from JonRappoport Website





Jack True was

one of the most innovative hypnotherapists of our time.

Largely unknown in academic circles, uninterested in publishing his work, Jack focused on his patients.

We met in 1987. We became friends and colleagues.

Over the course of several years, I interviewed him many times. Jack eventually gave up on straight

hypnosis-and-suggestion as a way to do therapy.

He said, "Iím finding that people who come to my office are already in a hypnotic state,

so my job is to wake them up."

Jon Rappoport






by Jon Rappoport
January 14, 2012

from JonRappoport Website


Since Iíve written hundreds of articles that attempt to stimulate imagination, Iíve had to take into account the resistance - many people pretending theyíre simply "the audience." They watch. They keep their distance. They enjoy the show.

If they think I might be writing about them, they deflect the message like a matador.

In some strange way, the reflex to deflect keeps the universe in the condition of status quo.

Because, think about it. What would happen if a few billion people, on this planet alone, woke up one morning galvanized by their imaginations to such a degree that they began to create new realities at an unprecedented rate?

Life would never be the same.

To personify what I mean by status quo, itís as if a deal were taking place, under the table, between humans and the universe. "Weíll pretend imagination doesnít exist, and you, universe, keep us enchanted by things as they are."

Hopefully, you understand that Iím talking about magic here - or the lack of it.

Almost all discussions of mind control, programming, operant conditioning never visit this territory, where the really big-time programming lives.

Well, what is this conditioning? What is its nature?

After many years of considering these questions, my answer is simple. Itís resistance. Thatís the beginning and end of it. I know, it sounds too simple.

There must be a complex structure involved. In fact, humans would be drawn to a structure like that. Fascinated, absorbed. They would sign up in droves to study it. Why? Because it would constitute yet another deflection. It would allow them to wriggle off the hook.

Iíll offer you another considered conclusion. Even if there were such a structure, whose purpose was to keep people from exercising their imaginations to the fullest, once that system was probed, understood, and eradicated, humans would remain in limbo. They would still be one step from creating new realities - just as they are now.

In another context, with a different implied meaning, T.S. Eliot famously wrote,

"We shall not cease from exploration/and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."

Remove all the supposed programming, and weíre really where we started, but in this case we donít know the place for the first time, we donít know very much more than we did. Weíre rather bewildered, like the institutionalized person who looks at the open door to his cell one day and doesnít step beyond it.

Because the resistance is still there.

The word "will" has been pretty much removed from the modern vocabulary.

"He doesnít have the will to do the work."

Weíre taught there are layers and layers of social, psychological, and political factors that separate a person from acting on an idea. And all these factors must be addressed.

You want operant conditioning? There it is: the deleting of the idea of will behind an avalanche of fake knowledge.

To live through and by imagination is a choice, taken or not taken in freedom. Thatís the short and long of it, and no amount of complaining will change the situation.

To put it another way, resistance is not a thing that sits in the mind like a solid object. It is a generalized description of a person saying NO. It really refers to a refusal to act.

People ask,

"But why does the person say no. Why does he refuse?"

They hope to find a mechanism which, if corrected, will turn the no into a yes. In words, a revolution achieved passively.

"Sir, just sit here and weíll insert this needle and remove the obstruction and then everything will change."


It doesnít work that way.

Hereís another picture.


All the refusals, over time, tend to pile up into a glob. If you could peel them away, one by one, you wouldnít have curtailed the ongoing decision to refuse, you would have merely taken off some incidental debris surrounding it.




Thatís the background for a conversation I had in the late 1980s with my friend and colleague, Jack True, the most innovative hypnotherapist Iíve ever encountered.


In this interview, I touch on the beginnings of the Magic Theater:


Q (Rappoport): Just give me your response to this: a person can say YES or NO.

A (Jack): Yes isnít necessarily better than no. It depends on the situation.

Q: Are they both pure choices?

A: What else could they be?

Q: The result of habit? The result of long chains of cause and effect?

A: Yeah, sure, you could analyze it that way, but then youíd miss the point.

Q: Which is?

A: Take this kind of thing. "Shah ousted. The president refuses to send troops to Iran." People assume the president has a choice. They donít say, "The president couldnít send troops, because when he was a small boy, his father punished him for shooting a water pistol at a neighbor." (laughs)

Q: Heís accountable for his decisions.

A: Yes. And heís free to make those decisions either way. So is everyone.

Q: We have mountains of "psychological research" that deny that.

A: Yeah, well, we have mountains of research that say the universe started with an explosion. So?

Q: Freedom exists.

A: If not, what are we doing here?

Q: Why are we talking at all?

A: Right.

Q: You can lead a patient to water, but you canít make him drink.

A: No. I make him drink.

Q: How?

A: I find an avenue thatís clear and I send him down that avenue.

Q: Not sure I understand.

A: I find a channel along which he can use his imagination, and I can get him to do it, because itís fairly easy for him.

Q: You give him a taste of whatís that like.

A: Many tastes.

Q: Which takes ingenuity.

A: I have a fair amount of that.

Q: For instance, you have patients invent dreams.

A: Theyíre used to dreaming. They know what it is. So I can tip the scale a little and get them to create dreams they never had. But if I had a patient who told me he never dreamed, Iíd find another way.

Q: Suppose you have a patient who digs in his heels and says he doesnít want to use his imagination at all?

A: Thatís the "no." He makes his free choice.

Q: Why does he choose "no?"

A: Why? Because he prefers "no" in this case, just like he prefers to eat fish rather than spinach. He prefers the city to the country. I take him at his word.

Q: So if he doesnít want to invent anything, you leave him alone?

A: Hell no. I trick him.

Q: How?

A: Maybe he makes furniture in his garage. So we talk about that, and I have him speculate about what kind of furniture he might make. New things. I get him going in that direction. And finally I say, "Well, suppose you were dreaming about furniture? What kind of crazy thing might you see in the dream?" And he starts talking about a chair with six legs. Whatever. Or he has a problem with his boss. And I ask him what heíd really like to say to the boss and that develops into a little role playing.

Q: You play the boss and he plays himself.

A: Sure. Iíve done that. So heís making it up. And I lead him into new places. As the boss, Iíll suddenly say, "You know, I have this project I want to get you involved with. I need you to spy on a few people who wormed their way into the company.


Theyíre plants from our competitor." And that might work. Weíd be off and running. He says he doesnít want to use his imagination, but heís doing it. I play out that string as long as I can. I had a guy, we ended up talking about missions to another solar system, and he was the cook on the ship.

Q: Theater.

A: Yeah.

Q: Any roles are possible. I like it.

A: No limits on that.

Q: I could play a president and you could play the sap rising in a tree in March.

A: Why not?

Q: Iíve always admired Psychodrama. But Iíve wanted to extend the range of possible roles.

A: Well, with any psychologist, that range tends to be limited, because youíre thinking about direct therapy. You want to choose roles that seem relevant to the patientís problems.

Q: But thatís not necessary. Maybe the wilder the roles, the better.

A: As long as the patients is imagining and inventing, why not?

Q: I once had a dream where I saw these poles in the ground. It was as if I was looking at the universe. It was a huge space with poles in the ground. Thatís all it was. The poles were sunk very deep in the ground. The idea was, this is the pattern. This is where things are placed. Itís fixed. It doesnít change its basic structure. That was the feeling.

A: But if you start playing all sorts of roles, the pattern does change.

Q: Thatís right.

A: Well, thatís what I do with patients. They have a kind of fixed firmament.


So instead of trying to pry one pole out of the ground so we can move it, I just have the patient invent. I get him to invent dreams he never had, and the pattern shifts. Things that were fixed become mobile. And when that happens, the system he has starts to disintegrate. Itís like moving an iceberg.


Do you get behind it and push with your hands, or do you go to the root? The root is, a person has a pattern of ideas and feelings, and he keeps it in place. I have him imagine other things, and after a while the pattern moves. It breaks apart.

Q: How did you figure this out?

A: Well, partly through conversations you and I have had about painting. Also, from Psychodrama. And initially from old Tibetan techniques. They were all about imagination.

Q: This isnít hypnotism.

A: Itís reverse hypnosis.

Q: Meaning?

A: I once had a patient, a business type. An executive. He was always falling asleep at his desk. It was like a sickness for him. Thatís how he saw it. And I told him flat-out that he was trying to have a dream, and that was what was going on. He was trying to dream something, and he couldnít get to it.


We talked about that for a long time. But then it occurred to me that he was in a sort of waking trance. He was, every day, succumbing to a little bit of that trance. So I put him in a light trance, in my office, and I tried to find where that thing was coming from. I tried to locate the "state of hypnosis" he was in. And I couldnít.


So I had him invent a few dreams. And he was off like a rocket, making up dreams. It was pretty powerful. We did this for six or seven sessions, and after that he wasnít falling asleep at work anymore. The change was quite remarkable.

Q: What conclusion did you come to?

A: He had been in a waking trance at work because he was in a basic trance, a more basic trance.

Q: I donít get it.

A: He was in a trance "about imagination." He was putting himself in a trance so he wouldnít use his imagination.

Q: Oh.

A: Thatís the granddaddy of all trances, you see? A person puts himself in a trance as a way of saying no to his own imagination. And in this patientís case, he would literally fall asleep. So when I had him invent dreams, he went right with his imagination, and he woke up. He didnít need that waking trance anymore.

Q: Youíre saying everybody is in that trance.

A: You bet. Thatís what weíre dealing with here. Thatís planet Earth.

Q: So peopleĖ

A: Look, you talk to people about their imagination, and most of the time they draw a blank. They donít think youíre talking about anything important. See? They say, "Yeah, well, thatís interesting, but I have to get back to folding napkins."


Or moving pieces of paper around on their desks. You could give that guy speed and heíd seem to wake up, but he wouldnít really know what to do. He wouldnít start imagining and inventing like crazy, because heís still saying no to that.

A person pretends, on some level, that all this business about imagination doesnít mean much at all. But actually itís very, very big. The trance heís in is all about not using his imagination. Thatís how he says no. He falls asleep. He walks around, but heís asleep. Heís asleep IN A PARTICULAR WAY.


He asleep when it comes to imagination. Which means heís asleep when it comes to the core of existence!

Q: Imagination.

A: Yeah. Reality is whatís left over when a person doesnít use his imagination in a powerful way.

Q: So if you had him play the role of God and you played the role of Merlin, something might trigger him to wake up.

A: Theater is waking up if you do it right. I had a patient who wanted to be a choreographer in the worst way. She was a secretary but she wanted to be a choreographer. So with her, it was a straight line. I had her imagine all sorts of dances. You know, programs. Performances. Fragments of ballets.


And eventually, she became a choreographer. I used desire as the way in. Her desire. Because it was right there, in the open. I used her desire to get her to use her imagination, and eventually all the barriers fell. See, other people would say I tapped into her desire to be something different in her life. But that wasnít it. I used her desire to get her to use her imagination. And that was the key.


Once she was rolling with that, she woke up. She woke up from the trance. She was saying no to her own imagination, and I helped her turn that no into a yes. Sounds corny, but that was it. It wasnít faked. It was real.

Q: How long did it take?

A: Six months.

Q: But you didnít undo any programming.

A: What programming? Her refusal to invent? I donít give a damn about programming or conditioning. Iím not trying to undo anything. Iím not trying to do surgery. Iím not trying to pick things apart.

Q: Why not?

A: My boy, you and I could sit here and make up thousands of quite sophisticated patterns or systems of programming. We could invent all sorts of crap that supposedly resides in consciousness that keeps a person from imagining and inventing. We could speculate and assume and presume.


We could play the roles of brain researchers or whatever. But in my experience, thereís NOTHING THERE. There isnít any programming. Not really. Not when it comes to imagination. You either imagine or you donít imagine. My job is to get people to imagine. Iím deviously clever about it. Iím a genius at getting people to go out on some road of imagining.

Q: If we wrote a book about the whole pattern of consciousness that keeps people from imaginingĖ

A: If we did that, if we made it all up, weíd have people drooling to learn about it. Theyíd come out of the woodwork. Theyíd pay good money to learn all about why theyíre screwed. People LOVE that. But it wouldnít amount to anything. The whole idea is much simpler than that. You either imagine or you donít. And my job is to get them to imagine.

Q: Not just in little drips and drops.


End of interview



by Jon Rappoport
October 29, 2011

from JonRappoport Website


Here is another interview with my late friend and colleague, Jack True, innovative hypnotherapist and philosopher.

Twenty-three years after the conversation, Iíve written an introduction to it:


Over years and decades, Iíve watched religions and quasi-religions spring up and flourish and disappear.


Iíve watched some of them become hard and nasty. Little dictatorships. Iíve watched people, overnight, drop into fundamentalism.


The clothes, the hair, the slogans. Iíve watched spiritual movements soften and spread out into the culture like attenuated marshmallow, hypnotizing their followers into believing in imminent apocalypse.


The "good kind." Space aliens. The Force. Gaia. The Universe.

"And a Prophet will arise among you."

The eulogies for Steve Jobs testify to the love of his products. Iím trying to figure out what the weeping was all about. The inconsolable weeping.

So let me speak as a representative of the Stone Age.

I donít own a cell phone or a laptop. I work at a sturdy three-piece block that sits on my desk and doesnít go anywhere. I donít know who manufactured it and I donít care. I wrote my first book, AIDS INC. - Scandal of the Century, on a portable typewriter in 1987.


The manuscript, chapter by chapter, was retyped by my publisher on what he called a word processor. I wrote The Secret Behind Secret Societies on an ancient computer. The screen was black and the letters were orange. The floppy disks were converted to little hard discs by Dave.

But when I was 22, in 1960, something new hit the scene. Audio cassettes and cassette recorders. Until then, it was all reel to reel. The shift to cassettes was rather astonishing, because you could carry around a little machine and record people. You could interview them. You could tape (badly) their music. (Much later, when I did hours and hours of lectures for my San Diego publisher, I would sit at my desk at home with a cassette fieldpack and a mike and talk.)

No one at the time (1960) went RELIGIOUS over audio cassettes. There were no armies of geeks who publicly celebrated the change and made Prophecies about the Dawn of a New Future.

The first time I had an inkling that people were taken with the technology itself was 1977, when a friend told me jazz musician Joe Zawinul had a little inexpensive tape set-up he used to record himself playing piano at home, and the sound quality was professional.

I asked my friend if heíd heard any of these home recordings. Was it good music? He scratched his head. Of course he hadnít heard them. But that wasnít the point, he said. The point was you could establish a home studio for very little money. I persisted in thinking the music was what was important. Thatís my fetish.

I had reacted to stereo the same way, when it first came in. The idea that the sounds of different instruments were channeled into separate speakers seemed like a bad idea. In clubs, I had never heard music that way. Rather, it came at me like a wall of sound. Thatís what I was used to.


And surround-sound was particularly absurd, because who cared about hearing music moving in from behind? Ditto for headphones. I didnít like them. They produced sound in a space I didnít care about. For me, the music (live) was always coming from a bandstand and traveling to me on a line. Even if that was actually an illusion, given the placement of speakers in the club, it was the way I conceived it.

Messianic prophets, of course, have been touting Digital as the awakening of mass salvation. The machines and the programming are what counts.

And this machine worship is somehow tied in with the popularity of the equipment, as if we have proof, by the degree of consumer demand, that weíre indeed entering into a new age.

A movie called The Social Network arrives on the scene. Itís hailed as a masterpiece, a "reflection of the enormous changes the culture is experiencing."


Changes in what direction? Is the fact that a billion people can announce their existence to "friends" achieving some sort of instant magic? Are we supposed to celebrate the arrival of a boy billionaire? Is the praise for Mark Zuckerbergís work any different from the kind of admiration ladled on the earlier breakthrough in creating the Barbie Doll series?

Does consumer demand automatically make a product vital and wonderful and even spiritual?

Think about how this demand (audience response) operates in the area of politics/mediaĖ

"Well, Joe, I think he handled the press conference well. He said all the right things. He didnít make it appear he was reading from a script. The Independent voters out there are going to like this."

In other words, it doesnít really matter what the pol actually stands for. It only matters that the broad audience will like how he said what he said.

And so a product like Facebook is judged solely in terms of how consumers react to it. If they love it, itís an innovation. Itís satisfied a hunger. It must be brilliant. More than that, it must be heraldic. It must be a step forward in the evolution of the species. It might even be from God.

"Zuckerberg knew what the public wanted before the public knew. That was his genius."

As if, what else could genius be about? You see a hole in the market, you develop a product, you sell it into that hole.

"Well, thatís all IQ has ever been. Even a guy like Einstein - he knew the world was ready for some kind of relativity, so he put together a theory and sold it."

And the iPad. Itís wonderful because people want what it allows them to do? Before it appeared, people didnít realize how much theyíd love it? But then, there it was, and it struck a universal chord? And therefore, itís automatically AMAZING?

So if the Roman Church has a billion members, that means the Pope is a tremendous person? The Pilgrimage to Mecca is good because millions and millions of people make it?

"No, no, no! You donít get it! All these devices give us multiple options for instant global communication. We can reach out anywhere in milliseconds!"

Yes, I agree. Itís good. But that does mean people should actually weep when Steve Jobs dies?

Should we place flowers on the grave of the inventor of the Walkman?

Iím just pointing out that times have changed. Larger numbers of people have developed a deep cosmic love for machines. (Star Wars, 1977, sparked a profound passion for two of them.)

When walking talking robots come along and serve your needs in the home and at work, address you by name, anticipate what youíll want in the next five minutes, youíll cry when theyíre superseded by the newer model. Youíll bury them in the backyard next to the dog. Youíll hang their photos above the mantle. Youíll see a shrink to work out the issue of their passing.

Some of you.

And when the man or woman who invented that robot dies, youíll stand outside their building and light candles. Youíll agitate for a national holiday. Youíll watch the funeral on whatever television looks like then. Youíll store holograms of this inventor next to your bed, and youíll activate them on occasion before going to sleep.

And people will say,

"That saint knew what we wanted before we did. Thatís what made him so great. Thatís real greatness."

Churches will spring up.

"The very meaning of what a thing is, is measured solely by how many people want it."

And as usual, the actual art involved in inventing those robots will be overlooked. Because people will say such talent remains a mystery locked in the genes of a very few. They will say the rest of us are merely ordinary folk who have no imagination at all.

But not to worry. We can put our picture up on a page and list our interests and recount our activities of the day and share them with other people who have the same interests. This is our miracle. This is our reward and our basic hunger, and we can feed it.


Look no further!

Thousands, millions of little boys and girls will grow up who spend their every waking hour calculating the sizes of audiences. This many people attended that historic concert or that Super Bowl or that post-election speech or the launch of that product or that religious convocation or that parade. To them, the events themselves will mean absolutely nothing.


And when these little boys and girls grow up, theyíll find a career which allows them to do marketing. Marketing will be metaphysics. It will describe and explain the universe as well as it can be explained.

And many robots will serve them. The marketers will be the most important people in the world. The search for meaning will have reached an apotheosis.

"If X is a person, place, thing, or event, what IS it? Its existence is identical with however many people express praise for it. It is nothing else, and it never was. All prior formulations were in error. Persons, places, things, and events are not composed of anything. They donít exist at all, except insofar as other people like them, love them, want them."

From which two corollaries flow:

It doesnít matter why people want an X or to what use they put it.
And that X which is most wanted is automatically the most important thing in the world.

Doll, fertilizer, dog, applesauce, cigarette, Facebook, nail polish, the Bible, burger, slavery, iPad, Moses, brain implant, ice, microwave, heroin, ice cream - whatever emerges from the pack with the largest audience is THE FINAL AND PROFOUND MEANING OF VALUE.


In this formulation, people donít really have anything in their souls except what they want to own. And the main item they pass back and forth to one another is that preference. A few billion people pass, back and forth: I LIKE THIS, I DONíT LIKE THAT. And what most people like, whatever that is, must have been invented by a transcendent genius.

Facebook and iPad. Their inventors have to be Prophets, right? Not just smart, not just clever.

I donít know. If I have to pick a messiah out of the marketplace, Iím going with the guy who invented the belt for pants. Or the shoe. Or the garage. Maybe the shovel.

Iím weeping for the passing of the guy who came up with the concept of haircuts. Thatís my church. Why not?

Maybe itís too many people who took too many drugs. I donít know. But I look at an iPad and I remain unmoved. Yes, I know itís smart. Very smart, okay? It can play music but it doesnít invent music, right?

By the way, if you think the revolution in Egypt was started by a hundred "student intellectuals" in Cairo cafes working Facebook, you need more drugs. Or fewer drugs.

So thatís my shot from The Stone Age.

And yes, I know Iím typing this on a computer, and I can post it in seconds, and it can travel around the world in a few minutes, and thatís pretty terrific. I know that. But Iím not thinking "revelation" or "iPhone in the heavens" or "the new Jerusalem."

Iím not sitting on the floor of my living room building a hill out of dirt and debris, mimicking the place where the Mothership will land and make Contact.

Okay. Thatís the introduction - hereís the interview with Jack True.

Q (Jon): People seem to be taken with discovering ultimates. I mean, they want toĖ

A (Jack): They want to escape from themselves and meet up with the Cosmic Radio Station.

Q: The what?

A: You know. It broadcasts information and wisdom at the same time. And the wisdom has this fantastic quality to enter into the brain and mind and transform them.

Q: Like a drug.

A: Well, yes.

Q: So this is what people are looking for.

A: All the time. Theyíre putting out SOS signals and waiting for a response from the aether.

Q: Itís like the wrap-up of a story.

A: Exactly. Theyíre looking for the end of the story. Itís just like television. Suppose, all of a sudden, all the dramas on TV were shown - for, say, a month - with all the endings chopped out. People would riot in the streets. Theyíd attack the White House. Theyíd burn down cities.

Q: Got to have the end.

A: Absolutely. Write a story without an ending and people will say youíre subversive. It must be scheme to take over the world.

Q: You see this in your patients?

A: Sure. They think, at first, that Iím the end of their story. Iím the one who will write the conclusion. In the old days, when I was doing standard hypnosis, I had a patient who was all screwed up because he had a story wedged into his subconscious about a war. I wonít go into all the detail, but I used to find plot lines floating around in peopleís skulls.


These stories came out under hypnosis. They didnít necessarily have anything to do with the patientsí lives. They were just there. And this one was about a weird war. And it had no ending. The patient didnít know which side won. (laughs)

Q: Weird.

A: Very. But I was used to that kind of thing. So I had the guy make up a dozen or so endings to the war. Just cook them up. And the story drifted away and didnít mean anything anymore. But I use that illustration to show you how important endings can be to people. Ending equals Ultimate. Theyíre essentially the same thing. "How does it end? I have to know."

Q: With an Ultimate, the person has to know and he has to possess it himself. He has to be there and live it.

A: And of course, that ending has to vector in from Somewhere Else. You see?


Thatís what magic is to most people. Itís the ending that floats in from the aether. The final illumination and enlightenment. The funny thing is, people will grab on to almost anything. The culture gives it to them. The culture could give them cookies and milk and theyíd take it, as long as enough people accepted cookies and milk as an Ultimate.


Thatís all it takes. Other people accepting it. Cookies and milk. A king with divine right. A new car. A trip to Italy. A climb up a mountain where a lost city once existed. Doesnít matter.

Q: People are very keen on "the latest trends," when it comes to Ultimates.

A: Yeah, thatís what I mean. The legitimacy of the Ultimate derives from the fact that other people, lots of other people buy it. A guy writes an article about a shaman in the jungles of South America who says the Rain is coming.


And this Rain will be the last thing that happens - and after that, weíll all experience The Great Change and that will be the ending. See? And that article gets repeated over and over, until it becomes a Prophecy. And lots of people are talking about it. Attributing special symbolic importance to it.


And then some person in Atlanta hears about the Rain from twelve of his friends, and he says, "This is what Iíve been looking for. The Rain. This is the ending Iíve been seeking." Heís got to have an ending. So he grabs this one.

Q: Because, if he didnít have an ending?

A: He would be on his own. He doesnít like that. He doesnít have the wherewithal to figure out what to do then. He doesnít see himself as a person with extraordinary resources, so he doesnít know where to start, where to dig in.

Q: So thatís where the Big Audience is.

A: Hell yes. If you want to build a big audience, give them endings. Narrow it down to One. The Ending. Teach it, preach it. The enslavement of the whole world. Even that could be an ending. It sounds awful, but at least itís an Ultimate.


See? People will grab that. Iím not talking about whether such an enslavement is actually going to happen. Doesnít matter. Sell it anyway. Youíll have an audience. Anything that smells like an ending - theyíll grab it. Their psychology demands it. Their conditioning demands it. Theyíve got to have an ending.

Q: What about The New Future?

A: Yes, that works. On one level, it sounds like a non-ending, but to the mind it tends to register like an ending. To a lot of minds. Because The Future comes across like a fait accompli. "From that moment on, when the future arrives, everything will be different. Weíll all be in a different space. Weíll know what we need to know."


Even freedom can work that way, if itís twisted in the right way. People will think of freedom as an ending because they donít think about action. They think about possession, as in owning something. "I own freedom." Therefore, everything is okay. They have that abstract idea called freedom - itís given to them on a silver platter, and then thatís the ending. A complete delusion.

Q: I suppose security and protection can work that way, too.

A: Sure. More endings. "When the State has all the means necessary to protect me, Iíll be in a safe cocoon, and then Iíll be fine. Iíll be an Ultimate." Itís very, very, very shortsighted, of course, but a mind can buy that.




Hereís another one. "Technology will save us." What the hell does that mean? How in the world is technology, all on its own, going to save anybody?

Q: Itís a totem

A: Itís transplanting a very old idea on to a new thing. The technology is new, and the idea of Pagan Illumination or Tribal Apotheosis or whatever you want to call it is grafted on to that. The technology buffs see themselves as a kind of special tribe - mostly, I think, because they want to believe they have a "primitive kind of strength."


Itís just like kids who buy caps with the logo of their favorite sports team on it. But in this case, the technology crowd Ėa lot of them - come from a cerebral background. They didnít play sports. They want to seem rough and tough in some way, so they love this idea that theyíre in a tribe, a clan, with special powers. It is like rubbing a totem or an amulet.


And they build this up in their minds, and then they think itís their Ultimate - theyíre members of the Tribe who will take the rest of us into the Promised Land. Theyíre the muscle-minded leaders. Theyíre really the ones whoíll take us into Outer Space.

Q: The technology tribe.

A: I had a patient who was trying to bring me into one of his groups of friends.


See, I would be the "mind specialist." I would be the guy who had all sorts of wise things to say about the power of the mind. I opted out, of course. I didnít want to have anything to do with it. Besides, this guy had a boatload of problems with his wife. He needed some serious help. He had gone into marriage thinking it was the Ultimate that would end all his problems.


And he found out he couldnít talk to his wife at all. He was tongue-tied. When he came to me, he thought I would put him in a trance and make some suggestions to him, and then heíd wake up and all his problems would be solved. It took me a few months just to convince him that wouldnít work.

Q: Why wouldnít it work?

A: Because a person isnít a machine. Despite all evidence to the contrary (laughs), a human being is alive. These technology people have all sorts of naÔve ideas.

Q: So what did you do with him?

A: I put him in a very light trance, and I had him invent lots of dreams about his wife. Situations that would never occur in ordinary life. He came up with space voyages and trips into underground cities and so on. I mean, LOTS of dreams. This went on for many sessions. And then something happened to him. He began to see he could talk to his wife - about what was most important to him.


He was in love with the idea of going out into space. So began to talk to her about that. She was very relieved that he talking at all. She listened. And then, gradually, she opened up to him. And it went from there. He was staggered to discover that they could talk about things.

Q: Did you know it would turn out that way?

A: I had a hunch and I followed it. A lot of people are afraid of what happens on a day to day basis.

Q: What do you mean?

A: They think if they just give in to living every day, something bad will happen. So they look for an Ultimate. But the Ultimate can be injected into the every-day reality and transmute it. Completely transform it. And when that happens, the Ultimate turns into something else. Not just a Final Principle, but a path into action. Thatís the test.

Q: Whatís the test?

A: Take the most profound thing you think, and inject it into your life. See what happens to it then. Maybe it collapses and falls apart. Maybe it canít stand up to the every-day. But maybe you find what youíre looking for. You get a platform for real exploration. Let me give you a negative example. Youíve got all these military and intelligence people playing around with computers.


After a while, because computers process information, these people think theyíve got their hands on something mystical. Pieces of information, run through machines - they see that as mystical.


Because theyíre buffered off from life. They live in compounds. They get weird. They play their games and they think theyíre approaching some sort of religious revelation that will give them the power to control everything with information and the machines that process information. They think that "everything is information." See, thatís an Ultimate.


But these people, as I say, are living an artificial existence. They never really get to test that theory in real life. They have no real life they can just walk into. Everything for them is military. They think that there is a sum total of pieces of information, and if they can build big enough computers, they can run the sum total and something like "God" will come out the other end and theyíll have it.


But information is just information. It isnít naturally imbued with power or life or the kind of subjective slant that can give a person leverage for his future. And neither will the sum of information. No matter how big the sum is.

Q: The same thing is true about technology in general.

A: Yes. I mean, you can become much more facile when you have better technology. But weíve all known facile people. What do they get in the end? Nothing. You need more than facility.

Q: So what are we supposed to do? Strip away technology and strip away all that facility from people?

A: Canít do that. Doing all this work with patients, Iíve learned you canít do "surgery." You canít remove the things that are bothering people. You certainly canít remove things people think they must have. You canít take that away. Even if you could, it wouldnít do any good.


You have to establish a setting in which they discover, for themselves, other options, other ways of living and being. When I have people, for example, in a light trance and I have them invent many dreams, all sorts of dreams, thatís whatís happening. The accretion of other possibilities. It bleeds into their consciousness.


Sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. You take a horse whoís spent many years dragging a carriage around, with a bit and harness, and you put him out into a field, heíll slowly realize he has space. And one day, heíll trot, and then heíll run. Heíll start running. Heíll get to that. Well, with a human being, there isnít just one thing heíll do. Heís not just destined to realize one thing he was built for.


A human has all sorts of choices. But heíll come to them, and heíll make a choice, given enough time and enough space.

Q: And enough invention.

A: Yeah. When I have a person inventing dreams, thatís the elixir. Thatís the thing that opens up the spaces. Many spaces. Thatís what pulls the trigger on transformation. In the absence of invention, people will reach for some sort of unmoving Ultimate, because thatís all they can see.

Q: But youíre not against technology.

A: Of course not. You think I want to live without a light bulb or a refrigerator? I like technology. I want to see the human race get out into space in a big way.


But if the love of technology becomes an Ultimate, I think weíll lose the necessary will. Weíll mess around with lesser technical things. We wonít see the need and the adventure on the big stage. Weíll bog down. Going into deep space is about us, not the machines. Itís destiny for us, not the machines.


If you asked people whether theyíd rather have a little device they could put on the roof of their car that would move around and wash and wax the car and crawl under the hood on its own and check the oil - or a real rocket ship that would take ten people to the middle of the galaxy, I donít knowÖI think a majority of people would rather have the little thing for the car.


And if ten companies made those little machines for the car, and if people talked to each other about the relative benefits of the little machines - you see how we can get caught up in technology as the main subject, when itís just an adjective hanging from us and OUR future.

Q: The Church of the Robot.

A: Yeah, thatís coming, too. "I named my robot Lulu. Whatís your robotís name?" "Mike. Can Lulu make dinner in less than ten minutes from scratch?"




by Jon Rappoport
October 26, 2011

from JonRappoport Website


Here is another interview (from 1991) with my late friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True. Iíve been publishing these conversations for years now.

If this is first time youíve read one, youíre in for a treat. Jack was a magnificent thinker and practitioner. He never tried to talk down to people. He let fly with his deepest insights, no matter how revolutionary or complex.


He always laid it all on the line.

Q (Rappoport): What was it you were saying before we sat down?

A (Jack True): The major fact of our time is that there are large numbers of people who have freed themselves from the prison of ideologies and fundamentalisms. They just donít know where to go next. At some level of mind, theyíre considering magic.

Q: The basic confusion surrounding this subject [magic] hasnít been well articulated. It comes down to a question: is magic a space you enter, or is it something you create?

A: You just said a mouthful. Letís get to that later. Meanwhile, I want to talk about experiences Iíve had with patients.

Q: Go ahead.

A: With a surprising number of people, under hypnosis, we find that they already have a picture of the future.

Q: Their own future?

A: Well, yes, but itís more than that. They have a vision of the future of the planet.

Q: You mean an opinion about the future?

A: No. This is much bigger than that. Itís as if the whole future, like a big chunk of reality, is just sitting there, in their subconscious. They had no idea it was there until they bumped into it.

Q: Like a -

A: Like a whole novel. A book. The future. It feels to them like precognition. Itís knowledge about what hasnít happened yet.

Q: Really.

A: Yes.

Q: Each one has a "book" about the future? Each book is different?

A: See, if we suppose that somewhere there is a record of past, present, and future, what some people call, for example, the Akashic Records, whatís the assumption?

Q: What do you mean?

A: Whatís the common assumption about what these records reveal?

Q: You tell me.

A: The assumption is these future events are laid out, theyíre described, theyíre revealed. You know, THIS will happen, and then THAT will happen.

Q: Well, sure.

A: No. Something is wrong with that. I think people have been misinterpreting what the Akashic Records are all about. Theyíre taking too narrow a view. Theyíre looking through narrow filters.

Q: And if you take off the filters?

A: You see hundreds of different equally-convincing futures sitting there, side by side. Thatís whatís in the Records. Not just one future. And what Iím saying isÖ

Q: The exact same situation is mirrored in your patients.

A: You bet. Exactly. In other words, the Akashic Records are reallydistributed in the subconscious mind of people. Thatís where they are. Itís a whole vast library.

Q: Keep going.

A: This is the hard part. You have to be there with a patient, when heís under hypnosis, to see and experience and feel how CONVINCING his "book of the future" is. Itís quite fantastic. It isnít some little dribbling thing about whatís going to happen fifty years from now. Itís titanic. Itís as if you came across a whole block of hidden treasure in the patientís subconscious. There it is, undisturbed, in a cave. No dust on it. Itís pristine and very detailed. And when the patient describes it, it just rolls out. Itís a river of information.

Q: Thatís pretty spectacular.

A: Hereís what Iíve found with some patients. Theyíre already living in the "book of the future" thatís in their subconscious. They already have a role in that future.

Q: Even though theyíre here and nowÖ

A: Theyíre acting in the present according to their role in the future. It sounds weird, I know. But thatís whatís happening.

Q: That would make a person pretty maladjusted.

A: Yes and no. No, because the power of that "future role" is so strong, they are acting in the present to bring about that future. Thatís what theyíre doing.

Q: But they have no idea theyíre doing it.

A: None. Theyíre totally in the dark. Until they get a look at the future book in their subconscious. Then everything changes for them. Then they open their eyes.

Q: Itís funny, youíre turning the traditional view of psychology on its head.

A: Yes. Supposedly, whatís happened to you in the past has a tremendous influence on how you act in the present. What Iím saying is, the future thatís embedded in your subconscious is a much stronger influence on how you act in the present.

Q: Itís as if a person has been cast in a stage play thatís going to take place in the future.

A: Yes, letís say the play is going to take place four hundred years in the future. But you start acting out that role right now.

Q: So the present is the sum total of all futures?

A: (laughs) Yeah. Thatís what I was getting to. The present moment in Earth history is the sum total or average of all the futures that are embedded in peopleís subconscious.

Q: All right. What happens when a person becomes aware he has a whole future embedded in his subconscious mind?

A: He recovers power.

Q: Just like that.

A: When he sees what that future is, a tremendous amount of energy is suddenly available to him. How can I put this? Itís as if he has this 5000-piece orchestra in his mind. He doesnít know that, all right? But heís a trumpet player in that orchestra. Thatís his future role. And in one way or another, perhaps symbolically, heís acting out that role in the present, right now. But because he canít hear the whole orchestra, he doesnít feel the overall power. Then, under hypnosis, he finds the orchestra. He hears the whole thing. NOW the power of that transfers to him.

Q: And what does he do with that power?

A: Yes. Thatís the key question. The answer is, he has to create with it. Thereís nothing else he can do with it. Thatís what the power is for. Here is the catch, the important thing. Now thatís heís seen the future embedded in his mind, for the first time, he has a choice. He can use that power to create anything he wants to. Itís up to him.

Q: So in hypnosis, you give people the experience of power.

A: Thatís what Iím doing. That power is magic. And to answer the question you posed, at the beginning, about what magic is, itís not about entering into a space of magic. Itís really about creating.

Q: Creating magic.

A: With that power. Yes.

Q: The history of Western philosophy had three basic phases. The first episode was taken up in depicting What Exists as a final Reality. Metaphysics. The second episode shifted the focus to the investigation of how we perceive and know. Epistemology. And the third phase, which has barely begun, involves imagination and creative power - in other words, inventing that which has never existed before.

A: I would agree with that. Creating is magic.

Q: Extraordinary talents and so-called paranormal abilities are actually offshoots of imagination?

A: Talent, which seems to be a native and natural phenomenon, is created by the individual below the threshold of his own conscious mind.

Q: Why does the individual create talent he canít remember creating?

A: (laughs) He wants to be a human being who can do extraordinary things. He doesnít want to step out of the shadows and reveal himself as a magician. Here is the real question: what do you do when you are imagining and creating enough of unique reality that it glides past the eyes of others like a silent and invisible train?

Q: You see the need to bring others to perceive the level at which youíre creating.

A: Maybe so. Because if you are creating magic, you will run into many, many, many people who are blind to that. They wonít see it. They just wonít see it.

Q: Letís get back to this "book of the future" in a personís mind. Any idea where that comes from?

A: I think so, yes. In one sense, and you have to look at this from several points of viewÖin one sense, the "book" is basically a long-term creation by the person himself, out of bits and pieces.

Q: It doesnít come down from some "higher power."

A: The higher power belongs to the person. But I would go further. In some sense, the person has already been to the future.

Q: Explain that.

A: Itís hard to put it into words. Itís more than [the person having] an opinion about the future. Itís more than [the person engaging in] mere prediction. Itís that, plus other factors. Itís supernatural or paranormal, for lack of better terms. The person has already been there. Heís been to the future. Heís gone beyond where itís supposed to be possible to go. Itís not just seeing. Itís more like traveling. Itís a combination of creating and traveling.

Q: Thatís pretty far-out.

A: Consciousness can travel. Consciousness isnít bounded. It can go anywhere. But we assume that isnít so. We live by other rules.

Q: What do you mean by that last sentence?

A: Weíre invested in a picture of reality. In that picture, certain things are possible and certain things arenít. We bought stock in a restricted picture of reality.

Q: Why?

A: Well, I could give all sorts of answers to that question. It depends on what level we are looking at.

Q: Level of consciousness?

A: Yes. Consciousness doesnít necessarily see a limited picture of reality as a negative thing. It sees it as an opportunity. A configuration, if you will. Youíre a painter. You can paint on a tiny canvas or a huge one. Both have their advantages. Do you see? Weíre able to have different and unique kinds of experiences within this picture of reality that weíve bought. We have different options.


Even though weíre living inside this picture of reality, itís an infinity. There are an infinity of things we can do. Itís just, you might say, a different infinity of things than what we could do inside a much larger picture of reality.

Q: So youíre saying that, inside this picture of reality weíve bought, magic isnít supposed to be possible.

A: Iím sort of saying that, yes. The extreme boundaries [of this picture of reality] are fuzzy. But you see, there are rules and then there are Rules with a capital R. Theyíre different.

Q: How so?

A: Rules with a big RÖthat would be a final kind of judgment rendered by some external higher power. That would be, "No, you canít do magic in this sphere [picture of reality]." Thatís not what I mean. Thatís not the case. We set our own rules. We bought our own picture of reality, this reality, and we set the standards and rules. So we can break them. Itís possible. Itís going against the grain, but so what? We can do that.

Q: Itís like undoing a habit?

A: Yes. For example, we have the habit of stashing what we canít create or are not supposed to create - where do we stash it? In the future. Thatís where we can put all the things we donít do inside this picture of reality.

Q: Which creates a kind of longing.

A: Yes.

Q: A nostalgia for the future.

A: Right.

Q: And wouldnít you say that, at this point in the history of Earth culture, that longing is increasing?

A: I would. So we have a collective force that is building up for the magic that we have put in the future. That desire is growing.

Q: In that sense, then, the limited picture of reality weíve invested in is expanding?

A: Yes. The more important sense of "expanding universe"Öthis is what it is.

Q: Can this picture of reality expand to the breaking point?

A: Thatís what I see.

Q: Weíve had enough.

A: Weíre tired of it. Weíre fed up.

Q: Thatís a natural outcome?

A: Oh yes. I would say it is.

Q: Because when I look at the history of the arts, thatís what I see there. The trend, for some time, has been in the direction of cracking apart the old picture.

A: Sure. I would agree. But you see, in that process, you need people who can understand what, for example, the arts are doing.

Q: Meaning what?

A: You can have, say, a hundred thousand people who are breaking apart the old picture, but what happens ifÖlet me put this another way. When you break apart the old picture, youíre changing the modes of perception. That goes along with the breakthrough. Youíre actually speaking another kind of language, one that has different meanings. And those meanings donít exist inside the old picture of reality. This is crucial to understand.

Q: Youíre saying that, in order to keep existing inside the old picture, you have to restrict the field or the range of meaning.

A: Absolutely. You see? Inside the picture, you can express a whole range of meanings, but if you go outside that range, it doesnít compute. It doesnít get across. Thatís one way you actually hold the restricted picture together. You restrict the range of expressions and things that MEAN SOMETHING. People limit their comprehension of meaning. So if you come along and start talking with meanings that go outside the accepted range, people scratch their heads and shrug and say they donít understand.

Q: As an analogy, itís like the light spectrum.

A: Right. We limit the range of what we can see. So if someone comes along and shows us a wave-length that isnít in the so-called visible spectrum and says, look at this, we say there is nothing there.

Q: Itís the same thing with meaning.

A: Yes. We have languages that, by their structure, permit a certain "territory" of meaning. Itís big. But it isnít everything. Not by a long shot. And as long as we hold on to these languages for dear life, weíre going to claim we have a monopoly on all possible meaning.

Q: And therefore weíre going to harden the structure of the picture of reality weíve bought into.

A: Yes. Itís that structure thatís weakening. People are accepting meanings that are borderline. Theyíre stretching their comprehension.

Q: Everything weíre talking about here has the ring of a state of hypnosis.

A: Itís programming at deep levels.

Q: Self-inflicted.

A: Thatís what many people find the hardest to accept - that theyíre hypnotizing themselves.

Q: Hypnotizing themselves into believing that MEANING can only exist within a narrow framework. And everything else is complete gibberish.

A: Thatís called society. Civilization. Thatís what you get as the collective outcome. Thatís why people will sign up for going out and trying to expand various empires through conquest. Because essentially, theyíll blame everything else under the sun for the programming theyíve inflicted on themselves. Of course, itís all done on an unconscious level.

Q: Itís been my contention that consciousness creates more consciousness, and in that sense, existence is dynamic. There is no such thing as a "final" state of consciousness.

A: Thatís a very fertile area. Youíre going against the idea that there is an ultimate reality.

Q: Thatís right. Whether you look at reality as something external to us or internal to our state of consciousness, there is no final place where you wind up and discover youíve reached the destination.

A: Every experience Iíve had with patients tells me the same thing. And what weíve been discussing here - pictures of reality - that also confirms it for me.

Q: We buy this picture of reality, because living inside it, we can create more and new consciousness, consciousness that never existed before.

A: Every reality affords the same opportunity. People have the wrong idea about infinity. They say, for example, that there is a state of infinite consciousness - but you see, thatís really like saying you have all the consciousness there is to have. Thatís not so. You never have it all, because you create it, and creation has no limit.

Q: Infinite consciousness isnít like some gigantic coat you can slip on. It doesnít already exist.

A: No. We keep creating it.

Q: This limited picture of reality we live in - how long can it last?

A: As long as we want it to.

Q: But the individual doesnít have to wait for everyone else to break out. He can exit from the picture.

A: Sure. But other people wonít necessarily understand heís escaped.

Q: Because other people are still loyal to all the restrictions theyíve programmed into themselves.

A: Itís a tug of war. Old meaning versus new meaning. Science, for all its advances, is still basically married to old meaning. Old ways of formulating language.

Q: Old meaning has a kind of structure.

A: It gives birth to many structures, but they all obey the same old rules. They may be fascinating and instructive, but they still obey the old rules that say, "THIS means something, but THAT is meaningless."

Q: I remember a philosophical text called The Meaning of Meaning. It was actually about literary criticism. IA Richards.

A: You can actually analyze "old meaning" and see something about it how operates. For instance, if words describe what exists in the physical world, those words mean something.


If you have a sentence that has a subject, verb, and object, the sentence probably means something. But if you have a sentence that obscures or erases the distinction between subject, object, and verb, then that is often called "meaningless." When you stop and think about it, though, why? Why canít we understand and comprehend outside that linguistic structure?


The answer is simple. Weíve HEAVILY programmed ourselves NOT to understand anything outside that structure. Weíre ABSOLUTELY sure itís meaningless. Thatís how good the programming is.

Q: So there is a major connection between magic and language.

A: Language, as we usually accept it, is built to rule out magic.

Q: The language we use rules out many possible relationships between things.

A: It also rules out the KINDS of relationships that are possible. See, letís take this example. A man looks at a radio on a table and he focuses on it, and it rises three feet into the air. Most people would say, if there was no trick involved, that was magic. But itís still within the realm of subject, verb, and object. We may not believe the event happened, but we understand what it means.


But there is another level of magic, where the basic relationships of subject, verb, and object are gone. New kinds of relationships enter in. We donít have words in our language to describe those relationships. So we donít see them. Theyíre invisible. This would be magic that is invisible to us.

Q: Based on different kinds of relationships.

A: Right.

Q: Then we have people who attempt to explain mysteries by claiming that things we already know about are the cause of that mystery. Like genes.

A: Sure. These scientists try to make their speculations into respectable theories. Theyíll say that all human behavior is explainable by genes. You have a gene for this and a gene for that.

Q: There is, for example, theyíll say, a gene for imagination.

A: Imagination is a mystery to them. They want to explain it away. So they claim a gene controls it. Language does the same sort of thing. It attempts to reduce mysteries down to relationships weíre programmed to accept, relationships weíre familiar with. But in the process, it misses the magic completely.

Q: You actually see this kind of programming in your patients?

A: All the time. You just have to want to find it. Iím NOT talking about making hypnotic suggestions to people to guide them where you want them to go. All I do is use hypnosis to put them in a light trance where they can focus more clearly. Then we nose around in the interior landscape. We see whatís there. Patients encounter their own programming. They encounterÖitís not exactly RULESÖitís more like cardinal illustrations of the kinds of relationships that are meaningfulÖitís almost like looking at the simple grammar of our language.

Q: But you donít try to dismantle that programming, do you?

A: Why should I? That would be like saying we should all destroy the English language. Ridiculous. That would be like saying that, in order to teach a person to fly, you lead him out on a cliff, and then you blow up the cliff under him, and then heíll fly. No, you use the cliff as a platform, and then one way or another, you figure out a way to fly off the cliff into the sky.

Q: Well, if you look at the history of poetry, thatís what you see. Poets who use the language to keep stretching "the meaning of meaning." The expansion of meaning and possible relationships between things.

A: Which is why imagination is magic.

Q: I would say that on this planet, imagination is just getting started.

A: I agree. My new experimental ideas about therapy are all in that direction. Getting people to invent realities.

Q: Whereas society is moving in the direction of turning out androids.

A: Societies always do that. Itís their bread and butter. They create Reality Soldiers. People dedicated to the picture of reality weíre living in. Itís the organizing principle.

Q: There are lots of names for that.

A: Doesnít matter what you call it. Itís the same pattern. Youíre trying to organize people. It works up to a certain point, and then it doesnít work anymore. The already limited picture of reality shrinks. It becomes a pressure on the psyche, and the psyche wants to break out.

Q: But people always think that when they break out, theyíre going to find a super-reality sitting behind ordinary reality.

A: Well, basically, when you break out, you donít find ultimate reality. You find youíre the reality. Which makes absolutely no sense at all unless youíre creating. Youíre the center, and you create.

Q: For many people, thatís an idea they donít understand.

A: For them, itís an invisible idea. It goes right by them, and they donít notice it.

Q: There are lots of smart people who try to use the limited picture of reality to explain itself.

A: If I understand what you mean, thatís like asking an elephant to describe his digestive processes. But let me take that ball and run with it.


There are sociologists and psychologists and futurists and computer types, information analysts, who try to make predictions about the future based on the concept that events and people are in a meaningful flux. They document trends. They see what seem to be random occurrences as moving toward a meeting place, where they will combine to produce an important change.


They factor in all sorts of aspects, from earthquakes and weather to population shifts, to the innovation of new technology, to political developments, to what is happening in markets, and so on - all these factors - and then they make their predictions.

Q: They believe in Pattern.

A: Well, thatís the whole point. They believe the background context of the picture of reality contains moving parts that conspire to produce change, sometimes momentous change. They might not admit it, but they think the conspiracy of these moving parts is inherent in reality itself.


They, the researchers, are searching out these relevant moving parts, and theyíre pretending to see how the flux is coming to a place where the parts collide and make something very important happen. Whatís significant is that these people are smart, theyíre in good jobs, theyíre listened to, and they constitute a kind of elite.


They are opinion leaders, you might say. Everyone thinks theyíre a "new intelligentsia." This is the supposed cutting edge of knowledge. Itís a cultural phenomenon that these futurists have risen to the top of the heap. Hereís what is basically happening: by assuming that there IS some inherent pattern in the ways things work in this picture of reality, by assuming that this pattern comes together at certain moments to produce THE FUTURE, we have a new class of people who are, actually, RE-ENFORCING THE PICTURE OF REALITY WEíRE ALL LIVING IN.


While other people are breaking apart the picture, these futurists are shoring it up. And I think youíre going to see a lot more from these so-called expertsÖbecause the Reality Soldiers are becoming more desperate. They feel the ground rumbling under their feet. They sense that the cluster of Old Meaning is breaking apart and new meanings are leaking in.


They donít want that to happen, so theyíre floating a spurious science of prediction, theyíre claiming that the picture of reality can tell us "all about reality"Öbut that is a sham. Itís not true.

Q: Fake science is being invented all over the place to cement in the old picture of limited reality. The dam is breaking, and these people are trying to patch it up.

A: Yes. You can see that everywhere. For example, in the area you cover as a reporter, health and medicine, the old picture is disintegrating. People are realizing that disease can be best understood by taking into account the whole body, not just one piece here and one piece there.


And if you take into account the whole body and the whole person, the picture of reality gets bigger, and what passed for correct assessment in the past is outmoded. This is viewed as a threat. So researchers keep inventing fake diseases and mental disorders to try to keep the old picture in place. And theyíre failing. I think thatís also true on a larger scale.


I hope weíre going to see extremes of new meaning leaking in all over. Then weíll see some magic.





by Jon Rappoport
October 22, 2011

from JonRappoport Website


Here is another interview with Jack True, my late friend and colleague, hypnotherapist extraordinaire.

This conversation contributed to the eventual creation of the Magic Theater.

Q (Jon): Talk about the word "identity."

A (Jack): Itís a poor word, a lousy word, a deceptive word, a meaningless word - because it seems to encompass the whole individual. If a patient "loses his identity," heís got nothing left. Heís in a vacuum. Thatís nonsense. He doesnít lose his identity. I prefer "role." There are many roles. You can pick one and act it out, and if you donít like it, you can throw it away and pick another one. There is no "identity." Itís a phony word, in this context.

Q: So in hypnotherapy, you donít fool around with "identity."

A: Of course not. I sometimes present a stage, a theater, though. Itís a space where the patient can picture anything he wants to. Itís open. It invites creative action. It has characters on it. Not mine, the patientís. A stage gives you real experience.

Q: An example?

A: The patient invents a scene. Letís say he puts a mother up there arguing with her son. Drama. Then, a few stragglers show up and mill around. Then, a tiger walks out on the stage and starts talking.

Q: A tiger?

A: Sure, why not? You have something against tigers? He talks about his life, or he talks about the price of coffee, or he talks about the mother and the son. Iím not doing any of this, you understand? Iím not making any suggestions. The patient is. He fleshing out the scene. Some remarkable things happen. Often, itís fun. The patient feels liberated. He can populate a stage with characters.

Q: Sounds a little like Psychodrama.

A: Yes, but you see, the patient picks the roles. And there is no way to know why. Or what connections exist to him, if any. Itís wide open. Just like existence. Why hem it in. We have whole universes to play with. Once I had a man who staged a whole Central American revolution on stage, in his imagination. As I recall it was secretly bankrolled by Coca Cola. He was laughing much of the time. He had CIA people moving in and out, KGB, Chinese spies, ETs. It was like a Bosch painting reworked by Groucho Marx. At the next session, he told me heíd just had the happiest week of his life.

Q: Opening up things.

A: Of course. Thatís the whole point. You invent characters and you have them talk to each other and do things to each other. I picture it as a kind of tinker-toy set expanding out of the mind. A set of characters.


Itís the change from mono-theme, which is the setting of the mind under usual circumstances, one theme, one attitude, one circle of emotions you play over and over - you extend mind with characters popping out all over the place. You theatricalize the mind, and the mind seems to want that, seems to have been waiting for it.

Q: The word "mono-theme." That strikes me as very important.

A: Well, thatís what mind tends to do, see. It takes one central viewpoint and everything comes out from there. Itís like the mouth of a trumpet. All the music comes out there. Mono-sound. And then, and this is the revolution, you change that. Instead, the person invents characters, roles. All sorts of roles. Any roles. King, peasant, slacker, alien, ant, fly, tiger, tree that talks, rock that talks, sky, a cloud, a piece of gold, whatever. And there is no formula for picking these roles.

Q: Now, is the patient under hypnosis when he does this?

A: Heís in a light trance, which is to say heís relaxed, he isnít thinking about ordinary stuff.. Heís in an easy frame of mind. But Iím not making any suggestions to him then. Iím not telling him what stage to invent or what characters to choose. None of that.

Q: Youíre making basic assumptions about reality?

A: Damn right I am. Iím assuming that people live in a shrunken reality, much narrower than they want. But there they are. And this is a problem. You might say it is THE problem. From it flow all sorts of difficulties.


So Iím setting the stage for people to open up that narrow reality. Iím encouraging that tendency. Iím opening the windows so more light and air can come in. Look at it this way. A guy goes into his garage and sees his old hopeless car. Lots of things wrong with it. He fixes this, he fixes that, he hopes the car will last. He tries to hold on to that car for as long as he can. So what is he thinking about? The one car. The only car.


But instead, I introduce him to another garage in which there are 100 cars. Bang. Everything changes. Well, this is the mind. It tends to focus on a limited number of things. It works those things over, and eventually the mind feels there is a cloud of a problem looming overhead. Why? For no other reason than it is focusing on a very limited number of things, possibilities, ideas.


The things themselves really arenít the problem, although the person certainly thinks so. No. The problem is the narrow focusing. The constant massaging of the same material, the same old stuff. Over and over. So I open all that up. I set the stage so the person can imagine and invent 30 new things. On a stage. Characters interacting.


Some characters stay, others disappear. It doesnít matter. Nobodyís keeping score. No rules.

Q: At first, this seems counter-intuitive.

A: Yeah, because the person has the habit of massaging six things in his mind over and over. But then the light dawns. He can invent characters, personae, roles. He can do it. He can do it without concern for plot or story or tight definition. He can just do it willy-nilly.

Q: So his mind relaxes.

A: It relaxes and it becomes more active, more adventurous, more imaginative. The patient feels this happening.

Q: From problem-consciousness to creative consciousness.

A: Yeah.

Q: Is reduction ever the answer?

A: Sure, if youíre engraving somebodyís name on a plaque. You concentrate on that and nothing else. But generally speaking, no. Some people suggest that if you can reduce thought and mind to zero youíll be fine. Better than fine. Well, letís say you could do that.


Then what? Sooner or later youíre going to have to create. Youíre going to want to create. And thatís where reduction doesnít work. Youíll create one thing and one thing only? No. Create widely, with energy. The political destination of the power elite in this world is reductionism as a philosophy. But not for themselves.


For everyone else. Itís a con. Itís a game wherein they try to convince people to shrink. As if shrinking is the answer. Shrinking is never the answer. Shrinking creates the apparent necessity of groups. The individual is submerged. Thatís ludicrous. Itís theater with no theater. Itís like religion.


See, religion is making a bet. Itís betting that the imagination involved in its stories are enough, are enough for the masses, are enough for the masses to say, "Well, I canít imagine any kind of theater better than the theater in these religious stories, so Iíll stick with the Last Supper and Jonah and the Whale."


Thatís what it all comes down to. Itís silly. But there it is. The bet. And Iím betting on the opposite thing. That a person can come up with stuff that makes those coagulated religious mass-stories look like childís play. And Iíve been proven right.


And when that happens, the patient becomes more joyful, more flexible, more alive. I like that. I like to see that.

Q: Youíre running your own theater.

A: Yeah, I guess I am. The theater of expansion.

Q: When you have a patient, and heís doing this kind of theater you describe, does it matter whether itís tragedy or comedy?

A: Thatís an interesting question. Hereís what Iíve found. If a patient starts out with sadness and gloom, if he keeps going long enough, if he keeps populating the stage with more characters, things get lighter after a while. It happens because heís offloading reductionism and shrunken realities. Heís getting rid of that, and so his mood lightens. Things become more juicy and alive. Heís feeling his oats. Heís flexing his creative muscles.

Q: And that affects his state of mind and his feelings.

A: I told you, some time ago, that I stopped doing traditional hypnosis with patients, because I found that most of them were already in a hypnotic state. Some part of them was already in trance and reacting to old suggestions. At that point, my job was to figure out how to reverse the hypnotic state that was already there, was already in place.


The answer was: get them to create. Get them to imagine.


That reverses a hypnotic state. A hypnotic state is a state of reduced mind. Traditionally, a trance is induced to prepare a person for suggestions. But heís already acting and thinking on the basis of suggestions. So what good does it do to add more crap to the pile?

Q: From an elite-control point of view, youíd want a whole population in a trance, so you could run their behavior through suggestions.

A: Yes, and thatís already happening. Media are the instrument for conveying suggestions. So our job is not to swat all the suggestions like flies. There are too many of them. Our job is to eliminate the trance. But even that isnít enough. Because a person who just woke up needs more. He needs an overall direction. He needs a way to approach life. The approach is imagination and creating. But you see, you donít create much if you donít use imagination. Imagination gives you new avenues along which you can create.

Q: That kind of knocks out the idea of revelation.

A: Revelation is something you see suddenly. Something you never saw before. So suppose I could snap my fingers and make you experience a revelation. Then where would you be? Youíd be sitting there seeing something fantastic. For how long? A minute? An hour? And then what? You only know seeing. (laughs) Get it? Thatís all you know. Seeing.


And then what youíre seeing fades out. And then youíre just there. You donít have anything to do. People have a confusion about this. They think if they see something new, itís all they need. Thatís baloney. They need to imagine and create, because thatís endless.

Q: Correct me if Iím wrong, but I donít recall any religion with that doctrine.

A: (laughs) That doctrine would be a sure-fire way to empty out the churches.

Q: Maybe we need to start a religion.

A: The Church of Create Your Ass Off.





by Jon Rappoport
March 11, 2011

from JonRappoport Website



This interview with Jack took place, to the best of my memory, in the summer of 1990.


Reconstructing it from my notes, I see Jack is describing one of many ways he worked with patients to move them into "a new way of seeing."

Q: Why is it important to allow your patients to see "beyond ordinary reality?"

A: The answer to that is, of course, obvious. But Iíll try to give you a slightly different slant on it. You could say that everything a person believes or is conditioned to believe is held in place, held in one place, like a corral.


The sheep in the corral are all his beliefs, and they stand there. There is a fence around the corral, and the gate is locked by the way he views reality. As long as he views reality in the same way, the gate is going to be locked. And his beliefs are going remain there. Theyíre not going to change.


But if, for some reason, he begins to see reality in a new way, the lock on the gate is going to spring open, and the beliefs are going to scatter and disperse.

Q: So, in hypnotherapy, you try to get patients toĖ

A: Not through suggestions, but by other strategies.

Q: For example?

A: With certain patients who I feel are up to to it, I bring in the idea of a unique object.

Q: Whatís that?

A: A unique object, for my purposes, is a one-of-a-kind thing that never existed before and will never exist again. It could be anything.

Q: There are lots of unique objects.

A: Depends on how you look at that meaning. Iím talking about a thing that isnít composed of whatever everything else is composed of. So a unique object isnít made out of atoms. Itís different.

Q: Like a very strange chair?

A: Why not? It could be anything. But itís utterly unlike anything else.

Q: Not sure I follow you.

A: I put a patient in a light trance. That means heís aware, and it also means he can focus. His mind is, for the moment, uncluttered. Heís not thinking fifteen thoughts. Heís in a sort of zero state. Calm. He can think and he can respond, but heís not distracted. His consciousness is relaxed and open. Heís not overly receptive to suggestions. Heís not in a Pavlovian condition. Heís in the moment.

Q: Okay. Then what?

A: Then I describe, in general terms, what a unique object is. And I ask him to conceive of one.

Q: Does he?

A: It varies. Some people work at it but they donít come up with anything. Other people give me lots of objects, but nothing much happens. In some cases, though, a very interesting thing occurs. The patient begins to see or imagine or think about a truly unique thing.


An object of great significance to him. Itís not me who is telling him the object has great meaning. He comes upon that by himself. Itís all subjective. You see? I give them the general idea of what a unique object is, and then he takes it from there. And what he describes to me isnít a startling revelation, in terms of the object itself. Itís how he sees it and how he feels about it. Itís like trying to catch lightning in a bottle.


When it happens, the patient experiences a change in perception. Right away.

Q: Because he feels heís really seeing something unique.

A: Thatís right. He feels that. You know, people go through their lives and they see all sorts of things, and nothing much registers with any great impact. Itís often just cultural responses, like, "Well, Iím standing here on top of a mountain, and Iím supposed to be enthralled, so Iíll act like I am." Or "Iím walking through a forest and Iím supposed to feel the majesty of the tall trees, so I will." My idea is to have a patient actually experience something in a spontaneous way.

Q: Give me an example.

A: One patient was quiet for a long time. Then he began talking slowly aboutÖit seemed to be a musical instrument. He got this look in his eye, as if he was feeling something he had never felt before. As if he was making a real discovery. As if this object wasnít part of the known world.

Q: And then what?

A: The next day, he told me his blood pressure, which had been high, was down to normal levels. His low-level chronic headache was gone. He didnít need his glasses.

Q: Was this change permanent?

A: The blood pressure never went all the way back to the high level. For about a week, he didnít need his glasses. The chronic headache eventually became a once-a-month headache. But he also began to see his life differently. His marriage really underwent a revolution. He reconciled with his wife, and they became much happier. His overall mood changed.

Q: All fromÖ

A: From that experience.

Q: And you would say his beliefs changed.

A: Absolutely. Until that point, he had a very restricted view of his possibilities. That all shifted.

Q: Because he glimpsed a unique object.

A: It sounds strange, doesnít it. But yes. It was a moment in a session. The "gap" between what he believed and what he could see justÖfell apart. Hereís how I would characterize it. Perception is often an apparatus where you have whole strings of things that are deemed to be similar.


The person sees A and subconsciously thinks, "Well, A is like B and B is like C and C is like DÖ" Heís not really seeing A. Heís linking A to other things heís seen or heard about. Itís not true vivid perception. Itís perception plus memory and thought. Itís a hybrid. And itís dull. Itís really uninteresting. Which has emotional implications.


The personís level of feeling becomes dull, too. So what happened in this case with the patient was, that whole pattern was broken. For a few minutes, the perception, the seeing was direct. He saw a unique object. Or to put it differently, he saw uniquely.

Q: And what caused his beliefs to change?

A: Well, if perception is dull, feeling is dull. If feeling is dull, then a person begins to adopt beliefs that will go along with that level of dull feeling. Limited beliefs. Limited ideas about the possibility of his life and even existence itself. So when that whole pattern broke apart, the sun came through. He perceived uniquely. He did it himself. Not through my suggestions. Not through drugs. He did it. And so, automatically, his dull beliefs began to slip away, because there was nothing to hold them in the corral.

Q: He perceived uniquely, so he felt uniquely, and then his beliefs, which were based on, as you say, dull feelings, were unsupported.

A: Right. Life tends to form into an un-unique pattern. Thatís what characterizes it. The un-uniqueness is the glue that holds the pattern together. When you melt that glue, you get a chance at liberation.

Q: This reminds me of preconceived knowing. A person has a set of assumptions, and then anything he comes across - information, ideas, concepts - he fits them into the assumptions he already has andÖgrinds out a conclusion about whether these ideas are of value or not.

A: Yes, itís the same thing, but what I do with patients relates to direct perception. Direct spontaneous experience.

[At this point, we took a long break. When we came back, we continued the conversation. Jack reiterated some of things he'd been saying, adding a few twists.]

Q: You were talking about political structures.

A: Yes. They are built in relation to public blindness.

Q: What does that mean?

A: To the degree that people think they are blind to what is going on in the world, the political structures that act on their behalf become larger.

Q: Governments are peopleís eyes?

A: Absolutely. So the more complex the world becomes, the more people think they are blind, and they allow governments to expand. The formula works from both ends. Government is an apparatus of perception.

Q: Of course, what governments "see" is colored by their agendas.

A: Sure. I didnít say the government is a reliable set of eyes. I just said it substitutes for peopleís blindness. Itís second-hand perception. But I bring it up because itís very much like what happens within an individual.

Q: How so?

A: A person tends to believe he canít see whatís really going on, in front of his own eyes. This comes about because of disappointments the person suffers. He sees something and he wants it, and he tries, but he doesnít get it. So he begins to believe there is something wrong with the way he sees.

Q: Thatís a strange idea.

A: Yes, but itís true. People start out with a simple formula - if I can see it and I want it, I can get it. When that formula doesnít work enough times, the person begins to believe he isnít seeing correctly. So he enters into a complex process with his mind, where he appoints a structure, an internal structure to see for him.

Q: A proxy.

A: Yes. And this structure is based on comparisons. A is like B, and B is like C, and C is like D. A person begins to see in categories. He doesnít perceive directly. Instead of seeing A directly and uniquely, he sees the things A is compared to. He sees a concept. And he gets into cultural norms, seeing what the culture tells him he is supposed to see.

Q: Youíre talking about a habit.

A: A deeply ingrained habit.

Q: Aside from the technique of "the unique object," how would it be broken?

A: Youíre the one who told me how.

Q: Through imagination.

A: Yes. Because imagination throws a monkey wrench into the apparatus of second-hand perception. It doesnít go along with A is like B and B is like C.


It comes from a different place. I once did an experiment with ink blots. You know, the ink blot test psychologists use. I took a small group of people and told them I wanted them to look at a few cards with ink blots on them and write down what they could imagine when they saw them. It was all imagination.


The people knew that. So first, they wrote down a number, before they looked at any of the cards. The number represented their estimate of their "feeling of well-being" at that moment. It was a scale from 1 to 20, with 20 being highest. Then, after I showed them the cards, and they spent about an hour writing down what they imaginedÖ they wrote down another number - their state of well-being at THAT moment.


And in all cases, the second number was higher than the first. The well-being index. (laughs) Imagination raises the level of emotion. It raises energy. And it creates perception. Thatís the most important thing. So, essentially, imagination shreds the apparatus of second-hand perception by creating new perception.

Q: The culture isnít set up to accommodate that.

A: The culture is all about showing people what theyíre supposed to see, through sets of definitions and categorizations. Thatís what a culture IS. An apparatus of perception. Imagination works at cross purposes to that.

Q: Because imagination doesnít care what the culture says or thinks.

A: Right. When you imagine something, you see it right away. You see what you imagine. Your perceive THAT. So itís a different way of seeing.

Q: And it only applies to the individual.

A: Of course. As soon as it becomes a group enterprise, youíre building a culture. Youíre building another second-hand perception apparatus.






by Jon Rappoport
March 8, 2011

from JonRappoport Website



In this conversation, from 1990, hypnotherapist Jack True discusses the space-time continuum.

Q (Rappoport): How does hypnotic trance relate to space-time?

A (Jack True): Thatís a question Iíve looked into for years. First of all, all trances are not equal. I have my own way of putting people into a light trance, which isnít deep enough for suggestions to have any effect. Itís about getting a patient into a place where he is able to focus clearly without any distractions. But there is something else, too. In this state of mind, heís not tied so closely to physical reality. Heís aware of it, but heís floating. Heís a bit removed from its influence. Heís not so much a slave to it. Heís, you could say, in a different space, and a different time.

Q: Heís in a dream state?

A: Not quite. More like a pre-dream state, just before a dream begins.

Q: Does this have something to do with why sleep is so important?

A: Well, sleep is necessary for several reasons. But in this sense, itís important because the shackles that tie a person to physical-reality space and time are unhooked. He can go elsewhere.

Q: And why does that matter?

A: Because the space-time continuum is just one reality. And at some level, a human being knows this. Thatís the point, you see. He knows this. And he doesnít want to stay glued to that one reality. Why should he? There are lots of other places to go. And those places, in certain respects, are far more interesting and fulfilling.

Q: You keep coming back to this theme.

A: I have to. Itís central. Desire precedes reality.

Q: Thatís an interesting way to put it.

A: Itís accurate. So if a person becomes all wound up in this continuum - which of course he does - than he loses sight of what? Desire. Because it seems then that reality defines what can be legitimately desired. Everything is backwards. Desire becomes diluted and blunted. And thatís when people lose power.

Q: There is pressure to desire something you can make and sell.

A: Yes, and thatís a culture that reflects this obsession with "the one and only reality." If you desire to create something that maybe other people canít understand and wonít buyÖwell, reality-governing-desire steps in and says ARE YOU CRAZY?


People think they make no sacrifice by adjusting their desires, but they do. They build up frustration. They accumulate stress. They want to break out. Theyíre told they need to grow up and act like everyone else - but thatís not it.


The space-time continuum and gravity and the way energy works and all the rest of itÖin one sense, itís hype. Pure hype. Itís a message that says: you canít go against the laws. You canít move into other dimensions. But think about music. You can create any tempo you want to. You can make a whole new space or series of spaces. Youíre inventing space and time. Itís right there. People just donít want to follow the implications.

Q: Is the mind in some way married to this continuum?

A: I donít think so. Does your mind keep you from breaking some rule? At bottom, YOU do. It isnít something like a mechanism of mind, although that would make a good science fiction story. Itís you.


But when I work with a patient, at some point he realizes that I donít care about any of that. He can float right off the chair and itís fine with me. He can disappear and reappear in London, and thatís okay with me. A kind of partnership develops in that way with some of my patients, and it makes a great deal of difference.

Q: In that sense, youíre like the patientís subconscious.

A: Yes, thatís right. In his subconscious, he has all sorts of desires that involve going beyond this continuum - and thatís the way I am.

Q: None of this involves religion.

A: Religion? Thatís indefinite postponement.

Q: Itís the idea that, in order to reach beyond this continuum, you have to be in debt and you have to be discharging that debt.

A: In what I do, there is no owing. No one is beholden to me for anything.

Q: Do you see space and time of this universe as being connected?

A: I think thatís a hoax. Space is curved and space and time merge in some way? What? I donít see it. It just seems like apples and oranges. A distraction. A diversion. A confusion that adds to the problem. Maybe itís a way of expressing a latent desire to become a master of space and time. But time is all about durationÖand space is a stage set.


Just because space and time are integrated in equations doesnít mean they actually merge. Would you say that the men in a rocket are merged with the fuel in the engines? Poetically, maybe. But physically? No.

Q: Letís get back to this partnership you mentioned, between you and the patient.

A: Itís a key. The reason Iím tapping into his very deep desires to go beyond the space-time continuum is because I understand that. Itís not just a "therapeutic device." Itís me. Suppose a patient tells me he sees an astral location and he describes it. I could discount that and move on.


But of course I donít, because I KNOW heís feeling a new power and eagerness welling up in him, heís moving into a place he really wants to be, and I want to be in a place like that, too. I want to go exploring. I keep saying this in different ways, butÖit has everything to do with repressed desire, on a level that is immense.


At that level, the person is all about going beyond the reality defined by this universe. It isnít just a passing fancy. We all have this tendency to say, "Well, itís raining today, so we canít go outside."


But underneath that, we donít care. Rain is not a problem. We donít care about the excuses we give ourselves. We want more. We want to experience magic. You see, think about Freud. He had a propensity to define repression in terms of sex. That was where he was tuning in. He made a life out of that. That was the level of repressed desire he was looking at. Iím talking about something that is buried much deeper in the psyche, in the subconscious.


To turn away from it would be absurd. To turn away and say, well, thatís not real, thatís not doable, thatís not a subject for therapyÖwhy would you do that? Itís staring you right in the face. Itís there. So the first thing a person needs to do is admit he has this desire for magic, for going past all the supposed limits of this physical reality. He has to see and feel that desire in himself.

Q: Are space and time powerful inhibitors and limiters?

A: I prefer to think of them as delusions.

Q: In what sense?

A: Letís say youíre in a car and youíre driving along a road. The road is very long. It seems never to end. You keep driving. You believe this road is the only one. You think if youíre driving, youíre on that road. Where else would you be? But of course, there are a million other roads. AndĖ

Q: You can invent roads, too.

A: Yes.

Q: The subconscious knows this?

A: For my purposes, in my work, the subconscious is a generalized term that indicates an interior place where a repressed desire of great proportions is kept under wraps.

Q: Whatís real versus whatís delusional - thatís a tricky subject.

A: Yeah. Part of the reason is semantic. Youíre using the words in different ways. On one level, physical reality, space and time are very real. But we foster a delusion by thinking theyíre the only space and time.


On another level, space and time are invented - theyíre not just "there." This is the subject of a great deal of myth, which is an attempt to understand who made the continuum. And, as with any unsettled argument, some people will step in and try to use the situation for their own benefit.


But in the meantimeÖmusicians make their own space and time, which is different from the continuum, and you can see by the response of the audiences that this invention has great power and desire associated with itÖwith music, people are responding to a new universe that is being created.

Q: The creative is the trump card.

A: The energy of it isĖ

Q: Unlimited.

A: Yes.





by Jon Rappoport
February 27, 2011

from JonRappoport Website



This interview took place in the fall of 1988. As you can tell, if youíve been reading the prior interviews, Jack and I tended to jump from one theme to another.


Part of the reason was weíd already covered so much ground together, we could anticipate where things were heading.

Q (Rappoport): In all our conversations, we always seem to come around to the subject of imagination.

A (Jack True): Well, you convinced me, finally, it was of the greatest importance. I was always working with it, but I needed to think more about the wider implications.

Q: Such as imagination creates reality?

A: Yes. So there are an infinite number of possible realities. That perspective gives you a different view of the world.

Q: In your work, do you ever approach the issue of power directly?

A: Early in my career, I tried that, but it didnít work.

Q: Why not?

A: Because my patients were shy about that or afraid.

Q: Even under hypnosis?

A: Yes.

Q: Thatís interesting.

A: I thought so. It taught me something. People tend to have a taboo about the whole thing. They go through all sorts of contortions about power. I could see that clearly.

Q: What kind of contortions?

A: Well, itís like pin the tail on the donkey or musical chairs. Where you put power. To whom or what do you attribute it? See, people know power exists. But itís not something they admit they want. So they go around in a very circuitous route to pin it somewhere else. The sky has power. Wind has power. The Earth has power.

Q: In recent culture, the word power has taken on a distinctly negative meaning. Itís been conclusively associated with corruption, oppression, and criminal activity.

A: Pop psychology gives the word a slightly different twist, as in "personal power." The context is often "taking back your power," which assumes that, somewhere along the line, someone else had control over you - and now youíre recapturing it. But at best, this diluted vision implies that, from now on, youíll be be able to make your own decisions. Thatís pretty weak.

Q: Power means you can DO. It means you are able. From a Latin root.

A: Letís go far out. Suppose you want to do something that is thought to be impossible? Suppose you want to read a personís thoughts from ten miles away? Or you want to move an object on your desk with your mind? Suppose you want to levitate.


There is a general consensus that these paranormal feats of power are impossible. In fact, the consensus weaves together with the fabric of the space-time continuum. One aspect is dependent on the other. Consider the image of two mirrors standing across from each other. The reflections bounce back and forth. One feeds the other. In the same way, the general consensus that levitation is impossible nourishes the "rule of the physical continuum" which states that unaided human levitation is verboten.


Letís shift the focus. Letís say there is a manuscript in a museum. It has been dated at 4300 BC. For over a century, scholars, linguists, and cryptologists have tried to understand the rows of symbols - and they have utterly failed. They havenít made a single inroad. Now you look at it. You stand in front of it and look at it for an hour.


Do you think your imagination will swing into gear? Damn right it will. Youíll start imagining all sorts of "paranormal" possibilities - even though you canít name them or describe them. Your imagination will go to places that arenít pedestrian. This is what happens with a mystery. The mind, the imagination begins to write script, and the script is about realities that are beyond what we ordinarily think about.


The imagination is waiting in the bushes, for an opportunity to come out and stretch and get beyond this humdrum continuum. Thatís a natural tendency, which we keep under wraps.

Q: To understand power, you need imagination.

A: Otherwise, you just think about power in terms you already understand. You repeat yourself. You become bored.

Q: You use the word boredom a lot.

A: Thatís because itís the bottom line on the accounting book called Reality. Thatís what you finally get to. Reality bores. Power is about exceeding reality. When you stop and think about it, why didnít humans imbue their gods with no power at all? Why should gods have power at all? They could be farmers tilling the soil or stone masons. The gods have power because human imagination gives it to them. And that happens because humans need to imagine power somewhere. Theyíre afraid to give it to themselves, so they invent the gods. This is another deflection of the truth on to spaces where itís "safe" to attribute power. The taboo is: we have power.

Q: In modern times, we have comic books and super-heroes. Superman. Batman. In ancient Greece, another super-hero,

Prometheus, stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. Fire is energy. Energy is a function of imagination. Prometheus stole awareness of creative power and gave it to humans. Power starts with imagining power.

A: But Superman doesnít try to figure out a way to give his kind of power to humans. That never happens. Several years ago, I met with a man who was trying to start a school. He had this idea. Heíd cram grades one through twelve into eight years, and the other four would be nothing but art. All day, all the time. Students doing art. All the arts.

Q: What happened?

A: He could never raise the money. People were afraid of what he was talking about. Immersion in the arts to the point where a reality shift would take place in the minds of the kids. I mean, thatís what he talked about, so his potential investors dried up. They disappeared into the fog. Art is about walking right up the ladder of power. An artist has power. Even if there is no consensus about that. Consensus is the last thing that happens.

Q: Energy is a function of imagination. Weíve talked about that before.

A: Iíd liken it to a very dark night. Youíre wandering around. You donít know exactly where you are. Then you see a glint of light ahead. Suddenly, you feel an injection of energy. You feel it. THATíS the way to get out. When you imagine something new, and you feel it, you get that shot of energy. Itís a potentially endless supply. The old nonsense about entropy [dissipating energy] is a wrong concept.

Q: Why not another kind of theory: there are multiple universes pouring energy and receiving energy from one another. The process just keeps going.

A: If thereís one thing we donít have a lack of, itís energy.

Q: So is that how you approach the issue of power with patients?

A: Energy through imagination. And when a person experiences enough energy, he begins to know he has power.

Q: In traditional alchemy, in their cross, the four ends represented the four elements of nature [earth, air, fire, water]. Where the two sticks meet, in the center - thatís called Quintessence. This the quality that can resolve the conflict among the four elements. The Quintessence is imagination.

A: It would be, because it is the thing that gets you beyond the four elements. It puts you out there beyond the inhibiting rules of nature. This whole resurrection of the nature religion that started in the 1960s - it was supposed to be about resolution and peace, butĖ

Q: The factor they left out of the equation was imagination. They substituted drugs for imagination.

A: I had a patient who, in a light trance, would invent dream after dream.


Thatís what I had him do. He must have fabricated fifty dreams altogether, over the over a period of a few months. In every one of those dreams, he put in a power source. Some god or entity that had great power. And then one day, he got a different kind of message. From the sheer invention of these dreams, he was getting a whole lot of energy. He was feeling that.


Then it began to dawn on him that he had power. And from then on, the character of the dreams he invented was different. And in his life, he knew he had power.





by Jon Rappoport
February 26, 2011

from JonRappoport Website



In the early 1990s, hypnotherapist Jack True and I sat down and discussed his views on mind control.


To say the least, Jack presents a very radical interpretation of this subject.

Q (Rappoport): Okay. Whatís your definition of mind control?

A (Jack True): Itís the belief that your mind and/or its programming is a complex affair that needs to be unraveled a detail at a time.

Q: What?

A: You heard me.

Q: Sounds like youíre talking about a general approach to the mind.

A: Think it through.

Q: You made the statement. Clarify it.

A: What makes mind control mind control? What makes any kind of limitation limiting? Do you see? Itís the false belief that, in order to undo what has been done, you need to engage inÖyou need to walk back the way you came. You need to have a set of keys that allows you to unlock all the doors that have been locked in sequence.

Q: Okay. I get it.

A: This is what stops people. The real control factor is what they believe they need to do in order to undo what they believe has been done to them.

Q: And thatísĖ

A: Thatís the cardinal factor of mind control. See, take a personís life. He goes through all sorts of experiences. He has a few traumas or whatever. He buys some crazy ideas other people are selling. And so forth and so on. Now, he wakes up a little, and he wants to throw away all that and start fresh.


But he thinks he has to enter into a systematic undoing of whatever negative energies and ideas he has picked up. Now heís really stymied. Because heís looking at mind as if itís a closet hung very neatly with things, and he believes he has to find a way to unpack the closet one piece at a time. Itís a very big closet, he believes. It stretches from Alaska to Mexico.

Q: And youíre saying he has a wrong portrait of the mind. To begin with.

A: Right. Mind is much more fluid than that. Mind is not really the problem. The person is the problem.

Q: What about so-called trauma-based mind control? You know, the CIA MKULTRA-type stuff, or the Soviet version. What about that?

A: There are a lot of misconceptions about it. Those bastards used force and drugs. It was basically torture. Now, they might have gotten real cute, in order to create what they said was multiple personalities in a victim.


But whatever system of trance or suggestion they employed, it doesnít matter. It only matters if the victim, emerging from it, escaping from it, believes that, in order to undo what was done, he has to unpack the closet, he has to undo, a step at a time, what has been done to him. If he does believe that, youíre in a pickle.


You now need to bring in a therapist who believes what the victim believes - and together they explore this territory. The therapist offers a complex a system of un-brainwashing that the victim can accept. Based on a shared belief, they can make progress. Hereís an analogy. Letís say youíre lost in the woods. Youíve been lost for a month.


Youíre in bad shape. Youíre eating leaves and roots. You believe the only way to get out is to walk the way you came - which is a complex task. But thatís what you think. As long as you think that, what else are you going to do? You might be able to make it work. Maybe. In the same way, a complex system of un-brainwashing might work, but to suggest itís the only or best path is way overstating things.

Q: Some people are predisposed to playing chess.

A: Exactly! They look south and they see chess. They look north and they see chess. You try to sell them checkers or a helicopter and they turn you down flat. They donít believe in that. They believe in chess. If theyíre lost, you can get them out only if you present your solution so it looks and feels like chess. Otherwise, they refuse.

Q: So for them, chess is mind control.

A: (laughs) Yeah. Itís the filter through which they see reality.

Q: And where does THAT come from?

A: Thatís not mind. Thatís the person himself. He has chosen that filter and he uses it all the time.

Q: But why did he choose it to begin with?

A: See, weíre walking right back into the same trap. Suppose we say there was a long concatenation of events that FORCED this person to choose that filter. Then where are we? Weíre about to conclude, well, the only way to get rid of the filter is to reconstruct the exact string of events that FORCED him to adopt the filter.


To put that whole string under a magnifying glass so he can see it in every detail - and then he can throw away the filter. Which is nonsense. Because when you go back far enough, what you really see is, he chose that filter. He took it and placed it over his eyes. Thatís what happened. It doesnít matter why. It doesnít matter what reasons he gave himself for choosing it.


Sure, he can gain some insight that way, by scoping out the reasons. But really, he has to find a way to leap beyond that filter and start seeing reality in new and different ways - and then one day, heíll remember the filter and laugh at the whole thing and how silly it was.

Q: What if he canít?

A: Who are you? The devilís advocate?

Q: Iím trying to be.

A: Well, if he canít, heís in the mud. Itís like asking me, if a guy is standing on one side of a river that runs from one eternity to another, and he wants to get across, and he refuses to step in the water, how will he succeed? He wonít succeed. Heíll stand on that riverbank for 50 lives or 300 lives or 50,000 lives, until he jumps in the water.

Q: Understood.

A: Youíre a painter. So Iíll give you an analogy from painting. A painter is in his studio. Heís looking at the blank canvas. He has the brush in his hands. His filter is "Renaissance perspective." He believes that everything he paints has to have that kind of perspective in it. But he wants to do something new at the same time. Thatís his urge. How is going to proceed unless he gets rid of that filter, unless he dares to leap beyond it?

Q: Since anthropology became such a well-known field of study, weíve had the premise that cultures have different customs, different filters, and "itís all relative."

A: This is the biggest bunch of baloney going.

Q: Why?

A: Because it assumes that everyone in a given culture has the same filter. Nonsense. When you probe deeper, you find out every person is an individual. But thatís not a popular idea anymore. From my work with patients from all over the world, Iíve satisfied myself that every person has his own filters, which go a lot deeper than cultural artifacts.


See, when a person is dreaming at night, he sometimes lets go of those filters. He takes a leap of imagination, and heís out there in a new territory, and heís experiencing things he really wants to experience. And if he remembers what happened when he wakes up in the morning, he feels that exhilaration. He got past the gates.


He got past the filters. He was free. And why? Because he created a dream. He imagined his way past the filters. What I do in my work is try to bring that state of affairs into waking life.

Q: Talk a little more about filters.

A: Okay, youíve got a person who is involved, in his job, with technology. Heís an engineer. He sees things in terms of problems and solutions. Everywhere he looks, there is a problem to solve, and the way to solve it is through rational exercise. Take a step forward. Formulate a way to make something work a little better. There is nothing wrong with that. Fine.


But as his life goes on, heís in that basic position. Heís a solver. He sizes up situations as problems, and he works to solve them. It doesnít make him as happy as it once did. Thatís the main thing. He doesnít get the same kick out of it. Most people would say thatís a function of aging, but it really isnít. Itís a function of the filter. His filter.


His way of approaching reality. Youíve heard of this word entropy? Itís a goofy theory that all over the universe, available energy is running down. Itís dissipating. It doesnít disappear, but itís stored in, what could you call it, places of quiet, where nothing is happening. Like a warehouse. Well, what really runs down is a filter. It begins to deteriorate, because the person it belongs to is finding it less and less interesting and exciting. Itís like a book heís read a thousand times. How much more can he squeeze out of it?


This is what mind control comes down to. Your filter. And the general tendency is for it to deteriorate, which doesnít mean it goes away. It just means itís less useful and interesting, but nothing takes its place. Thatís the problem. Itís a replacement problem. But you see, because this engineer has spent his whole life using that filter, he doesnít see an alternative. He doesnít know what else he can do.


Heís like a one-trick pony. The trick is wearing out. He looks around for an answer. He looks here and there. He reads a few books. Nothing really clicks. He tries to formulate his own state of mind into a problem he can solve, but he canít really define the problem.


Well, how could he? Heís looking through the problem. The filter.

Q: And as Iíve suggested to you many times, the answer is imagination.

A: Yes, and in my work and in your work, the issue is, how do you get a person to make that leap? How do you get him to recognize, first of all, that he has this thing called imagination? How do you get him to use it? How do you open up that whole territory? It takes ingenuity. It isnít just a problem that needs solving. Itís a lot different.

Q: People use filters that canít process the fact that you can invent something that wasnít there before.

A: This is true. So that needs to be overcome. You can trick a person into it, but that way has brief results only. You need to go deeper. Higher.





by Jon Rappoport
February 25, 2011

from JonRappoport Website



NOTICE TO MY READERS - As most of you know, I move back and forth between very different subjects in my work. Medical fraud, political commentary, the moves made by global elites, and imagination/creative power/magic.

As of late, Iíve stepped up the action by assembling several more interviews with Jack True. These interviews represent what I consider to be the most important area of my long-time focus: imagination/creative power/magic.

Iíd like to get responses from readers who are really interested in this aspect. Iím thinking of doing a new seminar on this subject - possibly an in-person live seminar. I sense that events of the past three years have moved some people away from this area, as society has been undergoing various crises. For me, these crises underline the need to dig deeperÖto further explore the actual truth and meaning of magic. Are you there? Are you still interested?

In 1988, during a conversation with hypnotherapist Jack True, I kiddingly suggested we form a group called RAR, Rebels Against Reality. A few days later, we picked up the thread of that comment, and we did an interview, part of which Iíve been able to reconstruct from my notes.


I hesitated to print this one at first, because it moves into areas lots of people are quite unfamiliar with - particularly if theyíre looking to learn something by comparing it to what they already knowÖ but then I realized Iíd crossed that line a long time ago. Way long ago.


Buckle up...

Q (Rappoport): So you like the idea. Rebels Against Reality.

A: (Jack True): If itís taken far enough.

Q: Well, I think we could break it down into several groups. Rebels Against Space, for example. Meaning we would insist on New Spaces.

A: To whom would be lodge our request? City planners?

Q: Hell no. Weíd go a lot farther than that. Weíd appeal to the Space Mafia.

A: Who are they?

Q: People who make space and sell it. They control the market.

A: So weíd have to raise money to buy new space from them.

Q: No, weíd threaten them by saying weíre ready to make our own.

A: And how would our own be different?

Q: It wouldnít be continuous. It wouldnít require time, for example, to move across a chunk of it. You could just disappear from one end and reappear at the other.

A: Iíd think there would be a market for that. The military would be very interested.

Q: Yeah, but weíre not selling to them. Our market would be the people who want a break from ordinary reality. Billions of people. Of course, they can get that break if they go to a museum and look at paintings for a long time. But they donít know that. They think theyíre hemmed in.

A: Youíve talked about art as a flood.

Q: Yeah. Flooding the world with so much art that perception of reality changes. It would take a while for it to sink in, but when it did, all sorts of new phenomena would surface.

A: Iíd guess that telepathy would expand terrifically. People would get used to space on a different level - not as something you have to travel through, but as a medium. A fluid, maybe. Or better yet, a definition of position. Space simply tells you where you are. It doesnít tell you what you have to do to go from one position to another. You can transmit thoughts as easily as driving to the market. Easier.

Q: The point is, once you realize that telepathy is very available, the character of thought begins to escalate, because why bother to exchange messages with someone when the thoughts involved are so pedestrian? "Iím going to the movies. Want to go?" "Sure." I mean, who would care about that? [Apparently, I was wrong, because now we have instant Twitter, and people are comfortable sharing the most inane messages.]

A: So youíre saying art would come into its own with telepathy.

Q: Yes, in the form of new languages. Many new languages, where the symbols arenít denoting specific meanings. Theyíre open. You get the aesthetic punch, but you leave out the literal. When people are confronted by art at every turn, adventurous art, and when they begin creating it, too, they need to become far more inventive.


Iíd compare it to a situation where you have a lot of land - lots of people have a lot of empty land - and you grow vegetables. And then you have enough for your needs, and so does everyone else. So what are you going to do now? Youíre going to plant flowers, maybe. Youíre going to step into art. Youíre going to escalate. See, on a mental level, people are involved with thought-forms all the time. These are like pictures, but theyíre not exactly pictures. Theyíre more like feelings. They have the impact of sensation and feeling.


But at the same time, take these people and lead them into a museum, into a room where abstract paintings are hanging all over the place, and they claim to be baffled. Absolutely baffled. Itís ridiculous. Itís like saying people who own cars go to a garage where a hundred cars are parked and they have no idea what theyíre seeing.

A: Iíd be in favor of forcing people to live in a museum for a few years. I think some interesting things would happen. They canít go outside. They have to stay in the museum.

Q: Well, people used to talk about the effect of space on astronauts. This would be like that. Here in the museum, there are hundreds of vastly different realities hanging on the walls, and people see them every hour of every day. Eventually, I think theyíd stop their incessant whining about not understanding art, and theyíd actually begin to look at whatís on the walls. Theyíd become involved. Theyíd realize people have been sending advanced "messages" to one another for centuries.

A: If you were a citizen of ancient Egypt, and you went to sleep and had a dream, my sense is that, when you woke up, youíd be required to seek out an interpretation of the dream from a so-called expert.

Q: Just like now.

A: (laughs) Yeah. Youíd go to a local priest who was trained in the accepted cosmology - all the gods and sub-gods, and sub-sub gods, the cosmology that tells you all about their functions and histories and powersÖand youíd have this priest tell you what your dream meant. Heíd give you the party line, in terms of that cosmology, and youíd wander away with the standard party line.

Q: And after a while, you would lose the passion for your own dreams, once you became bored with the cosmology, because what else would you have? There was a complex picture of the universe, and only the priests understood it, and they gave you the chapter and the verse. It was really an anti-art movement. Art is your own. It isnít some communal culture, despite what the wardens of culture tell us.

A: People are afraid of individual meaning.

Q: They want that shared porridge, handed to them by the people who have so-called special insight. Eventually, this devolves down to a feeling that only the initiated understand anything profound. And then the next phase is complete disinterest or open hostility toward art, unless it imitates physical reality. So imagination goes to sleep. The big sleep. And then people say they donít understand anything that isnít practical.

A: This is where waking life becomes hypnosis.

Q: What did you just say? People are afraid of individual meaning. They think that if everyone has his own meanings, there wonít be any basis for understanding. They think this means isolation, even insanity. But itís just the opposite.


If everyone was transmitting meanings of his own, intensely his own, the level of understanding would rise - because the drabness would be taken out of it, as well as all the false pretension that something horrendously boring is interesting. All that would be gone, wiped off the board. Thatís what the flood of art would bring.


The character of space and time would change. The drabness of repeating space and time would drain away. People think that going into outer space is so fantastic, and it is, but along the way you pass through interminable stretches where there is nothing but nothing. Space just keeps repeating over and over. Itís completely redundant.

A: Iíve seen this with some patients. When theyíre in trance, it appears that nothing is there. You ask for things, and you get empty space or a vacuum. It goes on and on. I take this as a kind ofÖcoefficient of non-creation. The person isnít creating anything. But itís not by clear choice. Itís not like heís sitting in the Big Void and realizing his potential power. Itís like narcosis.

Q: Amnesia. In those empty spaces, heís convinced that his creations would only be replicas of what already exists, so he opts out. Itís like watching people fall asleep in church. Theyíre in their seats listening to a third-rate recitation of a chunk of a cosmology that is already centuries old and nobody really cares about itÖand they fall asleep. Itís nothing listening to nothing. What is the sound of no hands clapping? A snore.

A: Iím against instant comprehension. With TV, people know right away whatís passing across the screen. Do you see? They sit there for hours watching these images, and they become trained to expect that theyíll understand everything they see right away. But with art, you have to become engaged. Actively engaged.


You have to work at it. People are losing this faculty. Itís the same with certain ideas. People want ideas laid out for them, nice and neat. If ideas show up that donít admit to instant understanding, people walk away.

Q: Thatís why I say people have to live in an atmosphere of art. Theyíll reject everything at first, but gradually theyíll start to get used to it. Theyíll absorb it. Then theyíll start exploring it. Then theyíll start to create it.

A: There is a parallel to hypnotherapy. People think itís something like sleep, but if itís done right, what you really get is focus. Concentration on a specific thing. You put a patient in a situation where he can actually look at something.


An idea, an image, a desire. You create the atmosphere where thatís possible. In a real sense, the history of our times will be seen as a history of distraction. People moving from one thought to another, never really digesting anything along the way.

Q: Iíll tell you about a dream I once had. In the dream, I was sitting in a coffee shop talking to a man who had acted in a repertory company for 30 years, with the same group of people. They had done hundreds of different plays and acted in hundreds of different roles.


And in that conversation, it came out that this manís immersion in art for 30 years with his groupÖ that man had experienced and created all sorts of effects we would call paranormal. Telepathy, especially. He had a kind of elevated level of thought transference with other people in the company. It happened frequently.


But the thing was, they were all used to it. What I mean is, they didnít talk about it and they didnít think about it, and they certainly didnít trumpet it. They didnít really notice it.

A: So you mean they were isolated.

Q: Right.

A: They took it for granted. These "paranormal" effects happen all the time in art. But people overlook it, they donít stop to recognize whatís actually happening. Meanwhile, other "scientific professionals" argue about whether anything paranormal is happening in the world or is possible. Itís a ludicrous situation, when you stop and think about it. Itís right there, under our noses, and still we haveĖ

Q: This slavish devotion to ordinary reality.

A: Yes.





by Jon Rappoport
February 24, 2011

from JonRappoport Website



In this interview, my late friend, hypnotherapist Jack True, discusses dreams.


He and I talked about this subject many times.

Q (Jon): I look at dreams as adventures. Cultures have always been fixated on analyzing them and finding the hidden meanings.

A (Jack): Well, when you think about it, trying to dissect things for hidden meanings happens all over the place. The point is, when you arrive at the meaning, what do you have? The whole business falls apart. Youíre sitting there with a few sentences of translated meaning, and it really doesnít help much. I admit it can be an intriguing exercise, and Iím not knocking it, but it makes me yawn.

Q: The most interesting thing about dreams is that people have them. Theyíre lying in bed, and theyíre entering into all sorts of dimensions, and it feels very real. Adventure.

A: Well, you would say that, because youíre an artist.

Q: What would you say?

A: I agree. Many dreams follow the sequence of desire and then manifestation. You want to experience something, and then, bang, itís there. Youíre in a full-blown setting, and there are other people, and youíre feeling what you want to feel. Or you could reverse it. Youíre in a setting, you size it up, you see what you desire, and then it happens.

Q: In other words, itís natural. Itís what people want.

A: They would like their waking lives to be like that. And in the service of that goal, in dreams, all the rules of physical reality go out the window. Dreams are a glimpse into another kind of reality, where the rules arenít the rigid context. The rules about what can happen with space and time and what canít happen donít apply. In that sense, dreams are like art. In art, you can create what you want to.

Q: So there is a general universality in dreams.

A: The universality is, the rules of physical reality donít take precedence. They donít determine the outcome. They donít inhibit the action. You can be in a room talking to someone one second, and the next second you can be up in the clouds flying over a city. This isnít "a symbol" of something. Itís not about hidden meaning. Itís what it is.

Q: Thatís too stark for a lot of people.

A: Well, sure. But so what?

Q: In a lot of cultures, if you have a dream, youíre bound to interpret it by the doctrine of the current mythology or religion.

A: Yeah. One story used to explain another story. If you wrote a novel, would you feel compelled to write another novel explaining the first one? Itís ridiculous. Dreams have inherent magic in them.


Whereas, in your waking life, if you want to go from one city to another, you drive, or you book a flight. You go through all sorts of preparation. Those are the rules. Thatís the way it works. In a dream, you can just move from one city to another in no time at all.

Q: Thatís what Iím saying. That instant travel - itís part of the adventure. If you want to think about a dream after you wake up, think about that.

A: Letís say you actually had a person who could do that. Heís standing on the corner of 42nd Street and Broadway, and then heís standing on the beach in San Francisco. No time elapses. All sorts of explanations would be given, in addition to all the denials that it ever happened. Heís an alien from outer space.


Heís a god. Heís the devil. Heís able to hypnotize everybody and make them think he has this extraordinary power. He was using some fabulous machine to make the space shift happen. It was technology, because otherwise it couldnít have happened.


You see, this is the analysis. The interpretation of the event. In the same way, people have dreams and then they wake up and analyze what happened.

Q: They canít just accept it.

A: They canít enjoy it.

Q: You must have patients who tell you about their dreams.

A: Sure. One woman has flying dreams. I finally got her to remember and really feel the sensation of taking off from the ground and how good it was. She decided that was a hell of a lot more important than "what the dream meant." She was flying! She was showing off! She was a performer with an audience. And she was flying!

Q: When we say people are asleep and they need to wake up, we donít mean they need to stop dreaming.

A: Dreaming is being awake. Awake to a different kind of reality, where imagination has much greater power. Dreams supply whatís missing in physical reality. There are places all over the world where professionals conduct experiments designed to see whether paranormal events can happen. They run tests, experiments, and so on.


Thatís fine, but I like to point out that the flavor of the experiments is very bland compared to dreams. Magic isnít bland. Itís alive. It has color and depth and profound emotion. If you try to leave that out, you donít have magic anymore. I donít know what to call it, but it isnít magic. Do you want to put Merlin in a lab? That would be a joke.

Q: You have some of your patients invent dreams by the truckload.

A: Yes. Itís a natural tendency and deep desire - dreaming - so why not do it more and do it when youíre awake? What happens is you begin to blend different states of mind. You have states of mind while a person is asleep that give birth to dreams, and then you have the states of mind people usually inhabit when theyíre awakeÖso why not blend them? Why not explore that?

Q: Youíre saying there is more than one kind of desire. The sort of desire people experience when theyíre awake is different from the sort of desire they experience when theyíre asleep.

A: Itís a different quality. In dreams, desire produces a scene, an event, an experience just like that. Desire gives rise to fulfillment. In waking life, it feels different.

Q: Is that because waking life is so different from sleeping?

A: Maybe. But I think itís something else. When weíre awake, we bamboozle ourselves into thinking that our desires carry relatively little power. And we make the excuse, "Well, the world doesnít work according to desire. It works on its own, like a machine, and we have to plug into the machine and go along with its processes."

Q: Lots of people have come along and talked about manifesting desire in the world.

A: I know. And usually it doesnít pan out. Something goes wrong. What Iím saying is, it has to do with state of mind. A person can occupy all sorts of different states of mind - and then different outcomes will result. Dreaming is a state of mind that works when youíre asleep. So what happens when youíre doing something to blend that dreaming state or connect it to waking life in the world? Thatís what Iím doing with my patients now. Itís a work in progress.

Q: Any preliminary findings?

A: Iím encouraged. Thatís all I can say right now. I have people keeping a book of dreams. Every day, they invent and write down dreams in the book. They arenít reporting on dreams. Theyíre creating them. While theyíre awake. You see? So in that writing, theyíre moving through states of mind they wouldnít ordinarily occupy while theyíre awake.

Q: A similar thing would happen in a play on stage.

A: Yes. An actor is playing a role that doesnít exist anywhere except on the stage. Heís inventing. The whole play - somewhat like a dream - is taking place on the stage. And the audience is watching a dream unfold. They want that. They want to be awake and watch a dream. They want that experience. They want to blend different states of mind. But most of all, they just want to see a dream while theyíre awake.

Q: What youíre doing with patients is like the other side of the coin of lucid dreaming.

A: It seems like it. From what I understand, the practice of lucid dreaming involves cultivating the ability to realize, in the middle of a dream, that you are dreaming - but you donít wake up in bed. Youíre still "in it." But you know youíre having a dream. And then you direct the rest of the dream according to the way you want it to happen. Well, Iím saying, letís take people who are awake, and letís have them invent dreams and write them down. Letís take it from the other end.

Q: What about nightmares?

A: Well, this goes back to what you were saying. A dream is an adventure. Suppose you could decide to embrace "a bad dream" and not be thrown way off by it. While the so-called nightmare is happening, youíre embracing the whole thing because you want to experience it. And so the dream itself takes on a different character. You donít retract and shrink back so much. You "wrap your arms around" the nasty creature who is coming at you. I believe then that the dream will take on a different character. It wonít be fearful in the same way.

Q: The ancient Tibetans were very much involved in cultivating extraordinary capacities. Levitating, telekinesis, and so on. For them, universe was a product of mind. If you could fully know that, you could experience it. You could make things disappear and create new things out of nothing.

A: I find something of the quality of dream in their work. The flavor of it. They had a culture that supported that. They were intensely creative. They did very intense exercises over long periods of time. It wasnít your standard religion.

Q: In the past, weíve talked about film as dream.

A: Well, I think that was the early impact of films. They were dreams on the screen. It was a bit like being led into your own psyche and desires. Whereas, realism is about the fixation on having things as they are in the physical world.

Q: The early films of Ingmar Bergman had a certain dream quality. And even though the subject matter was, at times, despondent, it was alive.

A: When a person goes to escape depression, where does he go? He looks for any kind of life line. He tries to get back into the world. The everyday world. But after a while, what does he have? He may be somewhat happier, but the "real world" doesnít give him the sense of really being alive in an intense way. No matter how you approach it, the physical world is missing certain factors. Itís missing everything that lies beyond the boundaries laid down by the rules. Itís missing all those qualities you can find in dreams.

Q: The phrase "inventing dreams." What does it mean?

A: Just what it says. You make up a dream. Then another one. It doesnít matter what they are. It doesnít mean "the one dream you want to fulfill all your life." Sure, throw that one into the mix. But it means plural. Dreams. Invent dreams. Write them down. Flesh them out. Not just vague general statements. Just keep making them up. Dreams. One after another.

Q: It occurs to me that no one Iíve ever talked to has described a dream in which he was buying and selling something.

A: (laughs) Yeah. Thatís the main thing that goes on in the world. But when people sleep, they want to do something else. There is something about the human race - they want to build and envision all sorts of complex machines. Itís fascinating.


And the mind sometimes works that way, too. How complex a thought can you lug around? How intricate can you make the processes of mind? How many halls and corridors and rooms can you install in landscapes of the interior?


This gives rise to the idea that the mind itself - and everything you want to discover about it - is very complex. It has to be. You see? So the journey of discovery will be a very long one. I have no problem with that, if people want to entertain and amuse themselves that way. Great.


But I think there is short-line way of understanding. You see how the physical world works. It has space and time. And so on. You canít go from point A to B without some amount of time passing. You canít look at a clock on a table and make it disappear. You canít conjure up a rock out of nowhere and make it sit on that table. There are things you can do and canít do. Thatís the message of physical reality.


People who are conscious know there is something wrong with that. Thereís something wrong with that formulation. It isnít complete. We humans arenít just another species that fits into the overall framework of physical reality. There are groups who want us to believe that, who want us to make ourselves more stupid, who want us to imagine ourselves as just another kind of primate. But thatís not so. We arenít. The trouble is, when some people get hold of this idea of the dream, they use it to remain forever adolescent. They use it to becomeĖ

Q: Glazed donut heads.

A: Yes. They use it to excuse themselves from having anything to do with the world. In a juvenile way. They donít really want to think. They just want to get what they want when they want it. They donít want to work. They want a gift to arrive in the mail that will change them for all time. Itís pathetic.


Iím not talking about that at all. Iím talking about something much, much different. Why do we have this capacity to dream when we sleep? Why do we have this capacity to experience a different order of reality full-bore? Do we say itís just a minor diversion, like a TV show?


Or do say itís a profound clue about the nature of multiple Realities and how weíve accommodated ourselves to this one type of physical reality, when in fact an infinity of other types of experience are available to us?


None of this would be a problem, if it werenít for the fact that we want and desire those wider experiences - and if we donít reach them or move toward reaching them, we become frustrated and bored and passive.

Q: By "wider experiences," youíre including the capacity to make paranormal events happen.

A: Of course I am.

Q: You wereÖ[there is a break in the conversation, and then Jack is off on another topic]

A: I once saw a man dance out a dream. It was a very interesting experience. He did it in a dance studio. There were a few of us there. This was a dream heíd had a few months earlier, which he called the most thrilling experience of his life. He was walking on clouds above a forest covered by fog, in the early morning, and birds of strange shapes and colors came up from the canopy and hovered near him.


He walked on the clouds and felt green rays shooting up through his feet, all the way up his body into his headÖ when he danced this out in the studio, the whole thing transformed. There was no music. His dance was obviously about him absorbing and using that energy to be able to fly.


The dance went on for close to two hours. He was trying to learn to fly, literally. And the process was an exhilarating struggle. A few days later, he told me several nagging health problems heíd been having went away. He said the whole business about being able to fly had been stuck in his craw since he was a child, and he finally realized it was causing him chronic frustration, for many years. He said it didnít matter if he never learned to fly, he was "working on it," and his body was undergoing many changes, as a result.


So, in that case, a desire or goal which everybody would say was totally impossible and crazy became the impetus for him to transform himself. He didnít automatically reject the whole idea.


He accepted it as a real desire, and he began to dance it through. He kept at it, too. He did his dance many times after that. It was alchemy in motion.

Q: Thatís quite unusual, to say the least. He didnít reject the desire.

A: He kept expanding on it. I thought it was also interesting that he was a football playerÖsee, the point is, we all have desires which are theoretically impossible. These are kinds of desires that show up and are temporarily fulfilled in dreams. We decide to bury them. And we think it doesnít matter. But it can matter.

Q: Youíre talking about the tension between "the rules" of physical reality and what we want.

A: Right. I could also extend that to the rules of society, but letís stick to this, because I think itís far more interesting and less understood. Letís suppose you have a person who really wants to move a cigarette lighter across a table with his mind. He sits there, every day, and he tries, for an hour or two. Nothing happens. But he wants it to happen. Thatís tension. He canít do it.


So he starts to write about it or dance it through or whatever. Heís now giving expression to a desire that runs counter to the limits of physical reality, as these limits are generally understood or accepted. Heís engaging with a desire that "has no basis" in what we call ordinary life. You see? It doesnít mean heís gone crazy or he quits his job or he does drugs.


It doesnít mean he leaves his family or grows a beard two feet long or mumbles to himself. This is a straight-out expression of desire. Now, he has to find a way to express the desire. He has to work with this.

Q: In a way, this was what the Tibetans did. They had exercises for this.

A: Yeah. In a way.







by Jon Rappoport
February 22, 2011

from JonRappoport Website


Over the years, Iíve had many requests to publish further interviews with my late friend, hypnotherapist Jack True. Iíve assembled another interview here, from my notes.

What strikes me about all the interviews I did with JackÖ he takes his time. He doesnít feel pressed to make a few points and stop. He not only has a generosity of spirit, but of language, too. It seems, these days, people want quicker and quicker messages. They have less patience. Itís too bad. But Iím certainly not going to cut down things to fit the present mold. Jack deserves all the space I can give him.

In the late 1980s and early 90s, Jack and I had many conversations. He was, I believe, the most innovative hypnotist who ever walked the face of the Earth. Yet, he eventually gave up traditional hypnotism for other methods which he felt would better serve people.

The following conversation took place in the spring of 1988, just prior to publication of my first book, AIDS INC.


Jack was instrumental in that project, along several fronts. And just after the book appeared in print, in his typically mysterious way, he told me the book was on a plane, in a diplomatic pouch, to the USSR, where, he said, people "will be very interested in your findings."

The following interview (which is not about AIDS INC.) focuses on magic and the means to attain it.

Q (Rappoport): Do you think people are becoming more superficial?

A (Jack True): Not only that, theyíre becoming cartoons of themselves. But thankfully, there are still some of us who can think.

Q: What do you mean, cartoons?

A: They assess their supposed strengths, and they carve themselves down to fit a desire for success. This leaves them in a strange place, like a bright penny lying in the street. For a second it looks good, but then you realize itís only a penny. This is how you get a personality shift. A person fastens on to one idea about themselves or the world, and then he sculpts himself to fit that idea. Then everything goes to hell.

Q: Because he becomes terminally bored.

A: Not at first, but eventually, yes. The key to all movements and groups of any kindÖa person joins up, feels a thrill of newness - and then up the road realizes dimly something is missing. (laughs) Whatís missing is a significant part of himself! Itís fabulous joke when you think about it. A self-performed lobotomy.

Q: Done to attain success.

A: Broadly speaking, yes. And youíre right, boredom is the outcome. But not ordinary boredom. A deep cloud of nothing. A cloud that wraps a person up in non-creativity. Itís like a hypnotic state, in which the patient is sitting there, hoping for a suggestion that will change his life. But it never comes. Itís quiet. Nothing happens.

Q: People have to decide what they really want.

A: But you see, how can they decide when theyíre only half themselves, when theyíre cut off from the bulk of what they are? Itís a pickle. Itís like trying to drive a very fast car with your knees, or with your eyes closed. Self cut off from self. People parading around like caricatures of what they are. Itís the Disney dream come true.

Q: In the old Disney version, the fantasy is very narrow. Itís a very narrow road.

A: Or here is my analogy. Itís like a performer with no audience.

Q: Why do you say that?

A: You can look at this in one of two ways. You can say we are all the audience now, or you can say there is no audience. Because audiences have been trained to react like dogs. They hear certain bells, and they drool. Is that a real response? No, the point is to break through all that and come out on the other side.

Q: And thatís done how?

A: Thatís a secret.

Q: What?

A: Itís a secret. Every person who wants to has to find out for himself. There is no other way. Do you see?

Q: There is no system.

A: Exactly. Systems are sold to prevent breakthroughs from happening. Thatís why theyíre so popular.

Q: "Here, buy this system and youíll fail for sure."

A: Yeah. But the package looks nice. Isnít it great? People donít open the package because they were only buying the package and the idea that they could be a winner.

Q: Tell me what you mean by breakthrough.

A: You find lost parts of yourself. You stop repeating yourself over and over. You stop being so gentle about everything. You know. "Be nice and youíll get a gold star." Be nice and youíll get psychically dead. This gold-star crap is a form of behavior modification. Try this sometime. Tell people they should become spontaneous. Tell a lot of people. Watch what happens. Nothing happens. Because most people donít even have an inkling about what you mean.

Q: Why donít they?

A: Because theyíve programmed themselves to ignore that whole area. Theyíve built a wall.

Q: Theyíve done this consciously?

A: Yes. And then as time passes, they forget what they did.

Q: Youíve seen this with patients?

A: Of course. Iíve had patients remember what they did to themselves, as clearly as they remember walking down the street yesterday. Itís quite illuminating. They see it like a map, all laid out in front of them. But that doesnít mean theyíre suddenly free.

Q: Why not?

A: Because freedom is just opportunity. You actually have to do something to make freedom real. Removing brainwashing doesnít result in a miracle. You have to eliminate the tendency to brainwash yourself again. And you do that by creating something you really desire.

Q: Desire is a tricky concept.

A: Sure. You get a person who makes a living picking lint off the bossís suit. Then he un-brainwashes himself, and he says, "Now Iím going to pick the lint off with my left hand rather than my right. Thatís my desire." You see? Some people want that level of superficiality.


I mean, thatís the only level they can see.


They need wider experience. They need to live. They need all sorts of new experience, so they can find out something closer to their real desires. Iíve worked with patients who, even after a long time, show no evidence that they have deep desires. Itís rather astonishing. It can drive you to believe some humans are actually androids. (laughs)

Q: What do you think is going on there?

A: I have several answers. Iíll give you one. Some people are so thirsty for control coming from outside themselves - they want to conform so badly - theyíll opt for a whole slate of desires that are entirely synthetic. They sound synthetic and they look synthetic. Itís a form of conformity that runs very deep in them. They basically come into this life with that thirst. Nothing will deter them.

Q: Have you learned anything from these people?

A: Yes. Looking for the programming that causes them to function this way is a dead end. Theyíre inventing their own destiny as they go. Theyíre building the conformity, brick by brick.

Q: Dead art.

A: Dead on arrival. Theyíre inventing the whole charade. It made me look at the whole notion of programming from a new angle. You see, people are imagining reality and then responding to it. So I could put them in trance and then give them suggestions, but then theyíd just start to imagine reality according to my guideposts. Do you see? Iíd start them on a new path, but theyíd be doing the same basic thing.

Q: How do you get around that?

A: It took me a long time to see it. You get them to invent all sorts of different realities. This isnít as easy as it sounds. But the fundamental approach is valid. How do you wake a person up? You get him to do what he does while heís asleep. You get him to sleep in many different ways. You go on and on with this, and eventually heíll realize heís asleep and heíll start to wake up.

Q: This works with everybody?

A: No one thing works with everybody.

Q: I know you sometimes use a technique where you have people invent many dreams.

A: Itís one way to get a person to widen their scope. Invent a dream. A dream isnít bound by time constraints or time patterns or location or plot line. You can have a dream where youíre shifting from place to place without apparent reason. It just happens.

Q: In physical reality, this doesnít happen.

A: And that tells you something about physical reality. Itís only one form out of many possibilities. Just because it happens to be the form we live in, that doesnít mean itís the only way consciousness can operate.

Q: So we have art. An artist goes outside the background context.

A: And why should he want to do that? Because heís frustrated by the constraints. He glimpses or sees other possibilities and he wants to express them. We could do a lot worse than write our own books of dreams.

Q: A lot of people wouldnít be ready for that.

A: Well, a lot of people wouldnít be ready for a free society, either. Does that mean the rest of us shouldnít have one? What makes a person not ready is obsession. For instance, someone is fixated on having something. I mean really fixated. And in life, he canít get it. Heís chaining himself inside all sorts of limitations, and yet at the same time he wants something that lies outside those self-imposed boundaries. So if he begins to invent or imagine all sorts of new possibilities for himself, heís always going to do it so he can get that thing he so desperately wants.

Q: He keeps undermining himself, because he always brings it back to that thing he keeps obsessing about.

A: Yeah. It isnít a pretty picture. Heís in too much of a hurry. He wants a billion dollars tomorrow. Thatís his fixation. Or whatever it is. So when he opens up his imagination, he canít really fall in love with that process - because he always thinks if he has more imagination and creativity, maybe heíll get that billion dollars tomorrow.


So his experience is one failure after another, because he has that desire to become Midas tomorrow. Itís an odd thing, but Iíve seen it. Itís one way people can stay immature for a very long time. They donít really grow up. Theyíre in perpetual adolescence.

Q: On a larger scale, that seems to be happening to America.

A: More and more people believe they can be Midas tomorrow. And more and more people believe they can have political utopia tomorrow.

Q: The utopia turns out to be some version of collectivism.

A: Iíve had a people write their own books of dreams.

Q: How does that work?

A: Itís very simple. They just keep inventing dreams and writing them down. Do that for a year every day, and youíll see some very interesting changes in your conception of reality. But you have to remain grounded at the same time. Because you are living in this world, in this form of reality. Thatís the trick, to remain grounded.

Q: Almost sounds like youíre talking about a contradiction.

A: Almost, but not quite. An analogy. Yoga. Youíre moving into different areas of consciousness, but youíre also doing strenuous physical work. One isnít separate from the other. Or take this as an example. A person has an objective - and he can dream about it and see it fulfilled in the dream. The more this happens, over a period of time, the more power he actually has to make that desire come true in life.


His psychic power becomes stronger. But heís also working to make the desire come true. I mean real work. Get-your-hands- dirty work. Every day. The two arenít completely separate.

Q: But there is magic.

A: Of course thereís magic! Behind every mask is a magic state of affairs. You can see it, you can feel it, but you also have to pursue it. Work and magic arenít contradictory.

Q: What about this old statement - the world is just a stage.

A: Physical reality is a stage set. Just one. Weíre slaves to that one way. And we tend to react like slaves when the door to the jail cell opens. We peek out, we take a few steps, and then we go back in. This is the joke. Itís a very big joke. If only more people could laugh at it. That would be progress. But we take it all so seriously. Even the part about escaping. Weíre in a comedy, and weíre playing the part of tragic figures. Itís a bad fit.

Q: Itís like a debate with argument and counter-argument. It goes on and on.

A: Yes, thatís right. You remember Steppenwolf, the Hesse novel. Harry, the main character, is all wrapped up in his loneliness, his sense of exile. And Pablo, his guide, is brimming with good cheer and amusement. And the scene at the end, the cosmic laughter. Itís real, that laughter. Itís the exposure of the grand joke. You were living inside a jewel box, and you thought it was the whole universe. And then the lid comes up and you realize the truth, which youíve always known, underneath all the tons of bullshit.

Q: What happens in hypnotism?

A: Essentially, you have an unspoken contract. The patient is saying, "I want to get out of the thing Iím in. So get me out. Iíll surrender myself to you. Get me out." And the therapist is saying, "Follow my lead. Do what I say. And youíll experience a shift that feels better than youíre feeling now. Youíll get out for a little while. Youíll feel that."


Thatís what happens on one level. On another level, the patient is saying, "I want to believe. Make me believe something exciting." The therapist says, "Okay, I will. Iíll make you believe the rules can be broken. Iíll show you they can." So he puts the patient in a trance, where the patient is relaxed and receptive, and then he says, "That ankle of yours thatís sprained. Itís healing right now. Itís getting better."


And the patient believes what the therapist is telling him. He believes in the therapist. Strongly. And that belief puts him in a new reality where things can happen spontaneously. That belief surpasses the rules. And when the therapist brings him out of the trance, his ankle is better. The swelling is down. The pain has diminished.

Q: So why canít that breaking of the rules become the new reality all the time?

A: Well, it can. But not because the patient has such a strong belief in the therapist. That would be unworkable as a permanent and forever fix.

Q: But if the patient, on his own, radically changed his beliefs?

A: Yes. Thatís how magic comes about. The question is, does it happen in five seconds?

Q: You donít think it does.

A: I think the patient - who is not a patient anymore - needs to find a vehicle to carry him forward. Well, the vehicle doesnít do the work. The person does. But he uses a vehicle to help him.

Q: What kind of vehicle?

A: That question is like asking, "Is there one fingerprint we can all share?" And I would say no. Each person has to find such a vehicle for himself. It has to suit him. He might change vehicles a dozen times, as he goes. For example, for you it might be theater. You act. You write. You direct. I donít know. Iím picking something out of a hat.

Q: And how long would I do that?

A: Now weíre going to get metaphysical. How long does it take a person to become a slave? How long until his own slavery, as real as it is, becomes entirely invisible to him? How long does it take for him to fully accept the rules of physical reality - this stage play weíre in? This is where we have to depart from the culture weíre living in. We have to talk about many lives, living many lives, reincarnation, and so forth.

Q: Youíre saying it takes many lives to sink all the way down into the stage play we call reality, with no consciousness that there is something else - and therefore, it could take many lives to get out of it. To get to magic on a permanent basis.

A: Yeah. I know people donít like to hear that. They want the glimpse of magic, the moment of magic they had on Tuesday to become permanent right now. They want that dream to take hold now and never leave. They want to levitate tonight and be able to levitate and hover and fly forever after that.


So I say, sure, okay, why not? Are you ready to stop believing in the rules of the stage play altogether? Are you ready to move beyond that now? And are you also ready to be able to leave the stage play and come back to it whenever you want to - because, since youíre here in this stage play, it appears you have some attachment to it. It appears on some level that you want it.


Iím not imposing limitations on anybody. Iím just reporting on the situation as I see it. Whatís magic? Levitation, bi-location, invisibility, instantaneous shifting from one place to another, seeing the future, telepathy, changing shape, time travel, telekinesisÖis that what magic is? Spontaneously projecting a thought and turning it into a reality in front of you and everybody else? This is what we all think magic is? Right? Okay, I agree. These are magical things.


So how long does it take for a slave to get there, to leave this old reality behind? And then to come back and be here and live inside this stage play? Exit and enter? Anytime he wants to? Isnít this what we mean by magic? So Iím saying magic is invention of new realities relative to this monolithic one. And you get there by inventing all sorts of new realities, on and on.


You keep doing that, regardless of what you may feel. You keep on. And for that, you need a vehicle. And you keep on inventing realities that are close to what you desire. Thatís what you do. You need a vehicle to do that. Maybe a better way of saying it is, you need a medium by which to express those new realities. Do you see?

Q: The traditional culture supposes that a person has to remove or de-condition limiting beliefs in order to make progress.

A: Yes, I know that. I know all about it.

Q: And?

A: And I havenít found that to be true. First of all, many people get all wound up and tied up and encased in the method, whatever it is, of getting rid of limiting beliefs. They get snarled up in that. It becomes a habit. A crutch. And second, how do you really get rid of a limitation? You put a cow in a corral with a fence, and you leave him there for two years.


Thatís limiting, wouldnít you say?


Now you open the door. Is he supposed to stand there and think about how and why heís become used to being inside the corral? Or is he supposed to walk out into the open field? He has to walk out. So itís the same with this reality. But there is one big difference. We donít see the open field. All we see is this reality. So we donít just walk out of the corral. We wouldnít know how or where to go. Instead, we invent different and new realities.


Is that a little clearer now? We become inventors of new realities. And in doing that, we gain new power. And somewhere up the line, that power translates into magic. We can do magic.

Q: So, to invent different realities, you need a vehicle, a medium like paint or words. You donít just sit their and ruminate.

A: Right. I knew a person who made maps of lands and countries that donít exist. Hundreds of maps. An architect. After working with him for a while, I told him it was time for him to invent new realities by the ton. And he didnít know how. I said to him, "Youíre an architect! Make models. Make cities." And he went off and thought about it and decided to create maps. From what I hear, heís still going strong.

Q: By inventing realities, you eventually get to magic.

A: It isnít hocus-pocus.

Q: People wish it was.

A: Yeah. I know. (laughs) Sorry to disappoint them.

Note: Some of the ideas in this interview came from Jack, and some came from him by way of me. Jack and I talked a great deal in the old days. A large amount of cross-fertilization occurred. I carry on this work today.







The Jack True Interview - Part 1

by Jon Rappoport
April 27, 2009

from RealTalkWorld Website


I met Jack True in 1987 while I was working on my first book, AIDS INC. A mutual friend introduced us one afternoon at the UCLA Biomedical Library, where I was combing through medical journals.

Jack seemed to know a great deal about medical-research fraud. He pointed me to studies in the stacks, and then we sat down and had a long talk about animal research, and I learned more than I wanted to know about the cruelty of that industry.

I discovered that Jack was a Hypnotherapist. I had always been interested in hypnosis. He suggested we meet again and talk about his research. This led to many dinners at a Chinese restaurant in Santa Monica, California.

A few days after AIDS INC. was published, Jack casually told me a copy of the book was in a diplomatic pouch heading to Moscow. I tried to press him, but he refused to give me details, except to say people in Russia would certainly be interested in my conclusions about the inaccuracy of the viral studies that had been carried out at the US National Institutes of Health.

As I discovered over the next five years of conversations, Jack had been approached by "government contractors," who were interested in his work on the cutting edge of human potential. Jack consistently turned down their offers.

After his untimely death in the mid-1990s, I went through my notes and tapes of our conversations. What emerged were the astounding findings of a unique mind. Spread out in front of me, in these notes, were wide-ranging and daring explorations of a researcher who was determined to extend the possibilities of human capacity.

Jack and I shared many ideas we had independently arrived (at), from different routes. Painting had unlocked many doors for me. Jack had ventured into creative areas that went far beyond the traditional notion of hypnosis as a method for planting suggestions.

Iím happy to present, here, a compilation and re-editing of several of our interviews. I think youíll find, as you read Jackís remarks, that there IS something new under the sun. Jack had great disdain for limits, and he wasnít just pushing the envelope. He was pushing the envelope and the letter and the whole Post Office. He was a rare combination of researcher, artist, and rebel.

I call him the Spy in the House of Infinity.

Q: Why hypnosis?

A: At first, it was a fascination with the idea of changing beliefs. I could put a patient in a trance and make suggestions, and these suggestions would appear to alter the patientís inhibiting convictions.

Q: Why do you say "appear"?

A: Well, thatís the point. Itís a dead end. The patient keeps kicking out the new beliefs and retreating back to familiar territory.

Q: Give an example of a suggestion.

A: "Youíre happy." "Youíre satisfied with your life." "Your leg feels better." "You can run faster." "Your arm is healed."

Q: Seems pretty simple.

A: The immediate results can be tremendous. But, in most cases, they faded. The patient slips back.

Q: Given that this was what you were doing with patients, you must have become discouraged.

A: I wanted to go farther, understand more. I began looking for a system. I wanted a protocol that would do an end-run around the patientís tendency to fall back on old habits.

Q: A system.

A: You know, a better mechanism. A smarter approach. I wanted tricks. But that didnít work, either. It seemed as if something in the patient was much smarter than what I could devise.

Q: Smarter in what sense?

A: In remaining essentially passive.

Q: But if a patient were truly passive, wouldn"t he then accept all your hypnotic suggestions and become different?

A: No. The kind of passivity Iím talking about is "staying the same." I found deeper levels, shall we say, where people want to stay the same. And when you look at what that is, you see itís an acceptance of a lowest common denominator of what they already are. Itís like a person who drives his car a few miles to a lake, heís got his bathing suit on, he gets out of the car, he goes over to the lake, he sits down, and he stays there. Heís in his bathing suit with a towel next to him, but he never goes in the water.

Q: What would happen if he did go in the water?

A: Heíd feel something new. Heíd have a new experience that would change his whole outlook on his future. It would be revolutionary for him.

Q: But thatís why he went to the lake.

A: We donít know that. Thatís not definite. While he sits at the edge of the lake, he starts thinking about all sorts of things. And that rumination becomes the substitute for actually jumping in the lake. When he finally gets up and goes back to his car and drives home, he decides the rumination was why he really went to the lake.


The rumination was enough. He rationalizes the whole trip and turns it into something acceptable. I have no problem with that. We all do it. But after he goes to the lake a few hundred times and never jumps into the water, he develops a kind of crust. Heís shielded against a breakthrough.

But think about this: Why is it that human beings can be hypnotized at all? I mean itís not inevitable in the scheme of things.

Q: So whatís the answer?

A: Most people want to give up their will to another person. They want that experience. Theyíre waiting for it, so to speak. Itís part of what they think of as life - like going to the movies or running on the beach or flying in an airplane.

Q: They want to surrender.

A: Not always, but yes.

Q: And this is because?

A: They think something good is going to happen.

Q: They think theyíll find out some secret?

A: Itís a very fundamental idea.

Q: Explain.

A: You search through the jungle for the lost fountain of youth, and you hack away overgrowth and you endure bugs and snakes and all sorts of unpleasantness - trying your best to exert your own will power toward that fabled goal - and then what? Then, when you finally find the fountain, you surrender to it. You drink and bathe in the water and you let it do its work on you.

Q: And thatís like being hypnotized?

A: Youíre looking for something to override your normal will power, your normal processes, your normal drive to go get what you want. People want Ultimate Experiences or Illuminations, and they believe these revelations will come as a result of their surrendering the whole shooting match to something else. Rather than treating this human tendency as perfectly normal and natural, I treated it as a kind of marvel to be examined and rolled around and examined from all sides.


Take the example of an amusement park. You see people throwing baseballs at lead bowling pins to win a stuffed bear, but the most popular events are the rides like the giant roller coaster - because they take you over at some point, they make you surrender your "normal" state of mind to a "revelation" - that of being thrown into, forced into, another reality, a so-called special reality where your normal perception is shoved into the background.

In the early days, when I was learning about how to hypnotize people, I found that I was very good at it, because I was utterly convinced that people wanted to be put in a trance. They were lining up to surrender their will power. I knew that in my bones. And so I instinctively found a way to give them exactly what they wanted.


I never felt I was breaking some internal rule they were living by. The deeper rule was: Do me; hypnotize me; take away my will.

Q: It was a kind of pleasure for them.

A: To be taken over.

Q: "Let the sound of the ocean roll over me, and let the sun beat down on me." Whatís wrong with that?

A: Well, in my early days, I didnít think there was anything wrong with it. I was just cooperating with what I considered was the Deeper Law.

Q: How far did you take that?

A: In some cases, all the way. If a person wanted a new outlook on life, an outlook that he thought was better than anything he could manufacture himself, I was there to give it to him. That was my job. To turn things inside out and install a better, more positive theme to his life.

Q: And you were okay with that?

A: For a time. I refused to think there was anything better. For example, I was treating a kleptomaniac, a woman who couldnít stop stealing. She told me she had tried everything to stop, but nothing worked. So I dove in and tried to give her a new outlook, an outlook that didnít require her to steal. I tried to give her a better state of mind in wholesale form, by making suggestions over a long period of time while she was under, while she was in a trance.

Q: How did that work out?

A: She loved the short periods when she was under, when she let go of her own will power. It was like a vacation for her. But eventually the whole thing collapsed of its own weight and she was back to square one.

Q: What did you conclude about why your effort collapsed?

A: First, I assumed that I hadnít done the actual hypnosis well enough. That was silly. I had done it well. Then I decided that I had failed because I hadnít ATTACHED this new outlook I was "installing" to some key part of her personality. The "imported new personality" had no foundation; it just floated in the sea of her mind like an island, and eventually it was overwhelmed by her stronger impulses. I assumed my attempt at mind control wasnít reaching deep enough roots in her. Thatís when I went back and re-studied all the information on CIA mind control.

Q: From a new perspective.

A: Yes. Because I had to admit I was doing mind control, pure and simple. I had to admit that.

Q: It didnít make you happy.

A: Not at all.

Q: So what did you see when you reviewed the CIA data again?

A: The obvious, I guess. They were working from duress. They were attaching their suggestions to their "patients" by forcing them to surrender their own personalities, at which point they tried, in a sense, to install new personalities.

Q: Talk more about the whole idea that a person wants to surrender his will in order to find some Ultimate Thing.

A: The sense that a person wants to surrender his will at all - where does that come from? It comes from past experiences where he taught himself - or others taught him - that will power is frustrating and doesnít get you where you want to go in life. So he looks for another way out and he selects THE SURRENDER OF THE WILL. There are many places in the culture he finds that teaching.

Q: How did you feel when you came to this conclusion?

A: First depressed, then elated.

Q: Why elated?

A: Because it became apparent to me that a person could, on his own, without the mind control factor, INVENT his own outlook on life and thereby reach his goals. And hypnotism, if it were going to do any good at all, would have to somehow participate in that journey.

Q: When you say "invent his own outlook" -

A: I donít mean blot out the past and become a smiling robot with a Plan. I donít mean some horribly grotesque smiling mask of "positive thinking." I mean something much richer and fuller.

Q: How can hypnotism assist a person in this work, if hypnotism is all about getting a person to surrender his will and accept suggestions from the therapist?

A: That was the question. I was elated because it was a very stark question, and it framed my future work. Things may not have been solved for me, but they were suddenly clear, for the first time. My job was to take a "science" that was really all about surrender and use it for the opposite purpose. My job was to make hypnotism into a thing that could make the will more powerful. My job was to help people create at a deeper level for themselves. On the surface, it seemed like this task would be impossible. But that was just fine with me. Iíve always enjoyed paradox. I felt at home with paradox. Give me a saw and tell me I have to find a way to paint pictures with it, and Iím happy.

Speaking of which, you paint, so letís use that. Letís say you really want to do a huge painting, a fresco that spans a whole wall. Thatís your major idea. So how do you get there? You may, while youíre asleep, dream of some of the images, but youíre going to have to get on the ladder and PAINT. And keep painting until you say, thatís it, and then you stop.

If you keep on creating long enough, creating in the direction of what is most important for you, youíll also learn about CREATION ITSELF. See? Creating is will power that has found its home. Thatís where will power really wants to be. CREATING. The more you create, the more youíre moving into it, youíre immersed in it, and youíre becoming more satisfied.

Q: "Only the gods really create."

A: Yeah. Thatís a major piece of mind control.

Q: And if we go the other way? If we just keep creating?

A: We become what we really are. I worked out ways to use hypnotism to stimulate the creative urge in people. As a kick start.

Imagine a fictional ant colony. On the lowest level, the ants just follow their orders, so to speak. They do exactly what is expected of them and nothing more. No deviation. Now, a few of the ants graduate from there to realizing that following orders has the flavor of, letís call it, doing the right thing.


Theyíre following orders, but they also realize theyíre doing the right thing. Then, out of that small group, a few ants begin to see that theyíre creating. Theyíre creating their own actions - and at that point, they veer off. They donít follow orders anymore. They think about what they really want to create. And then THATíS what they create. And they feel theyíre on a whole new level. And they are.

Q: At which point, the whole ant colony could begin to disintegrate.

A: Donít blame me.

Q: But you think this disintegration is a good thing.

A: Disintegration of a perfect system that makes more and more obedient ants? Yes.

Q: On a political level -

A: Iím talking about healthy disintegration, which is really decentralization of power.

Q: Many people would say we all need to act in concert to preserve civilization.

A: Concert is not necessarily the same thing as obedience. But letís not split hairs. If you want to be an ant, go right ahead. Youíll always have a place. As long as you surrender your own will long enough.

Q: As times get tougher, more people look for a way to become ants.

A: Yes they do. And this is what they call "preservation of civilization." The whole question is, what do you mean by CIVILIZATION? Do you mean a billion people acting on orders from an elite? Ants always drift toward the absolute Collective.

Q: Are you taking a cruel position here?

A: Not at all. Cruel is getting people to surrender their will to create. Cruel is getting people to think they must create in the mode of the All.

Q: Whatís the All?

A: The fiction that we are really constrained to making our little part of the anthill and thatís it. And the fiction that there is a wider purpose and entity behind this, and itís running the whole show, and we have to surrender to THAT.

Q: And what is the opposite?

A: What each person can find by flying over the anthill.

Q: Thatís a whole different picture of what society would become.

A: Yeah.

Q: In this picture, what is the glue that holds things together?

A: The glue is what we always said it was. You canít use your freedom to curtail the freedom of another. We always said that, but we didnít really mean it.

Q: Suppose a person wants to create something shallow and stupid.

A: Then by creating it and getting it he stands a chance of discovering itís shallow and stupid, whereas if he just hopes for it and wishes for it and whines about it, he has NO chance of finding out itís shallow and stupid.

Q: Suppose he creates it and finds out itís stupid. What does he do then?

A: Figures out something else he wants. And then creates whatever he has to create to get that.

Q: And if THAT turns out to be shallow and stupid?

A: Repeat step A and B over and over until he decides heís creating something that isnít stupid.

Q: And in this process he finds out something about creation itself.

A: Thatís the bonus. And the bonus becomes the main event, eventually.

Q: How so?

A: You take a special horse that is very dumb. And you think, this horse is so dumb I have to lock him in the stall and leave him there, because he doesnít know what to do with himself. Will that work? Of course not. So instead, you let the horse out of the stall. The dumb horse is now free to create. So the first thing he does is, he eats 12 bales of hay. He vomits it up. Then he eats 12 more bales and pukes again. Then he walks around in a circle for three weeks and falls down. Then he walks in a straight line toward the horizon because he thinks thatís where he wants to go. But he gets tired and lies down and goes to sleep. You see? He keeps creating dumb things. But finally, after three years, he decides to try running. And discovers he loves to run. THIS is really what he wants. Heís not dumb anymore. So he runs and runs, and in the process he realizes that heís CREATING. And a light bulb goes on in his head. Now he is doing more than running. He is somehow more than he was. And eventually, by this process he learns to fly, and youíve got Pegasus. (laughs)

Q: Okay. Suppose the first time you let this dumb horse out of the stall you force him to run. Wonít he get where he wants to be faster?

A: He might. But chances are heís too dumb at that point to realize that running is what he wants. So he keeps stopping. He didnít go through the process himself.

Q: Do you think there is a limit on what a person can create?

A: No.

Q: He can create gold bars out of thin air?

A: Yes.

Q: You really mean that?

A: Yes.

Q: How does a person create gold bars out of thin air?

A: Iíll tell you this. He doesnít do it the first time heís let out of the stall. It might take a million incarnations. Depends on who he is.

Q: What about a person who creates crime, murder?

A: The principle of freedom applies. You are free to create anything that doesnít curtail the freedom of another person. If a person commits murder, you lock him up or you execute him.

Q: If a person knowingly creates 50,000 tons of toxic chemicals as the head of a huge corporation that he has built?

A: You lock him up. And you make him pay for the cleanup. I say lock him up for a long time.

Q: But then you are limiting his ability to create.

A: I sure as hell hope so.

Q: Do you believe a person can create his way out of the space-time continuum? If he wants to?

A: Of course.

Q: What gave you the idea that individual creativity has such great potential power?

A: Many, many clues. For example, in my own practice, I saw patients who were able to do extraordinary things, if only briefly. A patient moved an object on a table without touching it. Another patient blew out a light bulb in my office. By "looking at it." He did this twice. These are the very little things. There are other events and experiences. But it doesnít matter what Iíve seen. It only matters what other people believe and do.

When I put someone in a light trance, what Iím dealing with is a person who, for the moment, is free from a whole host of suggestions that otherwise would be guiding his opinions and perceptions. Itís an interesting moment. What should I do? Just give him more suggestions? He already has too many of those in his waking life.

I have that person create reality. I have him invent a dream or construct a scene, any scene. Something. Anything.

Q: But that would seem to be the opposite of discovering what reality is.

A: IS? Creating reality is putting your foot on the road to discovering what reality CAN BE. The situation is very fluid, my friend. Reality is malleable. That is what I learned from my patients. Reality isnít just one thing, like a present you unwrap.

Q: Thatís like saying you have to tell lies to arrive at the truth.

A: Youíre a little off base there. But Iíll go along with it. In which case, the whole point is these are YOUR lies. You fumble around and create lies or whatever you want to call them. And in the process you arrive at the truth, somewhere down the line.

Iíll give you a patient summary. Man of about 35 comes into my office and tells me heís bothered by his marriage. Things are not working out. He wants to find the right formula, but he canít. No matter what he does, he feels a lack. He feels heís screwing it up. He tries to do all the right things, but nothing good comes out of it. He just gets himself into more hot water.

Q: Heís confused.

A: And this is good, because otherwise he never would be making the effort to make things come out right. So I put him into a light trance. I then get him to INVENT scenes and dreams. All sorts of scenes.

Q: And this helps him how?

A: He begins to expand his own ideas about what reality can be. And once he does that, he begins to get a kind of feedback from his own inventions. He tends to drop his fixation on fixing his own marriage. You see, "his own marriage" is a more or less a fixed ";non-idea" that traps him into thinking that he is tinkering with one thing that needs the right part inserted - like a car that wonít run.

Q: Whereas?

A: His current marriage is a lowest common denominator that he derives from vague images. He is laboring under the delusion that his current marriage is one very real thing, like an object inside a vacuum jar.

Q: But it isnít.

A: Correct. Itís a congealed derivation. For, example, we look at a table and think itís one thing that has a set number of uses. But then an artist comes along and takes that table and paints it and cuts it up and re-glues it and itís something else entirely.

When I had this patient invent all sorts of scenes and dreams, he began to see that his marriage was just one outcome of his own sense of reality. He was living inside a trap. The trap didnít need tinkering. It needed something else introduced from the outside. And "the outside" is his own imagination.

Q: So, suppose his marriage was suffering because he was insisting that his wife should do x,y,z when she didnít want to.

A: And suppose I then say, "Look, all you have to do is stop insisting she do x,y,z."

Q: And he follows your advice.

A: And then something else will crop up. Some other problem. Forever, over and over. Because he is living inside a trap. A trap he made. But he doesnít see this.


And even if he and I completely dismantle that marriage into "parts" and I make him examine each one, that process isnít going to fix it. Itís like a physicist who is trying to gain a new understanding of life itself. He keeps breaking down particles into smaller and smaller particles. And nothing happens. Because heís in the wrong pew to begin with.

Well, thatís the way it works with reality itself. Reality is not one thing like a car. Reality, the ordinary boring repetitious version, is WHAT WE ARE LEFT WITH WHEN WE STOP CREATING REALITIES. And how do you fix THAT problem? By tinkering with the sludge youíre left with? No.

Q: How does this connect to the whole subject of the master-slave relationship?

A: A slave has one reality, which is formed by his abandonment of the process of creating realities.

Q: Therefore, anything that will make him stop creating realities functions as a way of making him a slave.

A: Yes, thatís right.

Q: And you came to this in your work?

A: I sure as hell did. You see, one of the basic problems is the drive for perfection.

Nothing is perfect. To want perfection is to want that leftover sludge called reality. You fuss with that sludge and you try to even out the corners and paint it pink and fix the edges and so forth. But you lose. Because you canít get perfection out of something that is a residue to begin with. Iíve had many patients who wanted to change their lives by fixing a losing proposition - a bad house that was sinking in its foundations, so to speak, and the person wanted to replace shingles on the roof and bring in a new carpet.

Q: Where does that drive for perfection come from in the first place?

A: It comes from the sense that the reality you are dealing with is the only one that exists, and therefore you must make it as obsessively good as you possibly can. That perfectionism is based on a basic insecurity, because, deep down, the person knows that he is working with a lie. One and only one reality is a lie. A reality that is GIVEN is a lie. Realities are created.

Q: Even in terms of the cosmos itself -

A: We are working with a lie. There are an infinite number of possible cosmos-es. Letís say I have a patient who can respond to the idea of creating a brand new cosmos. He can do that. He does do that.

Q: In his mind.

A: Right. And over the course of a year or two, he creates five thousand more. Whatíll happen? Heíll begin to get a whole new sense of what is possible. I did have just such a patient. He had come to me because of a personal crisis in faith. After we finished, he no longer felt he needed to "fix" his current metaphysical belief system. He saw that as a foolish enterprise. He graduated from being a tinkerer to being a full-blooded adventurer. In the process, he became quite a good remote viewer. That was just a byproduct. We werenít aiming for that.






Interview With A Hypnotherapist

by Jon Rappoport
April 16, 2009

from RealTalkWorld Website

Note: The following article/interview was written by Jon Rappoport for his teleseminar: Techniques for Stress Reduction. I think Jonís interview with the late Hypnotherapist, Jack True is compatible with our discussion.

This piece is about the GRAND ILLUSION.

It has to do with the conviction that impending events are forming a pattern that has some climax, some revelation, some grand finale.

In the late 1990s, we saw this conviction at work in a huge way. Millions of people were swept up in the coming Y2K disaster. Radio shows spent hours on it. And Y2K wasnít the only element.

In general, many perceived that the turn of the century was a magnetic force, drawing to it all sorts of happenings that would crack the egg of normal reality. Once and for all.

Not because anyone here on Earth was DOING something, but because events were forming up by themselves, under the direction of unseen causes.

There was the specter of earth changes, earthquakes on a new scale, and a collapse of infrastructure. Radio hosts wove together every strange occurrence to create an expectation.

Of course, as we know, the end of every century has seen such machinations.

Here is a brief interview with the late Jack True, who was, in my opinion, the most innovative Hypnotherapist on the planet. The approximate date of this conversation was June 1991.

Q: What do you make of the constant idea that "there is something in the air, something afoot"?

A: It stimulates people, which isnít a bad thing. But it also gets people to think that every good or bad thing, on a grand scale, is a Force to which they should hitch their wagons. Itís a human attempt to FIND ENERGY SOMEWHERE.

Q: Find energy?

A: Yes. People are walled off from the sense that they can create energy, so they look for big amounts of it wherever it might be, and then they try to swim with it.

Q: And when that doesnít lead anywhere?

A: Depression sets in.

Q: Well, on a political level, the same thing happens every four years.

A: I know. The same desire to be part of the big force that is sweeping the nation, to support one candidate, to catch the wave.

Q: So this is a habit.

A: Right.

Q: And what is the antidote to it?

A: At the risk of sounding trite, creating your own energy.

Q: And how does one do that?

A: Thatís like asking how you use your fingers to grip an object. If youíve forgotten, you have to remember or re-learn the skill. This is the hardest thing for people to understand.

Q: Yet, in your work with patients, you have them do all sorts of techniques to re-learn that ability.

A: There is no contradiction there. Except, Iím not making myself the source of their ability. Iím trying to empower them so they act on their own.

Q: When you have people literally invent dreams - what is happening there?

A: Dreams are often happening on a somewhat larger scale than daily life. So when people invent their dreams consciously, they are creating larger energies. They get familiar with that.

Q: And after they do it, what happens when they go back to their lives, where those energies donít usually play a part?

A: People feel a contradiction. I encourage that. Itís the first step to making a change. Why would you change your life, unless you felt you had much more to give than your life was able to absorb?

Q: And this works out for your patients?

A: Not always, but sometimes. The analogy I would offer goes like this: you discover that you can sing. But you are working as an accountant. So do you change course, or do you fall back on the tried and true? No one can make that decision for you.

Q: How about this analogy? You find out you can make a cup slide off a table with your mind. Now you have to figure out a way to integrate that ability in your life.

A: Yes. That would be the same sort of thing.

Q: There is a reflex that makes people think every large accomplishment they achieve has a hidden cause, that it "comes from somewhere else." Not from them.

A: I could analyze that reflex for a long time. But to boil it down, I would say the individual Self, in this day and age, does not usually perceive its own size and scope. Therefore Self thinks things are coming from somewhere else, when they are actually coming from an uncharted or forgotten area of Self.

Q: Thatís an exciting idea.

A: It also happens to be a true idea. So then, should one simply wake up part way and accept these marvelous moments as "subconsciously derived," or should one also explore the forgotten areas of Self? I choose the latter road. Iím an advocate of individual power. I donít think one has to be afraid of it. I think one has to find out about it.

Q: And what about the people who use their power to do bad things?

A: Thatís just the way it is. Every power can be turned north or south. Which is the justification often used to try to limit the power of everyone - -to put that power under a ceiling - a ceiling built by those few who think they know whatís best.

Q: Reminds me of the "Hitler syndrome."

A: Yes. Unfettered power is equated with Hitler, as if we would all become Hitlers if we were left to our own devices. A lie. And in a way, Hitler was created as a prelude to all this NWO (New World Order) stuff, which is based on the idea that power is bad and must be reserved for the elite, who know how to handle it.

Q: The population is given these object lessons.

A: Yes. Every villain is portrayed as someone whose real crime was tapping into too much power - and therefore, we have to reduce everyone down to weakness. "For the good of all."

Q: So these waves of feeling that "something incredible is in the air, something incredible is afoot" -

A: It is a way to make people feel their best bet to have power is to give it away to unseen forces and then to connect, as slaves, to those forces.