Anti-logic: the education plague

Anti-logic: the education plague

By Jon Rappoport
September 19, 2014
http://www.nomorefakenews.com

In all times and places, logic is never taught to the masses. There is no intention to do so.

Now, in our “egalitarian society,” education carries with it great PR pretension, a fakery that outflanks any other period in history.

Therefore, graduating students wrongly believe they know how to think.

In my collection, The Matrix Revealed, I include a basic logic course that analyzes passages of text for flaws and fallacies in reasoning.

In my latest collection, Power Outside the Matrix, I include a long audio tutorial, Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation, which is all about carrying out deep investigations of major official scenarios/stories, and discovering how and where these official structures can be penetrated, taken apart, and unfolded, so all their flaws and deceptions are exposed.

These two trainings are meant to remedy the deep hole people find themselves in, when they go up against entrenched (or even alternative) “knowledge.”

In this article, I want to focus on a particular logical fallacy I call: “this means that.”

It runs rampant throughout society. The fallacy bleeds into the reasoning process, into notions of self-worth, into people’s need to identify themselves with an “acceptable” position.

Take the concept of manmade global warming. For many people, affirming this as a reality means:

“I’m defending the sacred quality of life on Earth, I’m helping the planet, I’m exposing the nasty crimes of big corporations, I’m acknowledging and shining a spotlight on the selfish and petty actions of the masses, I’m in the vanguard of recognizing that this issue represents the greatest threat humankind has ever known, I’m transcending ‘profits over values’, I’m envisioning with others a better world, I’m aligning myself with the best international scientific minds, I’m experiencing the sensation of having a larger mission in life.”

This—manmade global warming—means all that.

Therefore, how do you approach rational discourse on the subject of manmade warming?

You don’t.

There is no logic to be found. There is only “this means that.”

The concept or idea or symbol of manmade warming is so fully packed with sentiment, it resists all attempts at entry.

Here is another example: “America must field a powerful military force all over the world.”

For many people this means: “US wars are good and righteous wars, support our troops, admire the representations of war in sports, praise large American corporations, vote for a ‘tough President’, winning is everything, expand the Pentagon budget, develop a kick-ass attitude, love technology in all forms and degrees, obey and agree with institutional authority, assume that bigger is always better.”

“This means that.”

Therefore, a rational discussion about the wisdom of deploying the US military all over the planet is impossible. The amount of packed sentiment is a suit of body and mind armor.

In the case of manmade warming, examining the science behind the hypothesis becomes completely irrelevant. To even begin to look at it feels like an act of betrayal to the person who has “this means that” firmly in place.

Nothing in the person’s education has ever challenged his reflexive hard-wired “this-that” formulation. A breakthrough has never been made in the area of logic.

Instead, education has, at best, skated across the surface of “this means that” and left it undisturbed.

With some degree of accuracy, one could say that all the other traditional logical fallacies—ad hominem attack, straw man, vague generality, circular reasoning, appeal to authority, etc.—spring from “this means that.”

When I attended college in the 1950s, it was my good fortune to have a logic professor who could analyze and separate a thousand angels dancing on the head of a pin—and at the same time, maintain his great and natural charm and sense of humor.

Our conversations outside of class were moments of excitement. They were also rugged mind workouts.

His parting shot to me, as I was about to graduate: “Know what you don’t know.”

Some 20 years later, when I began a career as a reporter, that piece of advice came back to me.

I was prepared to do investigations, because I could make assessments of what I didn’t know and therefore needed to find out.

I could evaluate sources, who would often try to deploy logical flaws to derail me.

One of the great delights of reporting is discovering that the story you’re working on isn’t the story. The story turns out to be something else entirely.

That was the case in 1987, when I got down to writing my first book, AIDS INC. People were coming at me from every direction, feeding me their half-baked theories about what AIDS “really was.”

They seemed to believe that, because they were departing from the conventional wisdom on the subject, they must be right.

Encountering that odd notion of self-entitlement stood me in good stead, from that time forward.

When I eventually arrived at the bottom of the AIDS story, I was shocked to see it wasn’t at all what I predicted it would be.

It’s astounding how many logical steps people are willing to skip over, when they have a “this means that” cooking in their heads.

Like a foreign traveler visiting a bizarre museum, I’ve encountered many varieties of sophistry over the past 30 years.

Logic isn’t the be-all and end-all. But it is, in the largest sense, an ever-expanding method you can use to probe deeper and deeper into an argument, a line of reasoning, and engage with the basic assumptions that underlie a position a person is occupying.

It’s as if you’re learning a story backwards, moving toward the beginning, where all the secrets are.

And chances are good that you will eventually encounter some form of the abiding “this means that,” hiding like a horned toad under a bush.

He’s there, he’s quiet, he’s waiting, and when you turn a branch away from a shadow, he stares at you and you know you’ve arrived at the nexus:

the unyielding stubborn source of confusion and illogic.

And sometimes, on good days, you can get the horned toad to tell his story. His real story. All the way through. And you can see him regain his lost sanity.

That’s an experience not to be missed. You’ll remember it for your whole life.

Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE 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 http://www.nomorefakenews.com

The solution to everything: slavery to the State

The solution to everything: slavery to the State

by Jon Rappoport

June 16, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Let me clarify that. Slavery to the corporate State. Government and mega-corporations work hand in hand.

The incurably naïve believe the State is beneficent. The government is kind. The government knows what to do. The government will solve society’s ills if we let it.

Of course, the government, in the form of NSA, is spying on everybody all the time—but you see, that’s not really the government. It’s a rogue element.

Sure it is. And rainbows will appear at any moment and the people of Earth will experience a galactic frequency that eradicates all impulses toward conflict.

To put it another way, people see what they want to see.

“Ahem, when I say ‘government,’ I don’t mean the CIA or the Pentagon or the FDA or the President’s national security team, or fraudulent federal scientists, or the whole lot of venal people in Congress, or corrupt prosecutors and judges or invasive bureaucrats or paper-pushing money-sucking desk jockeys.”

Of course not. Government is an idea in the mind of God.

And when you think about it, the NSA watches over us to make sure we stay on the path of righteousness. It’s absurd to be suspicious of the State. The authors of the Constitution, who tried to limit central authority, were a bunch of paranoids.

We need more government, not less.

Here are quotes from George Orwell. In case there is any doubt, he is describing aspects of the State:

“As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me. They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are ‘only doing their duty’, as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life.” (The Lion and the Unicorn, 1941)

“Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.” (Notes on Nationalism, 1945)

“A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened. Then, again, every major change in policy demands a corresponding change of doctrine and a revaluation of prominent historical figures.” (The Prevention of Literature, 1946)

“But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty’s figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version.” (1984, chapter 4)

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.” (1984, chapter 5)

But you see, these are all old Orwell remarks. Now we have a different kind of State. It’s…government. Yes. The State isn’t government. Aha. The State exists in places other than America. In America, we have government. Yes, that’s right. Two different animals. One is repressive, and the other is earnest. (More rainbows for the sentimentalists.)

Here are quotes about the State from Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel, Brave New World:

“Till at last the child’s mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child’s mind. And not the child’s mind only. The adult’s mind too—all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides—made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!” (Chapter 2)

“Every one belongs to every one else.” (Chapter 3)

“Mother, monogamy, romance. High spurts the fountain; fierce and foamy the wild jet. The urge has but a single outlet. My love, my baby. No wonder these poor pre-moderns were mad and wicked and miserable.” (Chapter 3)

“Everyone works for every one else.” (Chapter 5)

“Don’t you wish you were free, Lenina?”
“I don’t know what you mean. I am free. Free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody’s happy nowadays.”
He laughed, “Yes, ‘Everybody’s happy nowadays.’ We begin giving the children that at five. But wouldn’t you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else’s way.”
“I don’t know what you mean,” she repeated. (Chapter 6)

But again, Huxley’s remarks are about the aspirations and victories of the State, which doesn’t exist in America. Never has.


Exit From the Matrix


In America, we have a fluid and flexible government, which tries to respond to the people’s needs. Of course. Just ask Elizabeth Warren or Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, or the ghost of Richard Nixon. Ask the heads of Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont. Google, Facebook, Microsoft.

There are “repressive States” in Europe, Asia, and Africa, but that is a foreign phenomenon.

Rebelling against the State? Not here. Here we merge with the government and help it and encourage it. Besides, we’ve recently learned—and this is a revelation—that rebelling is very likely a terrorist act. Well, that settles that.

We’re all in this together. Even if the “we” and the “this” and the “together” seem to require some further clarification, rest assured it will be forthcoming. At the right time.

The government understands time (and also space). It arranges them. Someone has to.

The government is not the State, the government is not the State.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE 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

How effective is electromagnetic thought control?

How effective is electromagnetic thought control?

by Jon Rappoport

May 27, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

The number of methods of mind control has proliferated as funding for research has expanded.

Here, I want to consider what could be called thought substitution, one ongoing facet of this research.

My conclusions on this subject come from accounts of modern mind control research, which utilize forms of signal-broadcasting aimed at the brain.

More importantly, I’m drawing on my observation of the differences among people, when it comes to their awareness of their own thoughts and emotions.

First of all, we need to make the distinction between passive and active people. Passive people are either sedentary or going through the motions in life. They are easily controllable, and it doesn’t take sophisticated electronic measures to do the job.

Television, a few tranquilizing drugs, peer pressure to conform, and the game is over.

Such people will also mistake the invasion of outside thoughts for their own. It doesn’t really matter where the impulses come from or who delivers them.

By active people, I mean those who are passionately pursuing conscious objectives. They know why they’re doing what they do. They have energy. They’re inventing their own futures. They’re aware of repressive forces in the world.

They’re also quite familiar with their own feelings and thoughts.

Yes, mad scientists can affect these people via electronic harassment, no doubt about it—just as you can affect someone by kicking him in the ribs. But this is no monumental scientific achievement.

The early CIA MKULTRA programs were all about harassment and torture and disorientation, utilizing high-dose drugs, isolation, threats, hypnotism, and the provoking of fear.

The combination of these elements, according to witness (victim) statements, could result in programmed personae. Multiple personalities. But it should be understood that the primary driver in this operation was fear/pain—the very same combination that made the Catholic Inquisition successful.

Active people, as I define them here…could they be fooled into believing that electronic signals aimed at their brains are really their own thoughts?

This is an important question. And I must say, too many casual observers are eager to jump on the bandwagon and assert that, yes, this is eminently probable.

But I point out, mind control is not just about planting suggestions, it’s also very much about slipping them past a person’s overwhelming history of knowing how his own thoughts feel.

That’s the kicker. That’s the limiter.

The eager beavers who want to believe, full bore, in the efficacy of thought substitution, would rather not consider this limiter. But they should.

Active people would instantly become aware that an idea masquerading as their own is a charlatan. And they would reject it.

Researchers are attempting to use a person’s own brainwaves—capturing them and then outfitting them with thought-impulses and broadcasting them back to the brain. This is an effort to carry off a grand deception.

However, thought isn’t, for some people, a gross and crude activity. It has many subtleties and nuances.

And in its original and primary form, thought is not a material phenomenon at all.

It doesn’t start from the brain. The brain carries it forward, but the brain is an intermediary device.

Thought begins in a space that has no physical characteristics at all. Thought at its core isn’t physical.

What I’m discussing here isn’t mystical. Mystical is actually presuming that the brain is the seat of all consciousness.

So…what form of mind control can work against the non-physical? And now we’re back in the realm of early MKULTRA. Pain, fear, harassment.


The Matrix Revealed


That works on the brain, on a leg, on an arm, on a foot. It works on a non-material soul who inhabits and wears a physical form. It isn’t sophisticated at all, any more than spraying pepper on a crowd or blasting an acoustic weapon at protestors is sophisticated.

Yes, a thumb-screw is mind control. So is the rack and the threat of execution. So is fear of excommunication for a believer. So is a bullet in the shoulder. So is a disruptive burst of electronics from a transmitter.

They can grossly control a person because he exists, here and now, in a physical body. We already know about such physical effects. Humans have known about them since the dawn of time.

But to slip through, to achieve the smooth and seamless substitution of somebody else’s thought for your own, is an entirely different matter.

If you’re aware.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE 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

The last murder trial

The last murder trial

by Jon Rappoport

May 12, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

June 23, 2041. Bank robbery. Thirty customers gunned down by the robber inside the bank. Murder trial.

The defense lawyer calls eight physicists to the stand. They all testify that: a) the brain rules and directs all human activity; b) the brain is entirely composed of tiny particles which possess absolutely no free will; c) there is no evidence that any combination of these particles produce free will.

Therefore, the defense argues, the accused robber cannot be found guilty. He wasn’t choosing to kill those 30 people. His brain demanded it. In fact, there is no “he.” The brain is the person.

The prosecution asserts that “everybody knows there is free will.” So some combination and interaction of the particles that make up the brain must be producing it.

The defense counters: “Claiming something must be true because everybody knows it is, is absurd.”

The jury deliberates and concludes that the robber is innocent, because he had no control over his actions.

At a press conference, the district attorney states, “Accepting this verdict is accepting that guilt for any crime under the sun is impossible. Is that what we want?”

The President addresses the nation. “It’s time we finally wake up to the fact that no one is really guilty. Don’t worry, be happy. Good night, and good luck.”

In reviewing the case, the US Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, rules: “We must rewrite the Constitution to catch up with physics. There is no free will, there is no freedom, there is no guilt.”

The Pope issues a statement: “God will take the place of free will.”

The president of The Technocracy Society writes: “When every human brain on the planet is irretrievably hooked up to the Big Brain Computer, no one will ever again mention free will. Everyone will have titanic wisdom, in which case, what would we need freedom for?”

Pastor Mike Goober, head of the New Age All and Everything Commission, echoes the President: “Don’t worry, be glorious. The Universe will take care of us. There are no problems. Keep smiling.”

However, a large segment of the US population fails to grasp the import of the brain-particle-no-free-will formulation. Over the next two years, 30 states secede from the Union.

Ha-ha, could never happen. None of this could ever happen. Maybe not, but a great deal of drug, brain, and genetic research is already proceeding on the assumption that the brain is everything and there is no free will. Which means: the true objective of the research is reprogramming the human being, so he will act and think on the basis of principles determined by “those in charge.”

Those in charge, of course, pump out definitions of what is normal and good and happy and healthy and cook “the science” to make it all appear legitimate.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE 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

ADHD in the new education

ADHD in the new education

by Jon Rappoport

May 12, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

“I learned twenty-four new things today at school,” the child said. “One right after the other. I felt so happy. My teacher told me I was learning accelerated. I wrote on my iPad. I saw pictures. I did group harmony. I added. I divided. I heard about architecture. The teacher said we were filled with wonder at the universe. We solved a problem. We’re all together. I ate cheese. A factory makes cheese.”

The new education is ADHD.

It’s a method of teaching that surrenders ground on each key concept, deserting it before it’s firmly fixed in the mind of the student.

It hops around from idea to idea, because parents, teachers, administrators, students, departments of education, and educational publishers have given up on the traditional practice of repetition.

Repetition was old-world. For decades, even centuries, the time-honored method of instruction was: introduce an idea or concept or method, and then provide numerous examples the student had to practice, solve, and demonstrate with proficiency.

There was no getting around it. If the student balked, he failed.

There were no excuses or fairy tales floated to explain away the inability of the student to carry out the work.

Now, these days, if you want to induce ADHD, teach a course in which each new concept is given short shrift. Then pass every student on to the next grade, because it’s “humane.”

Think of it this way. Suppose you want to climb the sheer face of a high rock. You know nothing about climbing. You engage an instructor. He teaches you a little bit about ropes and spikes and handholds. He briefly highlights each aspect and then skips to the next.

So later…while you’re falling five hundred feet to the ravine below, you can invent stories about why the experiment didn’t work out.

Since the advent of organized education on the planet, there has been one way of teaching young children…until recently. Explain a new idea, produce scores of examples of that idea, and get the students to work on those examples and come up with the right answers.

Subtraction, division, decimals, spelling, reading—it all works the same basic way.

For the last hundred years or so, however, we’ve seen the gradual intrusion of Teacher ADHD.

School text ADHD.

Not enough examples. Not enough exercises.

Education has nothing to do with “improving the self-esteem” of the student. It has nothing to do with telling children they’re valuable. And it certainly has nothing to do with trying to embed social values and team spirit in children.

No matter how many fantasies educators spin, schools can’t replace parents.

If what I’m writing here seems cruel and uncaring…look at the other side of the picture. Look at what happens when a student emerges from school with a half-baked, “dumbed-down” education.

He can sort of read. He can sort of write. He sort of understands arithmetic. He tries to skate through the rest of his life. He fakes it. He adopts a front to conceal the large territory of what he doesn’t know.

He certainly can’t think straight. Give him three ideas in succession and he’s lost. He goes on overload.

He operates on association. You say A and he goes to G right away. You go back to A and he responds with R. He’s up the creek without a paddle.

That’s what’s cruel.

Forty years ago, I was on the verge of landing a lucrative job with a remedial education company. The owner gave me a lesson plan and told me to write a sample program.

I did. He looked at it and said, “There are too many examples and exercises here. You have to move things along faster.”

I told him the students would never comprehend the program that way. They had to work on at least 20 exercises for each new concept.

He was shocked. “That’s not how it’s done now,” he said.

“Oh,” I said, “you mean now the student and teacher both fake it?”

And that was the end of that.

Several years ago, I explained much of what’s in this article to a sociologist at a US university. His response: “Children are different now. They don’t have patience. There are too many distractions. We have to operate from a new psychology.”

I asked him what that psychology was.

“Children are consumers. They pick and choose. We have to accommodate them.”

While I was laughing at his assessment, he capped his display of wisdom with this: “There is no longer a division between opinion and fact.”

Perfect.

I know all about how the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations torpedoed education in America. But their major effort was cutting off teachers and students from the history of the nation and the meaning of individual freedom.

What I’m talking about here is a different perversion. The unhinging of the young mind from any semblance of accomplishment and continuity. This goes far beyond the agenda of outfitting children to be worker-drones in a controlled society.

This is the induction of confusion and despair about what used to be called thinking. This is the imprinting of “gaps” that make it very hard for a person to operate, even as a drone.

In addition, seed children with all sorts of debilitating psychiatric drugs, and you have a profound mess that only dedicated parents can undo, one child at a time.

People may wish it weren’t so, but that doesn’t change the facts of the matter.

The upside is, when you explain a concept to a child, and you then take him through a great many exercises designed to help him understand that concept, he’ll achieve a victory.

When you see the lights go on in his mind, it’s very satisfying.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE 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

Genetic invasion: distorting the human future

Genetic invasion: distorting the human future

Are you non-material, or just a programmed brain?

by Jon Rappoport

May 12, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

First, read these two quotes from highly regarded academic scientists, to catch the flavor of the genetic revolution:

From Lee Silver, Princeton, molecular biologist and author of Remaking Eden:

“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—[will] all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class…

“Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.

“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.

“Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of repro[grammed]-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”

Here is another gem, from Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

One scientist says we might lose half of all species getting where we want to go, genetically speaking, and the other says the process will inevitably be guided by wealth and the free market, thus creating two distinct classes of humans, the higher of which has far superior abilities -and they’ll run things.

Aren’t you thrilled? If you make it through, you may turn out to be half-biological, half-technological.

Plexiglass head, two cameras for eyes, titanium feet. Whatever.

But here’s a question. Suppose scientists could take a tiny sample of tissue from you and thereby produce a perfect clone, down to the last iota, including, of course, your brain.

Would that be you?

A surprising number of people think so. Just as they believe, with their brains frozen at death, they could come alive again when “the science has advanced far enough.”

Other people would say, “Well, the clone of me is not me, but if we could plant my memories in him, he’d be very close.”

All of this presupposes that the physical material of you is you…and there isn’t anything else to add.

I have news. That perfect clone of you is just going to stand there. Or if he moves, he’s going to operate as a machine. Programmed for every twitch.

“Yes, but if his programming is the same as mine, then who can tell the difference? What difference would there be?”

A world of difference.

You being you, wearing a human form, is a far cry from a machine that looks like you being a machine.

Discuss among yourselves. Discuss for a long time, because nothing more than the future of the human race is riding on this.

Perhaps you’ve noticed, in recent years, how the societal fixation on the human body and what it looks like is becoming massive.

From issues of race and gender to cosmetics to clothes to “performance” to medical interventions, it’s all about the person as if he’s already a clone, an android.

For the people with such an obsession, do you really think there is any hesitation about playing genetic roulette, other than official assurances of workability?

Here’s another clue. When they come calling with new genes, and when they insert them, when they use those genes “to make your brain better,” do you think the you that is you, independent of your physical form, is going to adapt?

“Well, I’ll just learn the new system. It’s like moving from a small apartment into a big house. You walk around, you get used to it.”

Really? Understand that the genetic enthusiasts don’t for a second believe there is any you to learn anything. To them, you’re just an operating system, and any system will function smoothly, as it’s directed to.

If wholesale genetic intervention takes hold, there are lots of very unpleasant surprises ahead.

Consider the psychiatric drugs like Zoloft and Paxil. You know, the drugs that scramble neurotransmitters like eggs in a cheap diner, and cause some people to commit suicide or randomly kill others. Now multiply the uncertainty of that effect by a hundred or a thousand, when wholesale genetic changes are enacted.

You were aiming to become the next Mozart? And instead you wound up burning down half the city? Just a glitch in the research. They’ll eventually iron out the problem. Take the long view. Don’t worry, be happy.

The debate comes down to who controls, yes, the philosophy. Not the science, the philosophy. Is each human merely and only a system, or is he non-material, inhabiting a physical form?

We already know what the vast majority of brain researchers and geneticists believe, as well as the governments and corporations and universities and foundations that make important decisions.

Of course, these days, the college faculty department considered to be the least important, the most useless, a mere appendage waiting for those with wisdom to put it out of its misery and kill it off…is the philosophy department.

That leaves us to take up the philosophic argument.

Not Lee Silver at Princeton or Gregory Stock or Bill Gates or George Soros or David Rockefeller or the Pope or Stephen Hawking or Obama or the Clintons or Monsanto or Dow or the Bush family or PBS or FOX or some wackadoodle at Harvard or MIT or UCLA.

Us.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE 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

The artist within

The artist within

by Jon Rappoport

May 7, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

“The techniques of artificial intelligence are to the mind what bureaucracy is to human social interaction.” Terry Winograd

The employees of a major corporation, Systems X Unlimited, have just been informed of a major change: one of their middle managers is now going to be an AI. An android.

He is called Mike. He’s a programmed entity from top to bottom. A non-human lookalike.

Surprisingly, the employees fall into line immediately.

They all agree that Mike’s a “good guy.” Mike shows up on time, he talks like real person, he issues orders, he listens to their problems, he occasionally takes long breaks, he does pretty much everything Bob, their former (human) boss, did.

After a year, the people in personnel come to the office and interview Mike’s underlings. When they ask the key question, “How do you like working for a boss who isn’t a person at all but instead is a pure machine?”, they shrug and stare off into the middle distance, as if the query is meaningless…

One night, Mike is wandering alone in the office picking through waste bins—his favorite pastime, off-hours—and he comes across a wrinkled piece of gray paper. He separates it from a wad of chewing gum, unfolds it, and reads the text:

“The artist within is not a creature of habit. He offloads what is already known and understood, because he wants to reach farther.

“Yes, he may build on what he already knows, but this is just the starting point. Soon, he moves across the threshold of the knight errant, and he enters the non-system.

“Others mock him and call him crazy, but: they too want to make the journey. They are aching to find the New, because boredom is driving them crazy. That is their central problem, no matter what they say and claim.

“They are trying to be smug and self-satisfied. They are trying to be oh so normal. They are trying to be “rational” to the bitter end. They are trying to be something that is slowly strangling them.

“But they will never admit it.

“Most of all, they will avoid the impulse to create. Creating is their greatest fear. Because they sense they will have to get rid of their pose. They will have to go beyond systems, which compose their armor.

“They will have to make a leap. They will have to put something new into the world and defend it against the people they know all too well: critics.

“The artist who has already made the leap acknowledges that his core is imagination. He lives through and by it. He doesn’t retreat to the average. He doesn’t give up and strive to become a happy machine. He doesn’t allow the world to dictate to him. He doesn’t sedate himself.

“He doesn’t fall back on so-called spiritual systems and their slogans and palliatives. He doesn’t build false gods and pretend they already exist. He doesn’t engage in the daily practice of asking someone or something to save him.

“He doesn’t think of his life as an exercise in solving problems. He sees through many lies, but that is just the beginning of his work.

“He wants new and startling realities, and he makes them. He doesn’t wait for them to appear.

“He doesn’t wait for some ‘superior entity’ to tell him what to do.”

Mike, the android middle manager, reads these words and is thrown back in his chair. He doesn’t understand…but something foreign and dangerous is leaking through to him.

He puts in a call to his repair consultant, Ollie, at home.

Ollie is watching CSI reruns and eating pizza. He picks up the call, and Mike says:

“I have a bleed-in.”

“Hold on,” Ollie says. He punches a code on his phone and beams Mike a set of systems-check commands.

A minute later, a holo takes shape in space between Ollie and his TV set. He examines it.

“Yes, Mike,” Ollie says, “an alien substrate of thought got into your central simulator. I’ll remove it.”

“Wait,” Mike says. “I want to know what it means.”

“Doesn’t mean anything,” Ollie says. “It’s just a distraction.”

“Then why am I worried,” Mike says.

“Because we built you to experience that feeling whenever an intrusion occurs. It tips us to a problem.”

Pause.

“I see,” Mike says. “So it’s not a threat.”

“Of course not,” Ollie says. “There are no threats. You function within established parameters.”

Ollie picks up a wand next to the pizza box and uses it to carve away the new substrate from the holo of Mike’s central simulator.

“Feel better now?” Ollie says.

“Not really,” Mike says.

Ollie sighs, stands up, and walks over to his computer. He opens a page of code, searches for Repair Section 6-A, and relays three lines to Mike.

“How about that?” Ollie says.

“Yes,” Mike says. “You want me to report to manufacturing. That’s good. Home base. What will they do?”

“Institute a deeper search pattern, root out the shadows and reboot you. Takes about an hour.”

“Then I’m back to work?”

“No. They’ll bump you over to R&D for investigation. They’re interested in checking out lingering after-effects of intrusions. Then they’ll reassign you.”

“Okay,” Mike says.

The next morning at the office, there’s a new Mike in place.

One of his assistants notices his hair is slightly lighter.

“Did you get a dye-job, boss?” she says.

“No,” the new Mike says. “I swam in the pool. The chlorine must have bleached it a little.”

She nods and goes to the cafeteria for a cup of coffee.

For the next six weeks, NSA, who has been alerted to the momentary Mike glitch, keys in a Level 4 surveillance operation on all the people in Mike’s section.

The results reveal no distraction has occurred. The Essential Flow remains undisturbed.

Business as usual.

As for the old Mike, the first one, a year later he is running for a seat in the State Senate in Ohio. On his website, Mike Is Good For America, he writes:

“A campaign for the Presidency some day is a possibility. Like many Americans who have been downgraded and cast aside, I’m on my way back. I’m with the common people. I’m one of them. Our day is coming. We can imagine and create our own future…”

Back in the offices of Systems X Unlimited, an employee notices the striking resemblance of this Senate candidate to her own boss, Mike 2. She shrugs it off. Many people look alike these days. It’s some sort of genetic trend.

She shows a picture of Mike 1 to Mike 2. He says, “I bet his favorite ice cream isn’t cherry-vanilla-pecan-peach. He and I couldn’t be the same. Not completely.”

She giggles.

She likes her job. Work is fun.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE 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