Potemkin Nation — Potemkin Nation | Ecosophia

There are advantages to learning about history. One of the big ones is that patterns repeat themselves across historical time, and if you know what happened just before other societies went through the important inflection points in their life cycle, you can tolerably often figure out when one of those is abojut to happen in…
Potemkin Nation — Potemkin Nation | Ecosophia

Social Conditioning

Birth of Truth?

Television

The collapse of major media

Collectivist mind control: “save the planet”

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

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