The “dependent victim” psy-op

The “dependent victim” psy-op

by Jon Rappoport

March 31, 2017

“American and British feminism has amazingly collapsed backward again into whining, narcissistic victimology…Too many of today’s young feminists seem to want hovering, paternalistic authority figures to protect and soothe them, an attitude I regard as servile, reactionary and glaringly bourgeois…” (Camille Paglia, the National Catholic Review, 2/25/15)

I could have titled this piece: “What government fears: the black entrepreneur.”

But the situation is much wider than that—-

ANY person who comes out of an “officially designated victim-group”…and then succeeds in life on his own…and then goes one step further and refuses to identify his entire existence with his group…but instead stands as a unique individual…why, that person, at the very least, must be a criminal, if not a terrorist, right?

That’s the crux of the issue: never leave your group.

That’s how society, civilization, and culture are promoted these days.

“Groups have needs, agendas, and problems, and the solution will come from government.” That’s the all-embracing formula.

The fake appearance is: victim groups are fighting for recognition and special status, and the government is pushing back—but that’s now a ruse. That’s a cover story. In fact, victim groups and government have the same goal: a relationship based on dependence. One side depends and the other side gives and protects.

The individual is out of the equation. He is portrayed as the greed-obsessed reason these victim groups exist and need help in the first place.

Banks, Wall Street, and mega-corporations are depicted as the end result of individualism, whereas the government is valiantly striving to solve this endemic problem.

In fact, government, banks, Wall Street, and mega-corporations are joined at the hip. They brush each other’s teeth first thing every morning.

Political correctness and the burgeoning movement to outlaw “offensive language” are merely tactics to: preserve groups’ separate identities; foment conflict between them; and ultimately foster their dependence on government authority.

The truth is, you can’t get free individuals to depend on government. Only “besieged groups” can be relied on for that purpose.

In the State’s eyes, a perfect society would be composed of groups who have entirely forgotten the concept of the individual, as if it never existed.

Peter Collero, of the department of sociology, Western Oregon University, has written a book titled: The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives:

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

When Callero writes “identification,” he isn’t talking about ID cards and Social Security numbers. He’s asserting an absence of any uniqueness from person to person. He’s claiming there is no significant distinction between any two people. There aren’t two individuals to begin with. They’re a group.

This downgrading of the individual human spirit is far from accidental. It’s launched as a sustained propaganda campaign, the ultimate purpose of which is top-down control over billions of people organized into groups.

Here are several remarks, meant to defame the individual, from people I would call high-IQ idiots (at best):

“The cold truth is that the individualist creed of everybody for himself and the devil take the hindmost is principally responsible for the distress in which Western civilization finds itself — with investment racketeering at one end and labor racketeering at the other. Whatever merits the [individualist] creed may have had in the days of primitive agriculture and industry, it is not applicable in an age of technology, science, and rationalized economy. Once useful, it has become a danger to society.” (Charles Beard, 1931)

Beard, a celebrated historian, sees no difference between individual racketeering and the individual freely choosing and living his own life. In making this judgment, he becomes an intellectual/propaganda racketeer of the highest order.

“British empiricist philosophy is individualist. And it is of course clear that if the only criterion of true and false which a man accepts is that man’s, then he has no base for social agreement. The question of how man ought to behave is a social question, which always involves several people; and if he accepts no evidence and no judgment except his own, he has no tools with which to frame an answer.” (Jacob Bronowski, Science and Human Values, 1956).

Bronowski is quite sure that hearing other people’s evidence and then keeping one’s own counsel is wrong. One has to accept that evidence on its face. This is sheer idiocy. Individuals are capable of deciding, on their own, what social agreements to enter into.

On the other hand, here is a quite insightful statement from a contemporary journalist.

Here’s what journalist Glenn Greenwald (who is gay) wrote about the symbolic nature of the American Presidency, before the election. Though not making reference to the group vs. the individual, Greenwald’s remarks illustrate the degree to which victim-symbology has taken hold in the US:

“…Hillary’s] going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. It’s going to be this completely symbolic messaging that’s going to overshadow the fact that she’ll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. They’ll probably have a gay person [as president] after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing.”

Regardless of the fact that the State and its allies are real oppressors who contribute mightily to creating real victims, what I’m talking about here is something quite apart from that: growing numbers of people who voluntarily take on the victim-mantle and seek comfort in nests of self-promoting groups who exaggerate and distort their own claims to special status.

The State needs these people. The State wants these people. Increasingly, the State employs these people.

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

Bernays understood that the basis of successful propaganda is a mass audience, an audience composed of groups, not individuals.

Retired high-level propaganda operative, Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), once told me, “There are two aspects of propaganda. There is everything you do to get people to think of themselves as group members. And then there are all the messages you send to those conditioned group members. You need both aspects.”

When a group assigns itself solid “victim-status,” it creates one basic rule: a member must not leave the group. Why? Because if he does, he’s claiming he is no longer a victim—and that assertion is a betrayal.

Nice and neat. A prison.

“I’m a free individual.”

“You’re crazy. There is no such thing. Now get back in the group where you belong.”

Down at the root, betrayal begins as self-betrayal. The individual gives up the ghost. From that point on, his politics don’t matter. He forgets what he could have been. He defines himself by race and religion and country and rank ideology and group. He finds words and feeling through which he can express his role in a stage play that decays him from the inside out.

Eventually, if lunatics have their way, every person on planet Earth will be designated a victim. That will be the group of groups.

It won’t matter why and how everyone supposedly turns out to be a victim. The reasons will be forgotten. People will “instinctively” sign on to the agenda.

And the management team running the world will put another check mark on their sheet of objectives:

“Earth is beginning to resemble one giant hospital/mental institution. Break out the champagne.”

There is only one problem. That plan is fraying at the edges. People are waking up and swimming to the surface through layers of deception. They’re returning to themselves. They’re recognizing group-ism for what it is: a meltdown into self-sabotage.

The artifact is the collective. The self is real.

Power, choice, and freedom never go away.

They may hide, but they can be resurrected.

Then the whole fake game crumbles.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

The political movie projected on the screen of the subconscious

The political movie projected on the screen of the subconscious

by Jon Rappoport

March 28, 2017

This article has to do with people who pick a political side or candidate and refuse to budge an inch, no matter how much troubling evidence is presented to them.

Their filter is firmly in place.

They have a vague impression of a politician—but vagueness is not an indicator of weakness. In this case, vague is mighty and powerful and immovable.

Such people feel an attachment, which they adore. The politician reflects back to them a belief they already hold. That belief, too, is vague. For example, “We must be kind to everyone.” But again, the vagueness is not a weakness. It is unshakable. Can the believer consider evidence that, in a particular situation, kindness is inappropriate or wrong? No. Never.

Based on a vague impression of a politician, and a vague belief, the person will go to his grave and beyond, gripping his attachment to both politician and belief. The entire power of the universe, focused on him, wouldn’t alter his stance.

“But you see, your candidate was instrumental in launching an unnecessary war that killed a hundred thousand people and turned a country into a hell hole, and here are the specifics…”

“Doesn’t matter. A few mistakes may have been made along the way…”

It’s vague, it’s forever, it’s adoration, it’s love. Or a perfect imitation.

“Do you see that giant rock sitting on top of the hill above our village? It’s getting ready to fall. Let me show you some video and measurements.”

“I always loved that rock. It looks like a heart. Have you ever noticed? Don’t you dare try to split it in half or disturb it! When I was a child, I used to sing a song about The Granite King. We’d sit around the fire and roast marshmallows…”

It’s as if the person’s eyesight is becoming hazier as time passes, and yet his belief and attachment are gaining in strength.

“I’ve got my perception-filter, and I’m seeing everything through it, and I never put the filter aside and look at things as they are. Now, what was it you wanted to discuss?”

Of course, most politicians and their handlers capitalize on this hazy crazy psychological condition. Their prime goal is to impart a vague impression to the constituency. Why bother to strive for more?

George Bush the Elder spoke of a “kinder, gentler” society. Bill Clinton said, “I feel your pain.” These are rational political positions in the same way that the Rockefellers are, first and foremost, philanthropists.

Once a person’s perception-filter is fixed in place, he can be whipsawed without let-up. His candidate is good and glorious, and the other candidate is a monster. No facts necessary.

Evidence? Never heard of it.

One side endlessly good; the other side endlessly evil.

Even if that proposition were true, it wouldn’t matter. What matters is how perception can be managed.

Now we’re talking about real triggering. Actual Pavlovian stimulus-response. The mere mention of the “monster’s” name or a cartoon of his face or a quote from him about the weather is sufficient to set off a foaming drool of rage.

Is this externally induced programming? Yes. But at a deeper level, the person is shaping his own response. He’s the author. He’s installing the conditioning.

And at a high enough perch of power, the opportunities are abundant. “We can set both sides against each other and provoke warfare. We can make the most ridiculous claims and feed them to the rabid dogs…”

Again, the degree to which one politician or the other is a monster or a proponent of virtuous progress is irrelevant. The divide-and-provoke-and-conquer operation is all that matters to controllers who are running the op.

Then there is this factor: the all-important initiation of an adrenaline reaction.

When people become tuned to that feeling, they seek it out. This is what they want. If a situation isn’t fight or flight, they’re not interested. They yawn and turn away.

“Where’s the action? I need the action.”

“I don’t want to see a movie. I want to see a movie with fifty titanic explosions and bodies strewn on the street and buildings collapsing. And there’d better be athletic sex, too. And the hero has to experience at least ten close calls. I’m talking imminent death.”

Linking adrenaline surges to politics is vital.

“Supporting my candidate has to feel like love dangerously poised on the edge of a cliff, and the other candidate has to have a live nuclear bomb in his hand. That’s the movie I want to watch. I want to be inside that movie…”

The mere suggestion that one candidate might have a small flaw, while the other candidate is not quite Satan incarnate in every aspect, ruins the show. It dampens the hormonal rush.

“Who wrote that script? Give me my money back.”

Politics must be a movie projected on the screen of the subconscious. It must enter that territory unimpeded. Once there, it must take root and give birth to uncontrollable impulses.

Movie studios and high-level political manipulators are looking for this sweet spot. It’s cash and psychological payoffs and lines around the block.

“Look, we want love versus hate in this script. But it has to be ramped up to a fever pitch. No holds barred. We have to make the evil feel like EVIL, and the good feel like GOOD. At the same time, the hero and villain have to seem real. The audience has to experience being in their shoes and pants and underwear. We’re spending three hundred million on this piece of dreck, and it has to work…”

If the movie-studio gods can make half the audience root for the hero and the other half root for the villain, that’s pure gold. If they can provoke serious animosity between viewers, THEY CAN DEGRADE THE WHOLE NATURE OF THE ENTERPRISE and, when we’re talking about politics, that’s exactly what they’re shooting for.

“We can pit people against people and create a stalemate, where very little gets done—except the provocation of conflict. Then we’re home. Everyone sinks lower into a stimulation-response universe. We own that universe. We built it.”

Yes, they did, and they do. Ushering people into it makes it easier to control both sides and ultimately lower an apolitical boom on their heads. Otherwise known as erasing freedom.

“Political policy? Ideals? We don’t have that kind of agenda. The only agenda we have is installing chains around the mind.”

Achieving this goal, in the current American political landscape, only requires a quick inventory of: ratings. Where was the real heat? Where were the real numbers? Why, of course, it was during the campaign leading up to the election. Everybody was tuned in. Therefore, the campaign must never end. We must return to that time. Trump must never be president, and Hillary must never go away. Her shadowy presence and symbolic value—and surrogates—must persist. Thus, the endless challenge to Trump’s legitimacy. He didn’t win. The election was fixed. Perfect. That throws us into the furnace. Again.

Let us return to those days of yore, when families split apart, when the dire flow of energy and desire and vague impression and eternal attachment were King. That’s where we have to build the flames. That’s the subconscious target.

That’s the bulls-eye.

The mind.

Issues and scandals are gasoline pumped into the conflagration.

THIS person’s subconscious will veer THAT way, and THAT person’s subconscious will veer THIS way.

Those people who can see and argue actual evidence will be swallowed up in the noise and the roar.

The movie is called Degradation.

The box office is sensational.

It’s surround-sound and holographic.

Move past partisan payoffs to understand such a strategy. Even move past divide and conquer. The purpose, intent, and objective is eventual mental, emotional, hormonal, and energetic exhaustion.

The whole movie is a trap. The ending, if it ever comes, creates profound passivity in the mind.

Therefore, stepping outside the theater is an absolute necessity.

It’s the first move toward clarity.

And actual choice.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Ray Kurzweil’s plan for immortality is missing one thing: you

Ray Kurzweil’s plan for immortality is missing one thing: you

by Jon Rappoport

March 24, 2017

In a Wired interview (11/18/02), leading transhumanist and Google’s director of engineering, Ray Kurzweil, spoke about living forever. He was asked: “Will you have your entire body preserved or just your head?”

The usual method of preservation, upon physical death, is freezing. Then, when the technology exists, sometime later, there would be the unfreezing and the reanimation. The dead person would come back to life…

Kurzweil said: “I think there’s some part of our identity and valuable information in our bodies. There’s more in our brains, but there’s some in our bodies as well. It gets into some technical issues. There’s a better way of preserving the brain, which they haven’t been able to do with the whole body yet. The vitrification process, which does a better job of preserving structural integrity in the cells, they do with the head but not with the body. At any rate, I’d go for the grade A plan.”

Kurzweil would apparently have his brain and body preserved, for future reanimation.

There is, of course, an underlying question:

What about consciousness?

Assuming the technology will exist to “bring back” the body and the brain, will the consciousness of being alive exist? Or will the process reinstitute something entirely mechanical?

Mechanical, as in: “The car was sitting in the garage on blocks for 50 years, and then we fixed it and made it start again.”

Biologists and physicists are bothered by the “consciousness question.” When they discuss it, they assume the brain produces consciousness because, well, where else could awareness come from? In other words, they resort to unscientific circular reasoning.

At the same time, they assert that the basis for all matter and energy in the universe is tiny particles; none of those particles have consciousness; and the particles make up the brain; the brain is composed entirely of those non-conscious particles.

This is called a trap. Hard scientists have no reason to assume consciousness exists at all. Yet it does exist. That implies consciousness is coming from somewhere other than the brain, somewhere other than particles—but according to these scientists, that “other somewhere” doesn’t exist.

So they retreat back into “consciousness is in the brain”—even though by their own science, it isn’t.

Preserving body and brain in a state of suspended animation, and then bringing it back, would not, according to a proper reading of their own science, bring back consciousness.

What would come back is some sort of mechanical functioning, and nothing else.

A conscious Ray Kurzweil would never come back.

His body and brain might hum again, like an old car that was fixed, but that’s all.

People continue to argue, of course, that in some very complex way the brain causes consciousness, we just don’t know how yet, but we’re getting there. That’s not evidence. That’s a naked assumption. They may as well be saying the moon is surely made of cheese and one day we’ll prove it, so for now just accept it.

“Well, folks, we just brought back Ray Kurzweil from fifty years of suspended animation. Remember him? He was a futurist at Google, or the CIA, it’s hard to tell which. Apparently the two organizations were one. Anyway, Ray is back.”

“Wonderful. Is he talking?”

“There is brain activity. No talking yet.”

“Is he looking at anything?”

“We assume so. His eyes are open. Also, his hands are opening and closing.”

“Is he gesturing?”

“It’s theoretically possible.”

“Is he conscious?”

“Of course. There is brain activity.”

“Well, there could be brain activity without consciousness.”

“Where did you pick up that idea? Are you crazy? He’s conscious. That’s all there is to it.”

“Maybe there is no ‘he’. There are just electrical signals.”

“Idiot. Life is electrical signals. What else could life be?”

“Life could be conscious, as in ‘hello I’m alive and I’d like to take a walk and look at the clouds and read a book and here’s an interesting passage on page ten, let’s discuss it’.”

“What’s your name again? Guards, take this man to the re-education center. He’s lost his basic programming…”

Ray, your reanimated brain and body aren’t going to bring back conscious-you. (You might reincarnate in a quite different way, but that’s a different story for another time…)

But don’t despair. In the future, when there are 10,000 brains and bodies in a warehouse, and technology allows them to be reactivated, they might, combined, generate enough electricity to run, say, a toaster, a refrigerator, and an oven in a micro apartment in San Francisco.


The Matrix Revealed

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

Why I decided to work for Putin and the Russians

Why I decided to work for Putin and the Russians

by Jon Rappoport

March 16, 2017

Now John McCain says Senator Rand Paul is working for the Russians.

Well, that did it. That tipped the scale for me.

As my readers know, I have a fierce desire to go along with current trends, and I don’t want to be left behind. Since pretty much everybody in the US is working for Putin, I have to sign up, too.

So I put in a few calls, and they took me on board. Hail to Russia! Down with the USA! I’ll surely be able to write press (propaganda) releases for English speakers.

My first shot out of the box: did you know the Clintons helped Putin gain control of 20% of US uranium production? See, that way, I can make Hillary seem to be the real Russian agent, and I can deflect blame away from Trump. Of course, the Hillary-uranium story is based on fact, and there is a good circumstantial case to be made, but it doesn’t matter. The truth or lies—I go either way, as long as it supports Putin and his favorite guy: Trump.

And I do support Vlad. He’s a great guy. I’ve never met him, but he must be a great guy, because now I’m working for him. That’s called political logic.

The money they’re paying me isn’t much to start, but I might be able to buy a new pickup or a nice piece of acreage in Siberia. I’ve always wanted to live in Siberia. They have several Whole Foods markets and they’ve converted some of the Stalin gulags into first-class resorts. Hot springs, mud baths, live Vegas-type shows, casinos, golf courses.

The whole issue of political loyalty is overrated. You go with the guy who pays you. That’s the basic rule. I’m sure that’s why Rand Paul defected. He needs cash.

As for the 200,000 websites and blogs who’ve covertly gone over to the Russian side, according to US major media, I know those sites need cash. From what I understand, payment usually comes in the form of credit cards. All of a sudden you’ve got a new card with a pretty high limit. And when it maxes out, the Russians pay it off.

I understand Julian Assange has had at last ten of those cards. Steve Bannon, too. Ditto for Snoop Dogg. Snoop is a double agent. His job is to articulate the most outrageous anti-Trump positions, thus creating more Trump supporters, which in turn benefits Putin, because Trump is Putin’s number-one operative.

Trump has secretly been building condos, golf courses, and new post office centers all over Russia. Trump’s front man in this massive operation is, according to my sources, Bob Dylan. Bob soured on America a long time ago. He owns the building where Edward Snowden lives. But you already knew that, right?

Snowden, of course, has been a Russian agent since high school. His whole career as an analyst was created by remnants of the KGB. I’m hoping to interview him and see if he’ll come clean. Other former NSA experts, like Thomas Drake and Bill Binney, are also Russian agents. Why else would expose the NSA?

Instead of moving to Hawaii, Barack Obama has set up a residence close to the White House. Obama is the last great hope for staving off the Russian invasion of the US. He’s a patriot down to his fingertips. He’s been working for the CIA, against the Russians, since college. I believe this will come out soon. Barack, his pal Bill Ayers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Michelle, Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, and Valerie Jarrett are all long-time soldiers in the fight against the Russian takeover of America.

The NY Times has the story, but for some reason they’re sitting on it. I’ve contacted Matt Drudge. There’s chance he’ll break it wide open. Matt is also, by the way, a double agent. He’s built up Trump with the sole purpose of taking him down. The higher the rise, the greater the fall. I’m told Hillary said that to Huma one night. Hillary lost the election on purpose. She’s known for a decade that Trump was Putin’s number-one operative on US soil—and the only way to expose him was to let him become president and make him more visible. Then, lower the boom and tell the truth.

I’ve got my work cut out for me. I have to defend Putin against this formidable cast of characters.

I’ll do my best.

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.

Power of the states vs. power of the federal government: who cares?

Power of the states vs. power of the federal government: who cares?

People who can wake up care.

by Jon Rappoport

March 2, 2017

There are 50 countries in the US. They’re called states.

All right, that’s an exaggeration. They are states. But they could be countries.

If you don’t think so, consider the 2015 state budget of tiny Rhode Island: $8.9 billion. The 2016 budget for the nation of Somalia was $216 million.

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States [government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The 11th Amendment reads: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”

If you combine these two Amendments, you begin to see the considerable powers granted to the states.

Of course, now, relatively few people care about these powers. They should, but they don’t.

The Civil War over the issue of slavery convinced a majority of Americans that states’ power was a bad thing—and it had to be remedied when high moral principles and intolerable suffering were at stake.

This premise was, however, expanded to include almost any issue on which the federal government wanted to assert its supremacy.

Which is where we are now.

And the Congress has been more than happy to cement that assertion of overweening federal power, by passing budgets that hand over huge sums of money to the states—otherwise known as bribes for giving in and surrendering.

The states lost that war without a shot being fired.

There is another way so-called “Progressives” look at illegitimate and unconstitutional federal power: it is the wonderful solution to problems the states refuse to solve for themselves.

If a state or states can’t see the wisdom of regulating an industry that pollutes, the federal government must step in and take control. When it does, the control is hailed as a victory.

But is it? The solution, in the long run, can be worse than the problem. As time passes, the federal government exerts more and more power over the states—any one of which could rightfully claim it has the size and money to rank as a country.

America, more and more, becomes a single entity, ruled from above, at a great distance, by a gigantic vampiric bureaucracy. This is exactly the kind of centralization the Republic’s Founders tried to avoid.

Conventional wisdom asserts that the states will do great harm to their citizens, because the states are locally inept, corrupt, ignorant, and cruel, whereas the federal government is kinder, gentler, more humane, and wise. The states are more likely to be run by greedy businessmen, while the federal government can maintain greater distance and rule with equanimity and fairness.

This is largely propaganda, and now, in 2017, it is difficult to run tests of the conventional wisdom, because the federal government has taken such major blocks of states’ former powers into its own hands.

But here is an example of such a test: the US Department of Education, a federal agency. It employs a mere 4400 people, and it has a staggering annual budget of $68 billion.

What in the world are those 4400 people doing with that much tax money and money printed out of thin air?

Here is the defining statement from the Department’s website:

ED’s 4,400 employees and $68 billion budget are dedicated to: “Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds [throwing giant sums of money at the states while binding the states to all sorts of rules and conditions and guidelines and bribes.].”

“Collecting data on America’s schools and disseminating research [surveillance, data mining, profiling, invasive pseudoscientific psychological screening].”

“Focusing national attention on key educational issues [propaganda, indoctrination, useless public relations, b.s.].”

“Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education [preempting the states’ ability to handle those issues themselves].”

The individual states could run and fund their own schools. Of course, they wouldn’t have the $68 billion each year to work with, but that would be their problem to solve.

The fact that it isn’t their problem now speaks to the federal policy of piling up insupportable budget debt to the sky and then pretending it doesn’t exist. “Here’s 68 billion dollars. No problem. We’ll print more when we need it.”

So the test would be: eliminate the US Department of Education.

Turn back the full responsibility for education to the states.

Perhaps then, the states would realize how insane their own governments are, because those governments, too, are running on the fumes of unpayable debt.

A rude awakening for all concerned, at every level? Most certainly. But the degree of overarching federal power would shrink a bit.

And in the long run, that is a good thing. An important thing.

And the next step would be individual communities within the states taking back control of their own schools. And many more parents homeschooling their own children.

The whole operation is called Decentralization.

And it starts at the top, where the biggest power grab of all occurred. Where the Constitution was stepped on, twisted, co-opted, ensnared, burned, scrapped, defamed, ignored, and ridiculed.

Think about this. How many schools in America, all of which receive gobs of federal money, actually teach the Constitution in a serious way, article by article, amendment by amendment, day by day, through all grades, with increasing depth and sophistication?

None.

As in: NONE.

Why should the schools teach the Constitution? After all, they’re sucking in money from a federal government that opposes the document and its essential separation of powers.

Coda: There are people who think what I’m proposing is beyond the pale. For example, what about the great civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s? It resulted in the passage of federal legislation that changed the landscape of America and canceled racism in many resistant states.

Yes, and it also resulted in Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, which was launched in 1966, and continues in one form or another to this day. Trillions of dollars have been poured into inner cities, and the conditions in those areas are far worse than in 1966.

How can that be? It can be, because along with the money came Dependence on the federal government. Lifelong dependence. Which was the actual motive behind the whole operation. It was no favor to the poor. It was a war on the poor. Honest programs aimed at developing self-sufficient businesses were cast aside and purposely rejected. Why? Because they could have worked. Because they would have lifted people up.

But instead, we now have equality. Equality of dependence. That was the federal ruse. That was the op.

What looks like federal intervention on behalf of the high moral ground turns into a long-term enduring disaster.

The solution to the problem turns out to be worse than the problem.

Why should we care about fake morality, devised to appear like a gift from the gods?

We should care about the self-sufficiency, power, imagination, and visions of many individuals. We should support the work that springs from those wells of deep energy.

The Constitution, in its own way, was an attempt to establish a platform from which those qualities could emerge.

It limited the force that could be applied from the highest controls of government.

Perverse criminals at every level rise and fall. But the Founding ideas and ideals remain. And so do the individuals who grasp them and live in freedom.


The Matrix Revealed

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

Bill Gates: the new Pavlov

Bill Gates: the new Pavlov

by Jon Rappoport

February 7, 2017

“Under the surface of this global civilization, a great and secret war is taking place. The two opponents hold different conceptions of Reality. On one side, those who claim that humans operate purely on the basis of stimulus-response, like machines; on the other side, those who believe there is a gigantic thing called freedom. Phase One of the war is already over. The stimulus-response people have won. In Phase Two, people are waking up to the far-reaching and devastating consequences of the Pavlovian program.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

“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)

A thought-form is a picture-plus concept in the mind that tends to guide behavior.

A 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 any other issues.

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

Such notions and thought-forms replace life itself.

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.

Are human beings becoming social constructs?

Populations are undergoing a quiet revolution. We can cite some of the reasons: television; education; job training and employment requirements; the Surveillance State; government organizations who follow a “zero tolerance” policy; inundation with advertising.

Yes, it’s all geared to produce people who are artificial constructs.

And this is just the beginning. There are a number of companies (see, for example, affectiva.com) who are dedicated to measuring “audience response” to ads and other public messages. I’m talking about electronic measuring. The use of bracelets, for instance, that record students’ emotional responses to teachers in classrooms, in real time. (Bill Gates shoveled grant money into several of these studies.)

Then there is facial recognition geared to the task of revealing how people are reacting when they sit at their computers and view websites.

Push-pull, ring the bell, watch the dog drool for his food. Stimulus-response.

It’s not much of a stretch to envision, up the road a few years, whole populations more than willing to volunteer for this kind of mass experimentation. But further than that, we could see society itself embrace, culturally, the ongoing measurement of stimuli and responses.

“Yes, I want to live like this. I want to be inside the system. I want to be analyzed. I want to be evaluated. I want to accept the results. I want to be part of the new culture. Put bracelets on me. Measure my eye movements, my throat twitches that indicate what I’m thinking, and my brain waves. Going to a movie should include the experience of wearing electrodes that record my second-to-second reactions to what’s happening on the screen. I like that. I look forward to it…”

In such a culture, “Surveillance State” would take on a whole new dimension.

“Sir, I want to report a malfunction in my television set. I notice the monitoring equipment that tracks my responses to programs has gone on the blink. I want it reattached as soon as possible. Can you fix it remotely, or do you need to send a repair person out to the house? I’ll be here all day…”

People will take pride in their ongoing role as social constructs, just as they now take pride in owning a quality brand of car.

The thought process behind this, in so far as any thought at all takes place, goes something like: “If I’m really a bundle of responses to stimuli and nothing more, then I want to be inside a system that champions that fact and records it…I don’t want to be left out in the cold.”

Here is a sample school situation of the near future: for six months, Mr. Jones, the teacher, has been videotaped, moment by moment, as he instructs his class in English. All the students have been wearing electronic bracelets, and their real time emotional responses (interest, boredom, aversion) have also been recorded. A team of specialists has analyzed the six months of video, matching it up, second by second, to the students’ responses. The teacher is called in for a conference.

“Mr. Jones, we now know what you’re doing that works and what you’re doing that doesn’t work. We know exactly what students are positively reacting to, and what bores them. Therefore, we’re going to put you into a re-ed seminar, where you’ll learn precisely how to teach your classes from now on, to maximize your effectiveness. We’ll show you how to move your hands, what tone of voice to use, how to stand, when to make eye contact, and so on…”

Mr. Jones is now a quacking duck. He will be trained how to quack “for the greater good.” He is now a machine toy. Whatever is left of his passion, his intelligence, his free will, his spontaneous insights, his drive to make students actually understand what they’re learning…all subordinated for the sake of supposed efficiency.

Think this is an extreme fantasy? See the Chicago Tribune, June 12, 2012, “Biosensors to monitor students’ attentiveness”:

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has poured more than $4 billion into efforts to transform public education in the U.S., is pushing to develop an ‘engagement pedometer.’ Biometric devices wrapped around the wrists of students would identify which classroom moments excite and interest them — and which fall flat.”

“The foundation has given $1.4 million in grants to several university researchers to begin testing the devices in middle-school classrooms this fall.”

“The biometric bracelets, produced by a Massachusetts startup company, Affectiva Inc, send a small current across the skin and then measure subtle changes in electrical charges as the sympathetic nervous system responds to stimuli. The wireless devices have been used in pilot tests to gauge consumers’ emotional response to advertising.”

“Gates officials hope the devices, known as Q Sensors, can become a common classroom tool, enabling teachers to see, in real time, which kids are tuned in and which are zoned out.”

“Existing measures of student engagement, such as videotaping classes for expert review or simply asking kids what they liked in a lesson, ‘only get us so far,’ said Debbie Robinson, a spokeswoman for the Gates Foundation. To truly improve teaching and learning, she said, ‘we need universal, valid, reliable and practical instruments’ such as the biosensors.”

“The Gates Foundation has spent two years videotaping 20,000 classroom lessons and breaking them down, minute by minute, to analyze how each teacher presents material and how those techniques affect student test scores.”

“Clemson received about $500,000 in Gates funding. Another $620,000 will support an MIT scientist, John Gabrieli, who aims to develop a scale to measure degrees of student engagement by comparing biosensor data to functional MRI brain scans [!] (using college students as subjects).”

When you boil it down, the world-view represented here has nothing to do with “caring about students.” It has everything to do with the Pavlovian view of humans as biological machines.

What input yields what response? How can people be shaped into predictable constructs?

As far as Gates is concerned, the underlying theme, as always, is: control.

In this new world, the process of thinking and comparing and independently judging, and the freedom to make individual choices…well, for whatever that was worth, we can’t encourage it for a whole society. It’s too unpredictable. We don’t have time for that sort of thing. No, we have to achieve reduction. We have to seek out lowest common denominators.”

This is what universal surveillance is all about. The observation of those denominators and the variances from them—the outlying and therefore dangerous departures from the norm.

“Well, we’ve tracked Mr. Jones’ classroom for a year now, and we’ve collated all the measurements of reactions from the students. It was a wonderful study. But we did notice one thing. All the students showed similar patterns of reactions over time…except two students. We couldn’t fit them into the algorithms. They seemed to be responding oppositely. It was almost as if they were intentionally defecting from the group. This signals some kind of disorder. We need a name for it. Is it Oppositional Defiance Disorder, or is it new? We recommend attaching electrodes to those two students’ skulls, so we can get a better readout of their brain activity in real time.”

You see, everything must be analyzed on the basis of stimulus response. Those two students are suffering from a brain problem. They must be. Because if they aren’t, if they have the ability to choose and decide how to respond, then they have free will, and that can’t be measured. Much deeper, that also suggests an X-factor in humans, wherein the flow of chemicals and atoms and quarks and mesons and photons don’t tell the whole story. The rest of the story would imply the existence of something that is…non-material…above and beyond push-pull cause and effect.

The gatekeepers of this world are obsessed with ruling that out. They guard Reality itself, which is to say, their conception of Reality. They are willing to spend untold amounts of money to make that Pavlovian conception universally accepted and universally loved.

Because they own that conception. They are the self-appointed title holders. They are the kings of that domain.

I feel obligated to inform them that their domain is much, much smaller than they think it is. And in the fullness of time, which is very long, the domain is going to fall and crack and collapse and disintegrate. And all their horses and all their men won’t be able to put it back together again.

Perhaps populations will have to endure a hundred years of stimulus-response society, to understand what it means. But eventually, a man like Bill Gates will be forgotten. He’ll be a small footnote on a dusty page in a crumbling book in a dark room on a remote island of one unworkable computer.

A morbid venal fool who chased, for a brief moment, fool’s gold.

There is an irreducible thing. It’s called freedom. It is native to every individual.

Sometimes it rears its head in the middle of the night, and the dreamer awakes.

And he asks himself: what is my freedom for?

And then he begins a voyage that no device can record, measure, or analyze.

If he pursues it long enough, it takes him out of the labyrinth.

Pavlov wrote: “Mankind will possess incalculable advantages and extraordinary control over human behavior when the scientific investigator will be able to subject his fellow men to the same external analysis he would employ for any natural object, and when the human mind will contemplate itself not from within but from without.”

Basically, Pavlov was promoting the idea that whatever an individual perceives and feels about his own experience is a confused mess and an obstruction.

Rather, the individual should ignore all that tripe, and instead, allow himself to be a “natural object,” see himself as a clean and simple response mechanism, as planned inputs cause him to behave in various ways. Then, he’ll be contemplating himself “not from within, but from without.”

In other words, then he will have no life.

Bill Gates and other elite planners are working toward this end.


Exit From the Matrix

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


When Ray Kurzweil talks about hooking brains up to super-computers, he is envisioning a process of downloading that goes beyond choice. Somehow, automatically, the brain and the individual (he apparently believes they are the same thing) will receive inputs that translate into knowledge and even talent. This is another fatuous version of Pavlov.

In Brave New World, Huxley wrote: “Hot tunnels alternated with cool tunnels. Coolness was wedded to discomfort in the form of hard X-rays. By the time they were decanted the embryos had a horror of cold. They were predestined to emigrate to the tropics, to be miner[s] and acetate silk spinners and steel workers. Later on their minds would be made to endorse the judgment of their bodies. ‘We condition them to thrive on heat’, concluded Mr. Foster. ‘Our colleagues upstairs will teach them to love it’.”

Stimulus-response.

If researchers developed this technology, who could doubt that elite planners would push it forward? It would be the culmination of their dream.

The freedom of the individual, his innate capacity to make wide-ranging choices, is the monkey wrench in the program. It is anti-stimulus-response.

This is why you would have to search far and wide to find, in one school, anywhere, on any level, a course that examines and promotes individual freedom.

It is anathema to the plan.

It is the silver bullet for the vampire.

Freedom comes from Within the individual, not from Without.

On the level of political control, freedom emerged and broke through during centuries of struggle.

Now, and in the future, every individual carries that torch.

So it is incumbent on the individual to understand the scope and meaning and power of his own freedom, and to decide for himself what his freedom is FOR.

What will he choose to launch from that great pasture?

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 liberal mind crashes and burns

The liberal mind crashes and burns

Sub-headline: Regardless of who Trump is or isn’t…

by Jon Rappoport

January 10, 2017

For most dyed-in-the-wool liberals, the election was going to be business as usual.

They viewed Hillary Clinton as one of their own, a kind person with extensive political experience who would continue to guide the nation in the direction set by other kind and decent leaders—Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. It was all good. Hope, change, help, share and care, sympathy for the less fortunate, giving back, on the road to a better world. In other words, these liberals were deluded by their own vague ideals.

Nothing new there.

They believe everything big media tells them to believe. They trust in big government. They admire the notion of socialism, such as they understand it, but of course they would never come right out and admit to being socialists. That would be a bridge too far. That might commit them to a specific set of ideas, and you can count on liberals to avoid specificity like the plague. They prefer the warm fuzzy bubbly delusion of “progress” and “improvement.”

Above all, they want to be seen as good.

Under no circumstances do they want to be seen as greedy or ambitious.

They have a tacit deal with their favored candidates: those leaders must never seem to be greedy, either.

The Clinton Foundation operation? A money-laundering machine set up to make the Clintons rich and powerful mountain-top mobsters manipulating US policy for cash? Impossible. Would never happen. Look the other way. Ignore it. Stay in the bubble.

Hillary Clinton playing a major role in the destruction of Libya by air attack, torn bodies lying in the streets, fiery chaos, government dissolved, vicious terrorists fighting it out to see who’ll control the landscape, with the shell-shocked population caught in the crossfire? Never happened.

Sturdy, tough, dedicated family men across America robbed of their jobs by cold-blooded Bill Clinton, Obama, and Hillary Clinton Globalist maneuvers? No, never happened.

Then Trump won the election.

The liberals crashed and burned.

And now they’re curling around the feet of the CIA and the Washington Post and demanding more stories about the Russians—those evil bastards they once adored from a distance—stealing the election and handing it to Trump.

They’re shoving their fangs in wherever they can, desperately hoping to unseat Trump before he takes the Oath of Office.

And if somehow Trump restores some of those lost American jobs? If by chance he doesn’t embark on more wars of Empire? If he destroys a swath or two of foul corruption inside the DC Beltway?

NO, NO, NO, THE LIBERALS SAY. OUR GIRL HILLARY WOULD HAVE DONE WHATEVER GOOD THERE WAS TO BE DONE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HER JOB. SHE WOULD HAVE DELIVERED.

Sure she would. She would have flown and floated over the White House like an angel made out of cotton candy and pointed her wand at Washington criminals and dismissed them straightaway.

These liberals will now primp and plump up the Obama presidency and, in hindsight, it will become the greatest eight years in the pantheon of human progress. Obama will eventually become Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, and Jesus Christ all rolled up into one.

But behind this, the liberal mind has crashed and burned. Its vague delusions of goodness are falling apart, flaming cinders in the wind. Liberals wander in psychotic grief throughout the land. The ideals to which they pledged their allegiance have been exposed as cover stories:

The ideal of open borders actually means: Let in so many immigrants they overwhelm public resources, while crimes escalate—all for the purpose of making chaos, whose only solution is the closing iron fist of the surveillance/police state.

The idea of one world united actually means: Under the rubric of international cooperation and friendship, keep sending companies and jobs overseas, decimating the economy and families—all for the purpose of making chaos, whose only solution is the closing iron fist of the surveillance/police state, and the government takeover of the economy.

The list of destructive intentions is much longer, and in every case the solution is the same.


power outside the matrix

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


But the presider over this end-game operation never made it into the White House.

And her addled liberal supporters are clueless on every level. They don’t see the forest for the trees, and they don’t even see the trees. They only know that their own narcissistic signaling devices, which broadcast how virtuously their precious hearts throb, are running out of juice. That’s all they ever cared about, and now that, too, is going away.

Their garbling gibbering politically correct psychobabble long ago replaced their minds, so they can’t begin to figure out what has happened and what is happening.

Their beloved symbols—Hollywood liberal celebrities—are saying, in sub-text, “Ignore my tears, I’m digging my fortified bunker deeper. Don’t bother me.”

People can call themselves liberals or progressives. But until they understand how their sentimental ideals have been used to launch destructive operations against the American people, they’re at best a collection of obstructionists who are preventing the dismantling of arch-Globalists.

Those Globalists intend to decimate the nation and drag it down into a bleak future—not a shred of independence or sovereignty left. Instead, America would be a mauled element of an abject planetary “utopia,” which is grotesquely celebrated as “sustainable.”

With justice for no one.

This is the liberal heritage.

This is what seeming-to-be-good has wrought.

This is what a vast pretense of virtue has brought to our door.

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.