The psyop called Reality

The psyop called Reality

by Jon Rappoport

February 6, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

This article is an introduction to my 3 mega-collections: The Matrix Revealed, Exit From The Matrix, and Power Outside The Matrix. I invite you to read about these collections at the NoMoreFakeNews store.

“People want one story line. Smooth, with no fractures. So that’s what mind-engineers give them. Which tells you what the surrealists were doing. They were blasting the single plot line to pieces and rearranging the bits in fantastical ways. They were disturbing the trance. They were inventing new space and time.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Reality is a psychological operation.

At the most primitive level, “Reality” basically means some group has force, money, and access to fawning media. They can define what exists.

A psyop depends on being able to engineer one story line.

A psyop depends on selling one centralized story.

In the case of Ebola, for example, the whole unfolding storyline depended on selling basic assumptions: a) there was an unusual outbreak; b) the outbreak was caused by a single virus and nothing else.

These assumptions and the ensuing storyline were sold by major media, with no exceptions. There were no defectors.

If, tomorrow, the head of the CDC announced that no one had ever extracted the Ebola virus from a human being, isolated it, and seen it, he would be locked up in a psych ward.

He defected from reality, which is to say, the psyop.

If, tomorrow, the head of the FDA announced that GMO crops and the herbicide Roundup were a clear and present danger to the population of the world, and constituted a grave crime, he would be fired and blacklisted.

If, magically, overnight, you found yourself in possession of overwhelming force and a direct pipeline to elite media anchors and their bosses, you could tell your story about What Exists, and you would find millions of people believing you.

This is how reality works.

What would happen if the three major networks, each with considerable power, had come up with three vastly different versions of the Boston Marathon massacre?

CBS: “FBI and local police killed one terrorist and captured the other in what observers are calling one of the bravest days in the history of law enforcement in America.”

NBC: “After a violent gun battle on the streets of a great American city, during which a suspect in the Boston massacre was killed, an FBI source stunningly revealed they had ended the life of a cooperating informant. He put it this way: ‘The Tsarnaev brothers were recruited by a secret Bureau unit to plant the bombs. The plan was to blame the bombing on so-called patriots, but that fell through, so the Bureau exercised their only option. They put their informants front and center and blamed the whole thing on them’…”

ABC: “Today, the tragic loss of life and wounding of more than 180 persons at the Boston Marathon were, amazingly, were traced back to three pipe bombs in a CIA storage locker in Maryland…”

Suppose, in the midst of an uproar heard and echoed around the world, the networks stood by their contradictory versions of events and wouldn’t back down.

A massive blow would hit psyop-land. Centralized story? Poleaxed.

People wouldn’t know what to do. They expect one story line and they get three, from the highest hypnotic and influential media giants.

In a literal, though unconscious, sense, familiar time and space would begin to fall apart.

But actually, it’s far more surreal for the three major television networks to agree on the substance of every significant event than to come to radically different conclusions.

Unfortunately, people don’t see it that way. They don’t see that three behemoths dispensing the same information represents a highly unnatural state of affairs.

On this subject, here are a few notes from a work-in-progress, The Underground:

“Fractured reality is approaching like a huge wave. Defections from the ranks of consensus are exploding. Therefore, the spaces of the mind are changing. Those who are holding the fort are trying to minimize the effect. That’s why they’re staging more ‘crises’. Crises are magnets. They attract the mass, the collective, the reality-addicts, the joiners, the people who will buy official images and feelings pumped out of the central factory.”

“In a vast subterranean cavern of the unconscious, people are wishing an artist would step forward who can paint an apple so real it can’t be distinguished from an apple on a tree. That, hopefully, will put an end to all creation, invention, imagination. Then everyone can say, ‘Imagination at its highest point gives us nothing beyond what is already there, and we already have that.’”

“Group-ideas which are obviously foolish and depleting and destructive are relatively easy to reject. But group-ideas that seem to herald a better world are the big deceptions. These ideas, in a vacuum, may be attractive and interesting, but because they emerge from a group they are going to induce a deep trance, in the long run. That is the intention. Not ‘a better world.’”

“Bargain price! We’ll shave down your perceptual field so you can fit in with eight billion androids. You’ll never miss what you can’t see. Yes, folks, we’ll cement you into the limited spectrum, where all the action is. There is a sense of family in this reality. People liking people. We’re all in this together.”

“Asking someone to imagine what his mind would be like if it were missing its entire collection of consensus-ideas goes over like lead matzos balls at a Catholic communion.”

“Very few people care about the space, time, and energy of psychological propaganda. They think it’s just lies. It isn’t. It’s a parallel world.”

“Escaping from the psyop called Reality occurs in stages. But unless the escapee is inventing his own reality, much as a painter invents on a blank canvas, he’ll fall back into the op. He’ll exist in a kind of limbo, knowing something about the truth but never rising to a level of true power. And he’ll spend his years making excuses, pulling himself further down in the process.”

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.

Computers with consciousness: Stanley Kubrick

Computers with consciousness: Stanley Kubrick

by Jon Rappoport

January 29, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Computers have as much consciousness as cars or concrete. This will not change. They’re machines.

They can be programmed to follow directions and calculate certain kinds of solutions within those directed parameters. That’s it. That’s the beginning and end of the story.

Why do some technocrats believe computers will gain actual consciousness?

They think a) the brain is a machine that expresses consciousness via information processing, and b) information processing is all the consciousness there is.

To sum up, technocrats are high-IQ idiots.

You can assemble all the information in the world and cross-reference it 100 billion different ways; you can solve pre-set problems with this information; you can turn the whole info package upside down, inside out, and sideways, and you’ll extract not one drop of consciousness.

Consciousness isn’t a function of the sophistication of a machine. You can put a face on the machine, and give it hair; you can provide arms and legs and feet and hands; you can make it speak; you can make it walk and run and fly. And you still have a machine. That’s all.

Likewise, you can freeze a brain at death, and 100 years later thaw it, place it in a body, wire it up, and you’ll have, at best, a machine. Most probably a poorly operating machine. No consciousness. Your Aunt Marigold will not return.

Why is this so hard to understand? Because there are people who are madly in love with machines. They prefer them to humans. They therefore want to believe machines are alive and have consciousness, choice, freedom, intelligence.

But here’s the real kicker. If people set aside the tons of propaganda about the brain being the source of consciousness, they’re left with a gaping mystery. A hole. They don’t know where to turn. They can’t fall back on “science.”

What’s staring them in the face is: consciousness is non-material. It isn’t made out of electrons and protons and nuclei and quarks and mesons and wavicles. It never was, and it never will be.

Neither is imagination or creative power. Those capabilities aren’t “made out of matter.”

At a certain level, the Newtonian world of push-pull and the quantum world of entanglement are left behind in the rear-view mirror.

They don’t explain the core of what you are or I am.

The shuck and jive about hooking human brains up to a super-duper computer and producing new consciousness (“The Singularity”) is a fairy tale for gullible doofuses.

Why do I keep hammering on this subject? Because the 21st century is the century of the brain. In research labs all over the world, neuroscientists are working on ways to alter the brain, program it. Control it. The think they have the right to do that because, for them, consciousness doesn’t really exist.

There are myriad ideologies on this planet that base their operations on the notion of The Group, the mass, the collective, and they fervently want to wipe out the idea of the free individual, the individual with power, with imagination, with creative force. Which means they want to wipe out consciousness, because consciousness rests with the individual.

These ideologues are grotesque.

You want to see the true consequences of Sandy Hook, the Aurora Theater, the Boston Marathon? Go back and watch Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, if you can handle it. It’s all there: the seeds of reprogramming the human so he is quiescent, agreeable, peaceful, obedient, controlled.

To justify the overall operation, they always pick the “madman, the mass murderer.” This is their way in. This is their hook. “We must re-condition the outlaw and save him and save us from him…”

Go back and watch Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. In the middle of some preposterous nonsense about “the monolith” that holds the key to advanced evolution, there’s a very compelling story about one man, Bowman, who, aboard his ship, dismantles the master computer, Hal, and takes over his own destiny.

Hal is the ultimate computer who appears to be human. He talks the talk all the way. He feels, he tries to survive, he wants to help.

But none of that is true. Hal is a machine. Hal is programmed (or misprogrammed) to block the mission, to destroy it, to destroy Bowman, who as it turns out, is on a voyage to greater consciousness.

Yes, the monolith, a kind of multidimensional device, finally gives Bowman that consciousness…but that’s a literary ploy for a generation of emerging tech heads and LSD heads in the audience: the high-IQ yokels.

At the core, the story is actually about one individual who goes beyond the machine, and finds out who he is and how much power he actually has.

Against him is arrayed the total technological sophistication of civilization: systems, organizations, bureaucracies, official scientists.

The 21st century is the century of the brain. Mapping it, changing it, diverting it, taking it over. On behalf of The Group.


Exit From the Matrix


For the past 13 years, at this site, and for many years before that, my work has been about preserving the primacy of the individual. But not just preserving. Expanding. Taking the blinders off. Discovering what the individual can do with imagination, with creative-force.

A criminal class is busy inventing reality for us. They’ve been doing it since the dawn of time. They assert THEIR creations as the only ones that count. They insist on being the monopolists of imagination.

But the imagination and creative power of the non-criminal, free, independent individual is potentially titanic. It goes far beyond this cartoon of a society in which we presently live.

This society is bent on circumscribing and diluting consciousness of that individual power.

Who says yes to that? Who says no?

There is an eternal no. It can only come from the individual.

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.

Deflated balls and shrinkage

Deflated balls and shrinkage

—a way to predict who will win the next presidential election—

by Jon Rappoport

January 23, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

The Patriots deflated their balls and experienced shrinkage, yet they won handily. This suggests, at the very least, an alternative lifestyle.

The Colts favored bigger balls…they lost.

Shall we therefore conclude that emasculation and feminization triumph?

In the other playoff game, Russell Wilson, a devout believer, wins against Aaron Rodgers, who says God doesn’t care who comes out on top in football.

This sets up a Super Bowl showdown: God (Russell Wilson) vs. deflated balls and shrinkage (Tom Brady).

Or: traditional religion vs. the social engineering of men.

Or: red states vs. blue states.

(Do blue states=blue balls?)

The Super Bowl could be a predictor of the 2016 Presidential election. Hillary or Jeb?

Who has bigger balls?

I think we all know the answer to that question, but in light of last week’s NFL games, does it favorably tip the scales? Apparently not.

Therefore, Jeb Bush is the next President of the United States.

You just have to know how to read between the lines.

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 artist on trial

The artist on trial

by Jon Rappoport

January 21, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

OutsideTheRealityMachine

Guilty! the Judge said, and it was over.

The charge? Maintaining that his work was his own, that he had done it himself, that he had made the choices and invented the words and imagined the whole thing, whatever it was, the novel, the poem, the play.

What it was, was not on trial. Nothing to do with the message. No, it was all about attribution.

Because the great spiritual merger had already taken place. The masses had undergone enlightenment, and the government had seen it—actually, seen TO it—and then declared that artists could face jail time for pretending to be what many of them said they were:

Individuals. Inventors. People who did things in their own rooms, privately, out of view, by their own means.

This was now verboten. Because it had been established that the whole human race, no one excepted, was tapping into the very same great consciousness, and whatever was in the world emanated from THAT experience.

So the judge had no need to deliberate. It was simple. This artist, whoever he was, and it didn’t matter who he was, was guilty. He claimed he had created his work. He’d insisted on it. In fact, he denied the Great Merger, said he was no part of it. He opposed it on several grounds. One, it was a fanciful delusion, and two, even if people were actually melting into one another, he didn’t have to. He could stay right where he was, in his own room, alone, and he could turn out his work.

The sin of pride. The sin of ego. Quite distasteful.

The artist was transgressing against the human race. He was by deed, word, and attitude, denying the final ascension to Unified Infinite Consciousness. He was saying no to that, over and over. He was revolting against the truth. He was spitting on the Messengers of Peace.

This needed punishment. Society had to censure him, had to deny him the right to turn out new work, unless he righteously admitted he was just a channel for it.

For example, an anonymous monk in Albania had recently published a 1000-page work titled, The Whole World Engages in Orgy. He dedicated it to the Great Spirit of Wholeness. He prostrated himself before the Akashic Warehouse From Which Information Proceeds and abluted his body with the symbolic blood of past suffering generations. He confessed openly that no word of his book came from him.

“My subconscious,” he said, “is abiding in the Oversoul, and there it asks for knowledge, and knowledge is granted.”

He made a pilgrimage to the Monument of the Eternal Smile at the Arizona Yoga Mat Hotel and Entertainment Complex and fasted for 13 days.

He titled the introduction to his opus: We’re All in This Together. He stated in no uncertain terms that we are all little dots in the sea of energy and consciousness, and art is merely an expression of that condition. Nothing more. Ever. “No one person achieves anything,” he wrote. “We must cling to that. Not only as a political fact, but as a spiritual revelation.”

He stated, “I ask nothing for my work. I abdicate ownership. I surrender. In the past, I suffered from spiritual constipation, but now I have let go.”

In his Epilog, Letting Go and Moving On, he praised Bright Day III, our new president, for his work in ushering in legislation confirming the discovery of One World Self.

“Just as government consents to new scientific discoveries,” wrote the monk, “it now affirms spiritual ones. The President is the expression of our collective thought, and therefore his election was inevitable.”

As the judge in the trial described how the monk was an example of what a real artist should be, the defendant in the case stood up and said, “Your Honor, before you pass sentence on me, I have a question. Will there be boundaries on what people, any people, can do in the privacy of their own homes? Since I’m going to jail for producing my art, I was just wondering whether other prohibitions will soon follow.”

The judge nodded.

“As a matter of fact,” he said, “there is pending legislation to outlaw certain kinds of independent research, on the grounds that it takes a person away from the Universal Body. So much of a spiritual and political nature is now settled, unfunded research amounts to meddling with Unity. Why should we allow it?”

The defendant sat down. He said, “Can I think my own thoughts?”

“You see,” the judge said, “that’s your problem. You insist on your contemplations, as if they were private possessions.”

“All due respect, Your Honor, but I just like to think.”

“Why?”

“It pleases me.”

“More than your freedom from imprisonment?”

“That’s a tough choice.”

“And apparently one you’ve already made.”

The artist said, “You know, there was a time when a person who used the word ‘magic’ as a term of approbation could be excommunicated, even tortured, because he was said to be on the side of the Devil.”

“Nonsense,” the judge said. “We are all magic, together.”

The artist said, “I deny the right of this court to pass sentence on me.”

“Obviously,” the judge said. “But your opinion has no effect. I could sentence you to six years’ hard labor in a camp in Alaska. Instead, I’m going to have you live in a padded cell for two years with a group of rebel artists. You’ll sort out your problems and basically do what you do. CBS is organizing it as a new reality show. It’s called When Spiritual Evolution Fails.”

“Your Honor,” the artist said, “how can you sentence me when you don’t really believe I exist as an independent person?”

The judge wagged his finger.

“Don’t try to pull that one on me,” he said. “You’re a piece of energy that has broken off from the whole. That’s all.”

“But how? Through my own choice? If so, I have freedom. And that means I am I.”

“No it doesn’t. Some force ultimately pushed you out of the hive.”

The artist shook his head.

“Review what you’ve been saying to me, Your Honor. You’ve been accusing me, an individual, of free and willful behavior, immoral choices.”

“It’s a convenient way to speak, nothing more. When we get around to changing the language, and we will, all references to individuals will be eradicated. Eventually, the kind of thing you write will come across as gibberish. No one will understand it. It will drop like dead leaves from a tree.”

Guilty!

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.

Mind control: the attempt to program life

Mind control: the attempt to program life

by Jon Rappoport

January 19, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“The targets of modern mind control are always described in terms of medical treatment, alleviation of suffering, and healing. What else would you expect? A stark mission statement about population control and intentional shrinking of brain function? No, this op inevitably falls under ‘greatest good for the greatest number’. The promoted premise is: less effort, less pain, more happiness. A gift given to the essentially passive human being. That formulation itself is a version of mind control. The hero and the rebel are replaced by the semi-satisfied and quiescent android.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Here’s a research project that tells you something about where mind control is going. From MIT News, “Neuroscientists reverse memories’ emotional associations,” (8/27/14):

“The findings, described in the Aug. 27 issue of Nature, demonstrated that a neuronal circuit connecting the hippocampus and the amygdala plays a critical role in associating emotion with memory. This circuit could offer a target for new drugs to help treat conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, the researchers say.

“’In the future, one may be able to develop methods that help people to remember positive memories more strongly than negative ones,’ says Susumu Tonegawa, the Picower Professor of Biology and Neuroscience, director of the RIKEN-MIT Center for Neural Circuit Genetics at MIT’s Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, and senior author of the paper.”

Translation: blot out emotions connected with memories.

Tinker with memory, re-program neurons, change brain chemistry…these are the hallmarks of modern efforts to condition human life.

The science is spotty, to say the least, but the effort is enormous, and the direction is clear.

If you stacked up all the social sciences, and biology and physics and chemistry, as well as psychology and psychiatry…and even if you went out to the fringes of academia, where the so-called dissidents live…you would encounter scenarios about life as programming.

Change the cell, the molecule, the atom, the family, the environment, the DNA. Initiate new blueprints, systems, patterns of organizations.

The whole basis of this exercise: we humans are passive recipients of “influences.” Therefore, alter the influences.

On the low end, you have the CIA’s mind-control program, MKULTRA. At the high end, you have something like this: “the universe is taking us to an ultimate state of consciousness, and we’re cells in the super-body of All Wisdom, which is gradually revealing its truth to us.”

Either way, humans are viewed as passive.

Passive ciphers of cause-effect, stimulus-response, input-output. No matter how basic or elegant, this is existence in which free will, choice, individual power, imagination are radically diminished.

For example: “the brain is source of consciousness.”

Consider how physics looks at the brain: it is an organ of the body, made up of the same particles that populate the rest of the universe. Nowhere, in any of those particles, is the capacity to understand meaning.

Therefore, the brain does not understand meaning.

Meaning is merely (and absurdly) a chemical/biological/electromagnetic illusion, an ongoing “readout” to which we are passively subjected.

Possessed of such demented view of life, scientists feel perfectly justified in experimenting and tinkering with, and changing, the “human machine.”

In fact, for Dr. Ewen Cameron, the most highly decorated psychiatrist in the world during the 1940s and 50s, an individual’s personality was the property of society, represented by men such as himself.

On that basis (as I’ve described in other articles), Cameron devised a method of torture called “psychic driving,” which involved administering many powerful electric shocks to his patients’ brains, coupled with intensive drugging that put them into consecutive weeks of sleep, after which he played them tapes that repeated pat phrases millions of times—all in an effort to erase their personalities and install new ones.

Cameron worked on contract to the CIA, as a researcher in its infamous MKULTRA program.

These days, the research on programming is far more subtle, but the objective is the same. The patient would not experience overt physical pain while a particular circuit in his brain is “neutralized,” but he would never function in the same way again. He would be “new.”

“Better living through programming.”


power outside the matrix


Against all this is the fact that the individual has the capacity to be free, independent, self-directed, powerful, and creative.

He needs neither the science of programming nor myths that support a view of humans as passive.

The notion of ironclad cause and effect, carried over from the physical sciences to the human mind and consciousness, falls woefully short. Why? Because the individual can understand meaning, think rationally, and imagine and create new realities and futures. In these actions, he is not merely a product of what has gone before.

The pseudoscience called psychiatry would have us believe that all of its 300 officially certified “mental disorders,” none of which have defining physical diagnostic tests, are applicable across the board, to all humans.

This is because psychiatry assumes (and never proves) that all people are passively subjected, in exactly the same machine-like way, to the same chemical imbalances in the brain.

Uniform cause and effect. Therefore, install a new uniform cause-and-effect program as a remedy.

In an article at the Brain Bank, “What is consciousness? A scientist’s perspective,” (3/4/13), author Oliver Freeman offers neuroscientist Giuloio Tononi’s perspective on how the brain gives birth to consciousness. Freeman: “According to Tononi it is the ability to combine lots of information efficiently that yields the ability to analyse abstract concepts and thus gives us ‘consciousness’.”

This illustrates the paucity of neuroscience when it comes to consciousness. You can “analyze” all the abstract concepts in the world, but were it not for your prior knowing that you are alive, that you exist—which does not depend on the brain—you would be utterly lost. In fact, you would have as much consciousness as your computer does while it is making calculations.

However, believing that consciousness itself is merely an effect of more sophisticated levels of analysis, neuroscientists freely experiment on the brain without hesitation or conscience, like some Geek Squad of the New Age.

The human being, who is more than the brain, more than the body, nevertheless experiences those experiments as unpredictable disruptions in his vital “physical assistant.”

It is the human being and not the “experts” whose voice must be heard. It is his life that is the target.

For all their high pronouncements and assurances, the experts have the smallest conception of what they are doing. They’re shooting in the dark. And they think they’re simply repairing and updating a machine.

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 surrender to modern education: brainwashing

The surrender to modern education: brainwashing

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“There is a movement to make children into social animals, but not just that. The objective is to make them good social animals, and better than good—the best and most wonderful, special, special, special social animals… and in the process, to cherish them, to profess great love for them—when love is ALREADY a given. When you pile sloppy sentiment on top of what is already naturally there, you’re selling a child a grotesque counterfeit, and he knows it. He either invents his own false sentiments, in order to have a role in the farce, or he rebels at a deep level. Either way, he’s confused. He doesn’t understand these insane overreaching adults.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

It may be hard for today’s parents to believe, but millions of children in America came through the public education system in the 1940s and 50s, and learned the basics—without a shred of cheery happy rainbow goo-goo decorations and slogans on the walls of classrooms.

Learning as seduction did not exist. Learning as “get the child interested” didn’t exist.

It wasn’t important or necessary to “uplift the child.”

Audio-visual aids were entirely absent.

Nor were teachers concerned with producing little humanitarians. There was no instruction in “getting along” or “relationships.” Or “cooperation.”

No values of any kind were taught. They were learned at home and on the playground, without the presence of teachers.

Children who misbehaved to the point of disrupting the classroom were sent away. Warned, suspended, expelled. Otherwise, behaviorism didn’t exist.

Social agendas? Political agendas? Medical agendas? Psychological agendas? Sex education? Group projects? Expressing feelings? Sharing? Never heard of it.

Teachers taught their subjects. Students learned. That was the beginning and end of school.

Reading, writing, math. No grading on a curve.

There was very little nasty competition. Students wanted to achieve (or they didn’t). They knew how well they were doing by learning the material, and by test grades.

The text books were old-fashioned. Many were used, second-hand. Publishers hadn’t yet invented the scam of peddling new books with “new formulations and methods” every few years.

A text book covered a subject in obvious small increments. New concept introduced; many student exercises, designed to illustrate the concept in action. Then, next new concept, with exercises. And so on.

The teacher would explain each new concept, and show how it worked on the blackboard. The whole class would do some of the relevant exercises from the book.

The remaining exercises would be done as homework. The next day: turn in the homework for grading. Take a quiz on yesterday’s lesson. Go on to a new lesson.

The teachers managed to supervise this process without complaining that it wasn’t creative, without having a nervous breakdown.

Creativity and imagination for the students? This was launched through gaining the rock-solid ability to read a book. A student would read a novel on his own and travel to another world.

Education was simple, straightforward. Yes, it was hard work, and yes, there were deficiencies, particularly in the study of history, and in the absence of instruction in logic, but all in all it worked.

It was understood, in every classroom, that sufficient numbers of drills, exercises, and tests were necessary for learning to take place. There was no way around it.

“We need more money” wasn’t an excuse or a compliant or a justification for failure to teach.

If a student got Fs, he repeated the grade, or went to summer school to catch up. No one was graduated on the basis of mere attendance.

“Self-esteem” didn’t exist. Children weren’t “special.” They certainly weren’t “world citizens.”

Again, no one taught values. That would have been considered meddling. Brainwashing.


The Matrix Revealed


By the 1940s, the agenda of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations had certainly taken hold. There was no instruction in the Constitution. There was no instruction in individual citizenship in a Republic. All that had been wiped out. Courses in art and music were pathetic shadows of the real thing.

Nevertheless, learning took place. Students achieved. They gained confidence. They weren’t viewed as little mind-control objects. Socialization wasn’t a goal.

In my public school, a student could choose to study Latin, beginning in the 7th grade. No one blinked or thought it was strange. It was understood that if you really wanted to understand English, you took Latin.

Then, in the 1960s, a shift occurred. It was planned. Schools (and willing parents) took on the job of teaching children to be good people. That was the prime mission. Learning was a secondary goal. After all, “saving the world” required more good people.

There was just one problem. Children didn’t want to become good people. They wanted to be what they were. They wanted to learn, play, explore, imagine. Children didn’t have a natural social agenda. They hadn’t sprung from the womb with a full-blown ideology. “Greatest good for the greatest number” wasn’t their constant companion.

That devious program (who decides what the greatest good is?) belonged to educators and parents and bureaucrats and foundations and technocrats and Globalists.

Parents were the worst offenders, because they were the closest to their children. They had the greatest impact. If they weren’t really about giving their children freedom and responsibility and power, if they were really interested in creating little living models…they wreaked havoc.

Let’s face it, it’s a dumbshow. Populated by moral tricksters. Opportunists. “How can we intervene and show children how to get along, how to be kind and generous and tolerant and blind to differences between people? How can we educate them to want a better world? How can we blunt their natural curiosity and substitute a perception of vague endless equality? How can we make them into mind-controlled angels? How can we manufacture planetary citizens? Surely, this what children want to be. They just don’t know it. So we’ll bring it out in them.”

The word “educate” comes from the Latin. Duco: I lead. E or ex: Out of, from. To lead from. To educe, “bring out something latent.”

Pretending to educe a fabricated and synthetic quality of “goodness” from children by teaching it and imposing it is a recipe for disaster. It might save the planet, but then the planet would become the Home of the Androids.

Make good little androids, suffer the consequences.

War, at every level.

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.

Thought-controlled classroom: orgy of the group

Thought-controlled classroom: orgy of the group

by Jon Rappoport

January 14, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“In the middle of all the brain-research going on, from one end of the planet to the other, there is the assumption that the individual doesn’t really exist. He’s a fiction. There is only the motion of particles in the brain. Therefore, nothing is inviolate, nothing is protected. Make the brain do A, make it do B; it doesn’t matter. What matters is harmonizing these tiny particles, in order to build a collective consensus, in order to force a science of behavior.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Individual power. Your power.

It stands as the essence of what the founding documents of the American Republic are all about, once you scratch below the surface a millimeter or so.

Therefore, it stands to reason that colleges and universities would be teaching courses in INDIVIDUAL POWER.

As soon as I write that, though, we all fall down laughing, because we understand the absurdity of such a proposition. Can you imagine Harvard endowing a chair in Individual Power?

Students would tear down the building in which such courses were taught. They’ve been carefully instructed that the individual is the greatest living threat to the planet.

If you can’t see that as mind control, visit your local optometrist and get a prescription for glasses.

So we have this astonishing situation: the very basis of freedom has no reflection in the educational system.

You can say “individual” within certain limited contexts. You can say “power,” if you’re talking about nuclear plants, or if you’re accusing someone of a crime, but if you put “individual” and “power” together and attribute a positive quality to the combination, you’re way, way outside the consensus. You’re crazy.

In order to spot the deepest versions of educational brainwashing, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME STANDARD AGAINST WHICH YOU CAN COMPARE WHAT IS COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE INTO THE MINDS OF STUDENTS.

If you lack that standard, you miss most of the action.

If you lack that standard, you have already been worked over by the system.

And in this case, the standard is INDIVIDUAL POWER.

Clean it off, hose off the dirt, polish it, look at it, think about it, remember it.

Then you’ll see some Grade-A prime mind control. Everywhere. Because schools either don’t mention it, or they discredit it.

Back in the days when I was writing on assignment for newspapers and magazines, I pitched a story about individual power to an editor. I wanted to trace its history as an idea over the past ten years.

He looked at me for a few seconds. He looked at me as if I’d just dropped some cow flop on his desk. He knew I wasn’t kidding and I had something I could write and turn in to him, but that made it worse. He began to squirm in his chair.

He laughed nervously.

Then he stopped laughing

He said, “This isn’t what we do.”

He really meant: “If you want to get back in my good graces, you’ll go away and come back with a story we can print. You do that four or five times, and then MAYBE I’ll trust you again.”

For him, I was suddenly radioactive. I was dangerous.

It was one of those, “Jon, I thought I knew you. Obviously, I was mistaken.”

I had a similar experience with a high-school history teacher in California. We were having lunch in a cafe in Santa Monica, and I said, “You should teach a course in individual power. The positive aspects. No group stuff. Just the individual.”

He frowned a deep intellectual frown, as if I’d just opened my jacket and exposed a few sticks of dynamite strapped to my chest. As if he was thinking about which agency of the government to report me to.

He launched a lecture, the essence of which was I should consider seeing a mental-health professional.

Now, for the schizoid part. The movies. Television. Video games. Comics. Graphic novels. They are filled to the brim, they are overflowing with individual heroes who have considerable power. These entertainment businesses bank billions of dollars, because people want to immerse themselves in that universe where individual power is supreme. They want it badly.

But when it comes to “real” life, power stops at the front door and no one answers the bell.

Suddenly, the hero, the person with power is anathema. He’s left holding the bag. So he adjusts. He waits. He wonders. He settles for less, far less. He learns how the game is played. He stifles his hopes. He shrinks. He forgets. He develops “problems” and tries to solve them within an impossibly narrow context. He redefines success and victory down to meet limited expectations. He strives for the normal and the average. For his efforts, he receives tidbits, like a dog looking up at his master.

If that isn’t mind control, nothing is.

From another discipline, medicine, here is an illustration of power-reduction, standardized and uniform treatment of every individual, avoidance of the unique elements of each person, and a chilling approach to surveillance, all wrapped up in one package:

Several years ago, the Business Insider printed a story:

“DARPA is at it again. This time, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [the technical-research wing of the Pentagon] has announced plans to create nanochips for monitoring troops’ health on the battlefield.”

Those who criticize the plan point out that gradually accustoming people to the insertion of chips will eventually lead to the mass chipping of society.

Yes, true. But there is another op, too.

Further down in the Business Insider, we have this official explanation: “…the sensors [nanochips] are targeted at preventing illness and disease, the two causes of most troops’ medical evacuation.”

Did you catch that? Apparently, the implanted nanochips are going to relay soldiers’ physical symptoms back to base in real time.

Now we are talking about something quite ominous: the capacity to use chips to relay hard data to authorities, who can then make off-the-shelf diagnoses of particular illnesses.

The troops are a test run. The actual op, up the line a few years, is to outfit private citizens with those nanochips, so medical analysts (or their computers) can present patients with rapid-fire and peremptory diagnoses, leading to drug treatments. (Recent press reports indicate computerized medical care is, in fact, gaining ground.)

Should I draw a picture? A person is walking down the street on his way to work, with his nanochip(s) in his arm. The tiny computer is silently running, recording metabolic changes. Suddenly, it pings. The man on the street doesn’t hear that sound from his arm, but a computer located in a facility ten miles (or 6000 miles) away does.

The data from the chip are flagged and shunted to another automatic processor which, depending on the severity of the diagnosis, electronically issues an appointment slip to the walking patient. For the clinic.

He receives a nudge from his cell phone, reads the appointment info, and confirms.

He will see a doctor, he will be handed a diagnosis, and he will take a drug. He’s in the system.

Eventually, the doctor in most cases won’t be necessary. The electronic message will spell out the diagnosis, direct the patient to the nearest pharmacy, where the prescription will be filled.

Of course, the fact that the diagnosis may be shortsighted or completely off-base is irrelevant. It’s ironclad: symptoms A,B,C, and D add up to diagnosis X, which means take drug Y. End of story.

Toxic effects from the drug? Never discussed. Irrelevant.

The published studies reporting the clinical trials of the drug were altered, on behalf of the drug company? The drug was actually ineffective and grossly dangerous? Who cares? It’s in the book. It’s official.

Welcome to tomorrow.

For those of you who want to probe a little deeper (and you should want to), here is a brief example of something that can go terribly wrong in this chipped version of healthcare. I spell it out at great length in my book, AIDS INC.

Antibody tests. These are widely used assays to determine what disease a person may have contracted. When the test reads positive, the patient is said to have the disease for which the antibody test is custom-designed. And from that flows the diagnosis and drug treatment.

Why? Because, starting in the early 1980s, something astonishing happened to antibody tests. The analysis of their results was turned upside down. Before then, the presence of antibodies to a particular germ was generally taken as a good sign. It meant the immune system had reacted well and forcefully to the germ-intrusion. But with the new interpretation, a positive test was taken to be a bad sign. The patient was at risk. In fact, he might already be ill.

So there you are with a nanochip in your arm, and you’re sitting in your backyard with your family, and the chip, every so often, is running routine antibody scans through access to your blood indicators.

Ping. At four in the afternoon, it suddenly develops that you have Hepatitis. You receive an appointment slip on your cell phone.

BUT you have no disease. Not even close. You’re actually suffering from a piece of medical-research insanity that has turned antibody tests on their heads.

However, there is no court of first or last resort. You’re going to the doctor, and he’s going to give you a powerful and toxic drug, and you’re going to take it. If you don’t, your chip will report the non-compliance to authorities.

You may doubt that computers and nanochips can carry out far-reaching analyses of various body indicators. Direct analysis isn’t necessary. In the same way that computer models built on a foundation of sand can assert manmade warming will destroy the planet in five years, medical models based on all sorts of indirect and abstract computations can deliver instant assessments of “physical aberrations from the norm.”

Again, welcome to tomorrow. Welcome to one-size-fits-all. Welcome to the diminishment of individual differences.

What about psychiatric diagnosis?

This, too, could become automatic. With a list of 300 officially certified mental disorders, nanochips could measure brain activity and supply an immediate assessment. Oppositional Defiance Disorder, bipolar, ADHD, Social Anxiety Disorder. Toxic medical drugs would follow.

Yes, it sounds like science fiction. Now. But many technologies we presently have sounded like science fiction 50 years ago.

Once we enter a world where the individual no longer has credibility, a world where “greatest good for the greatest number” is the overriding principle, and where that principle is defined by the elite few, the term “mind control” will have a positive connotation. It will be accepted as the obvious strategy for achieving “peace in our time.”

At a job interview, a candidate will say, “Yes, I received my PhD in Mind Control at Yale, and then I did three years of post-doc work in Cooperative Learning Studies at MIT. My PhD thesis? It was titled, ‘Coordination Strategies in the Classroom for Eliminating the Concept of the Individual.’”

“Students must work in groups to complete tasks collectively toward academic goals. Unlike individual learning, which can be competitive in nature, students learning cooperatively can capitalize on one another’s resources and skills…Furthermore, the teacher’s role changes from giving information to facilitating students’ learning. Everyone succeeds when the group succeeds.” (Wikipedia, “Cooperative Learning”)

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.