THE POWERFUL INDIVIDUAL AND THE MATRIX

 

THE POWERFUL INDIVIDUAL AND THE MATRIX

by Jon Rappoport

April 28, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

In a number of my recent articles (for example, see this one, this one, and this one), I’ve been dissecting levels of psy-ops in which an attempt is made to merge the individual with the group.

 

These psy-ops are low-level aspects of the Matrix. Politically, they recognize the threat of the free individual to plans for a controlled planet.

 

One subject few researchers want to tackle head-on is this: HOW POWERFUL CAN THE FREE INDIVIDUAL BE? AND WHAT IS THIS POWER?

 

When we say “free individual,” are we simply talking about someone who can exercise those rights enumerated in The Bill of Rights, who can pursue life, liberty and happiness without undue interference? Is this the whole story?

 

The answer is: no. There are many more dimensions to the story.

 

My work, for the past ten years, could be roughly divided into two areas:

 

understanding the layers and levels of deception, ops, and self-restriction imposed inside the Matrix;

 

and the potential for the individual to express and act on his own power to exit from the Matrix.

 

That second area of research has unexpectedly great depth and breadth.

 

When you read all the 40 interviews I do with Jack True in my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, you see how far and deep individual power can go. And you see what some of the keys to that power are.

 

In my last conversations with Jack before we lost contact, we agreed that many people who were exploring what could superficially be called “human potential” were compromising their efforts. They were reluctant to push too far, because they had audiences to satisfy, they had careers to protect, they had, in some cases, financial backers to appease, and they sometimes had overriding agendas that were self-defeating.

 

We were aware that, in the “human potential” field, contractors from the military and the intelligence community were muddying the waters with their programs and objectives. Empowering the individual to the highest degree possible, in their paranormal experiments, was offset by their corrupted desire to “produce” servants of a new global order.

 

Jack had been approached several times by these contractors, or their agents, and he always refused to work with them. He was profoundly indifferent to their offers and their queries. Jack was an independent force, period. He had zero interest in hitching his wagon to someone else’s star.

 

In a nutshell, when you say free you have to mean Free. You can’t mean free to enlist in a cause or an organization that ultimately has a hierarchy. That doesn’t work. It always fails. It fails because individual power is twisted into power over people. That’s a huge twist, and it is perverse.

 

Jack and I also spoke about words that are used to describe individual power, words that cause emotional reaction and confusion.

 


Two such words are “paranormal” and “magic.” Numerous misunderstandings collect around these terms.

 

In the first case, “paranormal” suggests that a person can remain average and normal in most respects, while developing, like a new appendage, strange ability. It suggests there are tricks one can learn, like openings in chess or ways to pick locks with tools. It suggests that there may be machines which will alter brain activity and suddenly catapult a person into a new realm.

 

These are all misleading.

 

In the second case, the word “magic” has hundreds of associations. In the past, it was a favorite way of indicating that someone was opposed to religion and was trying to subvert it. “Magic” suggests that a person may be operating under an external spell, or he is engaged in bizarre rituals. He may be a member of secret society. Alternatively, the word is used to designate a person who is indulging in aimless and useless fantasies about escaping from the real world; he is living in a fuzzy dream state, futilely hoping to be rendered into a charmed state of mind.

 

Again, all these references and associations are off the mark. They don’t really begin to describe what can happen when individual power exceeds a limited ceiling.

 

With “magic” and “paranormal,” most people assume that if the words mean anything important at all, they certainly hold out hope that something extraordinary can happen INSTANTLY.

 

Well, that is the habit of our present society. Everything has to happen right now, right away, in six seconds, in two days, in a month at the most. Additionally, there must be a precise protocol of steps that explain how it will happen so quickly. If there is no protocol, there is nothing.

 

A car in a factory is made step by step, as the frame moves from one station to another. This is the Way. It must be the same when we come to the subject of individual power.

 

People tend to overlook the fact that, although things are done TO the skeleton of a machine to complete its structure, power is expressed FROM an individual. They are opposite situations.

 

As we peel this whole onion of misunderstanding, also keep in mind that, in our technological society, people want to believe that biological or chemical alterations—especially genetic ones—can allow an individual to become more than he was. He can be enhanced through physical means. This is further misrepresentation.

 

None of this strikes the right chord. None of it is relevant.

 


Back in the 1950s, all those science-fiction movies based on nuclear- radiation-mutation used that plot device to launch “new humans.” This idea was actually held as a research possibility by some scientists. It gained a bit of traction, because government officials wanted to downplay the destructive effects of A-bomb testing and cancer treatments.

 

Now, we have a more sophisticated scenario: machine-human hybrids. The research on this is being done. It’s another dead end. It’s a cover for external control of humans. But some people want to believe this is where the future of individual power exists.

 

Because I’m interested in increasing individual power for adults, and I don’t have any exclusionary interest in child-magic, I was never taken by the Harry Potter books. But I was intrigued, for about five minutes, by the social furor those novels caused. Apparently, JK Rowling was really a CIA agent working for Beelzebub trying to subvert our youth. If so, then the brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen and the author of the 11th-century Song of Roland were also secret agents of ulterior forces bent on destruction.

 

The Harry Potter books need no analysis from me. I’ll simply point out, for purposes of this discussion, that a school that teaches magic in classes, utilizing ancient manuscripts and potions, enrolling children who have shown peculiar talents from an early age, plays into the notion that “paranormal” is primarily an accident of birth, and the classroom work suggests a viable protocol. Also, of course, there must be enemies who are using the same powers children learn, but for evil purposes.

 

The books may be great fun. But they don’t clarify adult individual power.

 


For that, after years of exploration, I found one tradition on planet Earth that was quite different from any system before or since. I have written about it. It existed in the early days of the society of Tibet. This was prior to the takeover by the local priests and their theocratic maneuvers to control the emerging civilization and bury the core of what was unique under tons of literature and ceremony.

 

Exhuming the essentials of what actually happened in early Tibet, and separating it from the sheer nonsense of priestly interpretation, is a fascinating undertaking. It reveals the lengths to which people will go to attribute power to everything under the sun, except themselves.

 

Well, in a significant way, that is the history of Earth. A history that combines corrosive cynicism with a yearning for what one has ALREADY surrendered on an altar of mindless sacrifice.

 

This is a person saying, “I’d rather sink into permanent unconsciousness than admit to my true potential. I’d rather blame anyone and everyone for my mindless sacrifice of Self. I’d rather undertake a campaign to deny the existence of individual power, or declare it a threat to the natural order.”

 

What do you think those fabulously rich elite environmentalists, behind the curtain, are pulling the strings for? They hate individual power and they want to bind up the whole planet in a sea of regressive stone-age suffering as an act of revenge. They want to take their own power, which they long ago gave up, because they were weak and without independent courage, and they want to reconstitute it as a boot that grinds everything under its heel. Frankly, there are many self-invented victims scattered around the planet who would do exactly the same thing, if they were suddenly outfitted with enormous bank accounts and social position. For every real Rockefeller, there are a thousand would-be’s hoping and lurking in the weeds.

 


Lord Acton famously wrote, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But which power? The capacity that is innate in a person? No. What corrupts is the urge to exercise dominance over others.

 

It is clear that the most clarified political expression of what power means is expressed in the founding documents of the American Republic. What began in ancient Greece, and what was declared by a few British and French philosophers, much later, arrived at a crucial moment in America.

 

I say this because freedom, individual freedom was spelled out in a way that was unequivocal, in those founding documents of this nation. Motives and agendas aside, the words were written and they were clear.

 

And therefore the question became: what does the individual do with this freedom? What POWER does he express? How much power does he actually have?

 

This has everything to do with what we call the Matrix. Because power, individual power is what can get you out of all—all—aspects of the Matrix.

 

I assembled volume one, THE MATRIX REVEALED, because if you know enough about the nuts and bolts, about how the structure of Matrix was put together, you know something about A MODE OF INVENTION, and Matrix begins to look quite different. In basic terms, it looks more like a painting than an armored tank.

 

True individual power has no limit.

 

It is not dominance. It is a kind of joy. It is imagination. It is, in the broadest sense, art. It is the human being as creator without limits. It is, as the saying goes, living in the world without being of the world. It is deeper and deeper realms of beauty. It is inventing new worlds. It is choosing any part of any former reality and incorporating it into something new and unprecedented. It is also inventing from Nothing. It moves in any and all directions. It is what people have deserted. They have cast it away. They have buried it. They have abandoned it. They have refused to understand it or recognize it when it is under their noses.

 

For those many readers who have recently come to this site and to my email list, here is a description of my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED:

 


INTRODUCTION TO THE MATRIX REVEALED

by Jon Rappoport

Copyright © 2012 by Jon Rappoport

Let me start with the nuts and bolts of this product. It is enormous in scope.

250 megabytes of information.

Over 1100 pages of text.

Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

My complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades. (To see the complete details of what is in the LOGIC AND ANALYSIS Course, click here.)

The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical tests for diagnoses, and the invention of disease, the understanding of which is, now and in the future, vital to our correct perception of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

EILLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet. Jack’s beyond-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages.

Then there are several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix, including recent conversations. 53 pages.

The ten and a half hours of mp3 audio are my solo presentation, based on these interviews and my own research. Title: The Multi-Dimensional Planetary Chessboard—The Matrix vs. the Un-Conditioning of the Individual.

Here is some background on the product and my own history:

In 2001, I essentially left a career as an investigative reporter and rolled the dice on the emerging internet. I started a site called www.nomorefakenews.com

I didn’t stop investigating and publishing, but my field of operation widened. My first big question was: WHO REALLY RUNS THE WORLD?

And my second was: WHOEVER THEY ARE, HOW DO THEY MANUFACTURE REALITY FOR THE POPULATION OF EARTH?

I was prepared to deal with these enormous questions, because I had contacts. These were people I had come to know well during my days as a reporter, writing for LA Weekly and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe—and also during a stint on radio at KPFK in Los Angeles.

These people, these contacts, were insiders.

They had deep knowledge in their fields:

PROPAGANDA; FINANCE; HYPNOTISM; MIND CONTROL; MEDICINE; INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS…

They were unwilling to be cited as on-the-record sources in my articles. They knew they would suffer consequences if they went public.

Once I started my website, I did extensive research to confirm the credentials of my insiders. I wanted to make sure they were who they said they were. I wanted to verify they had worked where they said they had worked. This was a laborious process.

When I was sure, I began to interview them.

I wasn’t certain where all this would go.

Gradually, I realized I was getting VERY high-level information on The Matrix. But this was the real Matrix.

As one of my sources described it:

“Imagine a factory that turns out illusions. And these illusions are woven together to make up what we think the world is.”

The actual Matrix involves a number of areas: government; money; energy; the military; intelligence agencies; medicine; mega-corporations; psychology and mind control; science…

I started a members-only newsletter, and word quickly spread. Every Friday, I would email a newsletter to subscribers. Many of these newsletters were interviews with my insiders.

It was quite a job, keeping up with writing (public) daily articles for my site (*) and also putting out the (private) newsletter. I was also collating the high-level information from my sources and making maps of the expanding territory. (* Note: The archive of my daily public postings from 2000 thru 2009, are located here. The archive of my daily public postings from 2009 to the present are located here (this wordpress blog).)

I saw that I was looking at global CARTELS. As you will discover in reading this material, these cartels are not frozen organizations. They are evolving.

In this last months, I’ve had some very competent assistance, and I’ve assembled the most important newsletter-interviews for you.

But in addition to that, I’m publishing, for the first time, interviews that never made it into those newsletters. And I’m presenting interviews from very recent days as well.

It’s very instructive to talk to people who have been there onthe inside. They are bright, they are informative, they convey the depth of situations they were involved with. They go beyond relaying dry facts, and in doing so, you learn how elite players play the game. You receive a rounded and three-dimensional picture of: the process of constructing The Matrix. How it’s built.

In every case, each insider was relieved to be able to talk with utter frankness, with no fear that his words would be twisted or taken out of context or deleted. So you’re getting the full story.

I met my first two insiders while I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., SCANDAL OF THE CENTURY, in 1987-88. The book was my initial experience in putting together a vast amount of data—which contradicted every official position on a supposedly rock-hard subject: medical science.

At the time, I didn’t really understand how deep I was drilling down into a cardinal aspect of The Matrix. I only knew I was I digging up and exposing long-held delusions broadcast as facts by the Medical Cartel. These false realities went far beyond the subject of AIDS.

That first book of mine started as a pure lark. I had just published a piece in LA Weekly about certain televangelists and their support of an intentionallystaged Armageddon in Israel. When the piece was published, I sat back and thought, “Where do I go from here? What could be weirder than this?”

Like other investigative reporters, I was excited by strange and bizarre stories that could blow readers’ minds. I was motivated by that.

So, in 1987, I wondered what could be stranger than the Armageddon story I had just done.

Sitting in my Los Angeles studio, a thought popped into my head. “AIDS. I bet there’s something about that whole thing that’s pretty weird.”

Little did I know…

That was my first big leap.

I had studied logic extensively in college. I had been taught by a philosophy professor who was a very generous soul and a relentless thinker. If you were an inch from accuracy, he would point it out, and he would give you the full reason and understanding that pulled you back to the straight and narrow.

Once I dove into research for AIDS INC., I was amazed at the sloppy thinking and contradiction that was posing as science.

And then I met my first two insiders.

Their basic message to me was: keep going; you’re on the right track; we have a great deal more to share with you.

They weren’t just talking about medical issues.

They were talking about the whole construction of reality from a number of angles.

Each of the insiders I have gotten to know over the subsequent years has a different personal story. They have all left their particular corner of The Matrix-Construction Group. Jack True, my late friend and colleague, was a different man altogether. He was never part of that Group. He was the most informed and brilliant researcher I’ve ever come across on the subject of the mind—the essential link that makes The Matrix work.

Jack started the ball rolling. He was instrumental in making the deal that got AIDS INC published. He introduced me to a few key figures along the way—insiders who proved invaluable.

Why did these insiders want to talk and spill secrets? Well, the process of interviewing them wasn’t always easy. They could be thorny at times. But they all had seen, finally, the abyss toward which they were heading, toward which they were leading the population. And they pulled back.

So…

This Volume is for individuals.

Because:

Beyond The Matrix is true individual power.

Despite all the illusions, it has always been there.

It’s for you.

And it IS your power.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

OBAMA AND RACE AND COLOR

 

OBAMA AND RACE AND COLOR

AND OTHER ILLUSIONS IN THE “NEW” AMERICA

by Jon Rappoport

April 26, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

“Early in my career as a therapist, I had a Hispanic client who, under hypnosis, regressed into a life as a white settler in Michigan. At the end of the session, he was laughing so hard he almost fell off his chair. He told me later he laughed for about two days. I don’t have any opinion about what he experienced. I don’t say he regressed into an earlier life and I don’t say he imagined the whole thing. It makes no difference to me. All I know is, he went from earning twelve dollars an hour to owning his own business, and a few years later he was making more money than I was.” — Jack True, hypnotherapist, in THE MATRIX REVEALED.

 

Barack Obama’s mother was white.

 

As far as I know, that makes him the first white and black president.

 

This would have been a perfect opportunity to ascend to a “post-racial” presidency. Of course, that didn’t happen.

 

He could have said, “I’m black and I’m white.”

 

For reasons which remain obscure, this is apparently not permitted.

 

To me, “I’m black and I’m white” is an ideal place to begin a conversation that takes things to a whole new level.

 

It cuts across many preconceptions and taboos and prejudices.

 

It also, however, could change voter polls.

 

Still, I can see the upside of “black and white.”

 

 

I’m not up on the etiquette and the correct way to proceed, but somewhere I seem to have read that a mixed-race person can decide which race he wants to belong to. He can make a declaration. The biology of the situation remains what it is, but a person can choose.

 

If so, then why can’t anybody with a drop of blood from another race make a choice? Maybe you have a drop of Indian blood. You could say and declare you’re an Indian. Do percentages of blood factor in? Is that supposed to tip the scale? What are the numbers? Who decides? Is it true that in Brazil, if a dark-hued person has a drop of white blood, he’s considered white?

 

It’s a bit confusing.

 

Obviously, a lot of people in America wanted the first black president, and to them these distinctions are irrelevant. They wanted what they wanted, and they said they won. It was a landmark moment. I agree, but I don’t buy the accepted story line.

 

I think it’s clear the landmark event was this: Obama IS a black and white president. And I do believe, with his oratorical skills—at least judging from the early speeches—he could have made that stick. He could have made his presence on the scene transcendent.

 

But we have forces at work engaged in a far-reaching psy-op, the intent of which is to divide the nation into camps. The last thing these people want is a man in the Oval Office who stands on both sides of the divide and is willing to say so in convincing and unflinching fashion, come hell or high water.

 

With enough conviction, I believe Obama could have outdistanced those forces.

 

But he wasn’t ready for that and he didn’t want that, and neither did the usual suspects who were his money men.

 

Here is perhaps a clue: “I’m the first black and white president. I can therefore think from the black and the white perspective. I can reason as a black man and I can reason as a white man…”

 

At some point in this monologue, the whole thing would fall apart, wouldn’t it? We would see the black and the white stereotypes for what they are. Separate portraits forced on us by media and by politicians and by people obsessed with their own racial agendas.

 

I recall some years ago hearing a radio broadcast by a man who had spent years in South American jungles with several tribes. He was studying their use of plant drugs. When asked what these people were like, he said, “It’s like being with any other group. There are all sorts of characters there. Some are friendly. Some are bad people. Some are shy. Others are outspoken…”

 

Nobody appeared to be interested in that representation. It didn’t play into any myth. It was beyond myths.

 

I met Buddha in a drug store. He was buying chewing gum and a pillow. He was looking for those very small batteries, but they were out of stock. We talked about the St. Louis Cardinals. He said he wished they had signed Albert Pujols to a long-term contract…”

 

No good.

 

Definitely no good.

 


Black, white, it really does come down to that remark of Martin Luther King—judging by content of character, not by color of skin.

 

And this may be considered radical, but a person’s thoughts, actions, decisions, visions for the future, power, independence, and imagination don’t emanate from pigment.

 

Unless he says they do. Unless he takes on that role. It’s a ROLE.

 

But we’re not supposed to notice that. We’re supposed to overlook the obvious.

 

Presidents take on roles. Bush was the shitkicker cowboy from Texas, who was actually part of the eastern establishment. Clinton was the good old boy from Arkansas. Jimmy Carter was the loving binder of people’s sorrows, the kind and endlessly sympathetic member of Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission. Nixon was playing a cartoon of a cartoon, difficult to follow. Obama is the first black president.

 

It’s a play.

 

None of these were good plays. On Broadway, all of them would have closed down in a week.

 

In politics, you need pundits to keep up a steady stream of good reviews to push ticket sales along. You need, for instance, Chris Matthews, to feel his leg tingle when he thinks about Obama. You need Sean Hannity to turn Bush into a quintessential American.

 

Every psy-op requires propagandists and their minions, and dupes who swallow the myths whole. It’s a clumsy dance, and everybody involved is faking it, and they’re not faking it well.

 

But the psy-op plows ahead. Divide America into hostile camps. Blow on sparks and ignite fires whenever possible. Keep people on edge and looking the wrong way while their rights and their property are stolen out from under them.

 

When the time and the president are right, talk about the utopia just up the road. When the time is right, talk tough.

 

Meanwhile, suck America up into a funnel of globalist madness, a far different play, produced by the men behind the curtain.

 

Put America into the pot with every other no-longer-sovereign nation and melt the whole mass down into a homogeneous bankrupt glob that needs rescue From Above.

 

A civilization reaches a point of no-return when its citizens begin to recognize THEY ARE ACTORS IN A PLAY. When that day comes, when the technology of the society is far enough along to provide a level of comfort for the majority, when there is time to think about things and look at the overall landscape, when media are reflecting images back at the people and unintentionally exposing the melodramatic and farcical elements of the whole show….a moment of danger is reached.

 

The awareness of the public must not be permitted to advance beyond that point. If it does, the whole structure of the psy-op will disintegrate. People will exit their normal and average roles. Society will move to places that can’t be controlled.

 

People will look for new plays. They will write them.

 


I mark a key moment of retreat as the early 1960s. I was there. I saw it happen. I saw the U-turn and the 180.

 

People, for example, who had little apparent interest in religion suddenly began to regress into hardened fundamentalist and orthodox camps. They backed up into their corners. People for whom race was never really a major preoccupation began to assert that skin color, any color was a magical source of opinion, conviction, thought, distinct insight, separate passion, unique talent, creativity, and disposition.

 

It was as if a light had been turned off. People retreated from the edge of seeing through the conventional melodrama of society and its propaganda signals. They stood at the bank of the clear river, but they didn’t drink the water. They ran back to their “tribes.”

 

Roles in a play of conflict.

 

Every group (as opposed to the individual) of the 1960s was oversold. That was done on purpose, to make grotesque extremism succeed, and to enhance conflict. Feminism was oversold. Drugs were oversold. Hippies were oversold. Revolutionaries were oversold. Communitarianism was oversold. Black power was oversold. Fundamental Christianity was oversold. Permissiveness was oversold. Environmentalism was oversold. Rock and roll was oversold. Sex was oversold. Affirmative action was oversold. Consumerism was oversold. Liberalism and conservatism were oversold. Sheer bullshit pretentiously and obviously parading as truth was oversold.

 

All that selling is still with us.

 

Many of the groups mentioned above were infiltrated by operatives, whose mission was to push them beyond any place of simple common sense, into hardened lunacy, so that inter-group conflicts and confusion were inevitable.

 


So…in case it’s not clear, Barack Obama isn’t black or white or both. He’s Barack Obama.

 

That’s lost, because the most profound objective of the overall psy-op I’m describing is the eradication of the idea of the Individual. That’s been the globalist target in America for many, many years.

 

And what better way to achieve that than to inject, over and over again, the notion that Groups and their movements and causes and demands and separate characteristics are the basic units of life, that Groups are everything, that Groups are all we have?

 

Children are now taught that the unbridled individual is the cause of all our ills. But no. The free individual doesn’t start wars. Oligarchs do. And from groups of oligarchs ruling from behind the scenes, all the way down to street thugs, it’s the stone-cold Group that has hitched its star to destruction.

 

These are all synthetic and invented groups, when you see them for what they are. The one natural category of group that promotes life—family and small geographic community—is under the same kind of attack that the individual is.

 

It’s not accidental.

 

But at the bottom of all this manipulation is the intense multi-front campaign to make the ideal of the free powerful individual a relic.

 

The social engineers, all the way from Plato to Marx to the Frankfurt School to the Tavistock Institute, to numerous academic institutions all over the planet, will do everything in their power to scrub out any traces of the free powerful individual. They must. Their whole pattern of impulse and thought is about the group and the mass. That’s where it starts and that’s where it ends.

 

Why is that? Because as individuals, these social engineers lost the thread. They lost the threads of themselves—except as elitists entitled to special treatment in the world they were and are making. That is their only hope. They are otherwise destitute. They otherwise have nothing, because they have lost themselves as individuals. That statement is true down to the bone.

 

It is equally true of the dupes they manage and command.

 

Those “rebels” who think their particular group with its yearnings and longings and sentiments are going to gain, in the long run, favored status in the new world order, are in for a rude shock. They are only temporary tenants. Their usefulness will come to an end and they will be cast out, hung out to dry.

 


Here’s another thing. When social engineers talk about mass psychology and group profiles and managing response and aptitude tests, and when they talk about the threat of climate change and green agendas and arranging population densities and sustainability and diversity and cities of the future, they are talking about synthetic and artificial groups. They are talking about forcing actors (people) into roles and forcing them deeper into those roles.

 

In other words, they’re betting on a self-fulfilling prophecy. “If we can define groups as we want them to be defined, and if we can predict and manage a future in which the population of the planet is led and coerced into these groups we define, then we can operate the levers of the next decade and the next century…”

 


I use Obama as an example, because by the rules and propaganda of the social engineers, he couldn’t be black and white even if he wanted to be. It wouldn’t be allowed. He would be violating a taboo. A created taboo. From an early age, he was loaded up as “an agent of change,” and in order for that to work, he had to play out a black role. Oh, certainly, he’s chosen to play that out. No doubt about it.

 

But looking at the parade of presidents you’ve seen in your lifetime, you’ll notice that all of them have chosen a role: president. NOT INDIVIDUAL. That would shake things up. That would really cause a stir. That would violate the rules.

 

The planners say, “Because of THIS social situation (which we’ve created) we need THIS kind of actor.”

 

And out rolls history. One social and political and economic situation after another, created and rigged and “fictionalized” into reality—each situation demanding a different actor playing a different role to maintain the illusion.

 

Right now, it’s “black.”

 

But…

 

If the ideal and the principle and reality of the free powerful individual is instated, the whole show collapses.

 

You have to take that power.

 

It’s yours.

 

It starts with freedom, and it jumps to imagination, that supposed childish toy everyone grows out of at the age of consent.

 

Imagination IS magic, but that doesn’t equate to snapping your fingers twice on day one and causing a hundred gold bars to manifest on your living room floor.

 

Imagination and what it can yield up to you is a lifetime operation and commitment.

 

Finding imagination and exploring it and using it isn’t a child’s game. It’s the next step after a personal declaration of independence.

 

Here are three significant approaches to consciousness. The first is FEEDBACK CONSCIOUSNESS. You take every signal reported to you by your body and your feelings and the environment, and you base all your actions on those signals, which answer the question, HOW AM I DOING? When feedback consciousness rules the roost, you’re a victim, pure and simple.

 

There is PROBLEM AND SOLUTION CONSCIOUSNESS. When this mode of operation is completely in charge, EVERYTHING looks like a problem that needs to be resolved. And resolutions never end, because in this state of mind, you’re always perceiving new problems on all sides that demand your attention and energy.

 

Then there is CREATIVE CONSCIOUSNESS. This is the endless sea. This is you inventing realities. This is you deploying and immersing yourself in imagination and bringing into being, in the world, your most profound desires.

 

And believe it or not, your creative consciousness is more powerful than all the ops and all the engineering in the world.

 

It’s the unlimited role in the unlimited play. It’s more than a role. It’s you as you are and could be.

 

This is what my work is all about.

 

Here is a brief excerpt from an interview I did with Jack True, hypnotherapist (1987). I interview Jack 40 times in my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED.

 

Hypnotizing a person isn’t the same thing as unleashing his creative potential. You don’t insert creative power into a person. It’s already there. You can help liberate it. That’s turned out to be my main thrust. But it’s there already. It’s in the closet. It’s like an engine that’s idling on low. Why low? Why not high? The reason is more than societal. It’s more than cultural. It’s more than religion or race or place of origin. It’s cosmic. (laughs) It’s about the person’s own conception of what he’s all about. It’s about how far his sense of space goes. It’s about how free he is from old wrinkled cultural space. It’s about thinking of himself as a creator. This is the great secret. What happens when a person thinks of himself as a creator? What happens then? What does he do? From my experience, he undergoes a revolution. It’s enormous. It’s electric. Now, creating something and thinking of yourself as a creator are two different things. You can create and still be largely unconscious. But when you decide you’re a creator and then you create, that’s when the electricity hits. That’s when tremendous transformation takes place…”

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

WHY YOU MUST HAVE A MENTAL DISORDER

 

WHY YOU MUST HAVE A MENTAL DISORDER IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER

by Jon Rappoport

April 25, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

 

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]

 

THAT’S CALLED THE SMOKING GUN.

 

Over the last ten years, I’ve established time and time again that psychiatry is a fraud. From every angle.

 

It’s a drug-dealing machine, and all the drugs are toxic and dangerous.

 

Not one single so-called mental disorder has ever, in any patient, been verified by a physical test, chemical or biological. That’s because there are no tests.

 

The 300 so-called disorders listed in the bible of psychiatry, the DSM, are invented by committees from menus of behaviors. It’s a con. It’s an embrace between the profession of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry.

 

From the psy-op perspective, diagnosing people with these disorder labels means they can be debilitated by the drugs. That makes the nation weaker. That scrambles people’s brains. That sedates people. That makes people easier to control.

 

And from another angle, if a person is diagnosed, his thoughts and ideas are no longer considered legitimate.

 

Read that last sentence again.

 

Diagnosis is method of de-legitimizing ideas.

 

Everything he thinks is really coming out of his CONDITION.”

 

Yes, and everything about his life is now defined as “recovery.”

 

On the other side of that coin, if a person is considered mentally healthy, then his thoughts and ideas could have power.

 

That’s one reason you never hear media talk about mental wellness. Never is talked about.

 

He’s very healthy, mentally speaking. Let’s hear what he has to say.”

 

No. That doesn’t happen.

 

Here’s a story you’ll never, ever hear or see or read from major media:

 

Well, John Parker has been diagnosed in the pink of mental health! Superb! This man is really mentally and emotionally in great shape! So he would be a model that we could all follow and learn from. Mr. Parker, what do you have to say?”

 

Well, thanks for having me on, Oprah. I go by the rule of self-sufficiency. That’s why, in fact, I’m in such good shape. I rely on myself. I have goals and I pursue them. I think the basic ideas of freedom and responsibility as written in the Constitution are the basis of all mental health. Don’t assume dependance is good for your sanity. In fact, it’s just the opposite because—

 

BLACKOUT.

 

End of story.

 


No, it’s not good for the controllers to put up a standard of mental wellness. It doesn’t work for them. They need more diagnoses of mental disorders. They need more people focusing on their own mental and emotional problems. They need more “disorder” talk on television. They need people to accept the notion that we’re all, in some way, “disordered.”

 

That’s the psy-op. That’s the way it works.

 

That’s the way you get people to participate in their own reduction. You know, as in a recipe. You REDUCE a sauce down to an essence. In this case, the reduction is down to a mental condition.

 

He’s BIPOLAR.”

 

End of story. End of a chapter of life.

 

I’m functioning BIPOLAR. The drugs help. Of course, I’ve gained sixty pounds…”

 

The whole nation goes into a slow-motion crumble…behind the millions of diagnoses and the drugging of disorders.

 

B-o-o-m.

 


I’ve watched it expand since I grew up in the 1940s, when nobody was diagnosed with anything and the nation was much better off…to now, when everybody is diagnosed with everything, and things are much worse.

 

Part of the psy-op is The Up and Down. It goes this way: A person is diagnosed with a mental disorder. Now the stage is set for the “struggle back to normalcy.” He struggles, “makes progress,” and then there is a “setback.” But he keeps trying. Up and down, up and down. WITH A LIMITED CEILING. Get it?

 

It’s a redefinition of Possibility for that person. The space is made smaller. The potential is lessened. The ceiling is lowered.

 

In my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, I interview retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy (EM) a number of times. Here’s what he has to say about psychiatry:

 

EM: “I worked on that for a while. It was easy. It was a lot easier than some of the other areas I was involved in. Basically, what you do is expand and extend SYMPATHY.”

 

JR: “How do you mean that?”

 

EM: “You take the common and universal feeling of sympathy and blow it out so that it covers anybody who is diagnosed with anything, any disorder. That’s the key.”

 

JR: “Why?”

 

EM: “Because that’s how you enlist public support and turn the tide. You make people feel guilty if they don’t have sympathy for those who’ve been tagged with a mental disorder. Of course, all the diagnoses are a sham. They don’t exist. People have difficulties, but that’s different. These are supposed to be scientific diagnoses [of disorders], and they aren’t. But if you can enlist enough public sympathy and get leaders in the society to come out in favor of TREATMENT for the people who are diagnosed, it’s a breeze. You’ve won.”

 

JR: “This op goes after leaders?”

 

EM: “Hillary Clinton was fantastic. You see, you find a leader and you bring your sources to bear on that leader. You’ve already profiled the leader, and you know he or she will be receptive to your legend, to the story you’re inventing. And then that leader picks up the ball and runs with it. You’ve scored a touchdown.”

 

JR: “Why were you contracted to work on psychiatry?”

 

EM: “Because it’s a plan for control. Simple. You put more and people under that system and they fall into line. They develop a different concept of their lives. It shrinks. But here’s the thing. This is all about lower expectations. For the human race. That’s what you’re really doing to populations. You can’t just tell people to lower their sights, you have to give them a reason. And psychiatry is that reason. It’s one more fake science. When you get outside the whole system of psychiatry, that’s what you’re looking at: the ultimate rationalization to do less, to accomplish less, and most important, to envision less. It’s mind control. It’s a semantic system using one set of words to define other words. You substitute a technical vocabulary. Those are the names and the symptoms of disorders. There’s a great deal of propaganda that works this way. You introduce a new vocabulary. It’s very much like rewriting history. Instead of saying Van Gogh was wrestling with the fact that he saw a better future and nobody was interested—and that he quite possibly suffered from lead poisoning in the paints he was using—you say he was a paranoid schizophrenic.

 

“Here is a prediction for you. There will be whole host of labeled disorders that involve wording like ‘non-empathic.’ People who don’t have sufficient sympathy for OTHER people who are diagnosed with mental illnesses will be called mentally ill. It’ll be a closed system. You see?”

 


This is an OPERATION. In the Globalist world, everyone (except the leaders) will need adjusting. The list of disorders will expand to enormous proportions, as will the drugs.

 

And personal responsibility will be a legal item that can be manipulated to suit the authorities.

Just today, we have a story coming out of Canada that illustrates this perfectly. A Toronto-area man was convicted of killing his wife. But because he was diagnosed with a “psycho-affective disorder,” he was judged to be “NCR”—Not Criminally Responsible. Therefore, he did no jail time. He was placed in a treatment facility and then released after a short stint. Now, an appeals court has ruled that he can receive all the money from his wife’s estate, because, you see, he didn’t really commit a crime. The restriction against profiting from the proceeds of a crime was lifted, because the word “crime” doesn’t apply to him. He’s NCR. He’s “psycho-affective.” (thestar.com, April 24, 2012. “Insane man who killed wife entitled to her insurance benefits.”)

 

In psy-op terms, this is called “reordering values.” It’s all based on “the needs of the community,” an intentionally vague term that can be used like a sword to control, punish, or exonerate behavior.

 

Psychiatry is a leading edge of this operant-reconditioning program. People are taught that older systems of values are outmoded, in light of “scientific advances.”

 

This is the basic lie. “We understand so much more now than we ever did.” “We must diagnose everyone who has an undisclosed disorder.”

 

No. There are no disorders. Disorders are a complete fiction. People suffer, they experience pain, they may become confused, they may have severe nutritional deficits, they may be toxified, they may be under the gun of political repression, but there are no disorders.

 

There never were.

 


Here’s a real undisclosed problem:

People don’t find a way to discover their own first principles, their own philosophy, if you will. I’m not talking about some complex academic system. I’m talking about the vital ideas that can help launch a vision that then revolutionizes a life and a future. The lack of that could legitimately be called a problem. But there is no diagnosis and there is no externally applied treatment. There is only free will and the desire to remedy the lack.

 

In such a vacuum, you see, the professionals step in and make weighty pronouncements and fabricate a science that never existed and then try to mandate treatments.

 

You can submit or just say no.

 

As the title of this piece indicates, when elites fashion and impose a New World ORDER, they naturally need a way to classify the recalcitrant citizens and the rebellious and the independent. So they use the word DISORDER. “If you’re not for the new order, then you’re disordered.” That’s called a clue. It illustrates the building of a closed self-referential system. Nice and neat.

 

But life isn’t.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

BEHIND THE TRAYVON MARTIN PSY-OP

BEHIND THE TRAYVON MARTIN PSY-OP

THE FICTION OF THE GROUP IN THE MATRIX

by Jon Rappoport

April 23, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.” — Edward Bernays, in Propaganda (1928).

“Professionals in my field work for a client. They put their finger on their client’s competitor and say, ‘This is the enemy. How can we paint him as a horrible cartoon?’” — Ellis Medavoy, retired propaganda operative — who is interviewed extensively in THE MATRIX REVEALED.

President Obama said if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin. Yes, but what would that son BE like?

Does that matter? Is it trivial? Is the distinction irrelevant?

This is the essence of the decades-long psy-op to convince Americans that their identity is completely wrapped up in their ethnicity, or their skin-color, or their religion, or their gender, or some other group of which they’re a member.

AS OPPOSED TO IDENTITY AS A FUNCTION OF WHO THEY ARE AS INDIVIDUALS.

Remember INDIVIDUALS?

That outmoded concept?

It’s outmoded for a reason.

It’s been scrubbed from the record.

Mass media can’t really deal with individuals. It’s not possible. Mass media can’t really get down to the essentials of what an individual IS. It doesn’t work. Putting too much attention on distinct and unique individuals, apart from stereotypes, would actually DESTROY THE WHOLE ILLUSION PRESENTED BY MASS MEDIA.

Mass media absolutely depend on cartoons and stereotypes and groups. Without them, the the whole industry would collapse like a stack of wheat in a tornado.

And as these cartoons are presented, day after day, the attention span of readers and viewers shortens. It’s all shorthand. It’s all shortcut. It’s all sketchy imagery.

And finally, we have a sitting president who goes there. Yes, Mr. President, that son would look like you, but who would he BE? Do you see the difference?

Heritage this, tradition that, legacy here, ancestry there, pre-racial, post-racial, it all comes down to the fact, whether anyone likes it or not, that the individual EXISTS, and no amount of false leads are going to change that.


The powerful group that emerged from the US psychological-warfare department, after World War 2 (see Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960, by Christopher Simpson, Oxford University Press, 1994), had to find a new role for itself, and it literally invented the (pseudo) science of mass communication research—bankrolled primarily by the Department of Defense and the CIA.

One of its jobs was the promotion of group stereotypes.

Mass communication research was touted as a new discipline. But it was quite old. Pre-WW 2, one of its leaders was Walter Lippman. Simpson, in The Science of Coercion, explains how Lippmann viewed the landscape as early as 1922:

[Lippmann] contended that new communication and transportation technologies had erected a ‘world that we have to deal with [that is] politically out of reach, out of sight, out of mind.’ The ‘pictures in our heads’ of this world—the stereotypes—’are acted upon by groups of people, or by individuals acting in the name of groups…representing government [and these pictures] cannot be worked unless there is an independent, expert [elite] organization for making the unseen facts [of the new world] intelligible to those who make the decisions.”

In other words, since none of us will ever have a chance to meet the overwhelming number of people who live in the world, we’ll have to rely on stereotypes of them, and in this distorted maze, our esteemed leaders will have to take all their cues and knowledge from some collection of “experts” who interpret “real” perception and meaning for them.

A totalitarianism worthy of 1984.


In his chapter, “The CIA and the Founding Fathers of Communications Studies,” Simpson highlights the work of Hadley Cantril, who established the Princeton Learning Center, which morphed into a CIA-funded broadcast service. Cantril also assisted in reorganizing the US Information Agency (CIA front) under JFK. He invented a survey technique that “would revolutionize US election campaigns during the 1980s.” What began as a focus on US mass-communication ops abroad later came home to roost.


And so this universal psy-op has come to pass. It has thoroughly infected society, aided of course by media.

Groups define and oppose each other through images and cartoons and stereotypes. But it’s gone much further than that. The disease of group consciousness has pushed individuals into seeing themselves and presenting themselves as nothing more than group members. Proudly so. Absurdly so. They’ve tried to make the stereotypes into facts.

Some groups, in politicizing themselves, have ladled on the self-esteem routine to substitute for anything they might actually accomplish in the world, preferring to rely on slogans and assertions that amount to dust in the wind—actually torpedoing their chances of success.

It’s exactly parallel to the child who is told, in this case by his teachers and parents, that he’s very, very special, over and over, until the child is living in a never-never land.

Working for a definable cause as part of a group is one thing, but taking on one’s own identity as nothing more than “group member” is a disaster.

At the core of this op is desertion of self by the individual himself. Yes, every individual is unique. That’s true. But it has to play out. The individual has to take his own actions and his own path. If not, he picks out a disseminated cartoon, glues it to his face, and marches forward in lock step toward Nowhere.


So Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman become symbols of groups, and the hostilities broaden. And repulsive operatives who make their living pushing these symbols show up and do their work.

What’s the end game? A society fractured into opposing camps, your basic nut house, where every group ultimately looks to government for answers, money, help, favors, deals.

The psy-op moves all the way into dependance. And that was always the point of it. That was the plan for “reorganizing” a nation.

In the long run, those honorable groups who have labored for just change are forgotten. They fade into oblivion. What takes their place are the delusional ones, and the ones who are consciously run, from above, by planners who want to see this kind of mangled society.

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. It starts by saying the world, as it really is, is incomprehensible, and therefore we have to build cartoons of various groups; doing this is “a good idea” and it will facilitate our thoughts and actions. The prophecy ends with so many people buying into those cartoons that they play those roles to the hilt and assert they ARE the cartoons and nothing more.

But I’ll tell you this. Somewhere, lurking in the background, there are still many, many individuals who know they are individuals. And their day will come, because the universe of cartoon characters is such bad theater the show will close. Ticket sales will evaporate.

It’s important to understand the root: promoting a nation as a collection of groups. This IS Collectivism at work. Collectivism isn’t done by considering a country one homogenous mass of people. Not right away. First you need competing and hostile groups. You encourage them to present themselves as cliches, as animations, as actors in a play.

You move into phase two when you show these groups that their best chance of success is to get help from government. That’s the key. It doesn’t matter whether a group hates government. So what? You bring them around to thinking government is their best shot.

And, of course, government complies. Government holds out a helping hand. Money, hope, favors. You’ve now funneled the energy of groups right into the official bureaucracy. The problem solver.

You’re not, for example, telling a group it should start an urban farm and grow its own food. You’re not telling them how to start their own businesses and actually make them work. You’re not telling them how they can buy land and live in a community. You’re certainly not telling them the whole group concept is flawed and they should—each person—discover what it means to be an individual.

Individual power, action, vision is completely off the table.


These stereotyped groups are actually training grounds for membership in the bigger group: a whole society absorbed in government.

It’s all preparation for the ultimate lesson: the needs and demands and entitlements of the many obliterate the needs of the individual.

The word “individual” comes from Latin roots. In=not. Dividere=to divide. Individual=not divided. “Can’t be divided.” The individual is the fundamental, the basic. It’s what you come to, finally, when you analyze a group. The individual. It’s what you come to when you scrape away the stereotypes and cartoons and generalities and other “group characteristics.”

Of course, if you mount and push forward a psy-op that ADDS ON characteristics to the individual, especially if those characteristics are going to be self-sabotaging, and if the individual isn’t ready to invent his own future, he’ll bite. He’ll buy. He’ll join up.

This is what the “social science” of “mass communications” is all about. As the name implies, it’s an academic field that starts out with the assumption and lie of a MASS. From that point on, it’s all manipulation.


But why should people realize this? They’re floating on propaganda that lets them know the world is a horrible mess and we simply don’t have time to stop and consider the strange, outmoded, and discredited idea of the individual. In fact, wasn’t it the unbridled individual who led us into the mess? Didn’t “he” destroy the fabric of life? Didn’t he make millions of people starve? Didn’t he start all the wars? Didn’t he oppose group consciousness all along? Aren’t we, in fact, repairing the damage done by the individual? Isn’t he the ultimate virus that corrupts? Shouldn’t we wipe him out forever and install the Group as the indivisible unit of life? Then we’ll be happy. Then we’ll be free. Then we’ll all live in harmony. Then we’ll evolve to the next stage:

ABSORPTION INTO THE WHOLE.

You might be surprised at how many people want this. Economic absorption, political absorption, social absorption, mystical absorption.

Selling out Self is big, big, business.


I’ll leave you with this — as an illustration of how thick and dense group identity, as opposed to individual consciousness, can be built:

As reported by Heather Mac Donald in City Journal (July 14, 2011), the University of California at San Diego has decided to MANDATE a new graduation requirement. The key concept, the University states, is cultivating a “student’s understanding of her or his identity [focusing on] African Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, Chicanos, Latinos, Native Americans or other groups [through the lenses of] race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, language, ability/disability, class or age.”

Translation: Through every means and category possible, we’re going to plug and wire you into a group, and from that platform you can continue the psy-op that pours all of society into the funnel of government and away from who you are: YOU.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

THE STRUCTURE OF THE HYPNOTIZED MIND

 

THE STRUCTURE OF THE HYPNOTIZED MIND BEYOND THE TRANCE

AN INTERVIEW WITH JACK TRUE

by Jon Rappoport

April 23, 2012

 

As long-time readers know, Jack True was my friend and colleague who developed remarkable forms of healing in his work as a hypnotherapist.

 

Jack eventually dedicated himself to un-hypnotizing people.

 

His insights are invaluable and unique. We had many conversations and interviews, some of which are included in my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED.

 

Here is one that isn’t part of that collection:

 

Q: Talk a little about the men behind the curtain who run the world.

 

A: They are very fixated. In a real sense, suicidally so. They’re always playing the same game of chess on the same board. They can become very good chess players, but so what? I’ve met this type of human. He is incredibly boring. He’s always looking for closed systems. His mind is a closed system. He looks at another person’s freedom…he admires that freedom as long as he can manage it and intervene and squash it.

 

Q: Like some kind of self-styled Greek god?

 

A: Yes. They sit up on Olympus and celebrate the daring courageous human heroes down below, but always with an eye toward intervention. “I can control this if I want to.” That kind of thing.

 

Q: Seems like the “if I want to” part is escalating. They do want to control humans more and more.

 

A: Their whole apparatus is becoming more of a machine. It involves billions of people, so it would have to take the form of huge bureaucracies. Faceless androids who carry out orders.

 

Q: You’re not just referring to the USSR or China.

 

A: I’m talking about the whole world. That’s their game preserve.

 

Q: What about Kissinger’s famous statement, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”

 

A: Well, that’s a statement about sadism. Pure and simple. Here’s what you have to understand. The mind of an elite controller is very confined. It’s very defined. If you were wearing a mind like that, you’d be screaming to get out. You wouldn’t be able to take it. But these elites are, in a very serious way, hypnotized.

 

Q: Not in the usual sense, though.

 

A: Not exactly. How can I put this? If you had to spend the next thirty years looking at the same painting every day, all day, one of two things would happen. You’d go off your rocker, or you’d fall into a trance.

 

Q: What are you referring to?

 

A: The minds of these people are like that painting. It stays the same, every day. They keep looking at a closed mind that changes very, very little. And that has a hypnotic effect. A mesmerizing effect.

 

Q: And in that hypnotic state?

 

A: Their obsessions intensify. And at some level they feel trapped by those obsessions. They’re in prison and they can’t get out. So anger builds. They take out that anger on…well, the world. They’re in a position to do that. They have that much political and economic power.

 

Q: They’re really trapped?

 

A: You bet.

 

Q: That’s strange. They have all the money anyone could hope for. They can do anything they want to. But they’re trapped.

 

A: Trapped by the structure of their minds.

 

Q: I can’t imagine you mean we should forgive them because they’re trapped…

 

A: Of course not. I’m not saying they’re victims.

 

Q: But is the mind inherited and passed down?

 

A: No.

 

Q: So then, how does a man with billions of dollars and control over the fate of untold numbers of people acquire his own mind?

 

A: That’s a very good question. That’s a key question. It involves a fairly long conversation.

 

Q: Let’s have the conversation.

 

A: Basically, a person is the architect of his own mind. But then, having built it, there are repercussions.

 

Q: That’s a very provocative statement: “a person is the architect of his own mind.”

 

A: I know.

 

Q: Are you saying that anyone walking down the street who built his mind in a badly designed way, if given the resources, would turn into a controlling monster and try to run the world?

 

A: No. I’m not saying that. The idea of running the world is embedded in the mind. It’s part of the mind. It’s like a mirror that keeps reflecting that thought back at the person.

 

Q: We’re in pretty deep water here.

 

A: (laughs) You wanted to have the conversation.

 

Q: I think we need some definitions of terms.

 

A: Yes, we do. We need to back up and approach this from several angles.

 

Q: You’re putting forward some very radical ideas.

 

A: Let me ask you this: how are the non-radical ideas doing? How are the conventional ideas about the mind paying dividends? Is the human race becoming much smarter or much more creative or much freer? See, I don’t think so. We need to find some new ideas and pursue them. We have to stop thinking like idiots who copy each other’s thoughts all the time.

 

Q: Okay. Point taken. Let’s start from here. In the past, you’ve told me that, generally speaking, people walk around in a hypnotic state…

 

A: Obviously I don’t mean they look like zombies. But in some key part or aspect of mind, they are in a trance state. They accept a certain view of reality, and evidence to the contrary isn’t going to make a dent.

 

Q: So you mean they’re chronically misinformed?

 

A: No, no. It goes much deeper than that.

 

Q: How so?

 

A: Here’s an analogy. Suppose you had a machine capable of moving a mountain. But the way it’s wired and set up, it can only move a table. It’s set up to reject the overwhelming amount of energy that can run through it.

 

Q: You’re saying the mind is like that?

 

A: It is. But why? And how? These questions need to be explored.

 

Q: And is energy the key? The mind is cut off from tremendous quantities of energy?

 

A: Yes, but that’s the effect of prior causes.

 

Q: What causes?

 

A: We need to understand first how the mind works. Of course, it’s not the brain. Most of the thinking a person does happens in the mind. The brain regulates other processes. The mind is not a physical thing.

 

Q: That last statement opens up a big debate.

 

A: One which I tire of. I’ll give you a shorthand answer, and then we’ll leave it. Does a person have freedom or not? If you agree he does, then how does a materialistic view of the universe provide for freedom? I’m talking about real freedom, not just the idea that you might be free. The brain doesn’t contain freedom. To say such a thing is ridiculous.

 

Q: But the mind is free?

 

A: It is a field of operation in which a person can deliberate and choose and weigh and decide and compare.

 

Q: As a hypnotherapist working with patients, do you have direct experience of the mind?

 

A: Well, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? I do. Through my patients.

 

Q: What is that experience like?

 

A: It’s like looking into a space where thoughts are being moved around. They aren’t just circulating on their own. They’re being directed.

 

Q: Who is directing them?

 

A: We’re sitting here having this conversation. I’m directing my thoughts and you’re directing yours.

 

Q: So the mind is a space.

 

A: Yes. An architect spreads out a large piece of paper on a table. He’s going to make a drawing of a house.

 

Q: The piece of paper is the space, the mind.

 

A: That’s right.

 

Q: A person has an interior space.

 

A: Absolutely. And many things can happen to that space. For example, you can find dead areas.

 

Q: How do you know that?

 

A: Because, in a light trance, people go there, to those dead spaces. I don’t tell them to go there. I don’t suggest there are dead spaces. They do it on their own.

 

Q: What do they tell you?

 

A: They say lots of things. “It’s dead.” “It’s a desert.” “It’s numb.” “It’s rigid.”

 

Q: You make it sound as if the patient is going on a journey through a landscape and he’s reporting back to you.

 

A: That’s exactly what he’s doing.

 

Q: And when he says he’s arrived at an area that’s dead, what does he mean?

 

A: I ask him. I’ll get an answer like, “This place doesn’t have any choice in it.” Or, “This place is like a robot.”

 

Q: That doesn’t sound good.

 

A: It especially doesn’t sound good when the patient says it’s a very large dead area.

 

Q: So…

 

A: Those dead areas are already in a trance state. Very little energy in, and very little energy out.

 

Q: So this is what you mean when you say people are walking around in a hypnotized state?

 

A: It’s part of what I mean. But it’s not the big picture.

 

Q: What’s the big picture?

 

A: The whole space of the mind is a kind of field that will only accept a certain RANGE of ideas and thoughts. Anything else is blacked out. You see, the mind tends to be a space or a field of operation that will only accept a certain range of possible REALITIES. Anything else, any other reality is rejected as impossible. It doesn’t get in the door.

 

Q: But earlier you said the mind is the place where freedom can exist, where choices can be made.

 

A: That’s right. So the person—and this is the hard part to accept—influences his own mind. He sets it up to accommodate a certain range of possibilities and that’s all. After that, the mind works to fall into line, to filter out ideas that don’t fit within that range.

 

Q: You actually see this process at work when you deal with patients in therapy?

 

A: They see it. And they tell me about it.

 

Q: And you don’t guide them.

 

A: No. I have no vested interest in what they come up with. I know all the ways to make subtle suggestions or hand out little cues—and I don’t do it.

 

Q: So what do they tell you? I mean, how do they realize the way their minds are built, so to speak?

 

A: I have them travel around in that space of mind and tell me what they find. I’m getting them to be familiar with the landscape. The more they see, the more they understand. It’s not a one-shot deal. It takes time. It’s as if you were dumped on a strange planet, and you walked around and lived there for six months. You would get used to it. You’d become a lot more familiar with the place.

 

Q: Give me an example.

 

A: After a few months of sessions, a patient tells me, “This [mind] space has hard boundaries. I never noticed them before. I can see what’s here, but I can’t see what’s outside the boundaries. I’m sure there’s something out there, but I can’t see it. I’m conditioned to accept the kind of thing that’s inside the boundaries.” And then, a few months later, he tells me, “I’m the one who’s setting up the ATTITUDE of this space. I’m like a spy who infiltrates and shapes the limits and borders. I’m setting up the FLAVOR of the content…”

 

Q: And when you can break down these boundaries?

 

A: I don’t break them down. The patient does, when he’s ready. He does it on his own. Then we see some fireworks.

 

Q: Meaning?

 

A: The vivid experience of a sudden influx of energy. Vital energy. Having access to new energies that had been excluded before.

 

Q: New thoughts?

 

A: Of course.

 

Q: What about new talents or capacities?

 

A: Occasionally, paranormal abilities or phenomena come into play. Telepathy, seeing into the future, and something else that doesn’t really have a name: it’s a very clear confidence about being able to build or create a future the person really desires. This level of confidence is…I hesitate to use the word ‘supernatural’…It’s like what happens when a kid learns to ride a bicycle, and one day he suddenly catches on and he can do it easily and it feels wonderful. He grasps the whole thing. It’s that kind of confidence. It all comes together. I’ve also seen moments where a patient could do psychokinesis.

 

Q: Moving an object with his mind?

 

A: Moving a clock on a desk. Moving a chair. In one case, the patient went on to an experiment with a random number generator. He could change the output of the machine significantly. There was no doubt about it.

 

Q: And your conclusion?

 

A: These abilities are natural. They’re not weird.

 

Q: How does mind control play into all of this?

 

A: It’s chicken and egg. Some people want to say the mind is under siege from the outside, and other people want to say the person is shaping the limited version of his own mind. I don’t care to argue about it anymore. People can believe whatever they want to.

 

Q: You’ve certainly talked to me about how the mind and the physical world interact.

 

A: I have. But you see, there is a barrier to discussing this.

 

Q: What barrier?

 

A: People think they know whatever is important to know. Get it? There they are, shaping and limiting the space of their own mind, and on top of that they’re telling you they’re free and they know everything important.

 

But in case anyone cares to understand it, here it is: the world, the physical world presents itself every day in pretty much the same way to us. It is remarkable in that respect. We don’t notice that it’s remarkable, but it is. And then our minds do the same thing. Every day, we see our own minds in pretty much the same way.

 

Sameness. That’s the thing. That’s the link. That’s what keeps us from considering that the space of our minds could really and dramatically open up. Radically open up. And then we could think and see and act in very new ways.

 

That possibility is closed off to most people. Even when you talk to them about imagination, they interpret it to mean they will imagine what they have already imagined. They don’t see that they can conceive in ways that will break apart the boundaries of their own minds and let in oceanic energy and consciousness.

 

They don’t see that and they don’t want to see that. It’s a stop sign they’ve set up. But at the same time, they say they are free and they know whatever is important to know.

 

It’s absurd.

 

Q: What do you do about that?

 

A: I work with people who are ready and able to find something genuinely and authentically new. These people have to be stable. See, experiencing radically new oceanic consciousness doesn’t change you at all. You become more of what you are. But people generally don’t see it that way. They believe they might turn into something else. They have these unfounded fears and confusions. They have positioned themselves in a kind of lattice-work or grid of immobility.

 

They are taught to believe, and they themselves believe, that the world and their minds are like fixed stars. They believe that, inside that context, they can accomplish things. But they also believe there is nothing outside the context.

 

 

Q: You’re saying a person can become so familiar with his own mind he can break through the boundaries and enter radically new contexts.

 

A: Yes. And when he does, it’s a tremendous relief.

 

Q: So in your work, you don’t really view the mind in negative terms. I mean, you’re not trying to fix it.

 

A: No. Why should I? The problem isn’t really what’s in the mind. It’s the fact that the mind is imbued with a filtering system that only allows certain things in.

 

Q: Does the filtering system make it easier for other people to control the mind? Externally? You know, mind control?

 

A: Oh, absolutely. Once you know what’s let in and what’s filtered out, you can tailor messages that will have appeal. You can play all sorts of tricks.

 

Q: But what you mean when you talk about liberating the mind…this is an event that happens beyond rational discussion. It’s something else. It’s a certain kind of insight.

 

A: In my work, it comes about through the direct perception of the patient. It’s as if you’d been looking at a stick for a long time, and you always said it was straight. Then, suddenly, you see it’s crooked. It has a slant in it. When you see that, you can change it. Not just a little bit. You can REALLY change it.

 

Q: You mentioned the boundaries of the mind space. That’s obviously very important.

 

A: Yes. The boundaries. The patient accepts them without question. He isn’t even aware they’re there. But he operates within them. All the time. However, if the moment comes when he sees these boundaries for what they are, if he really grasps that, then there is a breakthrough. It’s immediate. He WAS walking along an alley between buildings and NOW he’s walking across a huge plain. He can feel the shift. And as I say, he experiences new energy. The energy had been locked out. It couldn’t get in. Now it can. This energy is very important, because now he can use it. He has much, much more power.

 

Q: The kind of breakthrough you’re describing…this doesn’t happen because a person comes upon a new piece of information.

 

A: I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about what happens when I’m working with patients.

 

Q: You have patients explore the landscape of their own minds until they become very familiar with it.

 

A: That’s right.

 

Q: And then they sometimes see—suddenly see the character and nature and limits of their mind in an entirely new way.

 

A: Yes. This isn’t just about thinking more clearly or grabbing hold of a new piece of information. Of course, some people will claim that’s what I’m talking about. They’ll claim that because they want to believe they already know everything worth knowing. THEY’RE QUITE SURE ABOUT THAT. They’re locked in, but they’ll never admit it.

 

Q: You’re talking about an event.

 

A: A event, yes. When a person sees so much about his own mind that there is a breakthrough. The old structure collapses. The borders and boundaries collapse.

 

Q: But it isn’t chaotic.

 

A: Not at all. It’s a tremendous relief. It’s a liberation. It’s regaining what you are.

 

Q: This event. It isn’t just trading one thought for another.

 

A: NO. It’s more like July 4th fireworks show. It’s partly an energy event. A person is going from a much lower energy level to a much higher energy level.

 

Q: Would you say this event, this moment, this breakthrough is an illogical insight?

 

A: You could call it a super-logical moment. It’s direct perception. If an inventor like Tesla sees a whole machine before he ever makes a sketch, is that illogical? Of course not.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO RUIN EVERYTHING

It Takes a Village to Ruin Everything: Enemies with Benefits in the NWO

by Jon Rappoport — author of THE MATRIX REVEALED

April 21, 2012

“You want to know how elites solve problems? Here’s their formula: smaller problem, bigger solution. And when that doesn’t work? Concoct a huge problem that doesn’t exist and solve it with a huge program.” — Ellis Medavoy, retired propaganda operative, in THE MATRIX REVEALED

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” — David Rockefeller in Memoirs (2003)

In a future sea of darkness, the islands of light, toward which people desperately grope, are clusters of buildings occupied by mega-corporations and government agencies.

To achieve a measure of survival, people seek those islands and the jobs that come with them.

When you sign on and are accepted, you pledge a loyalty that knows no bounds, because there is no viable alternative. You cease worrying about the crimes your employer is committing, because you are safe, you are out of the darkness, and you want to stay there.

What would cause this future to come to pass? Many answers have been offered. I’ll add a factor to the list.

It concerns a method of problem-solving. Here is the premise: if a difficulty crops up, solve it by enlarging the scope of the relevant factors.

More precisely, ARTIFICIALLY enlarge the scope of the relevant factors.

This is Elite Problem Solving.


In 1996, Hillary Clinton’s book, It Takes a Village, appeared. In it, she argued that a whole community must solve the problem of raising a child. Of course, this was pretentious nonsense. It runs parallel to the idea that no entrepreneur can prosper without infra-structure that is built with public money, and therefore the entrepreneur and his output should be the property of the state.

Starting with the individual child, Clinton offers a solution that encompasses a town or a community or even a city…or who knows…maybe a planet.

But one, the original problem isn’t solved (if it was a problem to begin with), and two, the solution is an artifact designed to regulate a larger environment. To put it another way, Clinton’s model makes it necessary to put everyone under the gun because a child may be a problem.

Problem: 50 small fish might be wiped out by allowing water from rivers to irrigate farmland. Solution: we must consign the whole valley of farms to eternal drought.

If the free market gives birth to 12 million companies and corporations, this creates the “problem” of uninspected potential crimes. Therefore, we have to put the world under the regulatory eye and nose of agencies, whose ultimate objective is to wipe out those enterprises, or weaken them to the point at which they will be absorbed in much larger corporations—until, finally, there are 400 mega-corporations that are responsible for 80% of all international trade and production.

Then and only then can we feel safe. Then and only then can we know that government will exercise proper control over business on planet Earth.

Of course, when 400 corporations do constitute the productive engine of Earth, they will have bought off governments so they can do exactly as they like. They will partner with governments to share the spoils. Which was part of the idea in the first place.

Again, the method is: whatever the size of the original purported problem, make the solution bigger and more encompassing.

If one gun (fired by one person) killed one person, confiscate all guns everywhere.

Here is another example: if you foment and prepare and fund and supply a war between two major powers, in the aftermath you will solve the problem of reconstruction by welding those powers together as one Complex…in which case, you end up with larger unified organizations than when you started, and you control that unified whole.

You can call this approach SMALLLER PROBLEM, LARGER SOLUTION.


Look at the opposite strategy, which is no longer held to be viable: you create self-sufficiency wherever possible. Responsible self-sufficiency. Most people don’t have a clue what that means.

Suppose you started a small nation. You would be faced with the problem of survival. How would you solve that? You could forge all sorts of relationships with other countries in the areas of trade, loans, and purchases of material…except you know that these other nations are corrupt beyond the telling of it. Their governments are corrupt, their economies are corrupt, their leaders are criminals. Do you opt for this larger entangling solution, or do you decide to make do with what you have and innovate and work your way toward the objective of your own national self-sufficiency?

If you opt for the second choice, what happens? It has rarely if ever been tried. These days, you would be accused of isolationism and, at the very least, “exiled from the world community.”

And yet, theoretically speaking, if you could survive and prosper as a new nation, dedicated to inculcating the self-sufficiency of every citizen as a long-range goal, you would stand as a shining example to the rest of the world. You would have made the great experiment with freedom work. This was, in a way, what the original American Republic was built to achieve, before it was subverted, at the latest, three or four minutes after the Constitution was drawn up.


During World War 2, members of the Council on Foreign Relations were tasked with setting out a plan for the creation of the United Nations, the grand global solution to war everywhere at all times.

As we have seen, its emerging agenda has been a covert op to control many facets of of human life in all nations, under the rubric of “sustainability.”

In 1988, two UN agencies that seemed to have little power, the World Meteorological Association and the Environmental Programme, created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC went on to spearhead the drive to convince the world that man is causing so much atmospheric warming, civilization will soon end if the UN doesn’t radically reorder the behavior of all societies and individuals.

The science behind this warming claim has been shown to be without merit, but the campaign to “solve” warming continues.


A child in a classroom fidgets in his chair and looks out the window. He doesn’t respond immediately when the teacher asks him a question. Well, this child needs to be “solved.” For that, a school counselor is brought in, who in turn recommends a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist makes a diagnosis of ADHD, which doesn’t exist. There is no test for it. The child takes Ritalin, and within eight weeks falls into a funk. The psychiatrist diagnoses this as a new emerging condition, clinical depression, rather than an understandable reaction to Ritalin. He prescribes one of the SSRI antidepressants. Two months later, the child cuts himself. The psychiatrist, ignoring the fact that these SSRI drugs are known to cause suicide, decides to prescribe an even stronger chemical, one of the so-called antipsychotics. The parents refuse to allow this. Child Services is called in. They interview the parents and suggest that a charge of medical neglect could be brought against them, in which case the child might be taken from the home and put into state-sponsored foster care.

It takes a village.


An innovative but struggling company, Silk, which markets organic soy products, sells itself to Dean, a giant agribusiness corporation. Dean turns around and begins buying cheaper soy from China, rather than from the US organic farmers who were supplying Silk. Some of those US farmers go out of business. This is called “free trade,” and is justified by the claim that we’re all living in a Global Village, and the sovereignty of nations is merely an outmoded fiction. Loyalty to one’s own country is scoffed at as “primitive.”

All over the planet, huge agribusiness corporations are bringing local farmers to their knees. These corporations are international. They owe no allegiance to any nation. They float.


Here is Richard Bell, a former financial insider I interviewed in THE MATRIX REVEALED:

“Some day, up the road, a few of these agribusiness corporations will merge into a super-entity. Then what will we have? Is this still the free market? Of course not. The level playing field no longer exists.

“In certain areas of the world, you can grow rice much more cheaply. If you turn those areas into gigantic rice plantations, you can then export that rice anywhere and overwhelm local farmers.

“Why don’t governments stop this? Because they signed on to membership in the World Trade Organization with its rules. And here’s the kicker: overall food production declines. Government pension funds and banks are INVESTED in the stock of that super-agri-entity. They want to see that stock price rise. They’ll do NOTHING to interfere with that.

“It’s really a closed system. The whole idea is to make it look like free-market capitalism, when it isn’t. It turns out that you need separate nations to have capitalism. You need tariff protections. You need nations that figure out how to move toward self-sufficiency. You won’t learn these principles in college courses. You’ll learn just the opposite.

“I spoke to an economics professor at an Eastern university. He told me my analysis of capitalism was correct, but if he taught that and pushed it too far, he would never gain tenure. He would eventually be forced out of his job.

“Essentially, he was admitting that his university was operating under a forced system of mind control. There were no options. Forces were at work, on many fronts, to make sure that Globalism was the preferred curriculum.

“I undertook an analysis of the sources of funding for that university. Where was the money coming from? Who was issuing grants and contracts to the university? What was the university fund invested in? The answers clarified things. The university was floating on money that was dedicated to the precepts of Globalism.

“The university was, when you boiled it down, a PR agency working for Globalism. And here was an interesting irony: there were students at that university who were protesting Globalism, and they were supported by a few professors. Do you get it? The protests were really a charade, and the students were unwitting dupes, whose real function was to make it appear that the university was a bastion of free ideas. The protests were a cover story. A cover story to hide the true intent of the university.

“I dug further, and I found a few professors and administrators who KNEW THAT.”


We have been sold a fiction. Time and time again we have been told that no nation can exist and survive on its own. Self-sufficiency is a foul and selfish myth. Every nation needs vital resources it doesn’t have. It can only obtain them from another country.

This presupposes that the ingenuity and imagination of the human mind is limited in what it can devise. Which is the biggest lie of all.

Discrediting the notion of self-sufficiency is the cornerstone in the building of Globalism.

Why do you think we are bombarded with stories and pictures of poverty around the world? Why do you think stories of celebrities adopting babies from “The Third World” are given such wide play? Because our so-called leaders really care? This op has as its goal fostering the amorphous conviction that everyone must pitch in to help everyone at all times everywhere.

And THAT sets the stage for what? Not share and care. Not a better world. No. It sets the stage for mega-corporations and their partner governments and banks, backed up by intelligence agencies and armies and “missionaries,” to enact their Great Solution: global control, management, governance.

The celebrity, bouncing her new adopted baby on her knee, says, “I know, in the end, when all this is done, our leaders will make it a better world. I know they will. Share and care will win.”

That’s not the plan.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

UNDERMINING THE WEST THROUGH PSYCHOLOGY

 

UNDERMINING THE EDUCATED CLASSES WITH PSYCHOLOGY

 

by Jon Rappoport

author of THE MATRIX REVEALED

April 19, 2012

 

“…the methods that are used by law enforcement to gain confessions are based upon extremely powerful psychological techniques that have been known to social scientists for decades. These same methods have been used by marketers and conmen alike for centuries to convince regular people to do their will. That fact that these same techniques can be applied by law enforcement to get people, who often times should clearly have known better, to give statements that result in lengthy imprisonment, or even execution, is a testament to the power of such techniques!” — Eric Mings, PhD of interrogationpsychology.com.

 

For many new readers who are coming to my work for the first time, part of my approach is to analyze systems that operate as mind control.

 

These systems aren’t called mind control. They work by shrinking down the vision of what a human being can be. They reduce, limit, restrict—sometimes in the name of “good science.”

 

Such systems are often thought of as “realistic.” They appeal to the educated classes because they are taught in colleges, and because they can be studied extensively.

 

During one of my interviews with retired propaganda master Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), he stopped and said, “Look, you really want to understand what psychology is all about? It has two main uses now. Profiling a potential enemy, and concocting successful advertising. In both cases, it looks for the lowest common denominator. Is that what you want therapy in an office to deliver to a patient? A lowest common denominator?”

 

With the onset of Freudian psychoanalysis, intellectuals in the West began to perceive a new way of looking at the human being: as a bundle of INTERIOR problems, which needed to be resolved through a deep understanding of primary traumas sustained in childhood.

 

These problems were touted as UNAVOIDABLE. There was no way to work around them, except through therapy.

 

This sort of propaganda was undertaken by newly minted “mental-health professionals,” who were busy creating journals and conferences and faculty positions, in order to cement their status in society.

 

Essentially, their sales pitch was: we’re indispensable; we are the only people who can restore true sanity.

 

As psychology spread its wings, the restoration of sanity, which from the beginning was a fatally flawed jumble of nonsense, took on a different hue. It morphed into: making people normal.

 

This was an easier goal to comprehend, and it fed into the fears of those who wanted to be accepted in a world that was becoming increasingly conventional and conformist.

 

Of course, normalcy could never be adequately defined, but people had a sense of what it meant. That was good enough. Getting along with others was part of it. Feeling comfortable in a group was part of it. Sharing similar ideas and feelings was part of it. Being a member of a team was part of it. Learning to live with limitations was part of it.

 

All these factors helped extend the growing political concept of Collectivism, a system in which the so-called needs of the many are placed light-years ahead of the needs of the individual.

 

Psychological therapy was now viewed as a process through which a patient could learn to adapt and adjust—and moreover, such adjustment was deemed “recovery from neurosis.”

 

In other words, it wasn’t just superficial socialization. It was the attainment of inner equilibrium, a victory in which “what a human really is” was achieved.

 

This was the new propaganda.

 

Well, what else would you expect? Psychologists couldn’t simply say, “We’re training you to fit in.” They had to dress it up.

 

The bottom line here—and it is a very significant one—is that great individual achievement was taken off the stage.

 

It was replaced by an average life. Furthermore, psychologists made it their business to point out that great heroes often suffer from mental disorders.

 

The overall effect on civilization, as psychology was integrated into the language and the every-day consciousness of citizens, was enormous.

 

GREAT INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT was downplayed. It was no longer a widely accepted goal. Its day had passed.

 

Do you want to ‘distort your psychology’ in order to attain some sort of illusory greatness, or do you want to be happy?”

 

Many, many people, in all times and places, are on the lookout for ways to accept stripped-down lowered expectations; psychology provided that in spades. Normalcy was now a “theory of the mind.”

 


And here is where the placebo effect enters in. Humans, when pressed, when they feel their present situation is intolerable, will look to any hope for relief. If it is offered by a psychologist, a patient will INVENT A ROLE FOR HIMSELF in which he truly does want to be “normal” above all else. In this role, he will find, in therapy, exactly what he needs to confirm that, yes, he has these interior problems that can be worked out and resolved through the language and the concepts of psychological therapy.

 

The good patient.

 

The good patient reconstructs his past to fit the basic notions of therapy.

 

And it works, like any placebo does—for a little while. Then the construct fractures; and the outcome splits open like a badly designed coat.

 

Psychology, as it turns out, is merely a sub-category of theater, played out on the basis of not knowing it is theater.

 

The sacrifice is: great individual achievement.

 

And the rest is history, which we are living through now.

 

The answer is to restore what has been sacrificed.

 


And when you start down that road, you inevitably meet up with your own imagination, and you can’t deny it. If you’re honest, you realize you’re a great deal more than you thought you were. Therefore, you can’t fall back on foolish little prescriptions. You can’t play the same old games. You can’t use a system to make yourself blind.

 

My description of the basis of modern psychology should make it obvious I am talking about a system of mind control. It (psychology) is somewhat subtle, because it quietly rejects the larger context in which an individual could operate on his own.

 

Instead, it substitutes notions like “compensation,” “acting out,” “personal drama.” In and of themselves, these labels might, in some situations, be vaguely interesting. But when wedded to the prospect of CURING a person of their negative impact, the stage is set for a reduction of energy, creative power, and space. Why? Because the terms of the problem have been placed on a smaller platform and the dimension of the solution has also been prefabricated to fit that platform.

 

Psychotherapy is to the creative life as a kitchen melodrama is to high adventure.

 

Think about it. If you were consciously setting out to corral and capture a significant segment of the educated population, without arousing their suspicion, you could succeed grandly if you educated them about the purported composition of their struggles—by naming the elements holding them back from progress, by claiming that these elements are, indeed, real, by choosing elements that actually shrink the field of operation, by essentially defining what a life consists of…and then stepping in and saying you can make that life better. It’s like redefining three-dimensional chess as checkers and then sorting out winning checkers strategies.

 

You see, the large and great life is a delusion based on neurotic fantasy. The smaller life is real. And we can help you with that.”

 

Of course, this is unspoken. But it’s there. And it is sold.

 

We’re going to take a life that could be A,B,C,D, and miniaturize it down to lower-case a,b,c,d. We’re going to carry out this miniaturization process so skillfully and so insistently that, eventually, the person forgets there even is an A,B,C,D. Then we have him. Then we can rearrange those a,b,c,d deck chairs and he’ll believe we’re helping him. That’s how we win.”

 

That’s the shell game. That’s the operant conditioning. That’s how it works.

 


Here are a few more comments from Ellis Medavoy on the subject:

 

At some point, as I was doing medical propaganda, I came across a few operatives who were using their contacts to promote psychology as an essential part of society. It took me a little while to see what their game was.

 

They were working for what I call the Collectivist Elite, the men who are trying to make a world of obedient androids, satisfied androids. Well, that’s mind control. These operatives, doing their propaganda, feeding stories to the press, were pushing a general idea of psychology.

 

Their version of psychology, when you boil it down, is: we’re all living in a park. It’s a good park. We can all be happy if we stay there and work together and cooperate. But part of this cooperation means we all admit we’re deficient. We need a fix, a cure. We can get that cure if we realize that every impulse we have toward being a self-sufficient individual is really a symptom, and the symptom needs to be wiped out.

 

The idea that an individual has tremendous power is another symptom that really needs to be cured.”

 


Once you get a person to accept the myth that his most pressing desire is to be “normal,” you can perform many manipulations. You can play on his need to be part of the group, the team. You can use veiled threats of exile from the group. You can pretend your manipulations are really only an effort to bring him into the “community.” You can pretend you’re just trying to help him be what he wants to be. You can promise him acceptance. It all hinges on this operation designed to “shrink him down” so he views Normal as his highest and most proper ambition.

 

And what can he offer in his defense? How can he fight you off? What can he use as a standard, against which he can compare Normal?

 

If you mention INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, POWER, IMAGINATION as that standard, he’s in the dark. He doesn’t know what you’re talking about. He’s entered into a state of amnesia about those qualities.

 

And in that state of amnesia, he’ll admit to having committed offenses. He’ll confess to crimes he never even contemplated.

 


As documented by Dr. Peter Breggin in his classic work, Toxic Psychiatry, about 35 years ago a bridge was built between the profession of psychologist (and psychiatrist) and the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Since psychology was already sinking into a morass of behavior-control (my analysis), why not take the next step and simply say all these “symptoms” were really brain imbalances and deficits?

 

Forget science. By the way, there are no chemical or biological tests to support a diagnosis of ANY so-called mental disorder. But the “science” of “brain imbalances and deficits” could be sold. It could be marketed.

 

The pharmaceutical industry could save a languishing and increasingly unpopular profession (psychologist/psychiatrist), by buying expensive ads in journals, funding conferences, awarding grants, bankrolling graduate studies.

 

Talk therapy would be replaced by the prescription pad. The drug companies would develop and market the chemicals. The “therapists” would handle the diagnoses and write the scripts.

 

And so that marriage was made.

 

Which takes us all the way from Freud (and his early Pavlovian counterparts) to the present Century of the Brain and Its Control.

 


To many people, that doesn’t look so bad at all. It looks good, because they have forgotten the potential power, freedom, and imagination at the core of Self.

 

They have stopped exploring how far and how high that power, freedom, and imagination can go. Such a journey means nothing to them.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

MEDICAL MURDER IN THE MATRIX

 

MEDICAL MURDER IN THE MATRIX

MEDICALLY CAUSED DEATH IN AMERICA: AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH DR. BARBARA STARFIELD

By Jon Rappoport

APRIL 17, 2012


Breaking News: Click here to access all the articles on this FDA Genocide Murder news story.


Once in a while, I insert a plug for myself in an article. The purpose of this is to sell my products at www.nomorefakenews.com. Since the year 2001, I’ve probably written as many articles as anyone on the internet. They’re all free. So visit my store. Look over the seminars and consider buying one of them. Especially consider THE MATRIX REVEALED. End of plug.


I rerun this Dr. Barbara Starfield article — wherein I show you the email interview I did with Dr. Starfield in December 2009 — regarding her paper published in JAMA in July 2000 entitled Is US health really the best in the world?, just to push the wheel another turn.

The Starfield paper can be downloaded freely (as a .pdf) from here (via http://www.drug-education.info via en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Starfield). The paper is fully cited as Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world?. JAMA. 2000; 284(4):483-4. Dr. Barbara Starfield’s wiki page is here.

Each time I do this, I try to write a new introduction. Here is one…


After working as a reporter for 30 years, I’ve come to understand a few things about public reaction to the truth. People like to say they’re enlightened. They like to say they’ve seen through the major propaganda operations that are launched and are spinning all around us. But when you bulldoze a hole in a part of the Matrix where certain subjects are engraved on stone pillars, and when those subjects are firmly entrenched in the public mind as foundations of Reality, the usual response is silent shock.

Even when people are able to accept the truth, they tend toward silence. They don’t pass the truth on.

Retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy, whom I interview in THE MATRIX REVEALED, once explained it to me this way:

You’ve taken them out of a state of hypnosis, a state of trance, but the truth you’re giving them puts them in another trance. In that part of their mind where they’ve been asleep for so long, they’re used to that narcosis. So even though they see truth now, they respond with new sleep. It’s not really an awakening at all. It’s as if they’ve walked out of one war zone into another, dazed.”

Ellis describes perfectly what happens to many people when they see the truth of medical murder in the US. It particularly happens because there is no logical way to understand it, given the expectations people have about what murder is, what murder means.

And there’s another problem. As you’ll see, the figures on medically caused death in America I’m citing come from an author with absolutely impeccable mainstream credentials. The review she wrote was published in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. It was all “on the up and up.”

That’s precisely why I use her figures, rather than those compiled by outsiders, who, by the way, probably have better numbers that are even more chilling.

I’ve had people stare blankly at me after a discussion of the interview below and say, outright, “This is impossible. It can’t be true. You see, if a really respected doctor is making these claims, and if her review is published in a prestigious journal, then mainstream doctors and medical schools and government would have to react. They would have to clean house.”

But they don’t.

And that is called a clue. We are talking about something similar to the experience of the German people during the rise of Hitler. They went along. They told themselves stories to make it all right. They used the familiar tricks of denial.

This is what makes the Matrix the Matrix. I’m speaking generally now. A grand illusion is accepted because people can’t believe Reality is fundamentally different than it appears to be.

They also can’t believe—and this is far more staggering—that on the other side of the Matrix THEY THEMSELVES have a power that is stunning. They may sense that’s true, but they’ve been taught to deny it. They’ve been taught that individual power is dangerous. They’ve been taught that having and using power beyond a certain point will cause them to be exiled by their peers, their friends, even their families. So it’s better and far more comfortable to cede that power to Someone Else and sleep on…

You see, it’s one thing to rightly accuse an elite group of exercising unlawful and destructive power, to see how huge that power is. But it’s a far different thing to know that you have tremendous power.

The Matrix is built and sustained on a reversal of power relationships.

My work is all about setting those relationships straight. That’s why I do this every day.

It’s especially why I go after the medical cartel again and again. Because they are exercising priestly hypnotic powers with their aura of science.


Okay. Let’s proceed to the issue at hand.

As you read what Dr. Starfield has to say in this interview, know that until her death last year, she was one of those people with impeccable mainstream credentials. She was respected and revered by her colleagues. She was a woman who had set off an explosion TEN years earlier, in one of the most high-profile medical journals in the world, and the media silence that followed was profound, eerie, and deafening.

If the mighty newspapers of our age had jumped in with both feet, Dr. Starfield would have become one of the most famous people in America. Her work would have shaken the medical cartel down to its foundations. She would have saved more lives and averted more suffering than anyone else in this nation. With no exaggeration, we would now be living in a different world.

The American healthcare system, like clockwork, causes a mind-boggling number of deaths every year.

The figures have been known for ten years. The story was covered briefly when Starfield’s landmark study surfaced, and then it sank like a stone.

The truth was inconvenient for many interests. That has not changed. “Medical coverage for all” is a banner that conceals ugly facts.

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock to the system, when one of its most respected public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America. Starfield was associated with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

The Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, came to the following conclusions:

Every year in the US there are:

12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.

2.25 MILLION PEOPLE KILLED PER DECADE.

This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.

The Starfield study is the most disturbing revelation about modern healthcare in America ever published.

On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was rather perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this situation preferred to ignore it.


On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email.

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

My papers on the benefits of primary care have been widely used, including in Congressional testimony and reports. However, the findings on the relatively poor health in the US have received almost no attention. The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency). They, of course, would like an even greater share of the pie than they now have, for training more specialists. (Of course, the problem is that we train specialists–at great public cost–who then do not practice up to their training–they spend half of their time doing work that should be done in primary care and don’t do it as well.)

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

NO.

Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.)

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Do medical schools in the US, and intern/residency programs in hospitals, offer significant “primary care” physician training and education?

NO. Some of the most prestigious medical teaching institutions do not even have family physician training programs [or] family medicine departments. The federal support for teaching institutions greatly favors specialist residencies, because it is calculated on the basis of hospital beds.. [Dr. Starfield has done extensive research showing that family doctors, who deliver primary care---as opposed to armies of specialists---produce better outcomes for patients.]

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

What was your personal reaction when you reached the conclusion that the US medical system was the third leading cause of death in the US?

I had previously done studies on international comparisons and knew that there were serious deficits in the US health care system, most notably in lack of universal coverage and a very poor primary care infrastructure. So I wasn’t surprised.

Has anyone from the FDA, since 2000, contacted you about the statistical findings in your JAMA paper?

NO. Please remember that the problem is not only that some drugs are dangerous but that many drugs are overused or inappropriately used. The US public does not seem to recognize that inappropriate care is dangerous–more does not mean better. The problem is NOT mainly with the FDA but with population expectations. …Some drugs are downright dangerous; they may be prescribed according to regulations but they are dangerous.

Concerning the national health plan before Congress–if the bill is passed, and it is business as usual after that, and medical care continues to be delivered in the same fashion, isn’t it logical to assume that the 225,000 deaths per year will rise?

Probably–but the balance is not clear. Certainly, those who are not insured now and will get help with financing will probably be marginally better off overall.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

106,000 people die as a result of CORRECTLY prescribed medicines. I believe that was your point in your 2000 study. Overuse of a drug or inappropriate use of a drug would not fall under the category of “correctly prescribed.” Therefore, people who die after “overuse” or “inappropriate use” would be IN ADDITION TO the 106,000 and would fall into another or other categories.

‘Appropriate’ means that it is not counter to regulations. That does not mean that the drugs do not have adverse effects.


INTERVIEWER COMMENTS:

This interview with Dr. Starfield reveals that, even when an author has unassailable credentials within the medical-research establishment, the findings can result in no changes made to the system.

Yes, many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs. The buck stops there. If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable. The American people must understand that.

As for the other 119,000 people killed every year as a result of hospital treatment, this horror has to be laid at the doors of those institutions. Further, to the degree that hospitals are regulated and financed by state and federal governments, the relevant health agencies assume culpability.

It is astounding, as well, that the US Department of Justice has failed to weigh in on Starfield’s findings. If 225,000 medically caused deaths per year is not a crime by the Dept. of Justice’s standards, then what is?

To my knowledge, not one person in America has been fired from a job or even censured as result of these medically caused deaths.

Dr. Starfield’s findings have been available for ten years. She has changed the perception of the medical landscape forever. In a half-sane nation, she would be accorded a degree of recognition that would, by comparison, make the considerable list of her awards pale. And significant and swift action would have been taken to punish the perpetrators of these crimes and reform the system from its foundations.

In these times, medical schools continue turning out a preponderance of specialists who then devote themselves to promoting the complexities of human illness and massive drug treatment. Whatever the shortcomings of family doctors, their tradition speaks to less treatment, more common sense, and a proper reliance on the immune systems of patients.

The pharmaceutical giants stand back and carve up the populace into “promising markets.” They seek new disease labels and new profits from more and more toxic drugs. They do whatever they can—legally or illegally—to influence doctors in their prescribing habits. Many studies which show the drugs are dangerous are buried. FDA panels are filled with doctors who have drug-company ties. Legislators are incessantly lobbied and supported with pharma campaign monies.

Nutrition, the cornerstone of good health, is ignored or devalued by most physicians. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to attack nutritional supplements, even though the overall safety record of these nutrients is excellent, whereas, once again, the medical drugs the FDA certifies as safe are killing 106,000 Americans per year.

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the whole literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.

Yes, that’s right. By Dr. Starfield’s published figures, FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs kill over A MILLION Americans per decade.

Does that sound like a legitimate ongoing subject for journalism to you?

At its height, if I recall correctly, when I published this interview in 2009, Google entries ran to about 40,000. Other websites picked it up. I sent it to a well-placed CBS reporter. The overall major media response? ZERO.

You can take that as a reason to give up. Or you can press down harder on the gas pedal.


Jon Rappoport has worked as an independent investigative reporter since 1982. The LA Weekly nominated him for a Pulitzer Prize, for a interview he did with the president of El Salvador University, where the military had taken over the campus and was disappearing students and burning books. He has written for In These Times, Village Voice, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, CBS Healthwatch, Stern. He is the author of a new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, and the co-author, with Robert Scott Bell, of a new ten-hour audio seminar, VACCINES: ARMED AND DANGEROUS. His work can be found at www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

ONE-ROOM SCHOOLHOUSE IN THE COUNTRY

 

ONE-ROOM SCHOOLHOUSE IN THE COUNTRY

 

THE POST-APOCALYPTIC EDUCATION

 

by Jon Rappoport

April 15, 2012

 

“Artistic value is achieved collectively by each man subordinating himself to the standards of the majority.” — Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand, 1943

 

It’s pretty hard to push Collectivism when you have 20 students sitting in a one-room schoolhouse in the country.

 

If, though, you’re teaching in a factory where a few thousand kids struggle to appear every morning, Collectivism is self-defense.

 

Hi. We’re all in this together! Remember that!”

 

Anybody packing heat?”

 

One would be less prone to elucidate Socrates or the agrarian vision of Thomas Jefferson in these industrial quarters.

 

John Mill’s covert-op principle of “greatest good for the greatest number” would tend to prevail. Or as they say in basic arithmetic: lowest common denominator.

 

The Collectivist ideal of education, as pursued and funded by the great Foundations—Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, Guggenheim—find their natural home in the factory-type school. I doubt, though, that even the most optimistic utopians in the early days of those organizations could have envisioned the Great Equality of the Brain Mush that has worked out to be, in the fullness of time, the ultimate style of THE GROUP.

 

There is no longer any need to obscure the principles of the Republic’s Founders. There is no need to hide the study of logic from children. There is no need to squash individualism. We are past that. The takeover was accomplished several generations ago. We are now in the post-blight. From here on out, it’s a matter of managing the clock. Keep them indoors until 3. After that, all bets are off.

 

In even the best secondary schools, the earnest and bright students are mainly exercising their minds in the service of A Better Societal Machine.

 

We lost the war. So now we have to pick up the pieces.

 

That entails, yes, home schooling, but I’m sorry to report this is not a magical solution. Families are not automatically perfect. In the home, teachers have to emerge who can actually equip what will become strong independent minds.

 

Make sure you know what “independent” means.

 

Make sure you understand that the overwhelming number of citizens consign themselves to a remoteness from the core of what is good and right and free and individual and powerful. And they learn to live without it.

 

I’d love the idea of introducing logic into what’s left of the US school system. Not only does it cut through all the fairy tales, it makes kids into detectives, investigators, private eyes. They already think adults are crazy, so why not let them prove it? If you teach logic the right way, you have kids sifting through (actually reading) long passages of text and analyzing them for logical flaws.

 

There are lists of logical fallacies you can use. They work. They allow a student to discover the varieties of deception in political speech, media speech, scientific speech, social speech.

 

Turning out thousands of private eyes is far from the worst thing you can do.

 

And with the right instructor, intelligent kids take to logic like barracudas to water.

 

Once they’re in the sea, they love it. They know they’re getting sharper.

 

Of course, I realize US school systems aren’t anxious to include logic as a part of their curriculum. It tends to cut through the seaweed of Collectivism. How? It’s more real than Collectivism. It inevitably feeds back to the individual mind, not the group.

 

Barely out of college, I taught mornings at a high-priced prep-school (aka nuthouse) in Connecticut. Every day, I’d take the train up to Greenwich from Grand Central Station, and I’d often ride with a very bright 13-year old who was in my math class.

 

I taught him logic by using the NY Times as a target, and by the end of the semester, having seen through that level of propaganda, he was ready to be unleashed on the world.

 

Go easy on your parents,” I told him, “They’re civilians.”

 

He grinned. “My father’s a stock broker,” he said. “I’m going to take him to the cleaners.”

 

Logic makes private eyes out of kids, and it also gives them the tools to pursue justice—and not the mass social product sold by racists of various stripes. I’ve seen kids who were taught logic take apart the transcript of a murder trial and shred the attorneys and their witnesses. These kids were real lawyers. They were relentless. They chased down details that had escaped the jury. It was a sight to behold.

 

On one of the best days I ever had as a teacher, I took a group of wayward teenagers in my math class and guided them on a trip through the definition and meaning of Collectivism. Many questions arose, and when we had sorted it all out, they broke down that social/political system like a bunch of scholars. They ripped it from stem to stern, not because I’d poisoned the well, but because they saw through the empty generalities that prop up the system. They practically rewrote the Bill of Rights, though none of them had ever read it or studied it.

 

When I left school that day, I was in foul mood, because I realized how much intellectual capital we were wasting in the educational machine.

 


It might interest you to know—and you can see this unfold for yourself at YouTube, if you watch the extraordinary six-part 1982 interview Edward Griffin did with Norman Dodd (part 1) (part 2) (part 3) (part 4) (part 5) (part 6), who investigated the big foundations for a Congressional committee in the early 1950s—it might interest you to know that the Carnegie Foundation, upon its inception, in 1908, decided that war was the best way to change a society. After World War 1, they settled on education as the next best way. So they, with their allies in the Rockefeller and Guggenheim Foundations, groomed a new generation of historians to block off the memory and knowledge of the American Republic and its principles. The ideal of the individual had to be excised from the record.

 

We now tend to think education of the young is fairly far down on the list of subjects we should be concerned about. That’s because, as I said, the war has already been lost. But lost wars present opportunities in the aftermath.

 

While bureaucrats are carving the system into finer and finer absurdities, we can create education wherever we are. As long as we know the mind is important and not simply a necessary adjunct to the living of daily life.

 

During the Cold War, there were two schools of thought about what American educators ought to do in the battle against Communism: teach The Manifesto so it could be understood, or hide it. The forces of concealment won, because the guiding social engineers realized that a thorough exegesis of Marx would expose all of Collectivism for what it was.

 

Of course, Communism, at the highest level, was only a prop in a much larger game of beefing up two opposing sides to effect a synthesis. The leading American foundations I’ve mentioned knew this. They also knew the product of that synthesis would be a global Collectivism. It was their mission to help accomplish it.

 

When we educate the young as and where we can, we have to know that logic is an indispensable instrument for analyzing and getting to be the bottom of the Collectivist philosophy. Each mind must see that philosophy for itself. It has taken over virtually all colleges and universities. It is a default position that edges its way in, after enough people give up on the primacy of the individual. It is the archetype of the Sloth.

 

To share everything everywhere with everyone at all times is Collectivism’s banner. But when you stretch out that flag and lay it flat on the table, you see there is nothing there. It’s a blank. It contains no distinctions. It was never anything more than a stimulating of the mind and spirit toward a vague All.

 

In practice, it levels minds. And as we all know, there are leaders at the top who view the whole business as a cynical and brutal con.

 

If young people are educated so their minds become bare deserts, they will gravitate toward Collectivism. It reflects their condition, and it allows them to continue to surrender up and abdicate the ideal of the free and powerful individual.

 


You want to do something worthwhile? Open a School of the Free Individual.

 

THE FREE INDIVIDUAL.

 

The free individual is moral in the sense that he chooses—as seen through his own eyes—the highest work possible.

 

This notion of “the highest work possible” doesn’t involve leaving one’s desires behind, in order to become the abject servant of a cause. One doesn’t suddenly develop an egoless and empty personality in order to “connect” with a goal that floats in an abstract realm.

 

The free individual isn’t shaped. He shapes.

 

The great psychological factor in any life is THE DESERTION OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. Afterward, the individual creates shadows and monsters and fears around that crossroad.

 

Freedom is the space from which the individual can generate the thought and the pulse of a great self-chosen objective.

 

This was the inner core of the American Revolution. It still is.

 

Yet the mandate of education is: we must omit mention of the individual in teaching children. We must say that now the nation is nothing more than an interconnected Whole. We must promote interdependency as the highest ideal.

 

This is the betrayal.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creativity to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

THE BETRAYAL OF THE EDUCATED CLASS

 

THE BETRAYAL OF THE EDUCATED CLASS

 

by Jon Rappoport

April 14, 2012

 

That a third of the nation’s eighth graders can write with proficiency may not sound like much, but it is the best performance by eighth-grade students in any subject tested in the national assessment in the last three years…”

 

‘I’m happy to report, paraphrasing Mark Twain, that the death of writing has been greatly exaggerated,’ said Amanda P. Avallone, an eighth-grade teacher who is vice chairwoman of the board that oversees the testing program…”

 

(New York Times, April 4, 2008, “US Students Achieve Mixed Results on Writing Test”)

 

Really? Who’s exaggerating? Who’s trying to cover over an ongoing disaster with a thick slice of baloney?

 

This story begins (in the 1980s) with a tale of two cousins. One was a stockbroker and the other was an engineer in the space program. They had graduated from prestigious colleges and pursued successful careers.

 

There was only one problem. After years in the trenches, they’d discovered something was going very wrong with America. It had to do with financial chicanery, theft at a high level, on Wall Street, and a derailment of NASA in its efforts to extend a real program of space exploration.

 

In both cases, the cousins observed a tremendous sense of demoralization around them at work. Demoralization and cynicism. High enthusiastic spirits had been brought down to Earth. One cousin told me, “I woke up one day and had the distinct feeling I was working for a criminal organization.”

 

These two men were naïve enough to be appalled. They wanted to take action, and the best answer they could come up with was a book, a book that would blow people away, because the cousins could present, chapter and verse, what it was like to see the buoyant optimism of a generation turning sour and bleeding out in the street.

 

They wanted to write that book. They really did. They wanted to show how the first principles of the Republic had been betrayed, how government and crony corporations had grown into a choking octopus.

 

Most of all, they wanted to communicate with other men and women who shared their background, who had grown up in similar circumstances, who had gone to right schools, who had blithely assumed America was still the home of the free. They absolutely knew they could pull off this book in a way that would help awaken people like them, people who were opinion leaders, people who had connections.

 

But lo and behold, when it came down to it, the cousins remembered a shattering truth:

 

THEY COULDN’T WRITE.

 

That stark fact stared them in the face.

 

They had been through the best schools in America, and they couldn’t string sentences together, they couldn’t turn their feelings into words. They spoke well, but speaking wasn’t writing. It didn’t have the power they were hoping to summon up and pour out on to the page.

 

They had always known, of course, that they couldn’t write, but at the crucial moment, when they needed to be able to…the defeat was crushing for them. Their “educational lives” flashed in front of their eyes. The whole parade and charade. The con games. The phony grades. The undeserved accolades.

 

We had several discussions about ghostwriting the book, but their hearts weren’t in it. I didn’t blame them. They wanted the book to be their voices.

 


Here’s another outrageous illustration:

Amherst College is a small Ivy League school in Massachusetts. For decades, it has been judged one of the top colleges in America. It enrolls only the best of the best, and a scant few of those. (There are 461 students in the class of 2015.)

 

From 1956 to 1999, William Kennick taught philosophy there. An amiable man with a very keen mind, Kennick handled the survey course in the history of Western philosophy and the one-semester aesthetics course. Later on, he taught metaphysics and Wittgenstein.

 

Somewhere during his long tenure, he became aware of a troubling fact. Many of his students couldn’t write. Their papers, which were supposed to cover philosophical issues, were, in many respects, unreadable.

 

Finally, Kennick put his foot down. He wrote a four-page single-spaced tutorial, “Some Rules for Writing Presentable English,” which, from then on, he would pass out to his classes. He backed this up with significant penalties for poorly written essays.

 

According to eyewitness accounts, Kennick’s approach didn’t sit well with some of his students.

 

And yet, they were the best and brightest. Otherwise, how could they have gained admittance to the College?

 

Which raises the question: how badly do the not-quite-brightest write? And what about the merely good?

 


I’m describing a symptom here. The full reality is much worse. A person needs to be able to write to express his thoughts, but suppose his thoughts are soggy oatmeal to begin with? Suppose he can’t follow an argument? Suppose he can’t read an article or a book and trace the progress of a line of reasoning?

 

And if he can track the reasoning to a degree, what if he can’t figure out whether the logic is valid?

 

When you dig deeper into the educational system, when you go back earlier into secondary and elementary classes, you discover the whole foundation has cracked. The basics, if they are taught, are being absorbed in a halfhearted fashion.

 

The students are, nevertheless, pushed on from grade to grade, and this is the nightmare any earnest teacher faces: every September, he inherits a group of children who possess wildly varying levels of ability in the basics.

 

There he is, the teacher, standing up in the classroom, and he has to find a way to deal with this chaos. He can’t teach from a single textbook, because at least half the class can’t decipher it. He can’t rove from desk to desk and tutor each student, starting from material that should have been learned three or four or six grades ago. He can’t wave a wand and make up for lost time. He can’t suddenly transform the apathy that has set in for those students who moved like zombies from grade to grade in a haze of non-comprehension.

 

So what does he do?

 

There is a solution, and in fact it has been slyly promoted by some of the best bureaucratic minds in the education system.

 

It’s “participatory learning.”

 

Instead of reading, take the class on a field trip to a library, where they’ll see books on shelves, up close and personal. They’ll learn how to check out a book. They’ll be taught how to use a computer to look up a book. They’ll wander the aisles.

 

Instead of reading a novel, sit in class and talk about the issues in the novel. Express opinions. Use those opinions to launch a discussion about values.

 

Particularly when it comes to logic and reasoning, participatory learning plugs right into the holes in the students’ minds. Have a student read a passage and then ask for discussion. What do you think of this? What’s your opinion? Terrific. What about you? How did you react? Yes, guys, this is an important issue. Have you read or watched any news that seems relevant to what we’re talking about here? Join in. We’re all in this together. There are events happening in our world we have to be aware of. Let’s focus our minds.

 

Is this an after-school discussion club? Is it an extracurricular project? No, it’s a classroom, and the teacher is winging it, because he doesn’t know what else to do, and he likes the feeling of sitting there and drawing out the students. No one is right or wrong, it’s “group communication.”

 

More importantly, it’s operant conditioning. The students are being trained to share and care ahead of learning.

 

As “the group thing” and “we’re all in this together” catches on more and more, the students begin to grasp a whole new approach to learning and life: the important experiences happen only inside a group. That’s where a consensus forms, and that is reality. For the moment. Soon, another moment will come, and a new reality will be built. By the group. It’s all good. It doesn’t really matter what the temporary reality consists of. It only matters that it proceeded from, and fed back into, THE GROUP.

 


Let me zero in on a subject the educated classes should be quite interested in: political science. If their education amounted to anything, they would take it and use it to debate and stake out positions on political science—which, of course, isn’t a science. It should be called political philosophy.

 

It covers, for example, a little thing like how the government should be run.

 

But where do we find intelligent discussions and debates about this? Certainly not in Washington. Too little time, too many payoffs.

 

Do liberals ever elucidate their First Principles and their philosophy? Do conservatives?

 

If so, do we find these positions spelled out or debated at length in newspapers and magazines? On television? Logically?

 

When I say debates, I’m not talking about trading sound bites. I’m talking about long and extensive conversations, which unfortunately require attention spans and the capacity to reason .

 

Oh? The education system didn’t prepare us for that?

 

I see. So education consists of everything except that which could render us capable of, and willing to, debate the foundations of the one institution that is responsible for adjudicating items like freedom, equal protection under the law, taxation, limits on the power of corporations, national security, war, and the issuing of money.

 

Interesting that the one presidential candidate who at least speaks clearly and succinctly on these issues, from a philosophical perspective, appears to be drawing the largest crowds at his speeches: Ron Paul.

 

Is it possible that Dr. Paul’s popularity rests, in part, on the fact that many citizens truly want to address these issues in a deeper way?

 

If you were to visit a college or university and try to find the debates I’m suggesting, I believe you’d be sorely disappointed. You’d discover the politicizing of everything except basic political philosophy, which has already been settled in favor of some version of THE GROUP IS ALL, THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOTHING.

 


If you’re alive, some years into the future, when your children and grandchildren are living in hive-like apartment buildings in a vastly overcrowded city, while the land around the city is preserved (protected and chained off) for a bird you’ve never heard of, by order of city officials (group), who are in turn working for a sub-department (group) of a national planning association (group) you’ve also never heard of, which in turn is part of a United Nations NGO (group), you might be ready to re-think the effects of a cracked, broken, shattered education system that laid the groundwork for that new world.

 

And if you’re part of the educated class, you might assess this as a betrayal. You wouldn’t be alone.

 


As a coda, here is a piece I don’t believe I’ve ever published. It approaches education from a slightly different angle.

 

THE TECTONIC SHIFT IN EDUCATION

 

It suddenly occurs to me younger people might not understand my use of the word “drill.”

 

I learned about it, first-hand, when I was eight years old. In school. In 1946. Our teacher gave us arithmetic drills every day. For instance, we had to work at our desks converting 15 or 20 fractions into percentages. Then we took home 20 more fractions to convert. Of course, we had no calculators or computers.

 

In drills, you take a procedure and use it over and over. Eventually, with practice, it’s like cutting warm butter with a sharp knife. It used to be called elementary education…

 

Back in the 1970s, I was working as a tutor at Santa Monica College. One day, I walked by a store front a few blocks from the ocean and noticed the business inside was an educational company.

 

I walked in and spoke with the boss. He told me they were just getting off the ground, and prospects were bright. They were on the cutting edge of programmed tutorial pamphlets.

 

Each pamphlet, he showed me, covered a different subject, and the learning was done in small chunks. After a short lesson, there was a quiz (multiple choice), and if the student entered a wrong answer, he would be guided to a “branch-page,” where he would receive a brief injection of the material he’d just fumbled…and then there would be a new quiz of four or five questions. If he passed, he’d jump back on the mainline train.

 

I said I could write a pamphlet like that in my sleep, and the boss proceeded to lay out the attractive $$ possibilities for me. A nice slice of royalties on each item sold, in perpetuity, and new work available on into the future.

 

He gave me a trial run. I went home with an assignment to create ten pages of a pamphlet on something; I think it was decimals and fractions. I returned the next day with the pages, and he sat back and read my work. He nodded yes, yes, yes, and then he stopped.

 

What are all these drills?” he said.

 

Well,” I said, “after I introduce a new concept, I make sure the student gets it by giving him twenty or thirty examples, and he has to come up with the right answers.”

 

He shook his head.

 

No,” he said. “That’s not what we want.”

 

Why not?”

 

It’s not in the modern style,” he said.

 

I said, “It’s not an issue of style. The student has to get the material. He has to drill on it. A lot.”

 

No,” he said. “That won’t work.”

 

So an argument started. After a few minutes, it got pretty heated. I walked out. No deal. We were poles apart.

 

He was right, of course. The new wave-front of education was all about finessing material…making it seem as if the student was understanding what he was learning. Making it SEEM.

 

In other words, it was all nonsense.

 

Gloss, not substance.

 

In the ensuing years, I watched this trend expand to grotesque proportions. The old-fashioned way was disappearing like vapor in the wind.

 

Back in the day, I had learned in school through drills. That was the heart and the proof of the process. The teacher would explain a new concept, demonstrate it on the blackboard, give us examples to chew on and solve, go over them, then assign 20 or 30 more examples to work on for homework. The next day, we would bring the homework in and the class would go through it, step by step. Then there would be a quiz. Then we would move on to the next new concept. Drills. More drills.

 

In order for this kind of education to work, though, you need a certain stability of environment. You need the notion of ACHIEVEMENT. At home and in school. It has to be a given.

 

No coddling, no explaining things away, no excuses, no laying on of the lard of self-esteem. With the right backdrop, the old style of education can work. Without it, you’re pushing a two-ton rock up a cliff face. You may as well give up before you start. The students won’t sit still for drill, drill, drill. They’ll do anything to worm out of it.

 

During the 1960s, the whole society caved in and gave up the ghost. The education system, such as it was, crashed. I was there, as a teacher, part of that time, and I saw it happen. It foundered on just this point. Repetition. It was as if minds had gone soft and couldn’t perform.

 

Broadly speaking, the basics of arithmetic went out the window. So did spelling, grammar, and the ability to write coherent sentences. Poof. The amount of scut work it took to build a basic education became unacceptable.

 

When I read tracts about the intentional undermining of the American educational system, I sense truth in them, but to me the real crash was all about what I’m discussing here.

 

You can bring up drugs, horrible junk food, the influence of TV and the Internet, large classes, and so on. You can say they all make education a tougher job. But the rubber meets the road in those drills. The grind. You can either do it or you can’t.

 

I saw early signs of the collapse in 1961, when I landed a part-time job teaching kids math in a posh private school in the Northeast. I had nine boys in each class. They were all at least two grades behind where they were supposed to be. I tried drilling them on remedial topics, and they couldn’t take it. They weren’t just floundering. They wanted to fight for their right to be ignorant.

 

The principal and I had a chat. I told him what was happening and he said, “Education, we’ve always known, is repetition and drill, until they get their legs under them. Your kids can’t do it. They’re bailing out at age twelve and thirteen. We don’t have the environment to back up what you want to do. Ease off. Skate through the year. Otherwise, you’ll go nuts.”

 

Some people think repetition and drilling are brainwashing. Well, if the lessons are about saving the world or learning how to put on a condom or being nice to everyone, then yes. In that case, someone’s opinions are being pushed into kids’ brains. But if you’re talking about arithmetic, spelling, and reading, then no. If you’re going to teach those subjects, there is no other way. You can’t wave a magic wand and make spelling come true under a floating rainbow. No amount of praise and encouragement is going to stand in for the grind.

 

I knew that the first day I walked into a classroom as a teacher, in 1961. I knew it because I had learned that way in the 1940s.

 

When people tell me kids can’t learn without computers on every desk, I make them wish they hadn’t said that. It’s a preposterous lie. It’s driven by a vague (usually politicized) notion of what education is all about, a notion that “puts the children first.” The children aren’t first in school. That’s a twisted version of kindness. More than that, it’s a surrender of authority to young people who don’t have authority. I’m not saying a teacher has to be nasty or machine-like. But a teacher has to instruct. In schools, learning comes before the personalities of children, and anyone who says different is lying. Is a fool.

 

Of course, if schools are about something other than learning, then yes, there are all sorts of things you can do to make the kids feel good and enthusiastic. You can take them out for ice cream. You can have them collect garbage and sort through the cans and pull out the glass and plastic. You can have them plant a garden and spend three hours every day tending the flowers.

 

But straight-down-the-line academic learning? I don’t think America has much fire left in its belly for that. It’s not the lack of public money. It’s not the missing programs. It’s a generalized fatigue that came after the big surrender, when teachers and administrators and parents decided that the pressure of repetition in the classroom was intrusive and invasive, a social misstep. Kids needed to be protected from strain. They were precious. They were natural wonderful works of art that needed to be adorned.

 

(The Logic & & Analysis course I’ve put together for homeschoolers uses the drill method. It’s straight-down-the-line academic learning of subject that is, sadly, no longer taught in public schools.)

 

After that moment of surrender, all sorts of stories were made up to explain what was going wrong with education of the young. The stories were all off the main point, because very few people were willing to face the truth.

 

The NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress), an ongoing project under the auspices of the US Dept. of Education, tested 8th graders in 1992 and 2009, for reading skills. In both years, the “advanced level” was reached by 3% of the kids.

 

That’s a disaster. But if you go to the NAEP site and read about the test results, you won’t discover any sense of alarm. You’ll read palliative statements suggesting there are areas of improvement.

 

Naturally. Because otherwise, what are they going to say? They’re the pros, the experts, and they’ve been presiding over an intellectual decimation. They’re walking around the edge of an abyss, and they’re singing little ditties.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creativity to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com