Proof: the program to erase the individual

England, Australia, Canada, USA: poof

The program to erase the individual

by Jon Rappoport

August 13, 2015

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

“The less government we have, the better, — the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of formal Government [taking more power for itself], is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual.” (Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1844)

“If it were felt that the free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being…there would be no danger that liberty should be undervalued.” (John Stuart Mill, 1859)

“If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” (Henry David Thoreau, 1854)

“Art is individualism, and individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine.” (Oscar Wilde, 1891)

I could have added a number of other countries to those in the title of this article. In those I mentioned, there was once a tradition of the free and independent and unique individual. That tradition has faded like a photo on an old postcard.

The individual is now considered a) a criminal by definition, or b) a member of a group defined solely by ethnicity, color, religion, gender, or c) either in the 1% or the 99%.

But the individual is not considered to be himself/herself. Certainly not. Anything but.

In any of these countries, go back through the speeches of recent presidents and prime ministers and try to find a significant, positive, extensive mention of the individual. Good luck.

These days, mention “private property” and “individual” in the same sentence, and if you’re understood at all, chances are you’ll be labeled with some slur—because public-everything is supposed to be the utopian answer to humankind’s ills.

At one time, it was believed that a centuries-long struggle to liberate the individual from both church and king was meaningful. It was where history was heading. It was about more than economics. Freedom of thought and expression had something to do with it. Of course, the individual had to have an operating mind, if his independent thoughts were to add up to anything.

The power of the individual. That phrase carried a message. It was well-received. The idea that government existed in order to enforce a basic minimum of laws which would support the individual; that idea made sense.

The idea that innovations were made by the individual, not the committee. That notion had currency.

But this trend stalled and reversed.

It reversed, for example, in the hands of people suddenly called social scientists. These were bloviating academic analysts of societies, who were unleashed to pontificate opinions as if they had been confirmed by laboratory experiments.

One of the founders of sociology, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), coined the phrase “collective consciousness.” Durkheim insisted there were “inherent” qualities that existed in society apart from individuals. Exposing his own absurd theory, he went so far as to claim suicide was one of those qualities, as if the “phenomenon” were present beyond any individual choice to end life.

He wrote: “Man is the more vulnerable to self-destruction the more he is detached from any collectivity, that is to say, the more he lives as an egoist.”

In other words, according to Burkheim, the individual who rejects the norms and conformity of society must be wrapped up in himself in some morally repugnant way. There are no other alternatives. He’s either part of the collective or he’s tinged with criminality.

In his book, The Division of Labour in Society (1893) (wikipedia), Burkheim spun moral conscience in the following fashion: “…Make yourself usefully fulfill a determinate function.” He cited this as a kind of command issued by collective consciousness. This is the presentation of the individual human as machine-cog.

From the mud of sociology’s beginnings, the long sordid history of the academic discipline brings us to something like this. Peter Callero, of the department of sociology, Western Oregon University, has written a book titled: The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives (2013, 2nd Ed):

“Most people today believe that an individual is a person with an independent and distinct identification. This, however, is a myth.”

Staggering. But as public relations and propaganda experts have learned, hauling a really huge lie in front of the public gives you a better chance of being believed than telling a small lie does.

When Callero writes “distinct identification,” he isn’t talking about ID cards and Social Security numbers. He’s asserting there is no significant difference between any two people. There aren’t two individuals to begin with. They’re a group.

This downgrading of the individual human spirit is far from accidental. It’s launched as a sustained propaganda campaign, the ultimate purpose of which is top-down control over the population.

Here’s another gem:

“The cold truth is that the individualist creed of everybody for himself and the devil take the hindmost is principally responsible for the distress in which Western civilization finds itself — with investment racketeering at one end and labor racketeering at the other. Whatever merits the creed may have had in the days of primitive agriculture and industry, it is not applicable in an age of technology, science, and rationalized economy. Once useful, it has become a danger to society.” (Charles Beard, 1931)

Beard, a celebrated historian, sees no difference between individual racketeering and the individual freely choosing and living his own life. In making this judgment, he becomes an intellectual/propaganda racketeer of the highest order.

One more:

“British empiricist philosophy is individualist. And it is of course clear that if the only criterion of true and false which a man accepts is that man’s, then he has no base for social agreement. The question of how man ought to behave is a social question, which always involves several people; and if he accepts no evidence and no judgment except his own, he has no tools with which to frame an answer.” (Jacob Bronowski, Science and Human Values, 1956).

Bronowski is quite sure that hearing other people’s evidence and then keeping one’s own counsel is wrong. One has to accept that evidence on its face. This is sheer idiocy. Individuals are capable of deciding, on their own, what social agreements to enter into. They aren’t permanently enmeshed from birth.

Even more to the point, Beard and Bronowski were both high-achieving individuals—who then turned around and celebrated the kind of society that would try to flatten and level the individual to an average.

The world has many such experts. They rise high enough and then they preach collectivism. They become social meddlers. They believe they have the tools to plan what kind of world we should live in—since they are not part of that world anymore.

Freed from the obligations with which they want to bind us, they can scheme and fantasize about social, economic, and political constructs in which The Group is all.

This is elitism par excellence.


What is the primary power of the individual? It is the power to create. If that idea seems shop-worn or vague, it is only because the creative force of the individual has been purposefully downgraded from a hurricane to a drizzle. The force is now viewed with a blank stare of non-recognition—or it has been transferred over to used car salesmen and other hustlers who have rebranded themselves as self-improvement gurus, who reduce their proclamations to the language of infomercials.

Cheapening the most profound human impulses and energies is part and parcel of engendering a civilization that looks, sounds, feels, and tastes like a cartoon. We live in it. It is often vicious and painful for many people, but it is a cartoon. Intellectually, it imitates life with shortened perspectives and short-circuited ideas.

But…the individual does not have to buy any of this. The individual can refuse. He can take up a different position. He can invent from the platform of his own freedom.

He doesn’t have to play the part of idiot or slave.

He can reject the collective and the group. He can pursue the unlimited space that opens up when he is launching his best future.

The tradition of the individual, in the nations where it once existed, where it was fought for, may be dead; but the individual himself is not dead.

He can find his way. He can return to the center. He can live through and by his own imagination, come hell or high water.

He can walk away from every fungus-ridden collectivist scheme and invent his own destiny.

He can stop prostrating himself before the billion possible little phony gods the salesmen are selling.

The endless volleys of contemporary criticism aimed at “the human species” and its desecrations, crimes, and insanities do not distinguish The Group from the individual. They attempt to bury the individual, but they fail.

You are not everyone else, and everyone else is not you. That absurd prescription is glazed, re-fried, many-times-boiled, and sold-on-a-stick “ancient Asian wisdom,” in modern-mall “spiritual centers” of the West. It has been recycled to conceal its collectivist message.

The individual, no matter how hard he tries, can’t rid himself of his independence, creative-force, power, or freedom. He can induce amnesia, but somewhere within himself, he knows what he is doing.


exit from the matrix


Dedicated slaves are a dime a dozen. But there was once a tradition in some nations, and it stood for the unique individual. It was real. It was never perfect; far from it. But it existed. That tradition was hijacked and turned inside out.

As the battle for individual freedom and independence gained ground, education was seen as the means to teach boys and girls what it meant to be a citizen in a limited Republic. That was a major purpose of schooling.

But as education was turned into a quacking duck, as too many students refused to learn, as too many teachers refused to teach, as too many citizens didn’t care, as government slyly expanded its reach and size and control, the public education experiment went down the drain. And so did limited government.

The resurrection of the individual by the individual is now the course. It can only be understood by those who know that “average” and “normal” aren’t the objectives.

There are many, many people who are living half-blind, while believing that they can see clearly, and that everyone else should see on this level. That is another feature of the cartoon.

Don’t buy the cartoon.

The group has no creative power or imagination. It merely pretends it does. It passes a gross imitation from hand to hand…and if it ever stops, it will find dust, only dust…

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

14 comments on “Proof: the program to erase the individual

  1. Jon, this is a great article because it highlights the real issue. The real issue is not found in what you’ve written, but in the implications or “hidden text”.

    The problem is not the “group”, but, rather, the individual. So blaming the group for individuals’, quite frankly, cowardly choices in fact does little more than perpetuate the real issue.

    That is the one that I highlighted before. Because individuals refuse to detach themselves from “the group” they seek new groups or, more specifically, new champions for a cause. For their own inadequate, cowardly, flawed decisions, individuals, yep you’ve got it, blame the group. Hope manifests in the form of the front runners and the prospect of new groups.

    Now, because the cowardice of man is so entrenched, the new White Hopes must offer at least 80% of old dialogue to be believed. That ties in with my other observation last time. In order to justify their weak, pathetic states, individuals would rather deny the truth or deflect by playing “blame game”.

    That’s why my Ozzie Thinker blog is so popular…..NOT!!!!

  2. Mervyn says:

    Thank you and God Bless you for this.

    Rudolf Steiner expressed himself most pointedly on the Jesuit Order in a conversation with Count Polzer-Hoditz that took place on 3 March 1925, only a few weeks before his death. Something like a testamental statement can be heard through these words:

    “But always keep in mind: the Jesuits have taken spirituality from human beings, they are totally identified with the power of the Roman state.”

    The struggle, in other words the sin, against the spirit, is their means of gaining dominance. It is the only sin that scripture says shall not be forgiven [Mathew 12, 31]. But the spirit cannot be totally extirpated, although only a few will carry it into the future

    • @Merv

      Very good comment.

      Thank you.

      • mervyn caplan says:

        The time will come — and it may not be far off — when quite different tendencies will come up at a congress like the one held in 1912 and people will say: It is pathological for people to even think in terms of spirit and soul. ‘Sound’ people will speak of nothing but the body. It will be considered a sign of illness for anyone to arrive at the idea of any such thing as a spirit or a soul. People who think like that will be considered to be sick and — you can be quite sure of it — a medicine will be found for this. At Constantinople the spirit was made non-existent. The soul will be made non-existent with the aid of a drug. Taking a ‘sound point of view’, people will invent a vaccine to influence the organism as early as possible, preferably as soon as it is born, so that this human body never even gets the idea that there is a soul and a spirit.

        The two philosophies of life will be in complete opposition. One movement will need to reflect how concepts and ideas may be developed to meet the reality of soul and spirit. The others, the heirs of modern materialism, will look for the vaccine to make the body ‘healthy’, that is, makes its constitution such that this body no longer talks of such rubbish as soul and spirit, but takes a ‘sound’ view of the forces which live in engines and in chemistry and let planets and suns arise from nebulae in the cosmos. Materialistic physicians will be asked to drive the souls out of humanity.

        People who think that playful ideas will help them to look ahead to the future are very much mistaken. We need serious, profound ideas to look ahead to the future. Anthroposophy is not a game, nor just a theory; it is a task that must be faced for the sake of human evolution.

        – See more at: http://wn.rsarchive.org/GA/GA0177/19171007p01.html

  3. Dimitri says:

    We tend to identify government and education as the main entities wanting to erase the individual. Each person needs to examine whether their personal individuality is under attack from these: church (groupthink, thought-stopping), healthcare system (statistical approach to individual decision making vs. expert insight), job (compliance vs. creativity), family (cementing the group and keeping the peace vs. nurturing each individual). The more you rely on these groups, the greater potential for abusive control and the more difficulty in breaking free.

  4. jim says:

    Jon, Great article. as usual…
    this is a reminder to go easy on us idiots… meaning “ordinary person, layman; outsider” or…
    [my preference] literally a “private person”… as opposed to a LEGAL FICTION…
    Your words have iron…
    they are as an oasis in a M-S-Media desert
    renewing; invigorating; stimulating one’s thought process… jim

    idiot (n.)
    from Latin idiota “ordinary person, layman; outsider,” in Late Latin “uneducated or ignorant person,” from Greek idiotes “layman, person lacking professional skill” (opposed to writer, soldier, skilled workman), literally “private person (as opposed to one taking part in public affairs),” used patronizingly for “ignorant person,” from idios “one’s own”

  5. farsight3 says:

    Reblogged in German with som additional thoughts at http://wp.me/p5gE0B-xF

  6. One of my early reading assignments in school was Jacob Bronowski’s “Ascent of Man”. It had a lot of the elements of socialism in it too.

    – “Of all the things ever invented or innovated, society could only come up with mediocrity as its banner creation. And mankind has been accursed of it, ever since!

    – Rev. Dragon’s Eye

    • Theodore says:

      the “mediocrity” quote is by him?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ascent_of_Man

      “The book of the series, The Ascent of Man: A Personal View, is an almost word-for-word transcript from the television episodes, diverging from Bronowski’s original narration only where the lack of images might make its meaning unclear. A few details of the film version were omitted from the book, notably Episode 11, ‘Knowledge or Certainty.’

      Episodes

      * Lower than the Angels — Evolution of humans from proto-ape to the modern form 400,000 years ago.

      * The Harvest of the Seasons — Early human migration, agriculture and the first settlements, and war.

      * The Grain in the Stone — Tools, and the development of architecture and sculpture.

      * The Hidden Structure — Fire, metals and alchemy.

      * Music of the Spheres — The language of numbers and mathematics.

      * The Starry Messenger — Galileo’s universe—and the implications of his trial on the shift to “northern” science.

      * The Majestic Clockwork — Explores Newton and Einstein’s laws.

      * The Drive for Power — The Industrial Revolution and the effect on everyday life.

      * The Ladder of Creation — Darwin and Wallace’s ideas on the origin of species.

      * World within World — The story of the periodic table—and of the atom.

      * Knowledge or Certainty — Physics and the clash of the pursuit of absolute vs. imperfect knowledge, and the misgivings of the scientists realizing the terrible outcome of the conflict. Auschwitz. Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      * Generation upon Generation — The joys of life, sex, and genetics—and the dark side of cloning.

      * The Long Childhood — Bronowski’s treatise on the commitment of humanity.

      • Theodore says:

        Episode 1 — Lower than the Angels

      • I very rarely use “WikiPedia” as an actual source, but once in a “blue-moon”, I do find something.

        The point being (as seemed clear enough to me in this article), is that systems of political power (tyrants, namely) universally use the works, opinions, and various books by such authors of a “socialist bent”, as “expert” basis for their political policies. This has always been the case through the lifetimes of the various empires. Jacob Bronowski is fairly dry reading, but the strong emphasis on society over individualism is unmistakeable.

  7. fromawaysite says:

    Reblogged this on Today,s Thought and commented:
    Taking a quick survey between my ears of people I know, only 2 % understand this awareness.

  8. Andy says:

    “As the battle for individual freedom and independence gained ground, education was seen as the means to teach boys and girls what it meant to be a citizen in a limited Republic. That was a major purpose of schooling.”

    “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” ~ Lysander Spooner, 1869, No Treason: The Constitution Of No Authority

    • @ Andy

      He is spot on. The constitution, as I have always maintained, has to be underpinned by the will of the executors to be of any value to the people. As it [the constitution] contravenes the basic objectives of power and control, why would government executors oblige the people, given the unarguable relationship finance has with the fiduciary affairs of law making and governance per se?

      Thus, those with the money win and constitutional liberty is consumed by the bonfire of make-believe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s