“If You Were Chief of CIA Consciousness Ops”

Image: http://www.sott.net

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. “Reality control,” they called it: in Newspeak, “doublethink.” (1.3.18)

1984: George Orwell

If You Were Chief of CIA Consciousness Ops

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2016

There is an obsession to say that everything is made out of something.

Who knows where it started? With the Egyptian pyramid builders? The Sumerians?

In the modern era, the fervor has reached a high point.

Physicists, biologists, and chemists are relentless in their pursuit of consciousness as a function of the brain. It has to be the brain. All those synapses and neurons and chemicals…and underneath them, the atoms and the sub-atomic particles…somehow these tiny particles conspire to produce consciousness and awareness.

Yet these same scientists deny that a sub-atomic particle carries any trace of awareness. The particles flow. They obey laws. That’s all.

So the experts are painted into a corner. They then speculate: “Well, you see, the increased ability to process information, the complexity of structure—naturally, this implies consciousness.”

No it doesn’t.

A Ferrari is complex. So is the Empire State Building. So is the IBM’s best computer. And? Where is the consciousness?

You, sitting there right now, reading these words—you understand the words; you KNOW you’re reading them; you’re not just processing information. YOU ARE CONSCIOUS.

If a physicist wants to say that you, knowing you’re reading, are just a phenomenon of atoms in motion, let him try, let him explain. Let him do more than bloviate.

Imagine you were the chief of a CIA section called Consciousness Covert Ops. What would you try to do, given that your motive, as always, is control?

You would try to convince the population that consciousness isn’t free and wide-ranging and powerful and independent. You would try to narrow the popular belief about consciousness.

What better way than to focus on the brain as the seat of all awareness?

“The brain functions according to laws. We’re discovering more and more about those laws. We can determine when the brain is malfunctioning. We’re learning how to correct those malfunctions.”


You’re spinning narrative about the brain as if it were a car that has to visit the shop. That’s what you want. You want to make people believe their brains need fixes, because, after all, you come out of the long tradition of CIA MKULTRA mind control.

When the brain comes into the shop, you can try to reprogram it. You can experiment. You can apply the latest technology. You can attempt to insert controls. You can place monitors in the brain, in order to observe it in real time.

At a more basic, yes, philosophic level, you want to eliminate any sort of movement claiming that consciousness is separate from the brain. You want to snuff that idea out. It’s counter-productive, to say the least. It could give rise to a renaissance of an old outmoded notion called: freedom.

What could be more free, more independent, more unique, more creative than individual consciousness that has a non-material basis?

You want to do everything you can to equate consciousness with the brain and, thus, the modern idea of the computer. Yes, the computer. Perfect.

“Consciousness is a computer operating at a very high level.”

“All computers can be improved.”

“All computers can malfunction. They can be repaired.”

And then, the ultimate coup:

“Consciousness? A very old idea that, in light of the progress of technology, has no merit. It’s really information processing. The brain handles that. The brain is a computer. We’re learning how to build a better brain…”

You’re shifting the focus of the old 1950s MKULTRA program, which mainly involved drugs and hypnosis, to a new arena. You’re coming at the territory inside the skull from a number of angles. You’re the next generation of Brave New World.

And right across town, the Pentagon and its research branch, DARPA, is deeply involved in a number of allied research projects. For example, the cortical modem, a little piece of equipment that costs about $10.

The gist? Insert proteins into neurons, and then beam photons into those proteins, thus creating image displays that bypass the normal channels of perception.

Virtual reality with no headset. The project is still in its early stages, but the direction is clear: give the “user” an image display beyond his ability to choose.

It’s touted as an overlay. The person, walking down the street, can still see the street, but he can also see what you give him, what you insert into his visual cortex. Of course, as the technology advances, you could take things further: block out physical reality and immerse the person in the virtual.

DARPA’s enthusiasm about this project, as usual, exceeds its current grasp, but its determination to succeed is quite genuine. And the money is there.

Think about this. Which way is a bright college student going to go? He can study ancient philosophy, in the least popular department on campus. He can read the Vedanta, and plow through its explications of consciousness. Or he can study biology and physics, and then try to land an entry job with the Pentagon, where he can fiddle with the human brain for fun and profit. This student has been thoroughly immersed in computers since he could crawl. He understands what they do and how they work. He’s been taught, over and over, that the human brain (consciousness) is a computer. So what path will he take?

Over and above everything I’m pointing out in this article, there is a human capacity called imagination. It’s the wild card in the deck. It’s the greatest wild card ever known. It is, in fact, the cutting edge of consciousness. It invents new realities. It releases gigantic amounts of buried energy. And it’s entirely an individual proposition.

I built my second collection, Exit From The Matrix, on that basis: the liberation and expansion of imagination. Not just in theory, but in practice. There are dozens of imagination techniques to work with.

Brain=computer=consciousness is the greatest covert op on the planet. It’s supported with major money and labs and journals and armies of psychiatrists and neurological professionals and physicists and the military.

And the op is completely false, because, again, the very scientists who push it are saying the brain is composed of sub-atomic particles THAT CONTAIN ZERO CONSCIOUSNESS.

Think about that.

They’re saying consciousness arises out of particles that have no consciousness.

Jon Rappoport

Source: If you were Chief of CIA Consciousness Ops « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

11 thoughts on ““If You Were Chief of CIA Consciousness Ops”

  1. “Yet these same scientists deny that a sub-atomic particle carries any trace of awareness. The particles flow. They obey laws. That’s all.”

    Matter is in itself an unknown. It’s just a word to designate what on an ordinary human scale is, again in human abstract and analogical terms, three dimensional sensuous experience.

    As for consciousness, I think there are degrees of it and that, indeed, it is primordial, a manifestation inherent to ‘Being,’ or as my professor of metaphysics used to put it, inherent to ‘is-ing.’

    As for human awareness, the basic particle is the whole organism that we call human in its interconnections with its environment, again as a whole. Destroy those interconnections/b> to any significant degree and you subvert or annihilate that awareness.

    Think of it this way: while your amplifier pumps out the electrical patterned pulses that make your stereo speakers emit music, turning it off defeats the electrical patterned pulses that were driving your speakers, and the music ceases. Where did the music go? Where did the specific electrical pattern that underlied the music go? It didn’t go anywhere. It ceased. Because it was simply patterned motion that ceased. Of course, patterned electrical pulses remain in the hardware that comprises the now silent din box that is your amplifier and speakers, and so in a sense, at a primordial level, in the substratum of matter that we call atoms and molecules and so on, something like the stuff that comprised the music remains. But it’s not specifically the music you were listening to before you turned off the amplifier. The electrical pulses are similar and yet they are different by virtue of now being a different conglomeration of pulses which to your ears, as a source of sound, are now pure silence.

    Consciousness is analogous to music being played by an amplifier. It is ‘patterned’ motion that knows itself as such. Your mind is never still while you are awake, but it throbs a familiar and predictable throb. When you die, that familiar and predictable throbbing, that is the pattern in motion that is your self being aware of itself, ceases. It doesn’t go anywhere nor was it a substance. And all of the “material” throbbing that was the pattern of the biological substratum that emitted the music that was your living consciousness goes on throbbing as ever it did, but now in different combinations that cannot yield thereby the unique music that you yourself were, since the instrument that played you as its tune is no longer of the piece that it needed to be in order to sound you out. Consciousness is no thing. It is an ‘is-ing.’

    As for the CIA and their mind control, surely Jon has his finger on the pulse of their intention. And I agree with him: they aren’t gods, and consciousness, imagination if you will, by way of reflection, is always an open door to freedom no matter how hard they try to slam it shut. And I would also add this, that anyway, we are too many to reliably control beyond what the phenomenon of culture already provides for, and that is far less than full proof control.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. As for me, I don’t believe any of us know much about consciousness, if there even is such a thing, in the sense of the term as it is used today?

    I do know that the government is trying to control our thoughts, beliefs and actions. Beyond this, there is nothing I have ever heard about imagination and consciousness that I could take to the bank.

    As I’ve stated before, I don’t buy into the everything can be explained away by “enlightened” man routine.

    It’s like Steely Dan sang,

    “You’ve been telling me you’re a genius since you were seventeen, and after all these years, I still don’t know what you mean,”

    In my estimation, “modern man” is just another mouse that roared.

    And if he is more than this, then he has a piss poor track record!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. By consciousness, I think we mean to designate the “knowing” of the “I” that “I am.” If you are reading this, you know at least two things: a) the reading of this as the ‘intentionality’ of the reading; and b) that ‘you’ are reading.

    How do I know that exist? Well, who is asking the question? To ask the first question and to know who is asking it, that’s consciousness. Or is that part of the “enlightened” man routine?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Yes, Norm, I know. But this, as far as I can tell, is the worldly existence answer, the “this is all there is” answer.

    Much of the conversion about this subject today, however, deals with the metaphysical, or spiritual, or whatever term you choose to use to describe it.

    For many people, including me, the cut and dry Darwinian existence is not only unsatisfying, it leaves a multitude of questions unanswered; questions that some of us are still willing to take into consideration.

    I know I exist, just by pinching myself. But is this all there is? I don’t think so.

    Why do I exist; what is this life/existence all about, and what, if anything, is next? And what are my true, universal (innate) rights as a unique individual, apart from the isms bullshit of political/religious man, whether it be capitalism, Catholicism, socialism or communism?

    Whom do I owe anything to beyond my self? Was I born an individual or just another member of the herd (the “proletariat”, the “masses”)?

    These are just a few of the questions I have always dealt with. And dumping organized religion didn’t result in the death of these questions.

    I think this is partly due to the artist in me. I don’t fit well with the rest of humanity, nor do most of the artists I know or have known. This is why I find, more and more every day, that I will never be completely aligned with any other human being, at least not in this realm/age.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Is this “all” that you are? Why do you demean yourself and the utter “mystery” of life? I mean, if you went looking for the face of “God,” would it not be the utter inexplicable and brute fact of “His” existence without “explanation” and just “because” in the unfathomable “void” of eternity, in both space and time?

    I don’t know about you, but if I had an answer to the “why” there is “something” instead of “nothing,” my life, my existence, would be immeasurably diminished. For me, it is utterly “incredible” that “I,” whatever the fuck “I” am, can raise the ultimate, unanswerable “why,” and thereby feel my nerve ends open up on a “reality” so “real” that it (figuratively) sheers the top of head off. No drug has ever taken me so “high” as the “cosmic wonder” of being alive! If there is one thrill in my life, that is it and all that I need.

    Now listen to this, while you suspend yourself in the ecstasies of your “whys,” of knowing that you exist regardless of the total absence of any explanation whatsoever, because in fact, there isn’t any, and “why” would that be a “bad thing,” I mean, that you exist to breath and to experience the brute fact of “cosmic existence,” of the “DIVINE!” Or do you imagine that if God did exist, he wouldn’t also be brought to the same ecstasy of wonder before the sheer fact of “BEING!” And now this, before we return you to our regular hum drum programming:

    Liked by 1 person

  6. A much better version, the one I really groove to. If you listen carefully, you hear the “voice of nature,” that is, the chirping background that is a musical simulacrum of the “spring peeper” phenomenon, if you’ve ever heard it in the spring, while out camping, probably one of the most primordial sounds I’ve ever gotten myself lost into.

    Anyway, I hope you enjoy this as much I’m enjoying right now:

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Norm, sorry I couldn’t respond earlier.

    If this is what works for you, then go for it. I’m not trying to proselytize anyone here.

    But this perspective does not work for me. And that is all I can tell you. If we could get coffee and talk in person, it would be easier for me to explain. But I cannot explain where I am at this way.

    Norm, I didn’t write my original comment to offend you, or to get you to feel you had to respond. I was just trying to be honest in my reply to your prior comment.

    I meant no harm, nor did I think I was being confrontational, in my email response to you. I’m saying this, because you seem to have been offended, or at least repulsed, by my response.

    So I think we should leave this subject alone.

    I hope you agree?


  8. Dave,

    I’m in no way, shape or form offended. And I absolutely respect your standpoint, as you know you respect mine. From my end of this, this is merely a conversation between friends, that I happen to find stimulating. Is it possible to be human and not wonder about the meaning of our lives? To seek and to find some explanations more or less to one’s taste or way of looking at things?

    I started this conversation with you and continued it with Nancy, a friend of ours who was visiting us this afternoon. I think she sees things much as you do, and we exchanged our reasons, back and forth, as to why we think we come down on the question of ‘existence’ the way that we do. No one was offended, and I find it gives me the opportunity to think and re-think the question of life, its meaning, my mortality, and so on, and how I can infuse substantive ‘purpose’ into my life, for otherwise, what is the point of living, I mean if there is no point to it?

    A lot of people I know don’t seem to be able to wrap there head around finding life meaningful if there is no hereafter or transcendence to it. As for my self, although it was once the source of a deep and abiding angst, it’s no longer a problem. Not only have I made my peace with it, but it has become a source of both exhilaration and a deeper appreciation for being alive and for everything else with which I share this universe. Really, delving into this issue has over time become for me liberating, a liberation from a sort of Kierkegaardian fear and trembling wherein, to quote him, if “. . . there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?” There was a time that I felt that way. But no more. Rather and from my own personal experience, I affirm with André Malraux that the “. . . great mystery is not that we should have been thrown down here at random between the profusion of matter and that of the stars; it is that from our very prison we should draw, from our own selves, images powerful enough to deny our own nothingness.”

    Out of nothing, I assert my being and my values because I am so constituted, by virtue of the voice of consciousness, by the reality of my being, as to be able to do so.

    So no, no offence. Only the pleasure to dialogue.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. First and foremost, thank you, Norm, for being who you are. And yes, I do respect you, very much.

    This really struck me:

    “. . . there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?”

    If I’d had this quote yesterday, I would have quoted it and said nothing else!

    I wish, like Nancy, I could sit and talk about this with you, in person. For some reason, on this topic in particular, I feel almost overwhelmed trying to explain what is on my heart and mind. And part of this sensation is due to the fact that, unlike you, I am not completely at rest with this.

    And yet, I am not all tied up in knots over it either, that is, until I attempt to discuss it with people in this manner.

    As you know, not everyone is as open as you are. And I have had some horrible experiences with this subject, especially on line.

    I am still working through this. And so I have come to understand that I am not yet prepared to explain what I am at peace with and what still troubles me.

    But your comment here will only help me from here forward.

    Give me a week or two, and I will email you. I want to take the time to (try to) explain what I sense about this; what I rest in, and what still bothers me.

    Thanks, Norm! And I am glad I hadn’t offended you, since that was the last thing I wanted to do!

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.