Occult systems: the trick behind them « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

by Jon Rappoport

April 28, 2017

It should be obvious to readers who’ve been with me for a while that I attack delusion in more than one place. Political systems, medical systems…and so-called spiritual systems.

That’s because I happen to believe in legitimate limited government, healing, and the unbounded life of the individual spiritual being.

Occult systems, which propose they have a hidden secret at the core, which will be revealed after a long and exhaustive search, are, at best, deluded, because they are concealing CONTENT.

By content, I mean information, knowledge, pattern, some facet of what already exists. This is a dead-end.

There is nothing wrong with truthful information. But….

Suppose we had a secret society called The Inner Core Flame X42. And we sold our members on the idea that, after a series of ascending initiations, they would arrive at the X, the secret of secrets.

Well, what could X be? Some nugget of information, some formula or phrase or fact or made-up fact about existence that is supposed to solve problems and enlighten consciousness.

But consciousness is dynamic. It isn’t a key looking for a lock.

Consciousness is dynamic because it creates. It creates new realities.

It isn’t primarily a container for What Is, for what already exists.

If there is a secret about consciousness, that’s it. IT CREATES.

So no matter what X we cooked up, it would become obsolete, of minor value.

Humans are ripe for buying an X because they are trained, and train themselves, to place the highest value on What Already Exists.

That’s mind control par excellence.

Occult systems deliver what controlled minds expect, and that’s why they’ve flourished. That’s the only reason why.

But there is another way.

When a person sees the “artistic” blow-by-blow creation of these power structures, in progress—rather than the finished product—an entirely new consciousness arises.

“If they can create Reality for me, I can create my own.”

“If they are artists, I can be an artist, too—but in an entirely different direction.”

The Matrix ceases to be a monolith. It is revealed as an ongoing weave, and one can see the process at work.

Then, one’s own insight operates on behalf of liberation.

A person can actually see how he cooperates in the progression of accepting “the weave.”

And he sees other options.

Therefore, as I put together The Matrix Revealed, I made sure to show Matrix as a work in process, an ongoing enterprise, a work of art, as it were, that can be dismantled—as a person takes another road of his own.

This is vital. It transforms victimization into inspiration.

In my work, I was assisted by interviewees who profoundly understood all this.

Source: Occult systems: the trick behind them « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

The free and independent individual « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

By Jon Rappoport

“Now we have a whole army of experts, whose job is to tell you success only comes with you being part of a group. Your status as an individual is transmitted to you through some diabolical portion of your brain that is loaded with false messages. Therefore, give up on the greatest adventure in the world. Take the elevator down to the basement, get off, and join the crowd. That’s where the love is. That’s where your useless courage dissolves into sugar, and the chorus of complaints will be magically transformed into a paradise of the lowest common denominator. Give up the ghost. You’re home. The sun never rises or sets. Nothing changes. The same sameness rules.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Since the 1960s, many people have decided that, in order to create the future they want, they should engage in a certain amount of introspection.

Spiritual or psychological introspection.

I have encountered a large number of such people, who have swung the balance to the point where introspection has become indecision and paralysis.

There are “so many issues to consider.”

Starting in the 1960s, we saw the import of various Eastern philosophies and practices. They arrived here in diluted and distorted forms. They introduced their own versions of “karma” and “balance” and “surrender” and “abdication to the wishes of the universe.”

“If it doesn’t happen, it wasn’t meant to be.”

In the end, it amounts to waiting around in a cosmic station for a train that never arrives.

Or in psychological terms, it is: “I have to resolve my past before I can pursue my future.” “How can I know what I want if I’m trapped in past conflicts?”

The effect of all this was to diminish the potential realm of human action. It was a kind of court case where all the priors of the defendant were allowed into evidence and dominated the verdict.

More recently, another limiter came on to the scene. It is expressed this way: “Now I see through fake reality, I see how reality is being manipulated by the powers-that-be, so what can I do? We’re at the mercy of these forces.”

I could suggest that these vectors were and are an intentional operation, whose purpose is to demoralize the individual and cut him off from his own freedom, independence, and power. And that would be an accurate assessment. But it wouldn’t tell the whole story, for one vital reason:

The individual is the only person who can change his own course. Others can help, but the final decision is his.

That is bedrock.

And here is the superior principle: even if the individual determines that all is hopeless, he should launch his life anyway. Despite all the good reasons to give up, he should ignore all of them and launch his future.

Because if he does that, he soon begins to see his own view change. It’s not the same anymore.

And this is what freedom and independence and power are all about. Bottom line, these qualities are what you take hold of after you know all is hopeless. That’s the acid test.

Every individual, since the dawn of time, has thought himself into smaller and smaller boxes until there is no space left—and then certain individuals, who are spiritual and metaphysical riverboat gamblers, have shoved in all their chips on projecting action in the world anyway…and they revolutionize their destinies.

That’s what some people have called “inequality of outcome.” That’s the basis for it.

We can go even deeper. What is the ultimate purpose of thought and reflection and introspection? Is it to arrive at certain conclusions, after which the thinker (the person) serves those conclusions like a slave? Or is thought itself a process through which ideas then serve the individual and his goals?

It is the latter.

The first great philosopher of the West, Plato, followed the first path. Which is to say, he applied his mind to understand the basis of reality, and he came to the conclusion that there were immortal and pure Ideas that existed in a higher realm, and they were unchangeable. Society, therefore, could only triumph if certain wise men, who could apprehend these Ideas directly, ruled over everyone else. Thus, the freedom and independence and power of open inquiry led to totalitarianism. Freedom led to slavery.

The individual, when all is said and done, is his own ship. However much he may learn about navigation, there comes the moment when he and his ship leave the shore. He explores. He discovers. He invents.

He invents his own future. No matter what.

We would be fools if we didn’t realize that, down through human history, individuals have grasped, for themselves, all these points.

And when the American Republic was invented, these same points were “background.” What were the checks and balances and the separation of powers all about? What was the reason for the enumeration of federal powers and the granting of all other powers to the states and the people? Why was the federal government squeezed at its extremities? Because the free and independent individual was the true coin of the realm. He needed latitude. He needed legal protection, in the best way it could be provided, from arbitrary power.

Otherwise, why bother?

The Constitution was far more than an extension of independence from England. The men who wrote the Articles and the Bill of Rights, and the men who voted for them and ratified them—to now argue for or against their “deeper motives” is, in the end, a distraction from the fact that the Constitution contains ideas that aid the liberation of the free and independent individual.

The ideas still stand.

They are predicated on the notion that these individuals exist and will launch, despite all reasons not to, their own creative desires and make them fact in the world.

Give us your huddled masses yearning to be free. Masses? No. A mass can never be free. And even if a mass can successfully demand freedom, on whom does that bounty then fall? The individual. This is where the buck stops, and no one can change that truth.

There are those who believe a quiet lake is the end of all existence. And then a boat comes along, and the ripples begin spreading. An individual has arrived.

You can be the person looking at the lake, banking on no-action, or you can be in the boat, forwarding your best ideas and visions and dreams, despite all the reasons not to.

Source: The free and independent individual « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

What Chuck Schumer is revealing out in the open « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

By Jon Rappoport

Senator Chuck Schumer on MSNBC: “We’re no longer fact-based. The founding fathers created a country based on fact. We don’t have a fact base. If Breitbart News and the New York Times are regarded with equal credibility, you worry about this democracy.”

First of all, in Schumer’s opening sentence, who is this “we”? There is an implication that the “we” is somehow monolithic and centralized. But people have been in disagreement about facts and what they mean since the dawn of time. People have rejected centralized sources of facts, from kings and queens and priests, to newspapers and television news.

In the same way that 99% of economists assume society must be planned and centralized, Schumer and “the people in power” assume media must operate as a centralized force—as if it’s a natural law.

They just assume it, because until recently, it was the case, it was cozy and easy. But not now. And they’re angry and shocked. They see their foundation of propaganda and mind control slipping away.

You must appreciate how secure they used to feel. It was a cake walk, a picnic in the park. The definition of “fact” was: whatever centralized media said it was. What could be simpler? And to them, that was “democracy.”

Feed the people lies, hide deeper truth, slam dunk.

Then along came independent media.

Boom.

It turned out millions of people were interested.

The cat jumped out of the bag.

I know about this. I’ve been letting cats out of bags since 1982.

That’s longer than some of my readers have been alive.

I also know about censorship, because almost from the beginning of my work as a reporter, I had stories turned down by major media outlets and even alternative outlets. I saw the handwriting on the wall.

Chuck Schumer is echoing what many of his colleagues—and far more powerful people—are worrying about. Their vaunted mouthpieces, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc., are failing. They can’t carry the same old freight with impunity.

So Schumer “worries about the future of democracy.” What he’s actually worried about has nothing to do with democracy, and it certainly has nothing to do with a Republic, which was the form of this nation from the beginning.

Schumer is worried about decentralization.

He’s worried that people are defecting from the authoritarian arrogant Castle of Truth.

And, given his position, he should be worried.

We are at a tipping point. Needless to say—but I will say it—independent media need your support. Your choice about where you obtain your news makes a difference.

Until a few years ago, I never considered that I was relentless. I was just doing my work. But as I saw the counter-efforts of major media, social media, government, Globalists, and other players, as they tried to reassert their primacy, I found a deeper level of commitment. A person can find many reasons to stop what he is doing. Every person eventually realizes that. But will he give in? Or will he decide to keep going? My choice is reflected on these pages, where I write every day.

Many of my colleagues have made the same choice. As for myself, I take the long, long view. Whatever befalls this civilization, the individual survives. He cannot be erased. I know that as surely as I know I am sitting here.

People like Chuck Schumer are living on a foundation of sand. Their power depends on obfuscation and deception and exchanging favors. When they feel the ground shifting under their feet, they growl and accuse and declaim and resort to fake ideals. If they see their con isn’t working and isn’t selling, then they panic.

Which is a good sign.

Many, many years ago, I had a good relationship with a media outlet. Then one day, the man in charge told me I was “positioning myself” outside the scope of his audience. I was speaking to “different people,” and therefore I should “go my own way.” I could tell he wasn’t happy about saying this, because he thought of himself as an independent, but there it was. He was bending to the demands of “his people.” So we parted company.

I was now further “out there” than I had been before. I was “independent of an ‘independent’ media outlet.” It took me about five minutes to see the joke. A good and useful joke.

As the years rolled on, I kept finding myself in a more independent position, which meant I was writing what I wanted to write, and in the process I was discovering deeper levels of what I wanted to write.

Understanding this changed my political view. If I didn’t stand for the free and independent individual, what did I stand for? If I didn’t keep coming back to THAT, what could I come back to?

It made sense to me then, and it makes sense to me now.

This is why I keep writing about collective, the group, the mass, and the generality, those fake representations of life.

The individual is always free, whether he knows it or not. And therefore, he can choose.

This is what the Chuck Schumers of this world vaguely apprehend on the horizon. They can’t believe what they’re seeing; it’s too horrible a prospect. They reject it as a fantasy. A random nightmare.

But it isn’t a random nightmare.

It’s the potential for an open future.

Decentralized.

Alive.

Back from obscurity.

Back from the late 18th century, when the ideas embedded in the Constitution reflected the desire to unleash the free and independent individual and afford him protection from the powers-that-be.

Source: What Chuck Schumer is revealing out in the open « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Cactus Fire Threatening AZ Salt River Wild Horses | Straight from the Horse’s Heart

Source: Cactus Fire Threatening AZ Salt River Wild Horses | Straight from the Horse’s Heart

Ann Coulter UC Berkeley clash reveals massive covert op « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

by Jon Rappoport

April 25, 2017

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter’s scheduled speech at the U of California Berkeley is off, it’s on, it’s been delayed, the student groups sponsoring her appearance are suing the University, she’ll speak indoors, she’ll speak outdoors, and on it goes.

University officials have said they can’t guarantee Coulter’s security, unless, apparently, she gives her speech during the week in the afternoon while most students are studying for their final exams. Why don’t they schedule her talk somewhere in Alaska at three in the morning? That’ll work, and free speech will emerge victorious.

Aside from paid agitators brought in from the outside by George Soros money, the student body at the University is opposed to Coulter speaking, or they’re too passive to care, or they’re too cowed to step up and demand she has the right to air her ideas.

Here is the op: the University bosses have brought all this on themselves. Their claim that they can’t protect Coulter may be true, but that’s because, for decades, professors have been teaching crap and pap and programmatic socialism and various forms of collectivism, and they have purposely neglected the Bill of Rights and individual freedom.

University bosses have been seeding departments with teachers who are so far to the Left they can’t get dressed in the morning without government aid. And the radical Left is all about debate only in the sense that they want to curtail it, shut it down, destroy dissident voices, and thereby save the world.

So naturally, in the fullness of time, students are going to follow suit and get in line. Rational discussion of opposing ideas? Never heard of it. Why in the world would they allow Ann Coulter on campus to spread dangerous thoughts?

Dangerous=someone somehow might start to think on his/her own, against the prevailing tide.

There is no room for this at UC Berkeley.

Behind this buzzing swarming cloud of totalitarian policy, there are, of course, genuine issues students could be investigating. But that must not happen. I’m talking about money, as in: who is sponsoring research projects at Berkeley? Projects related to the war machine; psychiatric “mental health” toxic-drug research; GMO research; and other mega-corporate favorites.

For example, the book, “Engineering and War: Militarism, Ethics, Institutions, Alternatives,” mentions a $70 million program that links no less than 200 US colleges in a Homeland Security program, to establish a DHS “center of excellence.” “Experts” from UC Berkeley are involved. What’s that all about? Colleges all over the US are cooperating and collaborating.

“Well, let’s keep that project quiet. Instead, let’s have students protesting and rioting against free speech. Let’s have them feeling triggered and demanding safe spaces where they can drink hot chocolate and play with model trains and dolls.”

For many decades, US colleges have been feeding from a federal money trench to aid and abet the national security state. That would include expanding surveillance on American citizens, profiling, and various forms of propaganda, for starters. If you factor in DARPA, the research arm of the Pentagon, you would be talking about research on the brain and cutting edge mind control.

But instead, no, don’t look there; keep Ann Coulter from speaking at Berkeley. Save humanity.

As I reported several months ago, 25% of US college students, last year, were diagnosed or treated for a mental disorder. Let’s not have students thinking about that. Let’s not have them thinking about the toxic effects of the psychiatric drugs. No. Let’s not have them realize they’re guinea pigs in an unending op to addle their brains.

Instead, let’s have them keep Ann Coulter from speaking at Berkeley.

And certainly, as colleges and universities across the US raise their tuition and matriculating costs to the sky—BECAUSE the federal government has a deep-pockets student loan program—let’s not make that connection. Instead, let’s saddle college graduates with massive debt.

As they walk off campus for the last time, contemplating their future of trying to pay down that debt, they can congratulate themselves, because they kept Ann Coulter from coming to Berkeley.

And thus saved the world.

“What did you do at college, Daddy?”

“You mean way back when, before I went on Welfare? I kept a fascist from giving a speech. I can’t remember her name now. But she was a threat, believe me. We had guts. It took a few thousand of us to keep her away. There were rumors she was bringing a few tanks and weaponized anthrax with her…”

Source: Ann Coulter UC Berkeley clash reveals massive covert op « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

A Tour Of The Charleston Capitol Market – A Gorgeous Farmers Market Like No Other! – Good Witches Homestead

The beauty, activity and sheer size of the Charleston Capitol Market are simply stunning. Take a tour of this West Virginia showplace.

Source: A Tour Of The Charleston Capitol Market – A Gorgeous Farmers Market Like No Other! – Good Witches Homestead

FDA | Toxins – TheBreakAway

Photo post by @ZyMarquiez.

Source: FDA | Toxins – TheBreakAway

Nestle Paying Next to Nothing to Extract Water from San Bernardino National Forest – TheBreakAway

Source: RT
April 22, 2017

Mike Papantonio is joined by Farron Cousins, Executive Editor of the Trial Lawyer Magazine, to discuss Nestle’s water extraction efforts in the San Bernardino National Forest.

Source: Nestle Paying Next to Nothing to Extract Water from San Bernardino National Forest – TheBreakAway

More Fake News in Nevada about Wild Horses | Straight from the Horse’s Heart

Source: More Fake News in Nevada about Wild Horses | Straight from the Horse’s Heart

Wild horse & burro advocate Bonnie Kohleriter gives her opinion below about an article in Range Magazine written by Rachel Dahl, a sixth generation Nevadan.  Dahl worked as a campaign manager for the former Sen. John Ensign and served on his Senate staff by managing his Carson City office.  (Sen. John Ensign later resigned after an ethics investigation.)

The Queen of Fake News in Nevada

by Bonnie Kohleriter

Rachel Dahl is a writer for the Range magazine in Nevada, a pro cattle magazine, and is a resident in Mesquite, Nevada.

Grabbing a twisted tidbit from here and a twisted bit from there, Rachel Dahl attempts to impress her readers as a journalist. Having read her winter rant in the Range magazine, I feel compelled to retort with the following comments.

As Ms. Dahl reported, in the fall of 2016, at the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board Meeting, the Board did not vote to remove excess horses nor did it vote to sell the animals with no limitations or to euthanize the sick and the aged.  The Board, on the other hand, voted to euthanize 47,000 wild horses and burros in holdings off the range.

The horses, according to Ms. Dahl, are to blame for the ruinous condition of our public lands.  All hope is rested in removing them.  Or is all hope rested in removing cattle from the 27 M acres where the horses only are able to be and allowing cattle to be on the other 155 M acres of our public lands where they are currently.  It is understood cattle grazing on our public lands is a privilege and not a right as some ranchers want the public to believe.  Then, in addition, perhaps all hope is rested in the ranchers not being allowed to divert and cut off water from the horses.  Oh, horrors, Ms. Dahl, that there should be another way to look at managing our resources.

Again as Ms. Dahl reported, in the fall of 1916, the Board spent the day viewing where horses forage and viewing dead horses.  The Board spent the day viewing no dead horses and viewing where horses drink.  Dead horses were dramatically reported by Goicoechea who is a known horse hater and multi-generational cattle rancher.  The devastated land, according to the permittee, was done when overgrazing was done by  animals other than horses and burros and not by the horses themselves.

According to Ms. Dahl, Ben Masters, a member of the Board,  said the viewing that day was “one of the worst disasters he had ever seen.”  Ben is a young man who made a “movie” using Mustangs who were abused in the movie.  It is an absurdity that Ms. Dahl should use him as a source to substantiate her argument that horses have devastated our public lands.  Masters is no expert on our public lands.  He is also new to the wild horse and burro issues on our public lands.

Then Ms. Dahl brought up the name of Boyd Spratling to substantiate her argument as well.  Boyd Spratling had been on the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board and is from Elko, where the Board was currently conferring.  Boyd is primarily a cattle veterinarian, represents cattlemen on the State Agricultural Board, promotes harvesting our wild horses, and presents falsified pictures to tug at the heartstrings to convince the public of those poor, poor horses on the range.  But he can’t tell you where he gets his pictures and the dates they were taken.  Boyd Spratling is a traitor to wild horses and burros.  He does not have their best interests in mind.

Ms. Dahl sounds the alarm wild horses and burros are dying everywhere on the range and in private sanctuaries in Nevada and even in WOW!   South Dakota.  Wild animals die in times of environmental disaster just as humans are dying due drought  and famine in Kenya, South Sudan, and Niger.  Is the answer to kill them?

Ms. Dahl has pulled out all stops to degrade horses using Mrs. Pickens and Mrs. Sussman, who have taken care of wild horses, but have nothing to do with our herd management areas for wild horse and burros on our public lands.  Can she find any other areas in which to attack horses or the people who have and/or care for horses.  Her article is like “Let’s talk about dinner foods, now think about Cheerios.”

“Every ranch kid learns you are responsible for taking care of an animal when you take custody of them,” says Ms. Dahl.  So Ms. Dahl, you are a part of the public who by law, has custody of our wild horses and burros?  Are you simply going to kill them for meat because some ranchers and politicians have manipulated their allowable numbers on the range to be less than genetically viable numbers for perpetuity?  Or are you going to try to come up with solutions for them to keep them on the range as healthy horses, celebrating their place on our public lands as part of our cultural, historical heritage?

Censorship

“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak because a baby can’t chew it.”  – Mark Twain*

Censorship

Source: Censorship