Jon Rappoport
U S -based artist and journalist, currently publishing nomorefakenews.
Page 1 of 1
Far from reality being this oppressive, constant, repeating, conventional consensus of unfolding and unrolling of events, reality can also be a kind of blank canvas on which one can begin to invent whatever, whatever, whatever.
See, the idea is to actually create something. That's what you do. And then you create something else, and you keep creating. And the more you do that, and the more you know that you're doing that, on purpose, things begin to change. Oh yea. They definitely begin to change.
The hidden elite, or elites, beyond the cartels would be those groups, or that group, which institute and maintain, to the degree that it needs to be maintained, the planetary chessboard with its key pieces, that guarantees the success of ebb and flow, and destruction and rebuilding of societies and civilization over and over and over and over again that keeps human beings trapped within the boundaries of that game. And an elite which also functions to instigate and maintain the illusion of the space-time continuum itself. In that case we are talking about an elite or elites which are far beyond the power of the seven cartels to which I often refer.
You can't deny the creative ability of a human being and then go on to say: "We will build a just and good world." Those two plans are incompatible; you can't do it. If there is any esoteric lesson in history, that's the lesson.
A person may ask: Well, how do I get into that state [of creative consciousness]? What do I have to do? What baggage do I have to get rid of? Is this like 8 years of psychoanalysis, or do I have to drop acid, or do I have to stand on my head for 15 years? Do I have to do some sort of a ritual or a ceremony, or do I have to join a cult or become part of some religion, or do I have to go to school and get a degree, or what? Do I have to find a guru in a cave? My basic answer is: You have to understand what the state is, and then you decide that you're going to get in it. And one of the best, sort of, bridges, you might say, to getting in it once you decide you're going to, is by doing something creative.
Now, what about this higher hidden elite or elites, what about it, or them? We get a glimpse of this in organized religion. An organized religion is a sort of sewn-up, finished-off, complete cosmology of the universe at whose apex sits the ruler. Now, this really has little, if anything, to do with one's own personal relationship with what one takes to be God, whatever that may be if it exists for you at all. What organized religion offers instead is a map, a cosmological map, in which there is established a hidden elite that makes the game, that puts the time-space continuum here and keeps it going and adds to the confusion of the ebb and the flow of invented civilizations and destroyed civilizations by somehow insisting that its members undertake certain anti-human activities: cruel crusades, wars, conflicts, efforts to convert the great unwashed and all of that which play such a key role in the history of this planet.
...[O]ver the last fifteen years or so I've interviewed a number of people about these dimensional doorways and have culled from these interviews with people what I take to be the most reliable information. Now there is no one single standard of reliability when you get to a [...] matter like this. It's not like: 'well, uh, you run test A-B-C and if it tests out, then you know that the interviewee is telling you accurate information about this subject.' It's much more subtle than that and it takes in a great number of calculations, I guess you could say, but it's more than just that. To qualify an interviewee on this matter requires a lot of inference, requires a lot of questioning along other lines to sort of test out the person's sanity, so to speak, to begin with, and you get a lot of people that you just don't believe.
You say, well that sounds too simple. Well, I'm sorry. I could dress it up. I could start a 15-year program with a degree, and maybe get accreditation, and make it very complex, and by the end of it people would be more or less in a muddle. And they wouldn't know which end was up – which is the usual strategy for taking something that is true and perverting it to the point where people can't use it, but it uses them. See? That's why I have a dislike, shall we say, for groups of any kind that purport to take these universal truths and release them to the people, when in fact what they're doing is perverting the crystal essence, so to speak, of what these truths are – and wrapping the whole thing in some sort of organizational structure that involves people in such a way that they get embroiled, and the original spark of passion is obscured.
If somebody else is making the rules for you, no matter how good the payoff is for you, you're being conned.
All of the arguments that historians and scholars, teachers and students, enter into are lacking in this dimension that I am giving you, and if they weren't lacking in this dimension, they would being to perceive much more significant questions than their arguments with one another. They would be, for example, considering the periods of history as being bookended by a consciousness that history had ended, and then on the other side a belief that history had begun again, and armed with just those ideas alone one could redo a great, great deal of history.
Page 1 of 1