Logic, imagination, and magic

Logic, imagination, and magic

by Jon Rappoport

February 20, 2014


Logic applies to the physical universe.

It applies to statements made about that universe. It applies to factual language.

Many wonderful things can be done with logic. Don’t leave home without it. Don’t analyze information without it.

But art and imagination are of another universe(s). They can deploy logic, but they can also invent in any direction without limit, and they can embrace contradiction. They can build worlds in which space and time and energy are quite different.

Magic is nothing more and nothing less than imagination superseding this universe. Magic occurs when imagination takes this reality for a ride.

Which brings us to what I call the Is People. The Is People are dedicated with a fervor to insisting that this Continuum and this consensus reality are inviolable, are the end-all and be-all.

They strive to fit themselves into Is, and this eventually has some interesting negative consequences. They come to resemble solid matter. They take on the character of matter.

For them, imagination is at least a misdemeanor, if not a felony. It’s a blow to the Is of Is. They tend to view imagination as a form of mental disorder.

Technocrats like to gibber about imagination as if it’s nothing more than just another closed system that hasn’t been mapped yet. But they’re sure it will be, and when that happens, people will apparently give up creating and opt for living in a way that more closely resembles machines.

There are many people who secretly wish they were machines that functioned automatically and without flaws. It’s their wet dream.

Magic eventually comes to the conclusion that imagination creates reality. Any reality. And therefore, one universe, indivisible, is an illusion, a way of trapping one’s self.

What began as the physical universe, a brilliant work of art, ends up as a psychic straitjacket, a mental ward in which the inmates strive for normalcy. Those who fail at even this are labeled and shunted into a special section of the ward.

But the result of imagination, if pursued and deployed long enough and intensely enough, is:

Consensus reality begins to organize itself around you, rather than you organizing yourself around it.

There are various names and labels used to describe this state of affairs, but none of them catches the sensation of it.

Magic is one of those labels.

What I’m describing here isn’t some snap-of-the-fingers trick of manifestation; it’s a life lived.

The old alchemists were working in this area. They were striving for the transformation of consciousness. In true alchemy, one’s past, one’s experience, one’s conflicts all become fuel for the fire of creating new realities. Taken along certain lines, this is called art.

One universe, one logic, one Continuum, one role in that Continuum, one all-embracing commitment to that role, one avenue of perception, one Is…this is the delusion.

And eventually, the delusion gives birth to a dedication to what everyone else thinks and supposes and assumes and accepts. This is slavery.

Freeing one’s self, living through and by imagination, is not a mass movement. It’s a choice taken by one person. It’s a new and unique road for each person.

Societies and civilizations are organized around some concept of the common good. The concept always deteriorates (if it was ever genuine to begin with), and this is because it is employed to lower the ceiling on individual power rather than raise it.

Be less than you are, then we can all come together in a common cause.”

It’s essentially a doctrine of sacrifice—everyone sacrifices to everyone else, and the result is a coagulated mass of denial of self.

It is a theme promoted under a number of guises by men who have one thing in mind: control.

It’s a dictatorship of the soul. It has always existed.

Breaking out of it involves reasserting the power of imagination to invent new and novel realities.

Under a variety of names, this is art.

Promoting the image of the artist as a suffering victim is simply one more way to impose the doctrine of sacrifice.

In 1961, when I began writing and painting in earnest, I had a conversation with the extraordinary healer, Richard Jenkins, whom I write about in my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies. This is my note from that time about what Richard told me:

Paint what you want to, no matter what anyone else says. You may not always know what you want to create, but that’s good. Keep working, keep painting. You’ll find your way. You’ll invent something new, something unique, if you don’t give in. You’ll see everything in a new light. Reality is a bad joke. It’s nothing more than what everyone assents to, because they’re afraid. They’re afraid of what people will say. They’re afraid they have far more power than they want to discover. They’re afraid that power will lead them away from common and ordinary beliefs. They’re afraid they’ll become a target for all the masses who have surrendered their own lives and don’t want to be reminded of it. They afraid they’ll find out something great about themselves…”

Nothing I’ve experienced in the 50 years since then has diminished what Richard said to me.

These fears are all illusions that disintegrate when a person shoves in his chips on imagination and makes that bet and lives it.

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. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Mind control and mind chaos: the troll and the non sequitur

Mind control and mind chaos: the troll and the non sequitur

by Jon Rappoport

February 10, 2014


On a mass level, one of the most efficient methods of mind control is the creation of the non sequitur.

Non sequitur is Latin for “it does not follow.” In logic, this is a statement that doesn’t validly flow from previous assertions.

Example: “All presidents are crazy.” “Sam is crazy.” “Therefore, Sam is a president.”

Wrong. The final “Sam is a president” is a non sequitur.

In an education system where logic is absent, the student has no center. He drifts. He comes to rely on what other people tell him. He can’t think and reason for himself. He opts for ideas that seem superficially attractive.

In ordinary usage, this could be an exaggerated non sequitur: you’re parked in a lot outside a market, and a car hits you from behind. You get out and walk over to the driver and say, “Hey, you hit me.” And he says, “My sister was tested for tuberculosis and she’s clean.”

Or you write a piece about a medical drug recall, and a reader responds, “Jesus is the light of the world.”

These days, more and more people believe information is something you’re supposed to plug into at any level…and respond to with whatever comes to mind. This is the new logic.

As in the last example, non sequitur can issue forth from people who have an overwhelming agenda they refer to, no matter what the situation.

Example: “A last second-shot saved the LA Lakers from going down to another defeat.” And the response is, “When humanity rejects Islam, we will finally find peace.”

An online troll (see many comments sections all over the Net) has an overwhelming agenda or is being paid to distract people and lead them off course.

An example of this last might be: After an article about fraud at the Federal Reserve and several relevant comments, there suddenly comes, “All you conspiracy theorists are crazy Ron Paul followers. Money is money. Get over yourselves. Try leaving your mother’s basement.”

The troll hopes he’ll stir up enough animosity to take people away from the issue of fraud at the Fed, while painting Ron Paul as a nutcase.

If, in any situation, you take the bait and try to reason with a person who is entrenched in non sequitur, you waste your time and energy. It won’t work.

In Washington, non sequitur is SOP.

Senator, we’re still waiting for answers about what really happened in Benghazi.”

My boy, the whole Middle East and North Africa are tied together in age-old conflicts. It’s our job to untangle that mess, sort it out, and establish beachheads of Democracy.”

Say what??

In casual conversation at a party, where six or seven people are all talking at once and laughing, non sequitur is a hell of a lot of fun. But when it comes to grasping information, it’s about as useful as a spavined horse in the Preakness.

To which someone will reply, in perfect non sequitur, “Horses should never run at racetracks. It’s cruel.”

The Matrix Revealed

I once gave a talk about methods of analyzing information. I used, as an example, the Oklahoma Bombing case (1995). The responses from the audience were all opinions about the Bombing case. The people failed to connect with the real subject of the lecture because they weren’t aware there was such a thing as logic. For them, that was just some inexplicable icing on the cake.

They were products of the American educational system.

Television news is perfect non sequitur, in the sense that the anchor is paid to provide smooth transitions from one story to another unrelated story: “In the Middle East today, peace talks broke down again…a St. Louis housewife was shot in a drive-by…and did you know that some clothes dryers may not be safe…a body was found in a row boat off the coast of Virginia…it’s snowing in Florida…”

Turn a mind into a universal magnet that randomly picks up iron, wood, bits of paper, cigarette butts, orange peels, leaves, sand, mice, sugar, and shoes, it doesn’t matter what questions you present. The answers will be irrelevant.

This is a unique form of control.

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. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Can you trust a new brain with an IQ of 7000?

Can you trust the new brain with an IQ of 7000?

by Jon Rappoport

February 16, 2013


I’ve been forcing myself to read gushing statements about the march of artificial intelligence (AI) and how, in the near future, we will have “the source code of the brain,” and computers will be able to do whatever the brain can do, except much, much faster.

I’ve been reading about the day when we humans will somehow merge with the machines.

I think the technocrats who promote these notions were raised on comic books, and they haven’t really moved on from that phase.

What ever happened to the old phrase, “garbage in equals garbage out?” Was it too telling and real?

Take the idea that some day, tiny nanobots will patrol the body making adjustments and normalizing errant functions. Forget for the moment all the damage these little scouts could cause. Just focus on the quality of the information by which they would make moment-to-moment decisions.

Currently, by the most conservative mainstream estimate, the medical system in America kills 225,000 people a year. (See B. Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”).

Of these deaths, 106,000 per year are directly caused by FDA-approved medical drugs. Each one of these drugs was studied, and the results of the studies were published in mainstream journals. This fact alone indicates massive fraud in the clinical trials of the drugs.

Then consider that for all 297 officially certified mental disorders, there exist absolutely no physical diagnostic tests. No blood tests, no saliva tests, no urine tests, no genetic tests, no brain scans. The very definitions of these so-called disorders are adjudicated by sitting committees of psychiatrists, who consult menus of behaviors.

Then consider that the major infectious diseases in the West were already on the decline before vaccines or antibiotics had been introduced, and yet vaccines were hailed as the overriding reason for that decline.

These are just several general categories of fraud, misinformation, disinformation. So the question becomes: who exactly is going to program those wonderful little nanobots before they enter the human bloodstream in the near-future, and what medical information are they going to have access to?

And what kind of moron would assume that, just because artificial intelligence will have the ability to process enormous amounts of data about the body, it will process the right and correct and truthful data?

By extension, when it comes to AI solving political or economic or social problems on a massive scale, why should we assume the information AI is deploying will be correct and right and true, and why should we assume that these problems are stated and formulated, in the first place, according to underlying ethical values that we agree to or share?

Just because a computer can be built that works faster than the brain, and on more platforms, why on earth should we then infer that it is operating from a storehouse of information that is relevant or useful?

And as far as human brains “merging with machines,” why don’t we leave that mishmash idea to the Borg and the Star Trek crew?

The famous Watson test proved that a computer could handle Jeopardy questions on television better than two humans dedicated to trivia.

Deep Blue beat the world’s best chess player.

A computer can analyze the poetry of an author and then generate its own poems in that style. Rather poorly.

Do these feats imply something so significant that we want to put our future in the cores of computers? For that matter, if there is some holy-grail source code for the brain, why should we believe possessing it and using it, or even improving it, would qualitatively improve the solutions to our biggest problems as a species?

There are simple and basic laws of logic involved here. You can compute from now until the end of time, but your deductions are always going to proceed from premises, and those premises are going to predetermine direction and ethical values that color the end results. Computers don’t do Right and Wrong in any absolute sense. Never have, never will.

Even more important is the system or mechanism for allowing AI to dominate our decisions. Who is in charge? Who rules? Which humans hold the off-on switches on the machines? Who programs the machines’ premises? Who can, if necessary, use force to make the global population comply with what AI decides? And what are these humans’ motives?

None of such matters are mitigated by “more intelligent machines.”

The technocrats are actually playing a shell game with us. They’re showing us a vast array of quantitative and qualitative improvements in what computers can do, and they’re substituting that for wisdom. They’re redefining wisdom. They’re omitting the whole argument and debate about what kind of society we want to live in. They’re hucksters and hustlers and con men.

When faced, for example, with the problem of how to feed the world, computers would already be biased in favor of certain outcomes, and they would also be biased toward the basic notion of universal distribution of resources. Who made that choice? The humans deploying the machines from behind the scenes.

Is feeding the world an issue that should be solved top-down? Computers don’t answer that question. Humans do. And humans—specifically the ones in charge—make spectacularly wrong choices, according to the wishes and judgments of many people—many people who already know that placing a decision of that magnitude in the hands of a few oligarchs is a recipe for disaster.

Who will decide how to program the basic assumptions of super-brain computers on the issue of climate change? With what “science” will these computers be initially infected? Who decides what the valid and the invalid science is?

Any beginning student in a logic course quickly learns to distinguish between ethical values and data. Neither computers nor brains determine values based on information alone, no matter how quickly they think, no matter how much data they can access.

A person or a machine with an IQ of 7000 can’t be trusted to install values for others. That’s why we have this troublesome thing called freedom. That’s why we have a fundamental principle that you are free to do anything you want to, as long as you don’t interfere with another person’s freedom. Any system that countermands this basic principle, simply because “it can think better,” is a tyrant, whether it is composed of flesh or metal or some synthetic.

NBC news recently did a glowing feature on advanced cell phones that, in the hands of doctors, can carry out a huge array of medical tests on patients. The doctor was enthusiastic. The patient was enthusiastic. The reporter was enthusiastic. It was a virtual love fest.

No one bothered to ask about the meaning, utility, or dangers of the tests themselves. That issue was swept off the table.

Who cares? It’s technology. It has to be good. If the patient’s test results indicate he should be treated with a highly toxic drug, so what? That’s a minor blip on the screen. We should all celebrate the technological breakthrough. Pour the champagne. Forget about the patient.

Some day, up the road, a human will be sleeping in his bed at night. The tiny bots circulating in his body will suddenly decide he needs a drug. They will either release the substance without his knowledge, or a robot sitting next to the bed will lean over and give him a quick shot. Done.

What? He ended up in the hospital next afternoon? Well, whatever the reason, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the little bots or their programming or their method for accessing the vast clouds of data in virtual space. No, those functions are all brilliant and boggling and wondrous. It must have been something else.

A person walking down the street will be picked up by a hundred cameras and other surveillance devices. It will be adjudicated, in a matter of a few seconds, that he’s missed his latest series of a dozen vaccine boosters. At the next corner, a mini-drone, barely visible to the naked eye, will descend on him and give him a quick jab. Or his next meal will magically contain food engineered specifically to deliver the mandated vaccines.

Greatest good for the greatest number. Already decided and programmed.

Is it better to have separate nations with their own armies, or should we have one giant planetary force? Let the AI decide. How? On what basis? There are always value judgments that underlie these questions, and computers don’t suddenly create values unless they’re told to do so. Only in comic books or pulp science fiction novels do advanced races with very high foreheads come down and demonstrate wisdom based on IQ.

There is no evidence that, if you took a general like Julius Caesar and somehow shoved his IQ up off the charts, he would suddenly change his value judgments. Henry Kissinger hasn’t.

If you built a machine that could access every single datum acquired in 100,000 years of human history and store them all on the head of a pin; and if that machine could rearrange all these data in a trillion different patterns in a few minutes; and if that machine could then generate decisions that answer any question put to it, what would you really have? You would have, at best, sheer opinion on the most important matters facing the human race.

Technocracy is selling a myth of intelligence, a fairy tale. In this fairy tale, the smartest brains (coincidentally resembling those of the technocrats) would cross a threshold, beyond which intelligence would become something else, something very different: machines that have “higher access” to “the best moral values.”

Perhaps the most avid and famous proponent of a technocratic future is Ray Kurzweil, acclaimed inventor, author, businessman. He describes the event he calls the Singularity:

Within a quarter century, nonbiological intelligence will match the range and subtlety of human intelligence. It will then soar past it because of the continuing acceleration of information-based technologies, as well as the ability of machines to instantly share their knowledge. Intelligent nanorobots will be deeply integrated…”

Among the effects of this unprecedented development?

…the exponential rate of technical progress will create within 40 years an Internet that is a trillion times faster than today’s, a global media, a global education system, a global language, and a globally homogenized culture, thus establishing the prerequisites for the creation of a global democratic state, “Globa,” and ridding the world of war, the arms trade, ignorance, and poverty…Billions of people will be influenced by the ‘best’ ideas that the planet has to offer. People’s minds will be influenced powerfully, so that today’s nationalist mentalities will be gradually transformed into tomorrow’s globist mentalities…”

And just what are these “best ideas” that billions of people will voluntarily accept? The ideas expressed in, say, Plato’s Republic? Or instantaneous 3-D holographic “you are there” porn? Small decentralized organic farms or some Monsanto plan to disseminate GMOs from the sky all over the planet? A three-branched government with rigorous checks and balances, or taking the points on the Jets vs. the Rams? A healthy clean diet or a hundred vaccines by the age of three?

And the “global democratic state?” I’d like to see how the elections of a president and legislators work for the whole of Earth (including the recount after a charge of fraud is leveled by one citizen in southern Argentina).

If presidential debates in the US, targeting the lowest possible common denominators among the voting public, are filled with vapid generalities, I can only imagine the global debates: a few smiles, a few grunts, a few assurances that “we’re all in this together.”

One language for all the world? Sure, why not? Let’s wipe out the memory of what a few thousand years of hundreds of languages have produced.

And don’t worry. All over the planet, “the people,” newly brilliant, will rise up and overthrow their dictators, just as they did during the vaunted Arab Spring, where the crucial presence of cell phones and Facebook was touted as the lever that forced democratic breakthroughs. You remember that Spring: a promoted hoax designed to hide yet one more elite power play.

Greater insight into ethical values based purely on speed and range of information processing is really a quasi-religion. It uses the notion of IQ as the Prophet. It promises that, as the people have access to more and more data, they will naturally and inevitably choose the right values and the right data, because that’s what IQ does, once it passes through a certain upward level.

You can forget about elite power players exerting control over the population of Earth from above because, as in the Marxist formulation, these Rockefellers and Warburgs of the past will simply wither away, no longer needed.

The Matrix Revealed

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

I’m happy to learn that. I can relax now. We can all relax. The great day is coming. It will be brought to us by a multi-platformed brain, using its neuronal substrate to reach out and connect with nonbiological libraries of truth.

What were we worried about?

I’m sitting here talking to you and you’re talking to me, and you’re in Bombay and I’m in San Diego, and we’re seeing each other in high-res 3-D holographic brilliance, as if we’re in the same room. And as we talk and access skies full of clouds of relevant data in mere instants, we’re both coming to accept the best ideas and the best values and the best language and the best government, and we’re kicking the ass of the old world and rushing into the New, and life will be different forever, and I know it and you know it, so what else do we need?

My molecularly enhanced IQ is 7000 and so is yours, so we’re on the same precise page. That’s all the human race was waiting for all this time.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic

Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2013


I’ve written articles attacking the theory and practice of vaccination from a variety of angles. But the whole issue also needs to be approached from the perspective of logic.

Unfortunately, generations of people have been shut out of learning logic in school. They don’t know what it is. Therefore, vaccine advocates have been able to peddle their basic theory without much challenge.

It’s time to put an end to that free ride.

First of all, I need to point out a massive contradiction. When a person receives a vaccine, it’s said that his body produces antibodies against a particular germ and this is a good thing. Vaccination thus prepares the body for the day when that germ will really make its attack, at which point the immune system (including antibodies) will mount a successful defense.

However, let’s look at another venue: for many diseases, when a person is given a blood test to see if he is infected, quite often the standard for infection is “presence of antibodies.”

This makes no sense at all. If vaccination produces those antibodies, it is heralded as protection. But if a diagnostic blood test reveals those same antibodies, it’s a signal of infection and disease.

Vaccine-produced antibodies=health. Antibodies naturally produced by the body=illness.

Logically speaking, you resolve a contradiction by dropping one of the two sides and admitting it is false. Or you go deeper and reject some prior premise that led to the contradiction in the first place.

So let’s go deeper. What does vaccination supposedly do to “prepare” the body against the future invasion of a particular germ? It stimulates the production of antibodies against that germ.

Antibodies are immune-system scouts that move through the body, identify germs, and paint them for destruction by other immune-system troops.

However, since the entire immune system is involved in wreaking that destruction, why is bulking up one department of the immune system—antibodies—sufficient to guarantee future protection?

On what basis can we infer that bulking up antibodies, through vaccination, is enough?

There is no basis. It’s a naked assumption. It’s not a fact. Logic makes a clear distinction between assumptions and facts. Confusing the two leads to all sorts of problems, and it certainly does in the case of vaccination.

Furthermore, why does the body need a vaccine in order to be prepared for the later invasion of germs? The whole structure/function of the immune system is naturally geared to launch its multifaceted counter-attack against germs whenever trouble arises. The antibodies swing into action when a potentially harmful germ makes its appearance, at age five, eight, 10, 15.

It’s said that vaccination is a rehearsal for the real thing. But no need for rehearsal has been established.

And why are we supposed to believe that such a rehearsal works? The usual answer is: the body remembers the original vaccination and how it produced antibodies, and so it’s better prepared to do it again when the need is real. But there is no basis for this extraordinary notion of “remembering.”

It’s another assumption sold as fact.

The terms “prepared for the real thing,” “rehearsal,” and “remember” aren’t defined. They’re vague. One of the first lessons of logic is: define your terms.

A baby, only a few days old, receives a Hepatitis B vaccine. This means the actual Hep-B germ, or some fraction of it, is in the vaccine.

The objective? To stimulate the production of antibodies against Hep-B. Assuming the baby can accomplish this feat, the antibodies circulate and paint those Hep-B germs for destruction now.

From that moment on, the body is ready to execute the same mission, if and when Hep-B germs float in the door.

But when they float in the door, why wouldn’t the body produce antibodies on its own, exactly as it did after the vaccination was given? Why did it need the vaccination to teach it how to do what it naturally does?

And why should we infer the baby body is undergoing an effective rehearsal when vaccinated, and will somehow remember that lesson years later?

The logic of this is tattered and without merit.

To these arguments of mine, some vaccine advocates would say, “Well, it doesn’t matter because vaccines work. They do prevent disease.”

Ah, but that is a different argument, and it should be assessed separately. There are two major ways of doing that. One, by evaluating claims that in all places and times, mass vaccination has drastically lowered or eliminated those diseases it was designed to prevent. And two, by a controlled study of two groups of volunteers, in which one group is vaccinated and the other isn’t, to gauge the outcome.

Let’s look at the first method of assessment. Those who claim that vaccines have been magnificently effective in wiping out disease have several major hurdles to overcome. They have to prove, for each disease in question, that when a vaccine for that disease was first introduced, the prevalence of the disease was on the rise or was at a high steady rate in the population.

Why? Because, as many critics have stated, some or all of these diseases were already in sharp decline when the vaccines were introduced for the first time.

For example: “The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977

In other words, for reasons having nothing to do with vaccination, the diseases were on the way out. Nutrition had improved, sanitation was better, etc.

So let’s see the proof, for every disease which vaccines are supposed to prevent, that those diseases were significantly raging in the population when the vaccines were first introduced.

Then let’s also see proof that, after the introduction of vaccines, the diseases in question weren’t merely given new labels (or redefined) to hide the fact that they weren’t really going away. There is testimony, for example, that in America, the definition of paralytic polio was changed after the introduction of the Salk vaccine, and by the new more restricted definition, far fewer cases of polio could be diagnosed—thus making it seem the vaccine was effective.

There are also questions about the success of the famous smallpox vaccine campaign in Africa and Latin America. When all was said and done, were new cases of smallpox then diagnosed as meningitis? Was destruction wreaked by the vaccine then called AIDS?

Researchers, including Robert Gallo, have warned that the smallpox vaccine, when given to people whose immune systems are already grossly weakened, can destroy what’s left of the immune system—and immune-defense destruction is the hallmark of the definition of AIDS.

The second major way of assessing the success of mass vaccination is through a proper controlled study.

For any vaccine, this is how it would be done. Assemble two large groups of people. Total, at least eight thousand. Make sure these two groups are very well matched. That means: similar in age; very similar in medical history and medical drug history; similar exposure levels to environmental chemicals; very close nutritional levels, status, and dietary habits.

The first group gets the vaccine. The second group doesn’t. They are tracked, with very few dropouts, for a period of at least eight years. The INDEPENDENT researchers note how many from each group get the disease the vaccine is supposed to prevent. They note what other diseases or health challenges the volunteers encounter.

Such a study, using these proper standards, has never been done for any vaccine.

If that fact seems rather illogical, you’re right. It is.

Finally, vaccine advocates need to prove that substances in vaccines like mercury, formaldehyde, and aluminum, although classified as toxic when studied alone, are somehow exonerated when shot directly into the body through a needle. The (absurd) logic of this needs to be explained fully.

This is not a matter of claiming that “a particular disease,” like autism, isn’t caused by a particular chemical, like mercury. That’s a logical ruse all on its own. We are talking about harm caused by toxins under any name or no name. When a person ingests cyanide, do we say he has a disease? Of course not.

The Matrix Revealed

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is 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.

Children in school, their parents, and teachers have never been exposed to logic, so it’s easy to sell them vaccines as valid. But selling is not the same thing as science.

And “being a scientist” is not the same thing as knowing what science and logic actually are. The same fact can be applied to news anchors, public health officials, and politicians. They can say “the evidence for vaccinating is overwhelming,” but so can a parrot in a cage, with enough training.

Of course, these so-called experts won’t come out and engage in a serious debate about the theory and practice of vaccination. They refuse to.

Millions of people around the world would eagerly watch a true extended debate on the subject. Such debate used to be a standard practice when logic was studied, when it was understood to be vital for deciding the truth or falsity of a position.

Now, it’s all about PR and propaganda, the modern version of logic for the dumbed-down crowd.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Matrix programming 101: destroy logic

Matrix programming 101: destroy logic

By Jon Rappoport

January 10, 2013


Once upon a time, in medieval universities, new students enrolled in the Trivium. It was the foundation curriculum. It was required. Its parts were: grammar, logic, and rhetoric.

Grammar: the interior construction of language; the parts of speech; the proper agreement of parts of speech.

Logic: the valid and invalid connections in the course of an argument; the method of proper reasoning; the deductive links in a chain, at the end of which is a conclusion.

Rhetoric: oral presentation; the use of language to make a case; the capacity to persuade, even in the face of counter-argument.

Today, the subject matter of the Trivium is not only downplayed. It has been shattered.

This article focuses on the death of logic.

When the intensive handling of ideas is seen as a laughable goal for education, indoctrination is plugged in as the only alternative.

The mind of the student shifts from being an active force to being a container.

The destruction of logic is a conscious strategy, a game plan. Its goal is to pervert rational thought at its core and insert ideology masked as insight.

The game plan was cooked up a long time ago at the Carnegie Foundation, where the undermining of American history was the number-one pastime.

Instead of merely erasing knowledge of American history, it was decided that the basic way ideas are studied should be torpedoed.

The actual meaning of an idea was firmly placed on the back burner. Front and center would be: relentlessly assess and attack the people who forwarded those ideas.

And sure enough, this strategy has gained great prominence.

The revered Founders of the Republic? Shysters, con men, slaveholders, monopolists who saw rebellion from England as the way to win greater power for themselves, at the expense of everyone else living on American soil.”

Therefore, the argument continues, and this is crucial, the Founders’ ideas, as expressed in the Declaration and the Constitution, were rotten to the core. The ideas can be dismissed out of hand as coming from “a bad source.”

If you want to see that sleight-of-hand trick in action, just visit a few American studies classes in universities and catch the wave.

Ideas no longer need to be judged on their sense, merit, and alignment with basic principles. Nor are they judged by their position in a well-formed argument. All that is out. Now, you have to “look to the source” and make all your decisions based on “who these people really were who expressed the ideas.”

And since that’s the case, learning to think or reason is unnecessary.

New education, then, once you strip away the old essentials, is really nothing more than learning who the bad guys were and the good guys were. This can be taught by ideologically motivated professors in a few hours.

In logic, this used to be called the fallacious ad hominem argument. Now it’s not called anything. It’s praised as the insightful way to do intellectual business.

In the case of the Founders’ ideas, we have, among others: the free market; individual freedom; private property; severely limited central government.

No need to examine these concepts. No need to assess, for instance the success of the free market, despite its corruption by criminals and monopolists, in providing a better standard of living for millions of people. Forget it. All you have to know is that the free market was proposed by phony American aristocrats who wanted more power for themselves. On that basis alone, you can reject the free market.

How about private property? Same thing. The same phony Founders put that idea forward; therefore, it must be wrong.

Thomas Jefferson? He owned slaves. Therefore, as the night follows day, everything he said or thought or did was wrong.

See how easy education has become?

Individual freedom? Another absurdity proposed by the crooked Founders. Reject it. Don’t bother thinking about what that freedom has allowed you to express. Who cares?

So, one by one, these core ideas fall to the ax, and criticizing America becomes destroying America.

To argue that very bad people have taken over an idea, and therefore the idea itself was never good, is like arguing that, since hijackers took over a plane, the plane was a despicable object altogether and probably deserved to be stolen or blown up.

Once the core ideas and ideals of the American Republic are destroyed, new ideas inevitably take their place. The possibilities are endless. But here is, in fact, what has happened:

Instead of the sanctity of private property and right of its owner to protect it, we now have, coming into vogue, “assigned use.” This means someone somewhere, at the top of the food chain, will decide how property should be deployed, for the greatest good of the greatest number.

He determines the definition of greatest good.

Instead of individual freedom, we have the collective need. Behavior should be adapted to the group. How this is defined falls to our leaders.

The free market becomes central planning and distribution of goods and services.

It can be quite interesting to discuss these matters with people who have been educated “in the new way.”

On the issue of the free market, I had a PhD candidate tell me this: The idea of the free market was a smokescreen. It was proposed as a way for the very rich to dominate commerce. The “free market” was a non-concept. It never existed. It was an illusion, like people sprouting wings and flying.

You might be surprised by the number of people who believe this. They are essentially saying that the very EXISTENCE of an idea depends on WHO expressed the idea. If the wrong person first expressed it, it was never real.

Students with a vast sense of self-entitlement and meaningless self-esteem love this stuff. It allows them to parade around and call the shots and decide which ideas are worthy and which aren’t, without reflection. They have a scorecard of good guys and bad guys and that’s all they need.

In the world of social engineering, here is the larger program:

first make every idea dependent for its value on who proposed it;

attack the men who created the Constitution and thereby trash all the founding ideas of the Republic;

instead, substitute the notion of oppressors and the oppressed—all the bad people who founded the Republic were the oppressors;

cultivate, encourage, and create many groups within society as “the oppressed”;

come in behind that with big government as the answer to the problems of the oppressed;

ratchet up dependence and government control to new heights.

Of course, big government, under its humanitarian banners, is a dictator. To maintain the illusion that it is not, there must be new oppressed people, new victims, new helpless people coming out of the woodwork all the time whom the government can help.

From this angle, it doesn’t matter whether the ever-growing dependent population is genuine or not. Sorting out the real from the imaginary obviously isn’t part of the program. Nor does it matter how government is disenfranchising people to make them into victims.

Some people see labeling themselves victims as a winning strategy for their lives. Others actually are getting their noses shoved down into the mud.

In our teaching institutions, you could look in vain to find courses on the individual, his freedom, his power. That’s gone.

It’s all about: what group do you belong to? What are the needs of that group? Who is oppressing your group? How can you get government to solve the problem?

Once the oppressor-oppression model is set in stone, everything that follows is a disaster.

Oppressor-oppression equals victim-rescuer. The rescuer turns out to be a tyrant. He gives and he takes. He makes the rules. He builds his power.

If you can educate the young to make snap judgments about core ideas, you eliminate their capacity to reason. You own them.

You turn them out as programmed androids. They follow your game plan.

From that point on, they hold a hostile attitude toward anyone who can discuss and analyze ideas. They look at such people as an entitled and privileged class who is speaking a foreign language. If overnight, you discovered that the most elevated members of society were all speaking Hungarian and nothing else, do you think you could maintain a friendly attitude toward them?

Here is another tool of the new education. Blur over the distinction between a widespread condition and a universal defining condition. For example, yes, there are oppressors and there are people they are oppressing. True. But to move from that and say the very ideas at the core of society were designed, everywhere and at all times, to create only oppressors and the oppressed…that’s a vast generality which leads to all-inclusive programmatic general solutions.

And those solutions, voila, turn out to be the means of making slaves.

Criticizing America is productive only when it has a reference point for comparison. A rational discussion to establish the reference point is essential. Are we going to hold up a mirror to the founding ideas of the Republic, or are we going to say, for example, that the true and proper purpose of government should be to alleviate suffering? And if the latter, what exactly does that alleviation entail? How far does it go? Who does it punish in the process?

This isn’t a brush-off conversation. In order to participate in it, people have to be able to follow a train of thought. If they can’t, because they were educated not to, where are we? We’re in the dark. We’re living by slogans.

Freedom? Liberty? Collective need? Responsibility? It doesn’t matter what ideas are on the table, because the overwhelming number of people don’t know what an idea is. They don’t know how to walk up to one and look at it from several sides. They don’t know how to trace its implications. They don’t know how to fit that idea alongside its cousins. They don’t see a Whole. They see the ceaseless spinning machinery of an alien process, from which they’ve been excluded.

Then, no matter what shape society takes, it’s a dumbshow, as far the majority of its citizens are concerned.

Who solves that?

The invasive State takes charge. It picks up the pieces of the wreckage it was a key actor in delivering.

Ever since the ratification of the Constitution, the actions of the federal government have confirmed the need for the limitations written into that document. New needs and crises have “demanded” illegitimate expansion of federal power.

In order to convince the people that this expansion was, at every turn, vital, the goal of educating citizens about what it means to take part in a Republic had to be blunted. This was done, a step at a time, through education.

Dismantling the ability to reason, employ logic, and handle ideas was the prow of that destructive campaign.

And yet…logic isn’t only a subject that’s taught to students whose minds are a blank slate. There is an inherent tendency toward rational thought that persists, despite programming to the contrary.

For example, if a television station or web site offered a prolonged debate between two intelligent people on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment—a real debate, not just a brush-off—many viewers would be intensely interested.

I’m talking about an old-style debate, one that lasted at least several hours, with each proponent allowed sufficient time to make his case fully. No name calling or shouting of slogans. No interruptions from either side. No stupid moderators.

This traditional long-form format would serve to wake people up to the fact they have minds, they can think, they can spot contradictions and non-sequiturs.

Or, as I’ve suggested before, why not a Debate Channel, devoted exclusively to key issues of our time, taken up in the long-form?

True, many viewers would tune out. But others would feel a jolt of inspiration. A sense of deja vu. “I’ve been here before. I can’t remember when.”

Yes, they’ve been here before, when they could think and reason, before the curtain was lowered.

Actual reasoned debate could become a growing trend. And by contrast, the insane nonsense that presently passes for argument on television would be highlighted as a counterfeit substitute, a fool’s errand.

You can make your own list of vital issues you’d like to see debated, in the long-form, by people who know their material (not merely the usual dome heads and pundits). I have my list.

It’s never too late to wake up. It really isn’t.

For instance, suppose we had a ten-hour reasoned debate, over the course of two days, on television, or on the Web, on this simple question:

What really happened at Sandy Hook?

Do you think that might draw a few viewers?

Are you kidding?

It would outrank many major network programs. It would put the networks’ coverage to shame.

Never a bad thing.

The Matrix Revealed

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is 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.

Coda: Here is an illustration of no-logic in action:

It occurs in a recent article in the Washington Post, “Uncle of young Newtown shooting victim turning tragedy into action.”

From the headline alone, we pick up the slant of the article. It’s going to praise the uncle for being able to turn grief into action.

The uncle is attorney Alexis Haller. His nephew, Noah Pozner, was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting.

The Post article tells us that Haller has worked as a lawyer for the Vatican. We don’t learn exactly what he did for the Vatican, but it’s more or less suggested that, because Haller has a keen interest in “reporting requirements,” where child abuse is occurring, he may have had something to do with the Vatican now “expecting” (requiring?) bishops to report pedophile priests to law-enforcement authorities.

This is quite fuzzy. The Post doesn’t clarify what role, if any, Haller played in the new Vatican expectations/requirements.

Nevertheless, the article presses on to indicate that Haller saw a way to codify reporting requirements in situations of imminent violence, like Sandy Hook. In fact, Haller has written (or made notes on?) a bill:

When a person “has knowledge of a grave or imminent threat of serious harm or death made by someone with access to a gun,” that person must notify the police within 24 hours.

Haller has met with Joe Biden’s committee and discussed his proposal.

The article doesn’t bother to take up how this bill, if made into law, would be enforced, or what implications might flow from it—such as the birthing of an expanded snitch mentality; and excessive, wrong-headed, or even malicious reporting in cases where the threat of imminent violence wasn’t real.

No, this article, we learn, is more a human interest story about Alexis Haller and what’s he’s motivated to do in the wake of the death of his nephew.

The Post article doesn’t bother to cover Haller’s actual history as a defense lawyer for the Vatican. For example, in a case involving the sexual abuse of a Portland, Oregon, boy, in the 1960s, where a 2011 suit was filed against the Holy See, Haller was defending the Vatican, claiming that the pedophile priest, Andrew Ronan, was committing crimes against children without the knowledge of the Holy See, and was not an employee of the Vatican.

Why is this significant? Because the Post article states: “Haller had crafted and forwarded several proposals to prevent future gun violence that were shaped by his experience as a lawyer for the Holy See.”

Which part of that experience? Ahem, cough-cough.

By the end of the article, we know nothing about the precise wording of Haller’s new bill to limit gun violence.

We do know that he was tragically connected to the Sandy Hook shootings. We know his initial efforts to have input in new gun legislation were ignored. We know he overcame that problem. We see his posed picture above the article, in which he’s walking in the rain under an umbrella.

We understand the Post is “on his side.”

This is the old Ad Hominem argument, in which the person forwarding an idea is more important than the actual content of the idea…except in this case, the person isn’t being attacked, he’s being praised.

As if that gives more credibility to his idea, the precise legal content of which we don’t know.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive 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. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com







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 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.







(I’ve been getting many requests to describe my logic course—hence this FAQ, which answers a lot of questions.)


Note: The course is now part of a much larger collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED. The course was selling, alone, for three times as much as the entire Matrix product. Click THE MATRIX REVEALED banner on my home page at www.nomorefakenews.com


Since I began writing articles about my new LOGIC AND ANALYSIS course, I have had a flood of inquiries, and people have been ordering the course for independent adult self-study—and to teach it to their home-schooled children.


So now I’m doing this FAQ. I’ll make it as complete as I can.


Q: How long is the course?


A: Eighteen classroom sessions. That includes a final exam.


Q: So it isn’t just a workshop or a seminar.


A: No, it’s a real course.


Q: At what pace would you recommend teaching it in a home-school setting?


A: Three sessions a week, if possible. An hour per session.


Q: Is the course available online?


A: No. I ship all materials.


Q: What are the course materials?


A: A extensive teacher’s manual, student study sheets, and a CD.


Q: What’s in the teacher’s manual?


A: The manual contains a layout for all the lessons, in chronological order, and explanations for all the passages that are analyzed in the course.


Q: Passages?


A: Yes. There are short and long passages of text. I wrote these with logical errors embedded in them. Students and teachers work over the passages and discover the specific logical errors. The main passages are written to resemble news stories, press releases, political-speak, science journalism, and internet reporting.


Q: Why?


A: Because they resemble what you encounter in the real world. The whole point of the course is gaining the ability to deal with information in any form, in life. That means being able to take information apart and pinpoint the specific logical mistakes, and analyze those mistakes, in detail.


Q: If an adult is studying the course on his own, how does he proceed?


A: Actually, whether the adult is studying the course on his/her own or preparing to teach it to children, the approach is the same. Go through the entire teacher’s manual, step by step. Master everything.


Q: What if questions arise during this process?


A: Contact me directly. qjrconsulting@gmail.com I’m available to answer any and all questions.


Q: Is there an extra fee for this service?


A: No.


Q: What is on the CD?


A: My analysis of the six long passages of text that make up the core of the course. I wanted to do this part on CD, so the teachers can listen to me attacking the text and pulling it apart. It gives a sense of what it’s really like to dig out each logical error and identify it.


Q: When a home-schooling adult teaches the course, is it a process of the teacher and students mutually discovering logical fallacies?


A: No. The teacher already has mastered the course and knows where all the errors are. However, in class, the children first battle through a passage on their own, with the teacher noting their findings. Then the teacher explains each actual logical error in detail. Then, as homework, on their own, the students go back to that passage again and find all the logical errors, and describe them in writing.


Q: These logical fallacies—are they written in stone or did you dream them up?


A: The traditional fallacies have been discovered and described, in various ways, over the last 2400 years. They are very real and very exacting.


Q: What is your background?


A: As a college student (Amherst College), I studied logic as part of my major in philosophy. I had extensive training in logic there. I taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles, and tutored remedial English at Santa Monica College. I’ve had a 25-year career as an investigative reporter—LA Weekly, CBS Healthwatch, Spin Magazine, Stern (Germany), etc. During this period, I applied logic to my investigations on a regular basis. Particularly in the area of medical fraud, I had to use logic to get behind the PR pronouncements of various “authorities” and find the inconsistencies and deceptions that were occurring in published research.


Q: On what basis do you sell your course to home-schooling parents?


A: They may use it with any size class for as long as they want to teach it, as many times as they want to teach it, but the course must be taught in their own home-school. The course is copyrighted and cannot be sold or given away to other teachers.


Q: I have a plan to teach it to people in my community. Is that all right?


A: Absolutely. You can deliver the course as many times as you want to—as long as you are the teacher.


Q: Is your course given for academic credit in home schools?


A: No. It is for enrichment. I don’t use sanitized and silly politically correct passages in the course—most if not all school systems would refuse to allow real-world-type passages. They want largely unrealistic material. That would defeat the whole purpose of the course.


Q: Why is logic so important?


A: Because it is the foundation on which all other fields of study are built. It is a priceless Western tradition, and it is being lost. We need to reverse that trend. A student can’t be truly literate unless he can analyze what he is reading. This fact is ignored in most schools.


Q: Do you oppose rote learning?


A: Actually, no. I oppose learning that is exclusively and only rote. Students also think. Everybody thinks. There is a choice. You can learn how to think clearly, or you can remain passive and accept whatever is thrown your way. People have a confusion about this. They sometimes believe independent thinking is the same thing as rebellion. Clear thinking is clear thinking. It enables you to face information, reporting, and argument head-on, and make judgments on the merits. The logical merits.


Q: But what about, say, faith? How does logic relate to faith?


A: Learning how to think lucidly strengthens any faith or first principles you live by, because logic is about something else. Logic shows you the difference between profound faith and analysis. You don’t need to confuse the two.


Q: How many long passages are there in the course?


A: Six. They are taken up and analyzed during twelve classroom sessions. They are analyzed deeply.


Q: How do I pay for the course?


A: You contact me at qjrconsulting@gmail.com and I give you instructions for using my PayPal account. Or you can mail me a check. I’ll supply the address.


Q: How soon after I pay do you ship me the course?


A: It goes out to you within three business days.


Q: How much is the course?


A: $375.


Q: Explain your pricing of the course.


A: I’m glad to. I developed it over a period of ten years and many hundreds of hours. As long as you are the teacher, you can use it forever. I know of at least one online publisher that charges, per course, about $350 for each student in the class—and allows the course to be taught only once. If the teacher wants to teach it again, he has to pay again. There is also my backup service: If at any time during the period when the teacher is mastering the materials, or during the actual teaching of the course to others—at any time questions arise, I’m here to answer them fully. That service is included in the course fee as well.


Q: Could you personally teach the course in a corporate setting?


A: Yes. I’m available on that basis. The content of the course would change somewhat.


Q: Is each classroom lesson of the course based on the prior lessons, or can it be taught in any sequence?


A: You follow my sequence. The course is built in a traditional fashion. The easier and simpler material comes first. Then, the more complex lessons and passages.


Q: Can I read an outline of the course?


A: Yes. I’ve included it at the end of this FAQ.


Q: Are eighteen classroom sessions enough to become a logical thinker?


A: Yes. You certainly don’t exhaust the whole field of logic, but you move into a new sphere. You can no longer be deceived or taken in by illogical presentations. You can take those presentations of information, in whatever form, apart and dissect the logical errors.


Q: Illogic is rampant in our society?


A: It’s the “way things are done” now. You have to realize that the higher you go on the educational ladder, the more subtle bias and coercion creep in. Teachers and institutions have their slant on things. They cleverly sell that slant and disguise it. If students don’t know what’s going on, they become captive to some form of bias. They become “products” of the system.


Q: Your course is an antidote to that?


A: It is. In our society, there are many political points of view masquerading as pure knowledge. The question is, do you want your children to fall under the sway of these strategies, or do you want their heads to rise above them.


Q: As an adult, will I be able to master the course myself?


A: Of course. The reading level required for the course is “bright high school.”


Q: I have children I want to home school, but they’re young.


A: I have several parents who have young children. These children are readers, but they’re not yet at the level of the course. So the parents are taking them through the course by reading parts of it to them, and then discussing the logical issues in those passages. Later, when these children are old enough and are reading at a high school level, the parents will teach the course to them again—fully. It’s a very good strategy, and it gives the kids a fine head start.


Q: There are several different types of illogical arguments?


A: About ten basic ones.


Q: Certain patterns of illogical argument emerge and you can recognize these patterns?


A: Exactly. I once had a student who worked for a big company. He was on the receiving end of many reports from a particular manager. After studying logic, the student was able to see that this manager was making the same basic illogical argument over and over, in different situations. He was costing the company a great deal of money.


Q: On the whole, would you say that people who offer illogical information are unable to see what they’re doing, or are they intentionally trying to deceive others?


A: Mainly, these people who chronically commit logical errors are uneducated—they don’t know logic. They’re struggling along in the best way they can. But a surprising number of people are just trying to sell their own personal bias. They’re slanting things intentionally to fit that bias. It happens in politics all the time, but I can say from experience that it happens just as often in science, and in other fields. Economics, history, psychology, for example.


Q: And students who can see this clearly and specifically would be ahead of the game.


A: Such students would have a towering advantage.


Here is the course outline:



By Jon Rappoport




APRIL 12, 2010. I have received MANY inquiries about my new course. People have asked me for an outline or syllabus of the course. So here it is.


I’m happy to answer any and all questions that come up while people are reading the outline, including queries about cost, shipping details, etc.


When students complete this course and know the materials, their world has changed. They can approach other material in school and out of school with vastly increased awareness—and they are, in fact, eager to dig into new information and analyze it with these new tools. The students become the inheritors of a profound Western tradition of thought, a tradition that brought tremendous progress to civilization.


Two significant points: Unlike some other educational publishers, I offer the course for use as many times as the teacher wants to teach it to his/her student classes, on into the future—the price of the course remains the same. And I do not increase the price of the course on the basis of how many students are in a given class.




Keep in mind that this outline only begins to describe the depth of the material. The student, in many classroom sessions, analyzes passages of text that contain multiple logical errors. The student learns how to dissect these passages and find all the flaws. This is an experience that can literally change lives—because the student wakes up to what logic is all about in a real-life situation—as opposed to passively accepting whatever information comes his way.




The course has 18 classroom sessions. The last two sessions are the final exam and the teacher’s step-by-step review of the exam.


The teacher’s manual explains how every lesson is laid out.




LESSON 1—The student learns how generalizations and vague terms can infect the reasoning process and make it useless and misleading. What is a generalization? What is a vague generalization? What is a vague term? Examples are studied. Vague terms and generalizations are the most common errors found in the reasoning process.


LESSON 2—The student learns to analyze several traditional logical fallacies that occur in a line of reasoning. These fallacies are shown in many examples. They are concise and clear. These are the flaws first described by Aristotle in ancient Greece.


LESSON 3—The student now begins to examine actual passages of text that contain multiple logical errors. The passages are short. With the teacher’s guidance., the student comes to see how these passages are misleading. This lesson is the groundwork for everything that is to come in the course.


LESSON 4—The student tackles a whole host of text passages that contain logical flaws. These passages illustrate such fallacies as: polemic; attacking the person rather than the argument; vague terms; inappropriate analogy; “sales pitch”; omission of vital information; circular reasoning.


LESSONS 5-16—The student now embarks on the analysis of six much longer and more complex text passages. Each long passage is studied for two classroom sessions. These passages resemble news stories, political promotion, internet journalism, science press releases—in other words, just the sort of material we all come across every day. The teacher has the students take apart each passage and offer up the errors they find; then, the teacher explains ALL the errors.


In my CD that accompanies the teacher’s manual, I go through each of these long passages and describe the errors contained in them. The teacher can play my descriptions to the class.


Lessons 5-16 are the core of the course. The student gains confidence in being able to dissect, SPECIFICALLY AND IN DETAIL, realistic written material that contains multiple logical errors. Step by step, passage by passage, the student learns how to find the flaws and see through the misdirection.


LESSONS 17 AND 18—The student takes the final exam. In it, the student examines a new long text passage and writes down all the SPECIFIC errors he/she can find. Then, after grading the exams, the teacher gives, in the last class, a detailed analysis of the exam passage.


This outline can’t possibly present the experience of actually doing the course. So after reading this, feel free to contact me if you have any questions.




The teacher’s manual is very complete. It contains every passage contained in the course—and a detailed explanation of how the major passages are flawed. Essentially, the teacher studies the manual and then teaches the course. I am available to answer questions teachers have as they study the material themselves.


The course is geared for bright high-school students. I am, on request, available to design logic courses for children of different ages.


Jon Rappoport has been working as an investigative reporter for 25 years. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize early in his career, he has published articles in LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. He has taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles, and has tutored extensively in remedial English at Santa Monica College. At Amherst College, where he graduated with a BA in philosophy, he studied formal logic under Joseph Epstein, a revered professor of philosophy.


Jon is the author of the new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, and, with Robert Scott Bell, a 10-hour audio seminar, VACCINES: ARMED AND DANGEROUS.


MAY 13, 2010.  First, a bit of business.  I now have a Facebook page.  Here is the link:


You can find some of my articles and videos there.  Over time, we’ll add more to the page.  Feel free to spread the word.

*                                     *                              *

Several thousand years ago, the pharaohs began building monuments to themselves. 

Well, they didn’t build them.  They didn’t design them, either.  The design work was left to brilliant court architects.  Unlike the myths of the state religion, the architecture actually had to work.  The pyramids and temples had to stay standing once finished.  And after a period of experimentation, they did.

So the architects were capable of rational thought, scientific thought. 

However, the METHOD of that thought was never codified or described in written manuscripts.  There were two reasons for the omission.  One, no one actually considered it might be useful to explain the process of rational thinking.  And two, the pharaohs and priests would have laid severe punishment on anyone who tried.

After all, the masses were supposed to obey orders.  The masses were under the thumb of the elite class.  It would be dangerous to arm the population with the tools of logic.  Thinking for oneself wasn’t part of the political equation.  Independent thought might lead people to question the cosmology that propped up the priests and the pharaohs.  And from there, it would only be a short step to questioning the whole religious and political leadership. 

It would fall to ancient Athens to articulate the method of logical thought.  Plato was the father in this regard.  In his fictional Dialogues, he used Socrates to interrogate citizens of the day about major concepts like Justice and The Good.  Socrates would, for example, show his opponents that their opinions inevitably led to absurdities or contradictions. 

In the process, it became obvious that lucid thinking was of great value, and its abandonment was intolerable. 

Socrates’ sub-text went something like this: “You are thinking about the highest values of life.  That’s a good thing.  Now let us examine exactly how you are thinking about these values.  Let us find those premises about which you have no doubt.  Let us reason from those premises, and then we’ll see where we arrive.  Do we come to acceptable conclusions, or do you end up on the rocks of contradiction and confusion?  Is this not a worthwhile endeavor?”

No one had ever written like this before.  No one had thought to do it, and no one had dared to.

Aristotle, one of Plato’s students, went even further.  He codified patterns of reasoning.  He showed which patterns were valid and which were invalid.

For all time, these two men established logic as an independent field of study.  To put this enormous revolution in more modern terms, they pioneered the critical/analytic approach to information.  Today, we take this approach for granted—even though most people aren’t aware of the way such tools are supposed to be used.

In secondary schools and many colleges, the disciplined study of logic has been discarded, in favor of accepting and memorizing factoids.  What has happened?

We are reverting, in a sense, to the temperament of ancient Egypt.  We, too, have our vast monuments, and the citizenry stands in awe of them.  Relatively few people are the designers.  Other workers carry out the plans. 

And just as later generations of Egyptians sacked the tombs of their kings, today’s citizens plot ways to escape and evade and, yes, even sack our primary institutions. 

There are many reasons for the decline of our society, but a major flaw resides in the widespread rejection of logic and rationality. 

Life is not all about logic, but a part of it is.  And when that part is missing, people drift.  They have no rudder.  They can’t come to grips with one of the major “commodities” of our age: information.  For them, information equals confusion and doubt. 

If you lived in a marvelous workshop, where dozens of carpenter’s tools were displayed, and slats of wood were stacked—and if you had absolutely no idea how to use any of the tools—what would you do?  If you saw no way to learn how to use those tools, you’d become frustrated, and you’d seek myths and fairy tales to bolster your confidence.  You’d be open to all sorts of sales jobs from peddlers of deceit.  You’d drift away from action and try on the clothes of passivity.

Jon Rappoport is the author of LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, a course for high school students.  He has been working as an investigative reporter for 25 years.  Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize early in his career, he has published articles in LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.  He has taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles, and has tutored extensively in remedial English at Santa Monica College.  At Amherst College, where he graduated with a BA in philosophy, he studied formal logic under Joseph Epstein, a revered professor of philosophy.  Mr. Rappoport can be reached at qjrconsulting@gmail.com  His websites are www.nomorefakenews.com and www.insolutions.info       



By Jon Rappoport


To listen to a free one-hour seminar describing Jon’s course, call 1-219-509-8113.  Passcode is 624093.  The recording will be available until June 3.

MAY 11, 2010.  The hallmark of oppressive systems is whim.  In other words, a leader can change his mind at any moment, and the people have to follow. 

On Monday, the leader said X will always be true.  On Tuesday, the leader announced Y is the eternal truth.  But X and Y don’t go together.  In fact, they oppose each other.  It’s up to the people, the sheep, to somehow reconcile X and Y.  And they better do it quietly.  If a person states the obvious, that X and Y are incompatible, he might have his head chopped off.

Roughly 2400 years ago, Aristotle set down a simple and devastating fact of logic.  X and not-X is a contradiction.  You can’t have X and not-X.  That’s illogical.  It’s called the law of non-contradiction, and it’s the basis of logic.

In political terms, Aristotle’s law exploded the whole notion that leaders could hold contradictory ideas and force them on the population.

And ever since then, Aristotle has been a beacon of sanity for people who live under oppressive leaders. 

George Orwell, in his novel, 1984, illustrated these political implications by showing the lunacy of contradiction.  FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.  WAR IS PEACE.  These were two common slogans of the controlling government in the novel.  Furthermore, the reluctant hero, Winston Smith, has a job in which his duty is to revise all official history so that it always appears to be “true.”

Orwell was, in a sense, referring back to the foundation of rational thought laid down by Aristotle.  He was illustrating what a world would look like in which Aristotle had been destroyed.

Logic implies liberty, because it empowers every individual with the capacity to think beyond the machinations of any controlling elite.

To the degree that logic is buried and ignored by the educational system, the door is opened to arbitrary authoritarian power.

But what happens when no one in the educational system even recognizes that the absence of logic courses is a problem?  Teachers and administrators have themselves grown up without ever studying logic.  Therefore, they don’t see the gaping hole in the curriculum. 

How many people know who Aristotle was or that he set down principles which allowed civilization and science to advance beyond slave status?  How many people understand what the tradition of logic adds up to?

Jon Rappoport is the author of LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, a course for high school students.  He has been working as an investigative reporter for 25 years.  Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize early in his career, he has published articles in LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.  He has taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles, and has tutored extensively in remedial English at Santa Monica College.  At Amherst College, where he graduated with a BA in philosophy, he studied formal logic under Joseph Epstein, a revered professor of philosophy.  Mr. Rappoport can be reached at qjrconsulting@gmail.com     

Logic and Faith

APRIL 14, 2010. I’m approaching home-schooling parents with this course, because I believe a revolution in the education system should begin at home, with the family.

There are several confusions about how logic relates to faith, and I’d like to clear those up.

Consider the amazing amount of information floating around in our culture. Books, articles, internet postings, television news, videos, lectures, seminars, political talk, sales pitches, public relations chatter, scientific claims, educational material, and so on. In this arena, there are HUGE numbers of logical errors. As a reporter and educator, I’ve been cataloguing the errors for 25 years.

If children approach this mountain range of information with no understanding of logic, they will accept some ideas and reject other ideas in unpredictable ways—almost on a random basis. They will walk unarmed into the future and have no basis for judgment.

Who in his right mind wants to encourage or condone a situation like this?

That’s why I created the LOGIC AND ANALYSIS course. It provides a very thorough grounding in a tradition that is all about rational thought. The student gains the ability to analyze information from many different fields and find the flaws. The student becomes very skilled at using the superb tools of logic.

On the other hand, there is faith. This is very personal and very profound. Logic doesn’t touch faith. It is a separate subject.

I have found, in fact, that people armed with logic become much clearer about their own faith. Why? Because they aren’t trying to put that faith under the magnifying glass of analysis. They understand that faith and logic are two different worlds.

However, when people try to attack faith with their own version of logic, those who really know logic can respond immediately and lucidly—and fend off those arguments with great ease.

When, many years ago, I studied the great Western philosophers—especially Plato, the father of rational thought—I was struck by how clearly he admitted his own faith.

These days, some scientists are finally coming to grips with these issues. They are climbing down off their high horses and saying there are matters beyond the scope of the physical sciences.

There is no contradiction here.

If I said the existence of a hammer somehow eliminated the need for a screwdriver, everyone would know I was off my rocker. If I said travel documentaries completely negated the idea of actually going somewhere and seeing life firsthand, people would know I needed a good brain-nutrition supplement. If I said music clearly eliminated the need for science, I’d be laughed out of court.

So it is with logic and faith. The existence of one doesn’t challenge the existence of the other.

They actually support each other.

Some people of faith are a bit nervous about logic. Here is the reason: They haven’t studied enough logic. If they had, they would know that logic eventually brings you to a place where you have to confess you are now navigating by other means. You are crossing over into a territory where different rules apply. Your deepest convictions are now your compass, and those convictions don’t require a foundation of proof. They only require the reward that comes from believing what you believe.

Feel free to inquire about my logic course. qjrpress@gmail.com

Jon Rappoport has been working as an investigative reporter for 25 years. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize early in his career, he has published articles in LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. He has taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles, and has tutored extensively in remedial English at Santa Monica College. At Amherst College, where he graduated with a BA in philosophy, he studied formal logic under Joseph Epstein, a revered professor of philosophy.