Posts Tagged ‘Power of Myth’

Jon Rappoport ~ The Strange Fear of Symbols

I was about to leave a comment on Jon Rappoport’s site and decided instead to post my (expanded) comment as an intro to his post, published below my comment.

Hi Jon, thanks for this. The abject terror of any “occult” symbols just because some would-be controllers have claimed them as their own and held them hostage is a bizarre thing to observe, indeed. I’ve long advocated that people reclaim co-opted symbols and/or invent their own … but also spend some time studying how people respond to symbols. Although symbols don’t have power in and of themselves, a study of any effective ad campaign or televised ritual (Grammy’s, Olympics, etc.) that produces results would seem to indicate that we can leverage tremendous power with symbols that speak directly to the non-rational mind.

As an artist, I often incorporate symbols into art that I create with specific magical intentions, i.e. intending that the artistic representation takes form in the “real” world. I can’t explain it, and it would sound crazy if I tried; however, the things I paint do directly appear in my own life. But only if I tag them with symbols (especially Runic Code). If I just paint something colorful or imitative, nothing unusual occurs, but if I paint something with layers upon layers of symbols, even without a conscious intention, then I start seeing elements of that painting reflected in “real” life.

I found this dynamic while writing my second novel, too. Whatever situations I’d create for my characters and code with certain symbols (especially Runic associations), the next day I would get calls or emails from new clients experiencing that exact scenario. Most of these plot twists were bizarre and specific, so after awhile, there was no explaining away the new clients as mere coincidence. I also started meeting people who looked like my characters or had their names. My partner, whom I met long after shelving that novel, has two spinster aunts with similar features, body types and personalities to two of my characters who come into their own in the second novel. I actually stopped writing that book until I could figure out a way to stop making it come true in non-fiction life or find a way to advance the plot without conflict and harm to my characters.

As you’ve long noted, the Imagination is more powerful than most people realize. Symbols activate it. I don’t know precisely how, but I’ve experimented a lot because I initially didn’t believe it could be so true. I live in a world of extreme synchronicity anyway, but when I paint symbols into an image with specific intentions, I can count on those intentions coming true in absurd and delightful ways far outside the normal chain of events. Magical rituals utilize symbols for similar reasons. I think of them as shorthand for a whole bunch of intentions and associations whose listing would bog down the creative process. Perhaps witches and artists tune into past life or ancestral associations with those symbols. I don’t know the exact method, but I have experimented and observed enough to know that symbols do carry at least proxy power when activated by our imaginations.

Recognizing our freedom and power to create carries with it a responsibility for that which we create. Exploring and honoring how symbols can aid or thwart that manifestation process involves more than simple superstition. It can become a practical study on the path to wisdom. Reclaiming co-opted tools can tip the scales of this world back in favor of a peaceful, healed and abundant planet. I would call that effective visioning and creation as opposed to “mind control.” If advertisers, propagandists and religions can use symbols to control us, then it only stands to reason that we, too, can use symbols — as tools to heal and liberate ourselves.

The strange fear of symbols
by Jon Rappoport

March 13, 2014

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Groups use symbols.

But symbols have no inherent power.

None.

They have power only when people believe in them. In which case it’s the belief that is the power.

Just as important, symbols have no inherent meaning. They only have the meaning given to them.

So, for example, the famous eye and pyramid mean zero. Zilch. They only have meaning because Masons and other groups have assigned it.

There is no closed secret world of symbols that has magic in it.

There are no universally good symbols or bad symbols. A symbol is a word, term, sign, shape. It’s injected with meaning by a group. The group adopts a consensus about the symbol.

To a surprising degree, people think in terms of symbols. They operate as if they understand what they’re doing, but they don’t. They fear the power of certain symbols and attach themselves to the power of other “good” symbols. They’re hooked.

You could make a picture of a sun emanating three rays and call it Oobladee, and invent a whole mythology around it. You could claim it comes from Atlantis, or a secret society embedded in the old KGB, or an ancient Babylonian priesthood.

And then some people would react when they saw it. They would feel fear or anger or excitement.

It’s a con.

If you took this even further and created a whole set of symbols, dozens of them, and made up meanings for them, and worked with this game, you would eventually experience an interesting kind of liberation. You would see, to a greater extent, how arbitrary symbols are, how people trap themselves in “internal symbolic spaces.”

The whole point of frozen symbols is to enclose consciousness.

Let’s say you devised a picture of an eyeball hovering in a forest. A tear is dropping from the eye. The literal mind is looking for specific meaning. The literal mind wants an answer. It can’t find one.

The eyeball and the forest and the tear don’t add up. They provoke all sorts of associations, but no particular meaning, and the literal mind is frustrated.

So THEN you come along and assign a meaning. You say, “Well, this symbol was painted on masks in 834BC by the ancient Egyptian founders of a cult of pyramid builders. The eye and the tear stand for the tragedy caused by lack of faith in eternal life…”

And so forth and so on.

Now you’ve assigned specific meaning to the symbol. Now the literal mind breathes a sigh of relief. It has an answer. It can suck up that meaning and take it in and accept it. And now you can embellish the story and sell it to the literal mind. You can make that symbol into an object of fear and repulsion, if that’s the reaction you want to provoke in your audience, or you can make the symbol into an object of victory that stands for redemption.

You can twist and turn the symbol any way you want to.

The literal mind wants an answer to the mystery, a solution, and you provided it.

We’re talking about a very primitive form of art. When people operate at this level, buying symbols and their assigned meanings, it’s an indication they can’t appreciate or fathom more complex art.

They can’t read and fathom a novel or watch a stage play. That’s too much. There isn’t a clear one-to-one connecting pipeline between symbol and meaning, and so they’re confused. They’re frustrated.

I remember sitting in a movie theater watching a crime drama. The cops arrested the wrong man and framed him for a killing. A guy sitting next to me blew his top. He started telling his girl friend about how the cops were railroading this suspect and how bad the cops were, how the suspect was a victim of police brutality.

Well, yes. That was, in fact, the whole point of the movie. The movie was showing the audience how the police operated to create a false scenario and frame an innocent man. That’s what the movie was saying.

But this guy couldn’t get to that level. He thought the movie was actually on the cops’ side. He thought the movie was praising the arrest of the wrong man.

The literal mind at work.

In the same way, people accept the meanings that are assigned to symbols, and they react to those meanings in a reflex fashion.

In truth, symbols are open. They have no intrinsic meaning. People can inject any meaning they want to.

But when they’re trapped in a layer of symbolic thinking, they can’t see that. They’re determined to accept the already-assigned meaning and react to it.

Which is an invitation to propagandists.

Worse yet, it’s a fixation that artificially defines the limits of mind.

Symbols form a matrix-shell inside which minds live. Until they don’t.

In case you hadn’t noticed, lunatic school officials have been punishing students for symbols of guns. Pop tart chewed into the shape of a gun. Screen saver showing a picture of a gun. T-shirt with a message supporting the 2nd Amendment.

Then there are widening definitions of so-called hate speech. People want to ban the word “bossy.” They want to take any bland utterance and analyze it for possible “hate content.”

Among other things, this is puerile symbol-addiction.

A story about someone burning an American flag receives far more coverage and more reaction than a statement that the federal government violates the Constitution in a hundred ways.

Presidents are symbols. That is, the public reacts to the meanings broadly assigned to their images. The last time I looked, Americans in Kansas and Ohio weren’t sitting in the Oval Office having long conversations with Presidents.

Neither, I dare say, are Americans sitting down and talking with Satan. They’re reacting to meanings assigned to images of Satan painted by others.

Artists are in a unique position. They can make and unmake symbols at will. They can imbue symbols with meaning and then change the meanings or destroy the symbols. They don’t have to live under the dome of consensus symbols and their assigned meanings.

There are people who will argue that some symbols have “inherent meaning.” As if “the universe” sits around and writes down descriptions in a book, which is irrefutable.

Even if this were true, why do people have to accept those meanings?

Some symbols point to things that actually exist. Other symbols are fabricated with the intent of referring to fictions as if they were real. In both cases, the symbols are cooked and plumped up with meanings to impart a reaction.

I suppose God is the most widespread symbol on Earth. But instead of standing back and allowing the individual to decide what, if anything, it means to him, priest classes move in and organize religions to tell their stories, to embellish and codify the meaning of that symbol. And then to fight and kill to defend it.

Here is the symbol-maker’s proposition: “I’ll give you a symbol and tell you what it means and what it refers to. Then I want you to accept it, yes, but also to imbue it with feeling and awe and power. Give that power to the symbol. Make that investment. It’s your duty. Don’t vary or quibble.”

This is how humans are made into ciphers. This is mind control.

Jon Rappoport
Link to original article

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport ~ The Age of Imagination

In this short, yet powerful piece, Jon explores the important question: “What is freedom for?” He highlights two different responses to myth — the propagandizing of reality and the path of the artist. By embracing individuality and our own power to create, we can generate new worlds. Plural. Amidst the either/or choice of Pollyanna heads-in-the-sand or complete doom-and-gloom, I 100% agree that we have not just one other option, but multitudes of options. “There are no limits on imagination except those imposed by Self.” Brilliant post!

The age of imagination

by Jon Rappoport

March 12, 2014

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

During the 20th century, awareness of human mythmaking grew to enormous proportions.

Looking back, it was obvious that cultures and civilizations had been inventing their own myths, before which they then bowed down.

This insight was then taken in two very different directions.

On the one hand, academics and psychologists drew the inference that all experience and perception were “relative.” That territory was infected by propagandists, whose job was to induce decay into all standards of ethics and morality.

On the other hand, some artists realized the core of the original insight was fantastically bracing and liberating for the faculty of imagination.

As in: imagination creates reality—therefore, use your own and invent your own.

We are living in the middle of that precept. What each one of us chooses to do with it is an open question.

Reality is no longer a given. The tyranny of What Already Exists is gone, should we choose to see that fact.

The catch is, the challenge is, the individual must shift from a passive to active stance.

Passivity includes seeing through various deceptions but then stopping there.

There are no limits on imagination except those imposed by Self.

When the iconography of every organization is viewed as an effort to entrance and entrain minds, the alternative is individual creation.

This can be launched in any field of human endeavor.

It is all art.

Complaints and objections are useless. One either invents or one doesn’t.

Obviously, not everyone is ready for this.

But for those who are, freedom takes on new dimensions. In fact, imagination/invention/creation becomes the core answer to the question, What is freedom for?

The implications are staggering. We are no longer contemplating the future with a query of “what will it look look like,” or “what will it be”? There is no It. The future is wide open. Side by side, many, many individuals will invent novel realities, leading to decentralization of power.

In a sense, we are no longer looking at one universe, but many.

This is the bottom-line reason for the preservation of the twin concepts of The Individual and Freedom.

Jon Rappoport
link to original article

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM 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 emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

What is “Snowden’s secret?”

Yes, I’ve been saying this about Snowden — that people should read the book, “The Key: How to Write Damn Good Fiction Using the Power of Myth.”

As an English Major, it’s so obvious it hurts. Americans have become so myth illiterate, so out of touch with soul that they fall for any advertising or news story that even hints at deeper meaning. Of course, the meanings are all contrived and disempowering, but hey, there’s a hero, a chase scene and a Guardian. The emaciated soul cries out for more GMO high fructose corn syrup laden “heroes with a thousand faces.”

Thanks to Zen Gardner for bringing this article to my attention. I was aware of the Catch 22 references, but Kevin Barrett gives a nice explication. For your reference, I include Merriam-Webster’s definition of “catch 22”:

: a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule ; also : the circumstance or rule that denies a solution
2
a : an illogical, unreasonable, or senseless situation
b : a measure or policy whose effect is the opposite of what was intended
c : a situation presenting two equally undesirable alternatives
3
: a hidden difficulty or means of entrapment : catch

**** They are programming people to give up, to accept the police state.

“They’re trying to kill me,” Yossarian told him calmly.
“No one’s trying to kill you,” Clevinger cried.
“Then why are they shooting at me?” Yossarian asked.
“They’re shooting at everyone,” Clevinger answered. “They’re trying to kill everyone.”
“And what difference does that make?”

Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Hmmmm, where have we heard that line before? 😉

What is “Snowden’s secret?”
by Kevin Barrett, VT Editor, with Press TV

Catch22-214x320

Fifty years before NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden captured the world’s attention, the phrase “Snowden’s secret” was already becoming a talisman of American literature and popular culture.

Yet today, as a real-life Snowden leaks secrets right and left, the media has failed to notice that we’ve heard the phrase “Snowden’s secret” before. Incredible as it seems, “Snowden’s secret” is the culminating revelation of one of the masterpieces of American literature: Joseph Heller’s novel Catch-22, first published in 1961.

Catch22It’s almost as if the deep background to “Snowden’s secret” is being kept secret.

Catch-22 was the greatest antiwar novel of the 1960s – a darkly hilarious marriage of the sensibilities of Mark Twain and Louis-Ferdinand Céline. The story follows the adventures of Yossarian, an American bombardier nearly driven mad by the horrors of World War II and the military-industrial-intelligence bureaucracy.

The themes and events of the novel are tied together by oblique references to “Snowden’s secret.” The brooding, half-crazy Yossarian carries Snowden’s awful secret around in his breast, but it isn’t until the end of the novel that the reader learns what it is. It turns out that Snowden was a member of Yossarian’s bomber crew who was killed in action by shrapnel. Snowden died a terrible death in Yossarian’s arms, his entrails spilling horribly out of his belly.

At the book’s climax, Yossarian, deeply traumatized by Snowden’s awful death, finally explains Snowden’s secret to the reader: “Man was matter, that was Snowden’s secret. Drop him out a window, and he’ll fall. Set fire to him and he’ll burn. Bury him and he’ll rot, like other kinds of garbage. The spirit gone, man is garbage. That was Snowden’s secret. Ripeness was all.”

Pondering “Snowden’s secret” inspires Yossarian to act heroically – by deserting from the US military and thereby refusing to betray his friends to an insane, out-of-control bureaucracy. Yossarian’s courageous act of desertion, inspired by the spilled guts of Snowden, ends the novel on an upbeat note of endless possibility.

Half a century after the publication of Catch-22, a real-life Snowden heroically deserts from the US military (NSA branch), refuses to betray his fellow citizens to an insane, out-of-control bureaucracy, and “spills his guts” to the media. Only this time, there isn’t just one “Snowden’s secret” – there are thousands!

Is this merely a case of life imitating art?

Jimmy Walter, the visionary philanthropist who was driven out of the United States for supporting the 9/11 truth movement, doesn’t believe in coincidences. Like Naomi Wolf, Kevin Ryan, and Webster Tarpley, Walter suspects that “Operation Snowden” may be some sort of inside job.

Here is Jimmy Walter’s interpretation of the uncanny parallels between “Snowden’s secret” in Catch-22, and Snowden’s secrets today:

“Snowden’s death embodies Yossarian’s desire to evade death; by seeing Snowden’s entrails spilling over the plane, he feels that ‘Man was matter, that was Snowden’s secret. Drop him out a window and he’ll fall. Set fire to him and he’ll burn. Bury him and he’ll rot, like other kinds of garbage. The spirit gone, man is garbage.’ The experience on the plane dramatically changes Yossarian’s attitude towards life. He looks only to protect his own life and, to a lesser extent, the lives of his close friends. So the real point of Snowden today is the same as the novel: make people accept that the government is all knowing, all powerful and that it is useless to resist; that is our Snowden’s only victory. If the government continues to do as it always has, who will know? Who will dare tell? Who will give up their family, wealth, life as they now know it to accomplish nothing?”

Naomi Wolf offers a parallel interpretation: “It is actually in the Police State’s interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled, and that awful things happen to people who challenge this.”

9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan – who exposed the cover-up of the controlled demolition of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, was unjustly fired from his job, fought back, yet was completely blacked out of the mainstream media – is understandably suspicious of media darling Edward Snowden: “Presenting documents at a measured rate could be a way to acclimate citizens to painful realities without stirring the public into a panic or a unified response that might actually threaten the status quo. And considering that the number of documents has somehow grown from only thousands to nearly two million, the few insiders could release practically anything, thereby controlling national dialogue on many topics.”

Historian Webster Tarpley points out: “The most obvious characteristic of the limited hangout operative is that he or she immediately becomes the darling of the controlled corporate media… Limited hangouts reveal nothing about big issues like JFK and 9/11.”

In fact, limited hangouts are designed to distract attention from the big issues – and prevent real change.

If, in 1963, the American people had learned that CIA agent George H.W. Bush supervised one of the six shooter-teams that murdered President Kennedy, what would have happened? Bush himself provided the answer to journalist Sara McClendon: “Sarah, if the American people ever find out what we have done, they will chase us down the streets and lynch us.”

If, in 2001, the American people had learned that Vice President Dick Cheney and other top US officials had conspired with Israel to murder almost 3,000 Americans in a false-flag attack on America, even more lynchings would have ensued – and official US policy would have been drastically changed for the better.

If the American people learned that massive, illegal NSA spying on Americans began in March, 2001, and was intended to collect blackmail material on anyone of significance who might oppose the coming 9/11 coup d’état, they would lynch their leaders, destroy their National Security State and exercise their God-given right expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, recently suggested that as the American and British people begin to understand the real nature of the tyranny that has engulfed them, someone is likely to step forward and assassinate top US and British leaders – and be hailed as a hero.

But to rise up and overthrow tyranny requires courage. Specifically, it requires the courage to be willing to die in a just cause.

Consider again the culminating revelation of “Snowden’s secret” from Catch-22: “The spirit gone, man is garbage. That was Snowden’s secret.”

This “secret” can be understood in two ways. One way, the secularist-atheist way, goes like this: “Since the illusions of religion have dissipated, the spirit is gone, and we know this rotten physical life is all there is and death is the end, we should be cowed into submission when our evil rulers threaten to kill us if we rebel.” Snowden skeptics like Jimmy Walter think this is the message the New World Order’s “Operation Snowden” is broadcasting to the American people and the people of the world.

For all I know, Jimmy may be right. That is certainly the New World Order’s message, Snowden or no Snowden. But I prefer to interpret “Snowden’s secret” differently.

As I see it, if the spirit is gone, man IS garbage. It is the spiritual dimension of existence that makes us human and gives us the courage to risk death by fighting back against oppressors.

Edward Snowden may be a saintly man who is risking death to fight oppression. Or maybe not.

But either way, the New World Order tyranny descending on the world – as Edward Snowden once suggested – is not worth living under. We must reclaim the spirit, rediscover our humanity, overcome our fear of death, and risk everything in an all-out effort to overthrow the demonic forces of incipient global tyranny.

THAT is Snowden’s REAL secret. Please pass it on.