Robots are inventing their own languages

Robots are inventing their own languages

The programming and design of artificial intelligence

by Jon Rappoport

July 14, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI is not running its own show.

It isn’t innovating.

It isn’t creating its own languages.

It isn’t doing any of that.

AI operates within the parameters its human inventors establish.

Any honest AI designer will tell you that.

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

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

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

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

No he didn’t.

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

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

Won’t happen.

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

Sell it, sell it.

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

Sell it, sell it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a pretty good definition of psychosis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Imagination soars again

Imagination soars again

by Jon Rappoport

August 4, 2016

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

In life and in art, so many people believe that, if they use imagination at all, it should be in a cautious way, a limited way, a way that doesn’t stretch the boundaries too far.

This is looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

One understands how elastic and malleable reality is, to the degree he exercises his imagination to move past conventional limits and out into the wild blue.

In fact, reality is imagination that has been slowed to a crawl, coalesced, bundled up, named, labeled, and slipped into a coma.

The most ponderous reading I’ve ever done is in the area of Western metaphysical philosophy—and that subject is filled to the brim with ideas that move, if at all, at a snail’s pace—and there is a barely a mention of imagination in its entire history.

No surprise. Why? Because, if philosophers elevated imagination to its proper status, they would have to admit that all their absolutes were merely temporary stop-gaps on the ongoing road of infinite inventing. Such a confession would immediately put them out of work.

So these dragons of the abstract keep buttressing their concepts, keep digging impenetrable moats around them, keep shoring up the foundations, keep laying brick and iron—and yet, one painter, working somewhere in an isolated room, is upsetting the apple carts of whatever is supposedly nailed down and known about Universe and space and time. He is finding universes without end, in the midst of “stability.”

Civilization keeps sinking deeper into its own stagnant juices, looking to support more irrevocable absolutes—but the artist is cut loose from the whole struggle. He is a revolutionary inside every cell and nerve impulse.

He knows he, and what he is inventing, are endless. They don’t move or exist by virtue of any clock.

There is no birth or renewal without the artist.

In the same way, the future of every single human being depends on what he can imagine and invent. This fact cuts across all excuses and denials.


Exit From the Matrix


The world is always waiting for the next great flare-up of an individual’s life-force and creative impulse. This is the carrier wave, the frequency, the restless motion that moves souls.

There are some people who hear the word CREATE and wake up, as if a new flashing music has begun. This lone word makes them see something majestic and untamed and astonishing. They feel the sound of a Niagara approaching. CREATE is a word that should be oceanic. It should shake and blow apart the pillars of the smug boredom of the soul. CREATE is about what the individual does when he is on fire and doesn’t care about concealing it. It’s about what the individual invents when he has thrown off the false front that is slowly strangling him. CREATE is about the end of mindless postponement. It’s about what happens when you burn up the pretty and petty little obsessions. It’s about emerging from the empty suit and empty machine of society that goes around and around and sucks away the vital bloodstream.

In the soaring sky, in the muck of old rivers, in the garbage and detritus of fading civilizations, this force is always on the move, always transmuting delay into the new fire of what would otherwise never come about…

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 formula of war vs. a pandemic of freedom

The formula of war vs. a pandemic of freedom

Notes on the exit from titanic boredom and failure.

Follow the bouncing ball all the way to the end, which is a beginning

by Jon Rappoport

January 15, 2016

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

Making war makes money. Winning a war makes more money.

The desire to keep making war requires building up and maintaining a standing army.

When many nations are pursuing this general course, the “threat-need” for maintaining a standing army rises to a new level.

The “need, for the sake of defense and preparedness,” to strengthen armies is exactly what war makers exploit.

Dismantling this whole operation, by scaling back foreign military bases, withdrawing troops, and setting boundaries and no-go zones is anathema to war makers.

If JFK, as a few scholars suggest, was planning to get out of Vietnam, and if he was also in the process of planning space missions with Russia, these would have been ample reasons for his assassination.

Everyone has his favorite reason for JFK’s murder—he wanted to take money-creation out of the hands of the Federal Reserve; he was about to blow the whistle on UFO secrets; he was on the verge of destroying the CIA; he signed the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty with Russia; he and his brother were trying to destroy the Mafia; JFK was about to lay taxes on multi-billion-dollar Liberian shipping operations; anti-Castro Cubans hated him because he failed to back the Bay of Pigs invasion; he was determined to push forward an ocean-turbine technology for the generation of electricity. Everyone who has a reason for JFK’s murder is quite sure it is the primary or only reason.

If withdrawal from Vietnam was one reason, it speaks to the “sensitivity” of the war machine and its allied industries.

If international peace broke out, what would happen to the US economy? To be more precise, what would happen to those corporations who depend on the largest government military contracts? To be even more precise, what would happen to these corporations, who depend on government taxes and money invented out of thin air by elite government-backed banks?

Those corporations would imagine new enterprises or crash.

And?

The nation would have to find another way to have an economy. Would this signal, beyond the chaos, the end of the world? No.

Along a similar front, if gangs were wiped out, along with drug cartels, and if the main terrorist groups were isolated, attacked, and defunded (cut off from drug money, diverted government tax money and elite invented money), other sectors of the economy would take a hit, but again, the world would not end.

Along a similar front, if corporations who manufacture and sell poison (e.g., drug companies, pesticide companies) were punished to the full extent of the law, and even disbanded, the economy would take another hit, but again, the world would not end.

Along a similar front, if cheating, lying, and thieving banks and allied Wall St. firms were punished to the full extent of the law, and even disbanded, the world would not end.

What would the new emerging economy look like? That would depend on the imagination, and challenging work, done by individuals (not governments) who see new possibilities. That would depend on people who attempt to wake up a population muddled in passive acceptance of whatever consumer products are shoved down their throats.

Yes, I know all this speculation sounds like dreaming impossible dreams. But while I’m at it, here is another one: what would happen if everything I’ve written so far in this article became the subject of reasoned debate in colleges? I’m talking about serious lengthy debate about a new economy.

Several things would happen. First, it would come to light that the overwhelming number of students are intellectually incapable of carrying on such a dialogue. That in itself would rank as an inconvenient truth.

Students don’t learn how to think in a rational fashion. They know next to nothing about logic. Most of them aren’t even aware of what a line of reasoning looks like. They can’t follow such a line.

Second, it would become obvious that the overwhelming number of students are incapable of conceiving a new economy that is not spearheaded and controlled by government.

Students are brainwashed into thinking that all significant change must come from above. It must be planned. It must be designed to produce some vague outcome called “equality.”

This preference for central government control and planning is sustained even though, with a little thought, it’s clear that government has been the driving (and permissive) criminal force that protects the very economy that is causing all the trouble.

Third, it would become obvious that the faculties of colleges are also intellectually incapable of carrying on this debate. They, too, have been trained to ignore logic. They’ve also been trained to push a values-laden agenda that celebrates centrally planned collectivist economies.

Fourth, the idea that free and independent and creative individuals could spearhead a new economy seems outrageous, preposterous, and even illegal to the mass of students and professors. For them, all non-group-associated individuals, viewed in any light, are, a priori, greedy criminals.

So actually, this article isn’t about creating a new economy. It’s about the barriers to a rational, extensive, lengthy dialogue and debate about the creation of a new economy. A dialogue, by the way, that goes beyond what might be contained in cell phone texting or tweeting. How shocking.

Here is just one idea that might spring up in the kind of dialogue I’m talking about. Urban farms. They already exist, of course. In each case, they began as an idea in the mind of one individual. They didn’t spring to life, originally, when six people, walking down the street, suddenly turned to each other and said, “Urban farms.”

These are very large operations that grow food crops for residents of cities, especially those who can’t afford good food. The people themselves learn to grow the crops.

What would happen, what would be the consequence of, say, 10,000 urban farms across America? What would this do for the health and morale of people in cities? How would profit be made? And, peripherally, why is it that local, state, and federal government haven’t backed such an idea—for an infinitesimal fraction of the money they spend on alleviating poverty; money that, by the way, seems to make things worse.

Again, peripherally, what would happen if thousands of college students, who matriculate on privileged campuses and yap endlessly about their lack of privilege, instead turned their victimhood-energies to starting urban farms and working in them? Would the world end? Would the sky fall? The same questions could be asked about the students’ professors, many of whom are merely paid propagandists of the State.

There are all sorts of interesting questions that could arise in a real debate/dialogue. Here’s another one: what would a world without Monsanto or Merck actually look like? Or: what would America look like with an army dedicated only to defense of the nation?

Such a dialogue could lead to action. Many separate actions. What a thought. Would the world end? Would the sky fall?

You want more? Pay particular and close attention to this one. What would happen, if one state in the union decided that anyone could offer health advice and non-harmful, non-toxic treatment to another person, for any ailment or illness, without control from above, without the need for government licensing? Suppose this arrangement, between consenting adults, was done by contract, not license? Suppose both parties asserted that no liability or blame would be attached to the outcome of such advice or treatment? In other words, God forbid, the citizens would actually take responsibility for themselves. Do you think many citizens and practitioners might flock to such a state? Do you think an economic bonanza might explode in that state? Do you think the outbreak of freedom might raise the morale in that area? Do you think improved health might result? Do you think other states might follow suit, merely by removing, at no cost, their grotesque rules and licensing/enforcement bureaus? Would you be afraid of such an arrangement, understanding the fact that current orthodox medicine, as licensed and practiced throughout the land, results in widespread pharmaceutical devastation? Shown a projection of the foreseeable economic bonanza from the new arrangement I just outlined, do you think there is at least one state in the US that might throw irrational caution to the winds and enact this program of health freedom?

In the kind of extended dialogue I’m talking about here, individuals come up with lots of interesting ideas—ideas that could very well lead to action. And in the process, the nightmare zombie cloud of government control and meddling takes major hits. All its operations aimed at interfering with freedom are exposed. The crud washes off. The unconscionable dreck drains away.

People start actually thinking again. They start imagining again. They feel their chains slipping away. They come out of the collective dream. They experience cascades of new energy. They think about entrepreneurship in a new way. They think about morality and ethics in a new way. They re-find themselves.

Does the sky fall? Does the world end?

No. It begins.

Perhaps (miracle of miracles) the quantity of self-invented victims begins to diminish. Perhaps untold numbers of people floating along in a New Age daze (because they see no way out of the dilemmas and conflicts of our time) rise up from their plastic lotus pads, sensing a genuine impulse of hope and desire for the first time in many years. Their own hope. Their own desire. Perhaps millions of people trapped in dead-end robotic work feel a creak in the psychological and spiritual machinery that surrounds them, as it begins to malfunction and split apart. Perhaps moon-blown, full-bore, doctrinal collectivist freaks feel a few pin pricks in the purple bloated corpse of their one-size-fits-all planetary vision.

Who knows what might happen if a true ongoing dialogue about a new economy persisted long enough?

If a person is dead inside and doesn’t want to be dead inside, he has to ask himself (paraphrasing Clint Eastwood) this question: Did he fire six shots into his psyche or only five? If only five, can he fire that last bullet into the passive trance that keeps him in thrall to Control Central?

Waking up may be hard to do, but it’s also contagious. If a college dared to offer a four-year course which consisted entirely of the dialogue/debate I’m proposing, carried out along respectful lines, omitting and barring the screaming opponents of free speech, who knows what might happen?

As William Blake wrote, “If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise.” As the dialogue proceeds, all sorts of foolish ideas would come to light and unravel, and turn into other ideas, and those ideas would transmute into useful ideas, out of which would be born a few brilliant ideas…and on it would go.

And the process itself would act as a catalyst for every person within listening range. His own imagination would rev up. He would discover his own future path.

Would that be a calamity? Would the sky fall? Would the world end?

Or would the dawn finally break?


exit from the matrix


It’s instructive to read what authors wrote about core values a hundred or two hundred years ago, because then you can appreciate what has happened to the culture of a nation. You can grasp the enormous influence of planned propaganda, which changes minds, builds new consensus, and exiles certain disruptive thinkers to the margins of society. You can see what has been painted over, with great intent, in order to promote tyranny that proclaims a greater good for all.

Here are several statements about the individual, written in 19th century America. The authors, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and James Fenimore Cooper were prominent figures. Emerson, in his time, was the most famous.

“All greatness of character is dependent on individuality. The man who has no other existence than that which he partakes in common with all around him, will never have any other than an existence of mediocrity.” — James Fenimore Cooper

“The less government we have, the better, — the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of [by] formal Government, is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

“The former generations acted under the belief that a shining social prosperity was the beatitude of man, and sacrificed uniformly the citizen to the State. The modern mind believed that the nation existed for the individual, for the guardianship and education of every man. This idea, roughly written in revolutions and national movements, in the mind of the philosopher had far more precision; the individual is the world.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

“If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” — Henry David Thoreau

“They [conformists] think society wiser than their soul, and know not that one soul, and their soul, is wiser than the whole world…Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members….Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist…. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

Can you imagine, today, any of these statements gaining traction in the public mind, much less the mainstream media?

In the public mind? Yes, I can.

The world, as it is presented to us, is a shrunken mural in which the individual must carve down his energies, in order to fit in. If he reverses that process, he finds a new world that didn’t seem to be there before.

But now it is.

It most definitely 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.

Updated: the stimulus-response Empire

Updated: the stimulus-response Empire

by Jon Rappoport

October 19, 2015

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

“From the moment the first leader of the first clan in human history took charge, he busied himself with this question: ‘What can I say and do that will make my people react the way I want them to.’ He was the first Pavlov. He was the first psychologist, the first propagandist, the first mind-control boss. His was the first little empire. Since then, only the means and methods have changed.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

I include my original article below. I want to provide a new introduction, based on the notion of “expanding thought-forms.”

A thought-form is a picture in the mind that tends to guide behavior. Its presence is usually unknown to the user.

If the behavior results in objective successes in the world, the thought-form expands, takes on more force, and even can pretend to a sense of inevitability.

Sometimes, for example, in war, an Alexander, operating from his thought-form of conquest, and piling up victories, begins to see himself destined to be the “ruler of the whole world.”

The dominant thought-form in Earth civilization today is: universal rule through gigantic, highly organized structures; e.g., mega-corporations that owe no allegiance to any nation.

Imagine a few thousand such corporations with interlocking boards and directorates; colluding with super-regional governments and their honeycombed bureaucracies; combined with regional armies, intelligence agencies and technological elites; hooked to a global surveillance operation; in control of media; cooperating with the largest organized religions on Earth.

Imagine all this as essentially one organization—and you see the thought-form in its wide-screen version.

Top-down as top-down has never been before.

Functions and compartments defined and specialized at every level, and coordinated in order to carry out policy decisions.

As to why such a thought-form should come to dominate human affairs, the simplest explanation is: because it works.

But beneath that answer, for those who can see, there is much, much more.

Individuals come to think that “effective” and “instrumental” and “efficient” are more important than anything else.

Keep building, keep expanding, keep consolidating gains—and above all else, keep organizing.

Such notions and thought-forms replace life itself.

At that point, the civilization is doomed. It may take a thousand years to fall, or it may happen all at once. But it’s finished.

The individual creative-force has gone into hibernation. It’s over.

The Machine has come to the fore. All questions are now about how the individual sees himself fitting into the structure and function of The Machine.

Which cog does he want to be part of? At which level?

Which piece of the latest technology does he want to adhere to, like a barnacle?

—end of introduction—

I’ve spent the past 30 years analyzing, taking apart, and exposing highly centralized structures:

Government, supra-government, corporate, energy, intelligence, education, medical, mind-control, media, organized-religion structures; those are some of the targets.

They all operate on the basis of stimulus-response.

The elite future is stimulus-response. It’s based on the premise that humans are inherently (biologically) programmed to be dangerous and the programming must change. In other words, a better Pavlovian dog must be created.

Stimulus-response has been the guiding principle of elite rule since the dawn of history. The priest-class searches for the most effective inputs it can find, which in turn will produce the desired responses from the population.

Mainstream media, which are actually disseminated propaganda, aim to produce three overall responses to stimuli: a) “conflicts and major problems are never resolved”; b) “I should be afraid”; and c) “this is all too confusing,” which results in viewers and readers sinking into passivity.

For the most part, political leaders have paid no attention to the idea of freedom, regardless of which documents they’ve signed and given lip-service to. Why? Because freedom implies something beyond stimulus-response. Freedom implies action by choice. And politicians know their power depends on managing conditioned response in populations.

In that light, the 20th century was the century of PR, advertising, propaganda, and it was also the launching pad for a number of drugs targeting the brain and its responses.

But now, further technological paths are being followed. The alteration of the human genetic structure. The probing of brains with electronic interventions, so that, for example, it will be possible to insert images directly into the visual cortex, bypassing what humans would ordinarily perceive.

This is called the transhumanist agenda, and it is. But it is also stimulus-response at a more sophisticated level. And it is another way of attempting to eliminate freedom, while never admitting that freedom exists in the first place.

What are the requirements of a future society in which conditioned responses are locked down and pervasive, on chemical, biological, and electronic levels? Well, there is one basic requirement:

The population must believe they are happy.

That’s the end game. That’s the triumph of Brave New World over 1984.

“Happiness” is an elusive word. It can refer to a number of feelings and thoughts.

If you recall, from your childhood, a peak experience, a few moments of sheer ecstasy, you are certainly remembering happiness. But you are also remembering freedom.

That’s not what the elite controllers are aiming to produce as a mass societal effect. No; for them to succeed, they must create, in people, an article of faith:

People must believe that happiness is shallow, tepid, “average.” If they accept that premise, the game is over.

Because, through genetic manipulation, through chemicals, through electronics, that happiness-target stands a chance of being reached.

Then you would have a population ruled by stimulus-response, by conditioned reflex—a population that nevertheless interprets that state of affairs as acceptable, because it carries “happiness” with it.

This is how you drastically reduce the possibility of unending rebellion, revolution, and war between the people and the leaders.

This is the goal of elite empire.

Counter to that, as I mentioned above, is freedom.

In its fullness, freedom implies a personal and individual knowing that one is free. No doubts, no conditions.

Travel anywhere is the world, visit every college and university from Tierra del Fuego to the North Pole, and count how many courses are called Freedom. Count how many courses are taught with the explicit intent of exploring, deeply, what individual freedom means and is.

If, reading this far, you are beginning to suspect that the discredited and ugly word “philosophy” is creeping in, you’re right. Yes, that old saw, that ridiculous subject.

Back in the Stone Age, when I went to college, I majored in it. I have a good memory, and I can tell you that nowhere in the department’s curriculum was there a serious and extensive treatment of individual freedom.

Philosophy is supposed to take up and illuminate fundamental questions of existence and fundamental conflicts embedded in opposing views.

Such as the conflict I’m discussing here: stimulus-response vs. freedom.


Exit From the Matrix


Let me boil this titanic issue down to something I’ve introduced before: my analysis of two concepts: understanding and meaning.

You are reading this article, these words on the page. If you are nothing more than responses to stimuli, if you are merely atoms in motion, none of which are conscious in and of themselves, then how can you possibly understand the meaning of what you are reading?

Yet you do understand the meaning of the words.

So do I.

We are not merely atoms in motion. We are not merely matter. We are not merely pre-programmed responses to stimuli.

Which is a way of saying: we can choose, we can decide, we are free, each one of us.

The princes of Pavlov would have us accept that there is no “you” or “I.” Instead, there is the just the unceasing flow of particles in the universe. That’s all.

But again, you are here, right now. You, beyond particles, are reading these words and you understand them.

This is what has happened to the human race, through unceasing tons of propaganda and false science: people have come to believe that the arena of stimulus-response is gigantic. But the opposite is true:

It is individual freedom that is gigantic.

Which leads to the question every individual must ask himself: what is my freedom for?

For what action?

Is it for bowing down to the Reality that has been artificially constructed for me and everyone else?

Or is it for imagining and creating and inventing the reality and the future I most profoundly desire?

Now we are getting to the pivot of this civilization. Which way will it ultimately swing? Toward the stimulus-response empire, or toward individual power?

Jon Rappoport

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

The individual vs. the collective in the Matrix

The individual vs. the collective in the Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

September 5, 2015

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

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

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

Collectivism wasn’t merely a Soviet paradigm. It was spreading like a fungus at every level of American life. It might fly a political banner here and there, but on the whole it was a social phenomenon and nightmare.

Television then added fuel to the fire. Under the control of psyops experts, it became, as the 1950s droned on, the facile barrel of a weapon:

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

Recognize that every message television imparts is a proxy, a fabrication, a simulacrum, an imitation of life one step removed. It isn’t people talking in a park or on a street corner or in a saloon or a barber shop or a meeting hall or a church.

It’s happening on a screen.

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

The very opposite of living as a strong, independent, and powerful individual is the cloying need to belong. And the latter is what television ceaselessly promotes.

This is no accident. After World War 2, psychological-warfare operatives turned their attention to two long-term strategies: inculcating negative stereotypes of distant populations, to rationalize covert military plans to conquer and build an empire for America; and disseminating the unparalleled joys of disappearing into a group existence.

When, for example, television promotes “family,” it’s all on the level of fictitiously happy, desperate, yearning, last-chance, problem-resolving, melted-down, trance-inducing, gooey family.

This isn’t, by any stretch, an actual human value. Whether it’s the suburban-lawn family in an ad for the wonders of a toxic pesticide, or the mob family going to the mattresses to fend off a rival, it’s fantasy time in the land of mind control.

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

The political Left of the 1960s, who rioted against Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, at the Century Plaza Hotel, and ended his hopes to run again in 1968…that Left is now all about the State and its glories and gifts. The collective.

A great deal of the television coverage of mass shootings is now dedicated to bringing home the spurious message: we all grieve together and heal together.

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

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

This usage reflects an unending psyop.

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

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

The community, the group, the company, the sector, the planet, the family.

The goal? Submerge the individual and tie him inexorably to a group.

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

All you need to do is fall into the arms of a group. After that, everything is settled. You can care exclusively about the collective.

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

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

Television seeks to emphasize one decision: inclusion or exclusion. Exclusion is portrayed as the only condition that is possible if you aren’t part of the group. And exclusion carries the connotation of exile, excommunication, and criminality.

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

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

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

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


Of the three elite network anchors, the one who fictionally conveyed the sense that “we’re all in this together” was Brian Williams (NBC), before his downfall. He was the number-one-rated anchor on the evening news.

Am I saying that no groups anywhere can achieve important objectives? No. I’m talking about a state of mind wherein the individual surrenders his own life-force.

There is an indissoluble link between the artifact called “we” and “limited context.” This is precisely what television news gives to the public. With each story that fails to explore the deeper elite players and their motives, the news speaks to a collective consciousness, which is to say, the sharing of a fabrication.

What “we” shares is foreshortened perspective, lies, misdirection, and superficial gloss. Those qualities are built for the group, and the group digests them automatically.

For some people, “we” has a fragrant scent, until they get down in the trenches with it. There they discover odd odors and postures and mutations. They find self-distorted creatures running around doing bizarre things with an exhibitionist flair.

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

Perceptions formerly believed to be the glue that holds this territory together begin to crack and fall apart, and all that is left is a grim determination to see things through.

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

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

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

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

That’s starts a cacophony of howling.

People dimly wonder whether, beyond this night, there is another whole world where individuals live, where individuals finally separate from the sticky substance of coordinated defeat.

The “we” that television gives us is a fiction designed to make the independent individual extinct. That is its job.

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

A lone individual, detached from the group, did this. “See what happens when the group is rejected? Lone individuals are really no different than individuals. They are people who left the fold. They wandered from the communal hearth. They thought for themselves. This is what happens when individuals assert their independent existence. They become killers. They lose their way. They break the sacred bond. They are heretics who fall away from the collective.”

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

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

The strongest argument against the free and independent and powerful individual, and in favor of the collective is, simply: the collective has advanced to such a degree that there is no going back; the individual can’t win; the battle is over.

But the liberation of the individual has existed as an aim since the dawn of time on this planet. That aim will not vanish.

Why? Because underneath all the programs for mind control, there is, obviously, something to control. Otherwise, why bother? The deeper you go in discovering what “must be controlled,” the more freedom and power and imagination you encounter in the individual.

It may not seem so. It may seem that all the propaganda about the inherent weakness and smallness of the human being is accurate. But that is a false dream.

The reality is far different.

A million psyops won’t change that reality.


power outside the matrix


Here is a 1980 quote from author Philip K Dick. He is writing poignantly about another titan of science fiction, Robert Heinlein. The relevance of Phil’s words to the subject of this article? Here are two powerful and independent individuals who, despite all their differences, find a common sharing. This is what that sharing looks like and feels like:

“Several years ago, when I was ill, Heinlein offered his help, anything he could do, and we had never met; he would phone me to cheer me up and see how I was doing. He wanted to buy me an electric typewriter, God bless him—one of the few true gentlemen in this world. I don’t agree with any ideas he puts forth in his writing, but that is neither here nor there. One time when I owed the IRS a lot of money and couldn’t raise it, Heinlein loaned the money to me. I think a great deal of him and his wife; I dedicated a book to them in appreciation. Robert Heinlein is a fine-looking man, very impressive and very military in stance; you can tell he has a military background, even to the haircut. He knows I’m a flipped-out freak and still he helped me and my wife when we were in trouble. That is the best in humanity, there; that is who and what I love.”

Here is one more from Philip Dick. I don’t agree with the “motive” part of the quote, but everything else? Perfect.

“Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups…So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.”

The question is, in gaining freedom from these pseudo-realities, does the process happen for everyone at once, or is it one individual at a time? The answer is clear. It must be one individual at a time—and that tells us a great deal about the illusion of the collective.

The history of human struggle on this planet is about the individual emerging FROM the group, from the tribe, from the clan, from ethnicity and race and skin color and from all outward signs of collective existence.

The history of struggle is not about the individual surrendering and going back into group identity.

That is the psyop.

Jon Rappoport

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

Why do people think computers will be alive?

Why do people think computers will be alive?

by Jon Rappoport

August 7, 2015

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

“Because, supposedly, one digital processing unit will eventually be able to manipulate zillions of pieces of information at a faster rate than all the human brains on the planet taken together…the result will be…what? And if that digital unit is sitting in The Cloud and every human’s brain is hooked up to it, the result will be…what? A person will be able to master French in five minutes? How does that work? Information can be injected like a drug and produce instant learning? Automatically? Perhaps this is a fantasy hatched at Disney World. Two machines can rapidly exchange data and programmed methods of analysis, but it so happens that humans are not machines, even if they believe they are.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

How do you think a super-brain would be constructed? I’m talking about the technocrats’ dream to build a computer that would rival and surpass the human brain, in terms of “reliable data.” And don’t forget, the plan is to somehow connect brains directly to the super-computer, so data can be downloaded into humans.

And this computer would, technocrats believe, come alive.

Why?

Because a) it can store far more information than the human brain; b) it can choose how to utilize that information to solve problems; c) it can solve those problems at lightning speed; and d) it can work on millions of problems at the same time.

Basically, technocrats believe a super-computer will be alive because it can process enormous amounts of data—as if there is a threshold beyond which the sheer volume of processing triggers an event…birth. What was merely a machine is now something More.

I’ve boiled down the above statement, in order to remove mystical fluff.

The statement looks strange, quite strange.

By way of analogy, if you could outfit a Porsche so it can run at 400mph, without need of a driver; and also view detailed traffic patterns within a radius of a hundred miles, adjusting its trajectory to minute changes; also report weather, stock market moves, headlines, and the moment-to-moment output of home surveillance sensors; also cook soup; acquire hostile targets and fire beam weapons to eliminate them; shop remotely at any of 50,000 stores; interview and pitch prospective customers to win contracts; deliver a haircut, shave, and minor surgery; write your autobiography in 5000 volumes; track ice flows at the North Pole; day-trade stocks and commodities; report the second-to-second movements and conversations of up to 100,000 people; record every event taking place on a million other planets…and do all this simultaneously… at some point the Porsche will cross over and become alive.

I’m afraid not.

It will still be a machine.

For technocrats, “information processing” is basically a religious undertaking. As if it were a form of prayer, a blessing conferred, a ritual connecting the computer to the innards of the universe.

There is no level of complexity beyond which life suddenly occurs. Complexity, in and of itself, does not initiate life.

There is no number of “correct answers” which triggers life.

At bottom, technocracy assumes quite juvenile concepts: accumulation of data automatically imparts learning; the power of information-processing bypasses the problem of false, authority-based data; enough learning eliminates the need for imagination.

Technocrats assume that mysteries about how humans learn can be solved by claiming: “well, the brain is doing something we’ll eventually understand. It’s all happening in the brain because…what else is there?”

There is the individual.

You.

If you are your brain, an ant is a spaceship pilot.

Technocrats are making the brain into a sacred totem, a magic gizmo.

If you’re aware you have a brain, who is being aware? You’re just an artifact fed illusions about self by your brain? You aren’t there at all?

I’m an illusion writing illusions to the illusion called you?

Now, we’re getting to the core of the matter. A great many channels of propaganda, for obvious reasons, are aimed at the eradication of the concept of the individual, of self. It suits the collectivist model.

The assertion that the brain is “all there is” is a piece of political puppetry. It leads directly into the effort to “enhance” (alter, re-program, control) the brain.

The brain is not conscious.

A computer is not conscious.

A brain-computer interface is not conscious.

There is no function or system that equals consciousness.

Individual consciousness comes before any function or system.

The individual is not defined as the passive recipient of signals from the brain. The individual is intensely creative, although for various reasons he can bury that capacity to the point where he will deny he has it.

When the individual expresses his imagination and creative power intensely enough, he surpasses the habitual and passive acceptance of things as they are. And in doing so, his consciousness assumes a different level, and he sees life from a far different perspective. All this does not emanate from the brain.

Theoretically, if one had a super-computer of sufficient power, he could program it to spit out all the paintings in all the museums in the world, and all the music ever composed, and all the poems and novels and plays ever written, plus billions of new paintings and songs and poems. But…

So what?

Does that mean that human imagination is just an illusion?

If a carpenter makes a cabinet, and a computer running a machine produces the same cabinet, does that mean the carpenter is useless, and has gained nothing from his endeavor? Of course not.

Imagination is the source of reality, including the creation of computers.

Imagination is also the means by which an individual can attain a state in which he truly understands that the universe of “rigid natural laws” is actually an infinitely malleable stage play.

Technocrats want to be machines. They aren’t, but they keep trying.

If necessary, let them have their own island, where they can fiddle and diddle to their hearts’ content, without imposing their machinery on the rest of us. Call it an experiment. We run it. We watch what happens to them as they expend titanic effort to be brains and computers. We’ll call the experiment: “A Self-Selecting Cohort of Humans Who Think They’re Machines Attempt to Attain a Lowest-Common-Denominator Default Setting As If It Were Enlightenment.”

In my search for a different approach to the power of individual consciousness, I came upon the history of early Tibet, before the society hardened into a theocracy.

Several sources were particularly helpful. The work of author John Blofeld (The Tantric Mysticism of Tibet), the writings of the intrepid explorer, Alexandra David-Neel, and a quite unconventional healer, Richard Jenkins, with whom I worked in the early 1960s in New York.

Jenkins once wrote to me:

“There are people who want to tell us what consciousness should perceive. They’re blind to the electric, alive, and free nature of awareness. They’re wrapped up in content and addicted to it. Their biggest mistake is omitting the creative nature of human beings…”

That creative nature was the intense focus of the early Tibetans.

These practitioners, teachers, and students, some 1500 years ago, realized that most people viewed consciousness as an accumulator of knowledge. A searching tool, or a receiving apparatus.

Instead, the Tibetans embarked on a far more adventurous course.

Their many images (e.g., mandalas) weren’t meant as depictions of what finally exists in higher realms. Those realms were just as provisional and changeable as the physical world. You might call the multiple locales and dimensions representations of “what humans in certain Asian cultures would expect to encounter in their journeys of spirit.”

In other words, the Tibetans consciously treated their pantheons of gods and semi-gods as convincing illusions.

Several of their key exercises and techniques were all about having students mentally create these illusions in voluminous and meticulous detail. That was difficult enough, to be sure. Far more difficult was the next aspect of their practice: get rid of these creations.

Put them there; destroy them.

The Tibetans were committed to living life on the level of imagination, with all that implied.

And what does it imply?

A new psychology. A psychology of unlimited possibility:

A person’s past, his history, his problems, his relationships are all framed against the wider context of what he can imagine and then invent, create, in the world.

Living through and by imagination long enough, the individual discovers that his prior relationships are transformed. They no longer set themselves up as questions or problems.

He is operating from a platform that affords an utterly different, original, and unexpected outcome.


exit from the matrix


A psychology of possibility not only looks forward to the future, it has a reason to do so. Bringing electricity back into life depends, initially, on viewing possibilities in the space of one’s own imagination.

It may strike you at this point that our current civilization is bent on lowering possibilities; and that is true. That is the psychology of the psyop.

There is a good reason for this programming, as well as the staging of events that seem to give the programming validity. Those who aim to control the destiny of humankind want to shrink the “size of humans.” That is their intent.

A psychology of possibility would reverse that trend and expose it.

To the casual observer, the weight of this civilization and all its accoutrement seems enormous. But the creative potential of the individual outstrips that structure by light years.

How does the individual realize that fact? What is the spark that ignites his understanding? It all begins in imagination, which is the home of possibility.

Against this background, the computer is a drop in the ocean.

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.

Consciousness versus computers

Consciousness versus computers

by Jon Rappoport

August 5, 2015

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

“Technocrats believe all brains can be directly hooked up to a super-computer. They’re looking at humans beings through the wrong end of the telescope. Everything they see about humans is reduced, shrunken, and ‘automatic’. Technocrats are trained to miss the big picture, even though they incessantly talk about it. They’re visionaries who are blind. Thus, they’re in the grand tradition of religious fanatics.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

If you take away a person’s ability to employ logic, and if you also take away his imagination, and thus his capacity to extrapolate and predict what is coming, what you are left with is: eyeballs.

Eyeball perception of what is happening now. And even then, eyeballs are seeing immediate reality through unconscious filters.

The ability to apply reason and to predict are vital components of perception. They are voluntary components. They don’t sweep in like a wave and take over. They are born out of freedom and choice.

So…what is the difference between you moving around on the Internet, reading and researching; versus you with your brain directly connected to some grand computer stacked with trillions of pieces of data?

In the former case, you have freedom. In the latter case, it all happens automatically. You get “the best possible data on any given subject.”

Of course, “best possible” is not your decision or conclusion. It’s someone else’s. Worse, the data are instantly downloaded into your brain (whatever that actually means).

How this deterministic system amounts to a glorious breakthrough of enormous spiritual significance, triggering revelations, is beyond mysterious. In fact, the whole conception is absurd.

If you were a robot operating on an assembly line, and your task could be automatically modulated and adjusted, depending on changing circumstances, then yes, that would be a nice innovation.

But you aren’t a robot. You’re conscious. You have choice. Freedom. You can apply logic. You can conceive of futures, based on your present knowledge.

Contrary to technocratic catechism, computers aren’t conscious. They don’t have freedom. They can be programmed to select conclusions relative to specified objectives and goals, but even then their methods of selection are part of their programming. They don’t suddenly wake up and become alive.

Technocrats tend to believe computers, when developed to a sufficient level of complexity that mirrors what the human brain does, DO come alive.

They believe that information-processing alone is a sign of life. But that’s a self-serving fantasy.

Information-processing is one effect of being alive and conscious. The technocrats have it backwards.

Unfortunately for them and their religion, consciousness isn’t measurable. And that’s a bone stuck in their throat.

Therefore, they need to reduce and reduce the concept of consciousness. So they claim it’s in the brain, and then they say the brain works automatically—and therefore consciousness is simply an aspect of pre-determined function. Consciousness is just a delusion brought on, like an illness, by chemicals and electrical impulses inside the skull.

They say whatever they have to, in order to minimize, degrade, and destroy the idea of consciousness.

To the degree that technocrats are gaining control of society and its future, the human population is at considerable risk. Because these secular-religious fanatics are sniffing and building their way toward a “best possible apparatus.”

And wherever they spot freedom, they try to wipe it out, and then they say it never existed.

Consciousness is not function. Nor is it derived from function.

The foot soldiers of technocracy spend every working day with systems. They become entrained: they see life as systems. Therefore, they presume that awareness must be some sort of structure yet to be mapped out.

This is false. A person can be conscious of a system, but that has nothing to do with what consciousness is.

These distinctions, among the technocratic class, have been lost.

Along similar lines, technocrats believe that a closed and tightly planned society is “scientific” and therefore “advanced.” This is another blunder. You can put a hundred people inside a large cage and regulate their movements. That’s a plan. That’s precise. But it has nothing to do with science.

Technocrats are juggling all sorts of metaphors and comparisons and coming up with wrong answers like clockwork.

On a much higher level, their bosses and leaders are manipulating these notions as a smokescreen, to hide their naked ambition: overt control and dominance of the population.

Regardless of what groups may be able to accomplish to head off the technocratic takeover, there is no victory if the individual doesn’t grasp his own inherent consciousness, which is vastly dynamic, energetic, and creative.


exit from the matrix


Imagination and the creative force are the prow of the present as it becomes the future.

The individual isn’t constrained to act merely from past tradition and experience.

The individual is under no obligation to wait for “everyone else” to wake up.

Consensus reality is: waiting in a defunct railroad station for something to happen. It never does.

As time passes, we are going to see more and more bizarre twists on technocracy; more pseudoscientific pronouncements; more messianic assurances.

It is up to the individual to reject the glare of this Wondrous Collective Tomorrow, and instead, invent his own.

To that, a person might reply, “But all around me, I see people who can’t consciously invent their own future. They’re mired in all sorts of problems.”

Whether these “other people” can or can’t is a subject for a different discussion. They aren’t the measure or the standard. Assessing one’s own ability by referring to others is just a convenient distraction.

In fact, the collective “we” and “everyone” is the target of technocrats, who envision mass solutions to civilization’s problems, through a super-computer’s definitive answers framed as “best available data.”

If this sounds like a con and an approach to humans as if they were non-creative machines, it is. It’s exactly that. Previous efforts at mind control pale by comparison. Technocracy is the wholesale Pavlovian insertion of stimuli, transmitted involuntarily to achieve uniform responses all the way across the board.

Madness? Insanity? Absurdity? Since when has that ever stopped manipulators bent on expanding their power and control? Repeated often enough by the right people, huge lies are always easier to sell than small ones.

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.