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

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

Selling a culture of ignorance to the young « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Sam Cooke: Don’t know much about anything, what a wonderful world

By Jon Rappoport

As my readers know, I’ve been documenting the downfall of education in America for a long time. My basic logic course, contained in my collection, The Matrix Revealed, is one antidote.

Aside from what happens and what doesn’t happen in the classroom, the promotion of a popular culture devoted to glorifying ignorance certainly erodes children’s ambition to learn.

Let’s return to a “more innocent time” to pick up a clue, and a turning point.

Wonderful World, composed by Sam Cooke, Herb Alpert, and Lou Adler, broke on to the scene in 1960. It had legs. Later covers of the tune climbed the charts in 1965 and 1978, and then Cooke’s original performance was resurrected as a hit in 1985 and 1986:

Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book,
Don’t know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be

Just another sentimental popular tune; who cares? No one; except the lyric awoke a vast underlying YES in many hearts.

I don’t know nothin’, but love will carry the day, and the world will be wonderful then.

The obvious message: there is a shortcut to happiness. Learning is beside the point. It’s irrelevant. Just listen, the singer has found the key. He’s basically ignorant, but it doesn’t matter. If he can convince Her to love him, he has the answer the world has been waiting for.

He’s the hero. He’s the example.

Knowledge is just a con. It gets in the way. It creates adults. That’s a horrible fate. Remaining a child wins the prize. Children don’t have to worry. All they need is love. Let’s somehow reduce EVERYTHING to THAT.

As for Sam Cooke himself, well, he began singing with a group when he was six, he later composed a number of hit tunes, he launched his own record label (SAR), he put together his own music publishing company and a talent-management outfit. I don’t know what he knew and didn’t know, but he knew something. He worked tirelessly for years. (At the age of 33, in 1964, he was shot and killed in a Los Angeles motel. The circumstances surrounding his death are in dispute.) Point is, the Cooke who was singing about being ignorant was far from ignorant—as is the case with many performers who convincingly launch childlike sentiments to audiences for mass consumption. But these audiences, enveloped in the “feelings,” rarely bother to consider the source and the intelligence of the source.

Popular culture is a back-and-forth affair. The artist relays a quick dream, and the public buys it, because the dream arouses some latent idea that proposes a shortcut to happiness. An out.

The artist and his handlers are always looking for the fabled hook; the phrase that will pull in the crowd and galvanize their reaction.

Eventually, after years of swimming in pop culture, the tuned-up audience is conditioned to the notion that life’s secret has to be one hook or another. Little else is important.

Certainly, work is not important. Striving is not important. Ambition is not important. One’s own creative impulse is not important. Learning is not important. Those are all dead ends. Instead, something much simpler and easier (and vaguer) has to be the key.

In the realm of politics, there is a carryover. The answer in that arena would be simple, too. Greatest good. Love everybody right now. Kinder, gentler. I feel your pain. It takes a village. No child left behind. Hope and change. Yes we can.

Don’t know much about a science book,
Don’t know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be

If you just took the last three lines of that lyric and eliminated the rest, you’d have…nothing. No hook, no impact. But add the “don’t know” piece, and you’re striking gold. Because the audience of mostly young people wants the “don’t know.” That’s what they’re looking for. A boil-down into the effortless item that allows them to win what they yearn for, by pleading ignorance. Perfect.

Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book,
Don’t know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be
Don’t know much about geography,
Don’t know much trigonometry
Don’t know much about algebra,
Don’t know what a slide rule is for
But I do know that one and one is two,
And if this one could be with you,
What a wonderful world this would be
Now, I don’t claim to be an “A” student,
But I’m tryin’ to be
For maybe by being an “A” student, baby,
I can win your love for me
Don’t know much about history,
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book,
Don’t know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be
History
Biology
Science book
French I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be

I can’t resist tossing off a salute to the Beatles, because if you think Sam Cooke was scraping the bottom of the barrel, his lyric was Shakespearean laid alongside the 1963 Lennon/McCartney offering, I Want to Hold Your Hand. This was not the Beatles of Eleanor Rigby or even Hello, Goodbye. It was the early rocket that set off the first US explosion of Beatlemania.

Get a load of this lyric:

Oh yeah I tell you somethin’
I think you’ll understand
When I say that somethin’
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
Oh please say to me
You’ll let me be your man
And please say to me
You’ll let me hold your hand
Now, let me hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
And when I touch you
I feel happy inside
It’s such a feelin’ that my love
I can’t hide
I can’t hide
I can’t hide
Yeah, you got that somethin’
I think you’ll understand
When I say that somethin’
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
And when I touch you
I feel happy inside
It’s such a feelin’ that my love
I can’t hide
I can’t hide
I can’t hide
Yeah, you got that somethin’
I think you’ll understand
When I feel that somethin’
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand

The single of the song sold five million copies in the US. It was folded into an album, Meet the Beatles!, which soon piled on another 3.5 million sales. The 1960s were off and running.

Nothing would ever be the same.

I’m told the real hook in I Want to Hold Your Hand is the opening phrase: “Oh yeah.” The kids loved it right away.

And if you want culture, you’ve got to go to the kids. They know what’s happening. They’re on the cutting edge…

Of the cliff.

It quickly became apparent to ad agencies, and corporations, and politicians, and media barons, and even the medical cartel, that targeting children was the new Thing. Don’t raise them. No. Bring the adults down to the child’s level.

That was the breakthrough.

The kiddies want what they want when they want it.

Convert society into a diaper-dream.

Hawk that dream from Norway to the southern tip of Argentina.

Buttress it with psychological clap-trap.

Call it, I don’t know, something like…

Utopia.

Yes, that’ll work.

As long as no one THINKS.

Oh yeah.

If you reduce the English language to the level of the two songs I’ve presented here, why would children in school want anything more?

They already believe they know the secret of life.

And if the “secret” doesn’t deliver the goods, it’s an easy step for the children to then consider themselves victims.

After that, the trip downhill happens quickly.

Source: Selling a culture of ignorance to the young « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

The “dependent victim” psy-op « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

By Jon Rappoport

“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.

Source: The “dependent victim” psy-op « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Conformity – TheBreakAway

“Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.” – John F. Kennedy

Source: Conformity – TheBreakAway

The secret creation of false worlds « Outside the Reality Machine

By Jon Rappoport

Potemkin Village: “a pretentiously showy or imposing façade intended to mask or divert attention from an embarrassing or shabby fact or condition. Origin of Potemkin village…after Prince Potëmkin, who allegedly had villages of cardboard constructed for [Russian Empress] Catherine II’s visit to the Ukraine and the Crimea in 1787.”  (Dictionary.com)

A decade ago, I began making notes for a novel.  Its focus was the CIA—but a greatly expanded version of the Agency.

One of my central characters was Arthyr Meriden, former Agency director.  I started writing quotes penned by Meriden during his long career.

Here I present a few of those quotes.

Whether the reader regards them as pure speculative fiction or metaphors describing actual manipulations of reality—they open the door to a wider and deeper understanding of how reality is shaped.  The question is: how far does that shaping/control extend?

Is it only political, or is it also in some sense metaphysical?  Multi-dimensional?

“Suppose one side sets up a truly massive amount of false information, to let it be stolen or intercepted?  I’m talking about whole slices of reality.  We can literally builds worlds of data to be carried off in the middle of the night by our enemy.  We can make these assemblies of information so huge that few people would doubt their veracity.  Suppose both sides are doing this?  Creating and stealing.  Sooner or later, we might think we’re working with the truth.  And the labyrinth would be complete.”  (Arthyr Meriden)

“Look at the intelligence business.  You have two basic things.  A process of discovery, and the thing you want to discover.  Simple.  You aim in a certain direction, and you apply all your skills.  But suppose what you’re seeking turns out to be an artifact?  Wouldn’t that be useful for your enemy?  Suppose he could construct a whole world of false information.  Information that interlocks and connects internally.  And suppose, unknown to you, that is the target you’re seeking.”  (Arthyr Meriden)

“Both sides have built Potemkin Villages of information.  And as both sides penetrate each other’s Village, they obtain feedback, and they use that feedback to mount still other operations, and so on and so forth.  What’s the result?  Towering misinformation.  I would even call it an unintended art form.  Potemkin Villages of feeling, of false certainty.  Something from nothing.  Two sides changing the experience of each other, at a deep core.  It would give birth to a composite, hybrid world that wasn’t there before.  A world composed of layer upon layer of intelligence operations that never had a basis in fact.  Executed by both sides.  Think of it this way.  Two people sit in a room and have a conversation about their lives.  Both people are inventing lives they never had.  Everything is improvised. Everything is false.  But the conversation goes on, and out of it comes shared experience.  Does it really matter that they’re lying?”  (Arthyr Meriden)

“Once upon a time in the West, the Roman Church held sway.  Then there was breakaway Protestantism.  They were both arguing about Potemkin Villages of doctrine.   But there you just had two basic sides.  The level of information, like water in a river, was rather low.  But by now, with all the succeeding breakaway religions, the water is spilling over the banks.  It’s a boiling flood.  You go back to the source and you find an artifact.  It was all built up from nothing, really.”  (Arthyr Meriden)

“I could give you some important names.  Each one of these names has been a target of a deep investigation, inside our agency, spanning years.  I originally made up those names.  They don’t exist.  They’ve been entered into the equation without anyone noticing.  The world has folded itself around them.  If they were removed, various pieces of the world would go with them.”  (Arthyr Meriden)

“You can’t know the feeling of creating a labyrinth unless you do it yourself.  I did.  Thereby, I gave people something to do, something they jumped into with an intensity they’d never known before.  What is a life without searching, without complexity, without that fire?  I would say history itself is a Potemkin creation.”  (Arthyr Meriden)

Source: The secret creation of false worlds « Outside the Reality Machine

Why do you read this blog? « Outside the Reality Machine

By Jon Rappoport

 

I’m making a few assumptions.

 

You have your own idea about what “the reality machine” is.  It may not be a perfectly formed idea, but it’s there, and you know there’s something very important and interesting about what sits outside that machine.  You know the machine has something to do with imposed limitations on the mind.  You think about offloading those limitations.

 

You consider the possibility that imagination is relevant to what sits outside the reality machine.  Imagination isn’t preoccupied with what already exists in the world or in the mind.  That’s a clue.  Imagination journeys into untapped realms.  You wonder about just how powerful imagination can be.

 

In the course of your life, you’ve had moments when limitations went away.  How and why that happened may not be clear, but the experiences were vivid, and you can still remember some of them.  The clouds parted.  The gates opened.

 

And what I keep saying, in one way or another, is: imagination is the key.  It’s the key to offloading limitations.

 

That’s because imagination doesn’t care about repeating, over and over, what is already known and understood and perceived.  That repetition doesn’t disclose what sits outside the machine.

 

To exit the environs of the machine, you need to deploy the faculty you’ve always had, the faculty that never goes away, the faculty that leads you into unexplored territory.  It’s not enough to “try to change what you perceive,” in order to see beyond the machine.  You need to invent.

 

Imagine. […]

The entire article at the Source: Why do you read this blog? « Outside the Reality Machine

Plato’s Cave

I love the parable of Plato’s Cave. It shows just how long the controllers of this world have had a vice on our minds. Plato died in 348 BCE. If he was writing about it in his lifetime, it had to have been going on quite some time before that. He says that the people in this cave do not desire to leave their prison; for they know no better life. The people who are enlightened or have “woken up”, understand what this story is all about.

Plato begins by saying “Imagine a cave where people have been imprisoned since birth”. Right off the bat Plato is pointing to the human race. He says the prisoners are chained so they can only look forward. Here he is showing how from the time of birth we are told what to think and how to think. The chains are the chains on the mind. The people behind the prisoners put on a puppet show. This is a perfect analogy for what even goes on today. Television makes it so much easier for the leaders of this world to put their puppet show on. Make no mistake, that is exactly what it is, a puppet show for the masses. The prisoners naming the things before them is showing that this goes on in every culture. What one culture may call a game soccer, another culture will call it football. Plato says “The truth to the prisoners would be nothing more than the shadows of the puppets”. Just like today, the truth to people is only what they are told by our puppet show masters.

Read the rest of this great article at the Source: Plato’s Cave

Freedom Of My Mind …

Photo post.

Source: ♠♠♠