Beyond the study of psychology

Beyond the study of psychology

by Jon Rappoport

April 17, 2018

These are notes I made in preparation for my second collection, Exit From The Matrix:

“Psychology is essentially a reflection of the culture: it focuses on the family unit and what can happen to fracture it. It focuses on society and how an individual can adapt to it. It focuses on re-establishing norms of behavior. It focuses on a person’s past as the key to his problems. It stumbles and stutters and retreats when it comes up against the individual’s creative impulse. This impulse travels far beyond family, society, and the past.”

“Let us consider what are called ‘contents’ of the mind. Many efforts have been made to describe various items: persistent thoughts and images; so-called archetypes; symbols; memories; and so on. These and other items can be viewed as ‘helpers’ in solving problems. They can be viewed as ‘influences’. They can be viewed as irrelevant debris. They can be analyzed from different perspectives. But one thing is clear. For the creative individual, they are all fuel for the fire. They can be reworked, recombined, and, above all, transformed in the invention of some new reality. Therefore, there is nothing final or ultimate about these ‘contents’. Unless a person is merely a passive spectator who has no creative urge at all.”

“When consciousness is directed to find something in particular, it will. This is not a cause for celebration, any more than a dog finding a bone in a garden is shocking. Directed consciousness gives answers that depend on prior assumptions. Consciousness will find the kind of content it is looking for. But these answers ultimate prove unsatisfying. They exist in a bubble that has been laid out beforehand. Imagination, however, is a completely different story.”

“Imagination has the capacity to be spontaneous. Science can’t touch or analyze spontaneity. At bottom, mind control, whether imposed externally or self-induced, exists to prevent spontaneous action.”

“On the surface, it may appear that society does not reward spontaneity because it doesn’t acknowledge it. But every great work contains inexplicable leaps, when the inventor vaults beyond anything that was done and cataloged before. He spontaneously lights on something that never existed. He brings it into being. In retrospect, going back to discover ‘how it happened’ results in plausible but completely false conclusions.”

“People will do everything they possibly can to explain how a spontaneous invention or creation happened. They will say an individual ‘tapped into’ something beyond him. A field, a library, a data mine. This is an attempt to make sense out of what stands on its own: imagination. Imagination invents. It doesn’t need a field or a cosmic library.”

“Just because the overwhelming majority of humans back away from imagination and invention of reality doesn’t mean you have to.”

And here is a backgrounder:

Elon Musk and several other unnamed billionaires believe we all live in a computer generated reality—they’re convinced the universe is a simulation. Therefore, they’re funding research aimed at helping us escape.

The story, as reported in The Independent (10/5), gets even more interesting when we hear from Sam Altman, who owns Y Combinator, a company that helps create tech start-ups:

“Mr Altman…told the New Yorker that he was concerned about the way that the devices that surround us might lead to the extinction of all consciousness in the universe. He spoke about how the best scenario for dealing with that is a ‘merge’ – when our brains and computers become one, perhaps by having our brains uploaded into the cloud…’The full-on-crazy version of the merge is we get our brains uploaded into the cloud. I’d love that. We need to level up humans, because our descendants will either conquer the galaxy or extinguish consciousness in the universe forever. What a time to be alive!’”

If you’re confused and spinning, you should be. How do we get from “we’re all living in a simulation” to “we should get our brains uploaded to the cloud”?

“The devices that surround us might lead to the extinction of all consciousness in the universe,” and therefore we should merge our brains with another such device; the cloud. Our brains and some super-computer should become One, and that will solve the problem.

What??

The machines are taking over. Therefore, let’s all merge with the machines.

If you believe this is logic, I have golf club memberships for sale on Jupiter.

The underlying message here is: say anything that leads to hooking up brains to computers, even if it makes no sense at all. Just do it.

Fast-food burgers are unhealthy. Therefore, let’s all merge our brains with the cloud.

There’s a big hurricane coming. Hook your brain up to a computer.

Perhaps Mr. Altman thinks that a brain-computer interface will preserve consciousness against our own tendency to destroy ourselves. Who knows? If that’s what he thinks, I have news: connecting brains to computers doesn’t produce “more consciousness.” It just brings about a condition of slavery, in which we accept all answers and data generated by a computer.

Which is exactly where technocrats want to go. “You’re not allowed to make mistakes. Computers are flawless. Follow their instructions.”

Technocrats, to the degree their motives can possibly be construed as genuine, are always looking in the wrong places for magic. They think computers embody it. Fill a processing device with enough complexity and it comes alive. Not so. It just becomes a more complicated machine.

There is a premise these geniuses are overlooking: a brain-computer hookup actually works. Who says so? Who says that wiring connections between a brain and a machine is going to produce information, for a human being, that’s more than static and gibberish?

A whole host of assumptions are being made here. On extremely tenuous grounds. It’s slovenly thinking: a brain is like a machine and a computer is like a brain, so the two of them will get along just fine. Really?

The technocrats have seen far too many bad sci-fi movies.

Their basic problem stems from their adoration and worship of machines and systems. This leads to treating human beings as systems and nothing more. If it isn’t a system, they’re afraid of it. They want to predict and control. That’s the world they see.

Systems are, when taken too far, labyrinths. You can enter but you can’t exit. Humans generally don’t know when that line has been crossed. They eat systems. They want to think and behave like systems. This obsession spans the spectrum all the way from schools with zero-tolerance policies to metaphysical maps of the cosmos.

When elites reach the point where the population can’t even imagine what non-system thinking might be, they will have won. They won’t need a supercomputer to instruct brains. They will have created a collective brain.

Many humans just want to know what ‘everyone else’ is thinking…and after they find out, they sign up and join. The joke is, everyone else is thinking they want to be part of the collective, too. That’s the basic and bottom-line thought, and it’s passed around like an empty shell, from person to person. It’s meaningless.

“All right, Mr. Jones, we’re going to link your brain up to our supercomputer. We think this is going to work. Ha-ha, we’ll see. We hope it doesn’t fry any brain synapses. Once we make the connection, you should be receiving a whole new set of information from your brain. We hope it comes through clearly. Your job is to obey what your brain is telling you. When I use the word ‘you’, I’m not sure what I mean. That’s a mystery. There’s a lot of mystery here. We expect you to become a super version of yourself. Super-smart, within the parameters set by the supercomputer. The computer will make sure you’re a good person from now on. Ready? Take a deep breath. Here we go…oh wait a second. I see we need one more signature from you on the informed consent waiver. In case there IS a YOU separate from your brain, that YOU is not permitted to sue us for damages. Just sign on the dotted line…”


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.

Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda

Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda

Cure disease or alter humans?

by Jon Rappoport

April 17, 2018

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.


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.

Syria missile strikes: based on what evidence?

Syria missile strikes: based on what evidence?

Based on what constitutional authority?

by Jon Rappoport

April 16, 2018

“Let’s see, US Deep State actors from intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, and the Department of State, along with US allies, played a MAJOR role in creating, funding, supplying, and sustaining ISIS, while purportedly doing everything possible to destroy ISIS. No problem. Why should there be a problem?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Trump and the Pentagon claim the strikes were based on clear evidence President Assad’s forces used chemical weapons on their own civilian citizens.

The Russians point out that international inspectors were due to investigate the chemical-weapons claims on Saturday—and their findings would have denied Assad chemical attacks took place—therefore, to prevent this embarrassment, the US-led missile attacks were launched one day earlier.

Posted at Washingtonsblog.com:

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
SUBJECT: Evidence Required for Military Decision on Syria

Mr. President,

“We the undersigned Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity join a number of other credible experts including former UK Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford…former UN weapons inspectors and former military officers who are strongly recommending that you obtain and review actual evidence from the site of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria, before ordering any military action. We have long brought to light significant evidence questioning the provenance of chemical weapons indicating that rebel forces may have tried to produce and use such toxic agents in Syria.”

“The main question that arises is, ‘What motive would the Syrian government have to attack its own people when it is enjoying popular support for routing anti-government rebels? Why would it risk Western ire?’…”

Attacks and wars initiated by governments aren’t prefaced by detailed evidence made available to the people. Presenting the whole story isn’t necessary, as far as governments are concerned.

In the US, Congress goes along with the White House. The media go along with the White House.

The last time “evidence” was rolled out—“Saddam was developing WMDs, bought uranium from Niger, bought aluminum tubes for nuke weapons production”—the whole show devolved into a farce and fell apart.

Now, it’s just “trust us.”

Many Trump supporters aren’t buying the package. They believed Trump when he said the US was going to abandon empire-building and leave foreign nations alone and let them settle their own conflicts.

Now, a number of theories abound. Trump was duped by the military-industrial complex. Trump was never serious about refraining from launching military attacks. Trump is compromising now, but he has a further secret strategy in mind, a brilliant strategy against the Deep State. Trump is bowing to the Globalists, who want to continue destabilizing the Middle East. Trump is actually carrying out an Israeli (and/or Saudi) agenda. Attacking Syria is part of a US, British, and French plan involving access to oil in the region. Trump is pretending to step up his opposition to Russia (Assad’s ally), to prove he isn’t soft on Russia, to deflate the ferocious assault on him vis-à-vis the “Russia influenced the election” claim, to deflect Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation. Trump wants to improve his poll numbers, which always rise for any president in a time of war. Trump has no idea what he’s doing. And so forth and so on.

There is no will, no determination, no desire, within the US government colossus, to be responsive to the wishes of the American people, when it comes to making war. There is no felt need to explain why war is necessary, in very specific terms that can be verified or rejected. There is no need to wait until evidence is thoroughly investigated.

This is nothing new. Trump is no exception.

Since 1998, how many Americans knew about, cared, responded, or tried to investigate US Tomahawk Cruise missiles launched at Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Bosnia & Herzegovina? And these attacks don’t include the recent history of untold numbers of drone strikes.

“Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.” (Wex Legal Dictionary)

Presidents, of course, have wormed and weaseled their way around these strictures by calling war “police actions” or “single attacks.”

And now we have this missile attack on Syria, purportedly launched to knock out chemical-weapons facilities.

This is a classic Orwellian operation: The enemy is who we are told the enemy is, and he will remain the enemy as long as our leaders say he is.

Images sent our way are described by official voice-over and given meaning, which we are supposed to accept without question.

The “good forces” opposing the enemy in Syria are named the “rebels,” instead of ISIS terrorists our leaders helped create. This, too, we are supposed to accept.

But wait. According to The Intercept, “So while over 80 members of Congress wrote to Trump on Friday night stating that ‘engaging our military in Syria … without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,’ their action has no impact.”

Strange. Major media haven’t blasted, with big headlines, Congressional opposition to the Trump missile strike. News coverage has been urging and supporting the strike.

It gets stranger. The Intercept: “Trump almost certainly does have some purported legal justification provided to him by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel [OLC] — but no one else, including Congress, can read it.”

What?

“The Office of Legal Counsel is often called the Supreme Court of the executive branch, providing opinions on how the president and government agencies should interpret the law.”

“We know that Trump received a top secret OLC opinion justifying the previous U.S. strike on Syria on April 6, 2017. Friday’s bombing undoubtedly relied on the same memo or one with similar reasoning.”

The US Justice Department is “its own judiciary.” And its legal justifications for green lighting military attacks are secret.

Constitutional Separation of Powers doctrine?

Irrelevant.

Former long-term US Congressman and presidential candidate, Ron Paul, did much to stir up the American people with libertarian ideas and proposals, and, in the process, large numbers of Americans eventually went over to Trump’s side, believing he was the reincarnation of Paul’s positions—but with a much better reach into the heartland of the country.

Read what Paul wrote on October 2, 2017, and compare it with Trump’s present stance. Paul: “Now that the defeat of ISIS in Syria appears imminent, with the Syrian army clearing out some of the last ISIS strongholds in the east, Washington’s interventionists are searching for new excuses to maintain the illegal US military presence in the country. Their original rationale for intervention has long been exposed as another lie.”

“Remember that President Barack Obama initially involved the US military in Iraq and Syria to ‘prevent genocide’ of the Yazidis and promised the operation would not drift into US ‘boots on the ground.’ That was three years ago and the US military became steadily more involved while Congress continued to dodge its Constitutional obligations. The US even built military bases in Syria despite having no permission to do so! Imagine if Syria started building military bases here in the US against our wishes.”

“After six years of war the Syrian government has nearly defeated ISIS and al-Qaeda and the US-backed ‘moderates’ [‘rebels’] turned out to be either Islamist extremists or Kurdish soldiers for hire. According to a recent report, the US has shipped two billion dollars worth of weapons to fighters in Syria via eastern Europe. Much of these weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS directly, or indirectly through ‘moderates’ taking their weapons with them while joining ISIS or al-Qaeda.”

“’Assad must go’,” proclaimed President Obama back in 2011, as he claimed that the Syrian leader was committing genocide against his own people and that regime change was the only way to save Syrians. Then earlier this year, when eastern Aleppo was about to be liberated by the Syrian government, the neocons warned that Assad would move in and kill all the inhabitants. They warned that the population of eastern Aleppo would flee from the Syrian army. But something very different happened. According to the UN’s International Organization for Migration, 600,000 refugees returned to Syria by August. Half of the returnees went back to Aleppo, where we were told Assad was waiting to kill them.”

“What happened? The neocons and ‘humanitarian interventionists’ lied. Just as they lied about Libya, Iraq, and so on.”

If Trump is sounding like Ron Paul on the issue of Syria, an elephant is a space ship.


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.

The Matrix Revealed: Why logic disappeared

The Matrix Revealed: Why logic disappeared

by Jon Rappoport

April 15, 2018

Over the past year, I’ve been in communication with several teachers who are telling me about the descent into more social programming in school classrooms.

From so-called environmental agendas, to discussions about gender orientation and choice of gender identity, to sex education, to teaching about “liberalism,” the indoctrination is getting thicker and deeper.

This whole mind-engineering approach would suffer a devastating blow if logic were introduced into the curriculum, particularly at an early age.

One prime factor becomes clear the moment a student explores logic as a formal subject. That factor is THE PREMISE.

Deductive arguments begin from premises, also known as assumptions or givens.

Although logic focuses on the process of reasoning launched from the premises, there is no way to avoid looking at these basic assumptions, once the student learns how to find them.

“Is this premise true?” “Does it make sense?”

And then all bets are off, because social programming is short on reasoning and long on givens.

That’s how mind-programming is done—by pouring assumptions into the student.

Once he begins to look at them, study them, consider them, assess them, he is SEPARATE FROM THEM.

He can then gauge their truth or falsity.

He can decide whether they’re grounded in fact, or are merely arbitrary notions designed to forward an ideology.

At that point, the roof caves in on the programmers.

This is one reason I designed a basic introductory logic course for high-school students and included it in my collection, The Matrix Revealed.

Students should have the opportunity to experience analyzing passages of text. They should learn what that process does for them, how it wakes them up and eventually makes them independent.

Educators are aware that treading on the path of logic endangers what they are covertly putting into students’ heads.

That’s why logic has disappeared.

That’s why it needs to come back.

Shepherded by parents.

Every home is a civilization.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Here are the contents of my collection, The Matrix Revealed:

* 250 megabytes of information.

* Over 1100 pages of text.

* Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also included:

* Several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix. 53 pages.

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

(All the material is digital. Upon ordering it, you’ll receive an email with a link to it.)

Understanding Matrix is also understanding your capacity and power, and that is the way to approach this subject. Because liberation is the goal. And liberation has no limit.

I invite you to a new exploration and a great adventure.

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.

Exit From The Matrix: Power beyond mind control

Exit From The Matrix: Power beyond mind control

by Jon Rappoport

April 14, 2018

Consciousness wants to create new consciousness, and it can. Imagination is how it does it. If there were some ultimate state of consciousness, imagination would always be able to play another card and take it further.

In any arena of life, and especially when it comes to the mind, perception, power, empathy, and so on, there is always a status quo. It’s merely the place where a person says, “Well, that’s enough. I’ll settle for what I have. I’ll stop here.”

Sooner or later, this leads to boredom, frustration, problems, and conflict. It leads to a decline.

Imagination, which knows no bounds, is the source for the most adventurous explorations. It can have great impact on the material world, of course, but one mustn’t therefore conclude it is composed of matter or energy. Imagination is non-material. To think otherwise winds you up in using some version of physics to depict imagination—and then you are imposing limits on it. This is an error. Imagination doesn’t obey any laws of physics.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we’ve flattered reality enough. It doesn’t need any more. Imagination creates new realities.

You can create the same thing over and over, and eventually you’ll be about as alive as a table. Inject imagination into the mix, and everything suddenly changes. You can steer that boat anywhere you want to.

The lowest common denominator of consensus signals an absence of imagination: everyone agrees; everyone is bored; everyone is obedient. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are massive floods of unique individual creation, and then that sought-after thing called abundance is as natural as the sun rising in the morning.

Sitting around in a cosmic bus station waiting for reality is what reality is. Everything else is imagination.

There are those who believe life is a museum. You walk through the rooms, find one painting, stroll into it and take up permanent residence. But the museum is endless. And if you were a painter, you’d never decide to live inside one of your canvases forever. You’d keep on painting.

The relentless and obsessive search for all those things on which we can agree is a confession of bankruptcy.

When we re-learn to live through and by imagination, we enter and invent new space and time.

With imagination, one can solve a problem. More importantly, one can skip ahead of the problem and render it null and void.

Imagination isn’t a system. It might invent systems, but it is non-material. It’s a capacity. It feels no compulsion to imitate reality. It makes realities. Its scope is limited only by a person’s imagining of how far imagination can go.

The human race is obsessed by the question: what exists? It appears to be a far easier question than: what do you want to create? This comparison explains why civilizations decline.

Imagination is a path. Walking on that path long enough, you find answers to all the questions you’ve ever asked, as an incidental side effect of the journey. You also find power that most people only dream of.

My second collection, Exit From The Matrix, contains dozens of imagination exercises I’ve developed over the past 20 years. Their purpose is to expand the core of your potential.


exit from the matrix


Here are the contents of Exit From The Matrix:

First, my audio presentations:

* INTRODUCTION: HOW TO USE THE MATERIALS IN EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* EXIT FROM THE MATRIX

* 50 IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* FURTHER IMAGINATION EXERCISES

* ANESTHESIA, BOREDOM, EXCITEMENT, ECSTASY

* ANCIENT TIBET AND THE UNIVERSE AS A PRODUCT OF MIND

* YOU THE INVENTOR, MINDSET, AND FREEDOM FROM “THE EXISTENCE PROGRAM”

* PARANORMAL EXPERIMENTS AND EXERCISES

* CHILDREN AND IMAGINATION

* THE CREATIVE LIFE AND THE MATRIX/IMAGINATION

* PICTURES OF REALITY AND ESCAPE VELOCITY FROM THE MATRIX

* THIS WOULD BE A VERY DIFFERENT FUTURE

* MODERN ZEN

* THE GREAT PASSIONS AND THE GREAT ANDROIDS

Then you will receive the following audio seminars I have previously done:

* Mind Control, Mind Freedom

* The Transformations

* Desire, Manifestation and Fulfillment

* Altered States, Consciousness, and Magic

* Beyond Structures

* The Mystery and Magic of Dialogue

* The Voyage of Merlin

* Modern Alchemy and Imagination

* Imagination and Spiritual Enlightenment

* Dissolving Stress

* The Paranormal Project

* Zen Painting for Everyone Now

* Past Lives, Archetypes, and Hidden Sources of Human Energy

* Expression of Self

* Imagination Exercises for a Lifetime

* Old Planet, New Planet, New Mind

* The Era of Magic Returns

* Your Power Revealed

* Universes Without End

* Relationships

* Building a Business for Success

I have included an additional bonus section:

* My book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies (pdf document)

* My book, The Ownership of All Life (pdf document)

* A long excerpt from my briefly published book, Full Power (pdf document)

* My 24 articles in the series, “Coaching the Coaches” (pdf document)

And these audio seminars:

* The Role of Medical Drugs in Human Illness

* Longevity One: The Mind-Body Connection

* Longevity Two: The Nutritional Factors

(All the audio presentations are mp3 files and the documents and books are pdf files. You download the files upon purchase. There is no physical ship.)

What has been called The Matrix is a series of layers. These layers compose what we call Reality. Reality is not merely the consensus people accept in their daily lives. It is also a personal and individual conception of limits. It is a perception that these limits are somehow built into existence. But this is not true.

What I’ve done here is remove the lid on those perceived limits. This isn’t an intellectual undertaking. It’s a way to open up space and step on to a new road, with new power.

Jon Rappoport

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

Deep State? What about elite television news anchors?

Deep State? What about elite television news anchors?

The elite news anchor is the eunuch: “trusted everywhere”

by Jon Rappoport

April 13, 2018

It’s not only the content of news that is embraced, it’s the style, the manner of presentation—and in the long run, the presentation is far more corrosive, far more deadly than the content.

The imitations of life called anchors are the arbiters of style. How they speak, how they look, how they themselves experience emotion—all this is planted deep in the brains of the viewers.

Most of America can’t imagine the evening news could look and sound any other way.

That’s how solid the long-term brainwashing is.

The elite anchors, from John Daly in the early days of television, all the way to Brian Williams (until he was exposed) and Scott Pelley, have set the tone. They define the genre.

The elite anchor is not a person filled with passion or curiosity. Therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be passionate or filled with curiosity, either.

The anchor is not a demanding voice on the air; therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be demanding.

The anchor isn’t hell-bent on uncovering the truth. For this he substitutes a false dignity. Therefore, the audience can surrender its need to wrestle with the truth and replace that with a false dignity of its own.

The anchor takes propriety to an extreme: it’s unmannerly to look below the surface of things. Therefore, the audience adopts those manners.

The anchor inserts an actor’s style into what should instead be a relentless reporter’s forward motion. Therefore, members of the audience can become actors shaping “news” about their own lives through Facebook.

The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience’s psyche that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect.

From their perch, the elite television anchors can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.

But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right. You can rely on us for that.”

This is the great propaganda arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold billions to convey that false assurance.

The elite anchor must pretend to believe the narrow parameters and boundaries of a story are all there is. There is no deeper meaning. There is no abyss waiting to swallow whole a major story and reveal it as a hoax. No. Never.

With this conviction in tow, the anchor can fiddle and diddle with details.

The network anchor is the wizard of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable, unimaginable truth.

The anchor is quite satisfied to obtain all his information from “reputable sources.” This mainly means government and corporate spokespeople. Not a problem.

Every other source, for the anchor, is murky and unreliable. He doesn’t have to worry his pretty little head about whether his sources are, indeed, trustworthy. He calculates it this way: if government and corporations are releasing information, it means there is news to report.

What the FBI director has to say is news whether it’s true or false, because the director said it. So why not blur over the mile-wide distinction between “he spoke the truth” and “he spoke”?

On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.

This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.

Essentially, the anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?”

All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion. In recent times, it was Brian Williams—until his “conflations” and “misremembrances” surfaced.

The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor “great.” Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow. Huntley was just a touch too masculine, so they teamed him up with David Brinkley, a medium-boiled egg. Brinkley supplied twinkles of comic relief.

The cable news networks don’t really have anyone who qualifies as an elite anchor. Wolf Blitzer of CNN made his bones during the first Iraq war only because his name fit the bombing action so well. Brit Hume of FOX has more anchor authority than anyone now working in network television, but he’s semi-retired, content to play the role of contributor, because he knows the news is a scam on wheels.

There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”

Neutrality implies: this is a democracy; an anchor is no more important than the next person (and yet he is—another contradiction, swallowed).

Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re not like the cop shows; we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re like a responsible charity.

The anchor poses the age-old question about the people. Do the people really want to suck in superficial cause and effect and surface detail, or do they want deeper truth? Do the people want comfortable gigantic lies, or do they want to look behind the curtain?

The anchor, of course, goes for surface only.

The anchor is so accustomed to lying and so accustomed to pretending the lies are true that he wouldn’t know how to shift gears.

At the end of the Roman Empire, when the whole structure was coming apart, a brilliant and devious decision was made. The Empire would proceed according to a completely different plan. Instead of continuing to stretch its resources to the breaking point with military conquests, it would attack the mind.

It would establish the Roman Church and write new spiritual law. These laws and an overriding cosmology would be dispensed, in land after land, by official “eunuchs.” Men who, distanced from the usual human appetites, would automatically gain the trust of the people.

These priests would “deliver the news.” They would be the elite anchors, who would translate God’s orders and revelations to the public.

By edict, no one would be able to communicate with God, except through these “trusted ones.” Therefore, in a sense, the priest was actually higher on the ladder of power than God Himself.

In fact, it would fall to the Church to reinterpret all of history, writing it as a series of symbolic clues that revealed and confirmed Church doctrine (story line).

Today, people are believers because the popular stories are delivered by contemporary castrati, every night on the evening news.

If these castrati say a virus is threatening the world; and if they are backed up by neutral castrati bishops, the medical scientists; and if those medical scientists are supported by public health bureaucrats, the cardinals; and if the cardinals are given a wink and a nod by the President, the Pope—the Program is working.

And the news is spread to the people…

But the true viruses are the anchors. They spread the illnesses.

Through their style. The style of the eunuch.


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.

Famous figures who should immediately be banned by Facebook

Famous figures who should immediately be banned by Facebook

by Jon Rappoport

April 12, 2018

Don’t hesitate. These persons are a danger to the community. Facebook should ban them immediately, before their dangerous word-viruses infect the brains of a billion users.

“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” (John F Kennedy, 1962)

Outrageous. Ban him. Everyone knows unpleasant facts and competitive values make people feel unsafe. These are micro-aggressions, and anyone who supports them should have his Facebook page taken down.

“We are in the same tent as the clowns and the freaks—that’s show business.” (Edward R. Murrow, CBS news anchor)

Ban Murrow. He is attacking his own profession and making a mockery of it. By extension, he can be seen to prefer some other kind of news. Who knows what that is? Mainstream news is real news. Other news is fake.

“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right…to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees, of the people; and if the cause, the interest, and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute other and better agents, attorneys and trustees.” (John Adams, 1765)

Adams is proposing nothing less than the right of the people to remove their rulers. In some cases, this would be useful, but as a general proposition, it is incendiary. His statements would trigger many people. Adams is committing hate speech. Ban him.

“The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie—a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days—but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.” (Hannah Arendt, 1974)

She is implying that the mainstream press is lying to the people. This is forbidden. Establishment news is our only source of vetted truth. Everything else must be filtered by fact checkers. Take down her Facebook account. Ban her.

“At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals. (George Orwell, 1972)

We know all about Orwell. He champions the idea that mainstream authority, and the press, are perverting truth on an ongoing basis. He might well represent independent media. He needs psychiatric treatment. Ban him.

“Private property … has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is.” (Oscar Wilde)

This is a borderline case. We’re not sure where Wilde stands on the issue of private property. Is he completely against it? If so, leave his Facebook account alone. We’re submitting this quote to the fact checkers.

“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)

A troublemaker. Offending people triggers them. They feel unsafe. They suffer. Has Paine posted photos of family picnics, birthday parties? No. He prefers to disturb the community. Ban him.

“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” (Noam Chomsky)

This is the old view of free speech. Now we know that a preferred set of values determines the kind of speech allowed vs. the kind of speech that should be blocked. Take down Chomsky’s Facebook account.

“…Facebook and the tech industry are located in Silicon Valley, which is an extremely left-leaning place…” (Mark Zuckerberg)

Do not post this statement on Facebook. It transmits the wrong impression. Facebook censorship is based on true ideals and premises, not left-leaning values. Issue Zuckerberg a warning. If he persists in this language, suspend his account. Keep in mind that Facebook only has 2 billion users. There are 7.5 billion people on Earth. Why is Zuckerberg so far behind in securing the goal of EVERYONE having a Facebook account?


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.