By Jon Rappoport
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.
I’m happy to present, here, a compilation and re-editing of several of our interviews. I think you’ll find, as you read Jack’s remarks, that there IS something new under the sun. Jack had great disdain for limits, and he wasn’t 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 patient’s inhibiting convictions.
Q: Why do you say “appear”?
A: Well, that’s the point. It’s 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: “You’re happy.” “You’re 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 patient’s tendency to fall back on old habits.
Q: A system.
A: You know, a better mechanism. A smarter approach. I wanted tricks. But that didn’t 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 I’m 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 it’s an acceptance of a lowest common denominator of what they already are. It’s like a person who drives his car a few miles to a lake, he’s got his bathing suit on, he gets out of the car, he goes over to the lake, he sits down, and he stays there. He’s 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: He’d feel something new. He’d have a new experience that would change his whole outlook on his future. It would be revolutionary for him.
Q: But that’s why he went to the lake.
A: We don’t know that. That’s 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. He’s shielded against a breakthrough.
But think about this: Why is it that human beings can be hypnotized at all? I mean it’s not inevitable in the scheme of things.
Q: So what’s the answer?
A: Most people want to give up their will to another person. They want that experience. They’re waiting for it, so to speak. It’s 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 they’ll find out some secret?
A: It’s a very fundamental idea.
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 that’s like being hypnotized?
A: You’re 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.” What’s wrong with that?
A: Well, in my early days, I didn’t 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 couldn’t 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 didn’t 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 hadn’t done the actual hypnosis well enough. That was silly. I had done it well. Then I decided that I had failed because I hadn’t 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 wasn’t reaching deep enough roots in her. That’s 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 didn’t 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 doesn’t 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 don’t mean blot out the past and become a smiling robot with a Plan. I don’t 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. I’ve 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 I’m happy.
Speaking of which, you paint, so let’s use that. Let’s say you really want to do a huge painting, a fresco that spans a whole wall. That’s your major idea. So how do you get there? You may, while you’re asleep, dream of some of the images, but you’re going to have to get on the ladder and PAINT. And keep painting until you say, that’s it, and then you stop.
If you keep on creating long enough, creating in the direction of what is most important for you, you’ll also learn about CREATION ITSELF. See? Creating is will power that has found its home. That’s where will power really wants to be. CREATING. The more you create, the more you’re moving into it, you’re immersed in it, and you’re becoming more satisfied.
Q: “Only the gods really create.”
A: Yeah. That’s 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, let’s call it, doing the right thing. They’re following orders, but they also realize they’re doing the right thing. Then, out of that small group, a few ants begin to see that they’re creating. They’re creating their own actions—and at that point, they veer off. They don’t follow orders anymore. They think about what they really want to create. And then THAT’S what they create. And they feel they’re on a whole new level. And they are.
Q: At which point, the whole ant colony could begin to disintegrate.
A: Don’t 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: I’m 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 let’s not split hairs. If you want to be an ant, go right ahead. You’ll 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: What’s the All?
A: The fiction that we are really constrained to making our little part of the anthill and that’s it. And the fiction that there is a wider purpose and entity behind this, and it’s 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: That’s a whole different picture of what society would become.
Q: In this picture, what is the glue that holds things together?
A: The glue is what we always said it was. You can’t use your freedom to curtail the freedom of another. We always said that, but we didn’t 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 it’s 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 it’s shallow and stupid.
Q: Suppose he creates it and finds out it’s 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 he’s creating something that isn’t stupid.
Q: And in this process he finds out something about creation itself.
A: That’s 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 doesn’t 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 that’s 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. He’s not dumb anymore. So he runs and runs, and in the process he realizes that he’s 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 you’ve got Pegasus. (laughs)
Q: Okay. Suppose the first time you let this dumb horse out of the stall you force him to run. Won’t he get where he wants to be faster?
A: He might. But chances are he’s too dumb at that point to realize that running is what he wants. So he keeps stopping. He didn’t go through the process himself.
Q: Do you think there is a limit on what a person can create?
Q: He can create gold bars out of thin air?
Q: You really mean that?
Q: How does a person create gold bars out of thin air?
A: I’ll tell you this. He doesn’t do it the first time he’s 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t matter what I’ve seen. It only matters what other people believe and do.
When I put someone in a light trance, what I’m 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. It’s 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 isn’t just one thing, like a present you unwrap.
Q: That’s like saying you have to tell lies to arrive at the truth.
A: You’re a little off base there. But I’ll 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.
I’ll give you a patient summary. Man of about 35 comes into my office and tells me he’s bothered by his marriage. Things are not working out. He wants to find the right formula, but he can’t. No matter what he does, he feels a lack. He feels he’s 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: He’s 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 won’t run.
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 isn’t.
A: Correct. It’s a congealed derivation. For, example, we look at a table and think it’s 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 it’s 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 didn’t 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 didn’t 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 doesn’t see this. And even if he and I completely dismantle that marriage into “parts” and I make him examine each one, that process isn’t going to fix it. It’s 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 he’s in the wrong pew to begin with.
Well, that’s 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 you’re 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, that’s 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 can’t get perfection out of something that is a residue to begin with. I’ve 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. Let’s 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. What’ll happen? He’ll 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 weren’t aiming for that.
JON RAPPOPORT – www.nomorefakenews.com