “Trigger? What do you mean?”

Corky: “I experience a deep, deep emotional disturbance. So I know nothing about rape cases.”

CEO: “But what if all young law students followed your example? How would we defend people accused of rape in this country?”

Corky: “I’ve given the question a great deal of thought. I think a properly programmed computer could act as defense attorney. There would be no jury, of course, because they could be triggered, too. Ditto for the judge. The judge, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney would all be computers. They would decide the case. Besides, if a man is on trial for rape, he’s guilty. He’s a man.”

CEO: “You’re fired.”

Corky: “You can’t fire me. I would be triggered by that.”

CEO: “You ARE fired.”

Corky: “Then I AM triggered. I’m suing you and the firm for damage.”

CEO: “If that’s where you’re going with this, then I’m triggered by you being triggered.”

Corky: “Let’s take it to a jury and see what they think.”

Another young lawyer in the room pipes up: “This whole conversation is triggering me. Do we have a safe space in the building? I need to go there right now.”

CEO: “A what? A safe space?”

Young lawyer: “Yes. A room with soft music, beds, cookies, videos of kitty cats, trauma counselors, and surrogate mommies.”

CEO: “You’re fired, too.”

Young lawyer: “I’m double triggered.”

Corky: “And I’ll represent him when he sues this firm. His wife and son and parents and cousins will be triggered when he tells them what happened to him here today. They deserve compensation, too.”

On a more serious note, how did such an absurd social trend take hold at Harvard Law School, one of the most prestigious educational institutions in America?

There are many conspiring factors, but one that should be understood clearly is the promotion of victimhood. This is key.

The young are taught that “being oppressed” is an absolutely essential element in gaining any sort of legitimacy. Only those groups who lay claim to such a title are worthy.

Against that background, people who don’t have a victim-story readily available are going to have to cook one up.

And so they do.

It becomes fashionable and trendy to insist on being weak and vulnerable.


Exit From the Matrix


This “search for identity” implies that oppressors will be found and blamed—beyond any rational basis for doing so.

That deranged strategy fits in quite nicely with the proposition that no nation should be strong and independent. No nation, God forbid, should strive for a greater degree of self-sufficiency.

Instead, we should all see ourselves as living in a terminally interdependent world, a great soup of humanity, in which every “inequality” must be remedied—and the method for doing so involves the “higher people” becoming, somehow, the “lower people.”

Only through a universal embrace of psychological and spiritual victimhood can we hope to evolve to the next stage of moral behavior.

In other words, twist the whole notion of generosity and kindness into a perverted sense of abject helplessness.

Two statements from HG Wells’ 1895 novel, The Time Machine, suggest how eerie, inverted, and hopeless the search for a utopia based on victimhood is: “…even when mind and strength had gone, gratitude and a mutual tenderness still lived on in the heart of man.” “…security sets a premium on feebleness.”

That is where the victim theme leads us.

Back down the road along which we came, in reverse, with our hands in the air, surrendering to fear, pretending it is love.

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.

Mind control achieved through the “information flicker effect”

Mind control achieved through the “information flicker effect”

by Jon Rappoport

June 20, 2016

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

I wrote this piece in 2012, in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting. I re-post it now, because it equally applies to the Orlando shooting.

No, I’m not talking about the flicker of the television picture. I’m talking about an on-off switch that controls information conveyed to the television audience.

The Sandy Hook school murders provide an example.

First of all, elite media coverage of this tragedy has one goal: to provide an expanding narrative of what happened. It’s a story. It has a plot.

In order to tell the story, there has to be a source of information. The topflight television anchors are getting their information from…where?

Their junior reporters? Not really. Ultimately, the information is coming from the police, and secondarily from local officials.

In other words, very little actual journalism is happening. The media anchors are absorbing, arranging, and broadcasting details given to them by the police investigators.

The anchors are PR people for the cops.

This has nothing to do with journalism. Nothing.

The law-enforcement agencies investigating the Sandy Hook shootings on the scene, in real time, were following up on leads? We don’t what leads they were following and what leads they were discarding. We don’t know what mistakes they were making. We don’t know what evidence they were overlooking or intentionally ignoring.

The police were periodically giving out information to the media. The anchors were relaying this information to the audience.

So when the police privately tell reporters, “We chased a suspect into the woods above the school,” that becomes a television fact. Until it isn’t a fact any longer.

The police, for whatever reason, decide to drop the whole “suspect in the woods” angle.

Therefore, the media anchors no longer mention it.

Instead the police are focused on Adam Lanza, who is found dead in the school. So are the television anchors, who no longer refer to the suspect in the woods.

That old thread has gone down the memory hole.

What does this do to the audience who has been following the narrative on television? It sets up a flicker effect. An hour ago, it was suspect in the woods. Now, that bit of data is gone. On-off switch. It was on, now it’s off.

This is a break in logic. It makes no sense.

Which is the whole point.

The viewer thinks: “Let’s see. There was a suspect in the woods. The cops were chasing him. Now he doesn’t exist. We don’t know his name. We don’t know why he’s off the radar. We don’t know whether he was arrested. We don’t know if he was questioned. Okay, I guess I’ll have to forget all about him. I’ll just track what the anchor is telling me. He’s telling the story. I have to follow his story.”

This was only one flicker. Others occur. The father of Adam’s brother was found dead. No, that’s gone now. The mother of Adam was found dead. Okay. Adam killed all these children with two pistols. No, that’s gone now. He used a rifle. It was a Bushmaster. No, it was a Sig Sauer. One weapon was found in the trunk of a car. No, three weapons.

At each succeeding point, a fact previously reported is jettisoned and forgotten, to be replaced with a new fact. The television viewer has to forget, along with the television anchor. The viewer wants to follow the developing narrative, so he has to forget. He has no choice if he wants to “stay in the loop.”

But this flicker effect does something to the viewer’s mind. His mind is no longer alert. It’s not generating questions. Logic has been offloaded. Obvious questions and doubts are shelved.

“How could they think it was the dead father in New Jersey when it was actually the dead mother in Connecticut?”

“Why did they say he used two handguns when it was a rifle?”

“Or was it really a rifle?”

“I heard a boy on camera say there was another man the cops caught and they had him proned out on the ground in front of the school. What happened to him? Where did he go? Why isn’t the anchor keeping track of him?”

All these obvious and reasonable questions (and many others) have to be scratched and forgotten, because the television story is moving into different territory, and the viewer wants to follow the story.

This constant flicker effect eventually produces, in the television viewer…passivity.

He surrenders to the ongoing narrative. Surrenders.

This is mind control.

The television anchor doesn’t have a problem. His job is to move seamlessly, through an ever-increasing series of contradictions and discarded details, to keep the narrative going, to keep it credible.

He knows how to do that. That’s why he is the anchor.

He can make it seem as if the story is a growing discovery of what really happened, even though his narrative is littered with abandoned clues and dead-ends and senseless non-sequiturs.

And the viewer pays the price.

Mired in passive acceptance of whatever the anchor is telling him, the viewer assumes his own grasp on logic and basic judgment is flawed.

Now, understand that this viewer has been watching television news for years. He’s watched many of these breaking events. The cumulative effect is devastating.

The possibility, for example, that Adam Lanza wasn’t the shooter, but was the patsy, is as remote to the viewer as a circus of ants doing Shakespeare on Mars.

The possibility that the cops hid evidence and were ordered to release other suspects is unthinkable.

Considering that there appears to be not one angry outraged parent in Newtown (because the network producers wouldn’t permit such a parent to be interviewed on camera) never occurs to the viewer.

Wondering why the doctor of Adam Lanza hasn’t been found and quizzed about the drugs he prescribed isn’t in the mind of the viewer.

The information flicker effect is powerful. It sweeps away independent thought and measured contemplation. It certainly rules out the possibility of imagining the murders in an alternative narrative.

Because there is only one narrative. It is delivered by Brian Williams and Scott Pelley and Diane Sawyer.

Interesting how they never disagree.

Never, in one of these horrendous events do the three kings and queens of television news end up with different versions of what happened.

What are the odds of that, if the three people are rational and inquisitive?

But these three anchors are not rational or inquisitive. They are synthetic creations of the machine that runs them.

They flicker yes and they flicker no. They edit and cut and discard and tailor as they go along. Yes, no, yes, no. On, off, on, off.

And the viewers follow, in a state of hypnosis.

Why?

Because the viewers are addicted to STORY. They are as solidly addicted as a junkie looking for his next fix.

“Tell me a story. I want a story. That was a good story, but now I’m bored. Tell me another story. Please? I need another story. I’m listening. I’m watching. Tell me a story.”

And the anchors oblige.

They deal the drug.

But to get the drug, the audience has to surrender everything they question. They have to submit to the flicker effect and go under. Actually, surrendering to the flicker effect deepens the addiction.

And the drug deal is consummated.

Welcome to television coverage.


The Matrix Revealed


Finally, while under hypnosis, the viewing audience is treated to a segue (transition) that leads to…the guns. Something has to be done about the guns. The mind-control operation that brought the passive audience to this point takes them to the next moment of surrender, as if it were part of the same overall Sandy Hook story:

Give up the guns.

In their entrained and tranced state of mind, viewers don’t ask why law-enforcement agencies are so massively armed to do police work in America, why those agencies have ordered well over a billion rounds of ammunition in the last six months, why every day the invasive surveillance of the population moves in deeper and deeper.

Viewers, in their trance, simply assume government is benevolent and should be weaponized to the teeth, because those viewers also assume the television anchors are government allies and spokespeople, and aren’t those anchors good and kind and thoughtful and intelligent and honorable?

Therefore, isn’t the government also kind and honorable?

In case you think the public is too stupid to emerge from its trance, and would never be able to follow a line of rational discourse, if by some miracle television anchors presented one, I disagree.

During my investigation of the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, I encountered several local citizens who were exceedingly awake, alert, and helpful. Again and again over the years, I have had help from private citizens in my research.

This is why I’ve always supported the idea of citizen grand juries, convened to investigate crimes in the area where they live. Tasked to discover the truth, wherever it leads, such people would suddenly display surprising skills. Opportunity is all that is necessary.

The media put people under, flick the on-off switches that short-circuit logic. The media practice hypnosis. The media work for surrender of the mind. The media present boggling absurdities that put the mind to sleep. The media appoint themselves as the final authorities.

This is perverse theater.

That’s all it is.

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.