Breaking: It isn’t the genes; the genes don’t rule

Breaking: It isn’t the genes: the genes don’t rule

by Jon Rappoport

May 10, 2018

In the grab-bag field of research involving human genes, some biologists have speculated that the 20,000 components of the genome are not enough to explain human function and behavior.

They have gone to another level—there must be additional programming that directs the genes to carry out multiple tasks.

This is all about cause and effect. In this case, the effect is everything a human does or thinks or feels. The cause would be whatever controls genetic activity.

When rare critics point out that explaining human life is different from explaining, say, a consecutive series of billiard balls striking each other on a table, researchers shrug it off.

One biologist I interviewed several years ago told me, “This is the way science works. We start with a simple model of causation, and then, over time, we adjust that model so it can account for a wider range of effects.”

I said, “But suppose you eventually run up against the idea that an individual has free will? He can unilaterally decide to take an action, without any prior genetic determination.”

“That’s impossible,” he said.

“What makes you so sure?”

For that, he had no answer.

Genetic theory is just the latest in a long line of ideas proposed to lock the human being into a structure. The will of the gods, the divine right of kings, demons, Oedipus Complex, brain chemistry, etc.

Every era and age has its preferred hypothesis about causation—which tries to shrink down what a human can accomplish.

And each of these explanations for human behavior is aimed at submerging the individual into an overall context that is far more important than he is.

Now, in the first flush of widespread computer use, many people have concluded that “the human species” is basically a design group. We build machines that think and solve and collate and organize. Soon, those machines will design other devices. And so on and so forth.

If you follow this line of reasoning far enough, you will come to the place where human beings are pictured as machines whose final function is to re-design THEMSELVES…to become better automatic machines.

Then the absurdity is complete.

For centuries, philosophers and pundits and propagandists have debated the question of free will, which is like debating whether there is a sky and clouds. Free will and choice are obvious.

But when people tie themselves up in the issue of cause and effect, and when they exaggerate its importance beyond any rational boundary, and when they are looking for a way to remain entirely passive, they “discover” there is no freedom. They say that every thought and action has a cause, and that cause is beyond human control.

Then they rest. Then they decide that all power stands outside themselves.

Then they act like robots.

Then they play that role.

They never stop to think that playing the robot-role implies they can be phased out—because, face it, non-human machines make much better robots than humans do.

If you want a full robot, you don’t pick a human.

On the other end of the spectrum, a free human making free choices and knowing he is making those choices—well, that explodes the whole lock-and-key myth of cause and effect.

That is a refutation. Some might even call it a revelation.

I’ve written a number of articles about The True Rebel. The Rebel stands outside the dominant myths. He rejects ideas and thoughts that claim he is less and less powerful. He refuses to knuckle under when the “robot makers” come calling. He sees the system that wants to absorb him. He sees how freedom is being managed and buried. I’m not talking about “crazy and irresponsible rebels.” Quite the opposite. The True Rebel is the sane one.

The question is, what is he going to do with his sanity?

Answering that question has been an ongoing action of mine for the past 35 years. My three Matrix collections form a major, major answer. My articles take apart various components of limiting myths and knock them over. I’m on the side of the true rebel. I want him to succeed. I want him to bloom in all his glory.

Every highly technological civilization eventually founders on the rocks of its own ideas. Particularly those ideas which eat into freedom and substitute determinism. Naturally, it is science which leads the way into the blind alley of brick walls and the vapid desert of passivity. Science is hijacked to explain why humans are pawns.

Scientists are enlisted to act like buffoons. They are essentially saying, “I’m here to freely explain to you that there is no freedom.”

Cue the laughter. Thunderous laughter.

Many, many years ago, in my youth, a dour psychiatrist told me he was “driven” to accept the human brain as the bottom-line cause of all action and perception, because, otherwise, he wouldn’t be a psychiatrist. Somehow, I wasn’t impressed by his approach. I asked him how he felt about his “position.”

“Rather depressed,” he said.

I then asked him if he was taking medication to treat his condition.

He said no. He would press on with his work, which was: upholding the scientific establishment.

Rather grim.

The emperor really doesn’t have any clothes.

I told him that, for me, freedom was electric.

He nodded sadly.

The robot psychiatrist…


Exit From the Matrix

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


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.

There are heroes: Peter Breggin

There are heroes: Peter Breggin

Breggin.com

by Jon Rappoport

May 1, 2018

“I met a charming man today. Highly educated, a conversationalist of the first order, but with an underlying toughness, which I like. A tiger with very high IQ. But a friendly tiger who enjoys other people. To say he’s an excellent researcher would be a vast understatement. I can’t explain how all these qualities center in one man. Also, there is a sense he has great empathy. I suspect some of this comes from living with his wife, Ginger. His name is Peter Breggin.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

In the flood of the Information Era…

Heroes come and depart, with the news cycle. They were here for a moment, blazing across the sky, and then they faded.

They made a stirring mark, they achieved a great feat, and then they were consigned to the shadows.

But there ARE heroes. And despite the fashions of the moment, they REMAIN.

I met Peter Breggin 25 years ago. He was speaking before a group in Los Angeles about a project he had helped stop; a sinister university experiment to do invasive brain surgery on criminals and “pre-criminals” as a “cure.”

There is no way I can detail all of Peter’s accomplishments. A doctor and a psychiatrist, he has led a courageous struggle to expose his own profession down to its fraudulent roots. If you think that’s easy to do, from the inside, think again.

Through his work, he has shown us that the whole basis of modern psychiatry—mental disorders caused by chemical imbalances in the brain—is an unsupported and convenient speculation, designed to market toxic drugs.

His 1991 classic, Toxic Psychiatry, laid bare the devastating effects of the drugs.

In the same time period, Peter testified, as an expert witness, in the famous Wesbecker case, a lawsuit against Eli Lilly, the manufacturing of Prozac. Peter presented compelling evidence that Joseph Wesbecker, who had gone on a shooting rampage after being put on the drug, was pushed over the edge by Prozac.

In fact, as Peter has shown, the effort to develop and market hundreds of dangerous psychiatric drugs stemmed from an agreement between the profession of psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies. Faced with a rapid decline in business, psychiatry needed a major boost. Pharma provided funding, and psychiatric researchers began inventing scores of new “mental disorders,” for which the only treatment was the drugs.

Yet, none of the present 300 official disorders has a lab test to confirm its existence.

Recently, Peter and his wife, Ginger, have pioneered Empathic Therapy. Peter writes: “An empathic approach allows a therapist to use the healing power of professional therapy relationships rather than the mechanical or chemical manipulation of the brain. The goal of therapy is to help clients maximize their ability to be empathic and loving toward themselves and others, to live ethically, and to become autonomous and self-determining in the fulfillment of all their chosen goals and ideals. In contrast, biological psychiatry views people as objects and suppresses their feelings with brain-disabling treatments, thereby interfering with the development of empathy and love, and the ability to take rationally determined actions based on sound values.”

Those words should be posted in tall letters in every therapist’s office.

As a friend, Peter has meant a great deal to me. Over the years, he has encouraged my investigations into psychiatry and interviewed me several times on his radio show, so I could present my findings.

He has illustrated that the battle for the truth is a marathon, and we must be prepared for the long term and the long haul.

Several years ago, while I was working as an associate producer on the documentary, American Addict, I told the director, Sasha Knezev, to just put Peter on camera and let it roll. Peter is a genuine star, in the best sense of that word, and audiences in his presence are treated to the magnetic quality of his depictions of truth vs. lies.

Peter takes that real-life human drama to rare heights and depths.

What happens to the individual in the grip of a corrupt institution, versus the true potential of the individual, is at the forefront of Peter’s concern.

He has never surrendered, never given up the ghost, and he never will.

With Empathetic Therapy, he is training a whole new generation of therapists to, first and foremost, care about people. This is the heart of healing.

With this brief article, Peter, I salute you and thank you for your decades of tireless and brilliant work. You hold a torch and you light the way.

We dream of heroes, and we should. But we also need to recognize the living heroes, here and now, who are among us.


The Matrix Revealed

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


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.

Facebook censorship: the grotesque mainstream solution

Facebook censorship: the grotesque mainstream solution

by Jon Rappoport

April 11, 2018

The problem with Facebook started a long time ago. They used their money to promote their social media operations, and tons of users jumped on board, believing that conventional rules of free speech applied.

That was a mistake.

The mistake was on the level of believing the military-industrial complex is only interested in legitimate defense of the nation; or believing the pharmaceutical industry is only interested in alleviating existing illness with safe drugs.

Some lawyers and scholars are trying to “correct” Facebook. But beware: most of them are arguing that, since the Internet is a new platform, far beyond the ability of the Founding Fathers to have anticipated, we now have to change the meaning of the 1st Amendment, in order to make social media “more responsible” about the content they permit. In other words, Facebook should eliminate “more fake news.” This is the road to disaster, as any sane person can see.

Who decides what is fake? Government appointed fact checkers? The CIA? Either of the two major political parties? A biased hate speech organization?

These scholars and attorneys want social media to be defined as “public square, town hall, news media”—but not so public that all political views are allowed through the door. No. They only want “reasonable” content, to protect “robust debate in a democracy.” This is pure baloney.

We’re also seeing increasing calls for government regulation of social media. This means more censorship. We’re witnessing that in California, where State Senator Richard Pan has introduced a bill (SB 1424), designed to force all Internet activity based in California to use designated fact checkers and issue warnings about fake news.

It may seem like a good move to redefine social media giants as “more than private companies,” but that direction is dangerous. In the main, it’s not being shaped by true free-speech advocates, it’s controlled by mainstream operatives who want their news to dominate the scene.

A 10/11/17 Wired article contains this stunning piece: “’You cannot run a democratic system unless you have a well-informed public, or a public prepared to defer to well-informed elites,’ says Larry Kramer, president of the Hewlett Foundation and an expert in constitutional law. ‘And we are now rapidly heading toward neither. Without one or the other, our constitutional system and our liberal democracy will end, perhaps not imminently, but over time’.”

Defer to well-informed elites? Really? This is the mainstream argument right out in the open: The vaunted traditional news outlets speak the truth and we must listen to them. We must censor all the extraneous “noise” on the Internet. The NY Times and the Washington Post and CNN and CBS would never lie. They vet their stories and fact check them. They are objective. They light the lamp of truth and point the way. They protect democracy.

To mainstream scholars, improving social media means destroying the 1st Amendment under the guise of “adjusting and updating it.”

Eliminating hate speech includes censoring material that contradicts the “progressive culture” on issues like immigration, open borders, gun control, vaccination, and gender identity.

“Free speech” is replaced by “better speech.”

“I don’t like what you say” is replaced by “you have no right to say it.”

The very popular pro-Trump Diamond and Silk duo recently reacted to Facebook censorship: “…giving us the run around, Facebook gave us another bogus reason why Millions of people who have liked and/or followed our page no longer receives notification and why our page, post and video reach was reduced by a very large percentage. Here is the reply from Facebook. Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM: ‘The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community’.”

I guess Diamond and Silk are part of the dangerous noise that distracts the American people from “responsible journalism” so necessary to maintaining a robust democracy.

Yes, that must be it.

As far as I can tell, the following quote about the news was written before the Internet and Facebook existed, and therefore—heaven forbid—was actually aimed at mainstream sources:

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. . . . I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors.” (Thomas Jefferson, June 11, 1807)

Censor Jefferson! He’s contributing to doubt and disbelief in our most trusted streams of information. Ban him from Facebook! He’s unsafe to the community. He’s a corrosive influence. He’s obstructing democracy. He’s a conspiracy lunatic. The new and improved 1st Amendment doesn’t protect him. How can we conduct intelligent and proper debate on serious matters in the face of such blanket condemnations which he spews?

Yes, ban him, so we can be safe again.


Exit From the Matrix

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


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.

What is the immune system of the mind?

What is the immune system of the mind?

by Jon Rappoport

March 21, 2018

We’re familiar with the body’s immune system. It mounts a reaction to intruders, and in the process it swings into a full inflammatory response. Swelling occurs. Fever. The result, if the immune system is healthy, is the banishing of the intruders and a return to well-being. The body gains a victory—and the person builds confidence in his ability to stave off attacks.

The mind has the potential to operate in a similar fashion. But there are prerequisites. The mind needs basic ideas and principles on which to erect its response.

These basics are inherent in a healthy mind: the desire for freedom, for self-sufficiency, for the creation of a desired future, for committed work in that direction.

In the absence of these strong fundamentals, the mind will not mount a direct immune response against intruders. It will be clueless.

What are the intruders? Well, they are precisely the external influences that lessen, minimize, squelch, and sideline the inherent basics.

Whatever would challenge freedom, self-sufficiency, committed work on behalf of creating a desired future—THESE are the factors the mind’s immune system responds against.

But if the mind has been tuned to DEPENDENCE, all bets are off. The immune system is confused. It doesn’t respond swiftly and decisively. It is looking for, and favoring, more dependence, and so it is essentially working backwards. It has already let the opponent in the door.

When intruding ideas enter—ideas that try to reject freedom and self-sufficiency—the mind’s immune system allows them deep inside. There is no defense. There is no full inflammatory response.

When the mind is fortified with the basics, it sees these destructive ideas for what they are, and it nullifies them. There may be a period of crisis, during which the mind is sorting out thorny deceptions and coming to terms with them. But finally, it sees with clarity, and it wins.

What now passes for education plays a role here. If schools downplay the strength of the mind, if they offer a flabby flaccid curriculum over a period of years, the mind tends toward surrender. And the stepchild of surrender is dependence. Game over.

In the culture, these things used to be understood fairly well. That day is gone.

Now, it’s up to the individual.


Exit From the Matrix

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


(New piece up at my OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE blog entitled
“Physics, free will, and imagination”)


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.

Would the government let Jesus cure cancer?

Would the government let Jesus cure cancer?

by Jon Rappoport

March 14, 2018

In the 1990s, I watched a federal trial in a Los Angeles courtroom. The defendant was charged with selling medical drugs without a license to practice medicine.

The defendant was prepared to argue that a) the substance he was selling was naturally produced in the body and b) it was effective.

The prosecution moved to exclude such testimony, on the grounds that it was irrelevant.

The judge agreed. Therefore, the trial was nasty, brutish, and short. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to prison for several years.

This is how the federal bureaucracy operates. “Do you have a government-issued license to heal? No? You’re a criminal. End of story.”

I believe that if Jesus of Nazareth were walking the Earth today, in the United States, he would be arrested on the same grounds.

This would be particularly so if he were curing cancer.

Imagine this extreme case: In a stadium packed with 50,000 people who have been diagnosed with cancer, Jesus of Nazareth waves his hand and cures all of them in a few seconds.

Now he is threatening the profits of many companies, to say nothing of the power of the government, which backs the chemo-radiation-surgery monopoly to the hilt.

So he is arrested. He is put on trial. He opts to defend himself without an attorney. He tells the court that curing cancer is no crime.

The prosecuting attorney objects. “Your Honor,” he says, “whether or not this man has cured cancer is beside the point. He has no license to practice medicine. That is why we are here today. We are simply establishing that a) he was practicing medicine and b) he has no government-issued license. That is the scope of this proceeding.”

The judge agrees. The verdict is issued. Guilty.

Of course, on another front, the major media, who depend for their existence on pharmaceutical advertising, take the ball and run with it. The networks and major newspapers seek out “experts,” who emphatically state that what Jesus of Nazareth “performed” in the stadium was mere hypnotism. It was placebo effect. Whatever sudden “remissions” may have occurred are just temporary. Tragically, the cancers will return.

Not only that, these 50,000 people have effectively been sidetracked and diverted from seeking “real care from real doctors.” With chemo, with radiation, with surgery, they would have stood a chance of surviving and living long normal lives.

Other media pundits send up this flag: “Many of those present in the stadium were clinging bitterly to their religion. They refuse to accept science. They are living in the past. They favor superstition over real medical care. In fact, they are threatening the whole basis of healthcare, since other confused and deluded Americans may now turn away from doctors and seek snake-oil salesmen and preachers for healing.”

From the highest perches of political power in this country, the word quietly goes out to the media: don’t follow up on those people who were in the stadium; don’t try to track them; don’t compile statistics on their survival rates; move on to other stories (distractions); let this whole madness die down.

But among the citizenry, an awareness spreads: the government is controlling healing through its issuance of licenses. That’s how the government is essentially protecting one form of “healing” and enabling it to become an all-encompassing cartel.

What would be the alternative to licenses?

Contracts.

Contracts are agreements entered into by consenting adults, who assume responsibility for the outcomes. In the case of healing, a contract would specify that people have a right to be wrong.

Let’s say two consenting adults, Jim and Frank, agree to allow Frank to treat Jim for his arthritis with water from a well on Frank’s land.

The two men acknowledge that no liability will be attached to the outcome. In other words, whether Jim gets better or gets worse, no one is going file a suit. No one is going to go to the government for redress of wrongs.

The well water may be wonderful or it may be completely useless. Both men understand and acknowledge that. But they assert a right to try the treatment, because they are free.

Immediately people say, “This is ridiculous. Water can’t cure arthritis. Frank is cheating Jim. Jim is a victim. He needs to see a doctor. He needs to go on arthritis drugs.”

No, Jim doesn’t have to do anything. He is free.

To put it another way, Jim has the right to be right or wrong. It’s his decision, which is beyond the scope of any authority.

If government tries to remove that right from all of us, it is essentially saying it knows what is correct, it knows what is true, it knows what we need and require, and it’s going to give it to us even if it has to shove it down our throats. Does that sound like freedom to you?

If Jesus of Nazareth lived in the United States today, and if he went around curing cancer, he would be arrested. He wouldn’t be charged with blasphemy or treason. He would be charged with something much simpler and more mundane: practicing medicine without a license.

And he would be convicted and sentenced.

Because the government, in its throne of corruption, in its partnership with corporations, wants to monopolize proprietary and illegal interests.


Exit From the Matrix

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


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.

Illiteracy leads to censorship

Illiteracy leads to censorship

by Jon Rappoport

March 7, 2018

“…intellectual freedom is a deep-rooted tradition without which our characteristic western culture could only doubtfully exist. From that tradition many of our intellectuals are visibly turning away. They have accepted the principle that a book should be published or suppressed, praised or damned, not on its merits but according to political expediency. And others who do not actually hold this view assent to it from sheer cowardice.” (George Orwell, 1953)

When those who control public discourse, in a nation, see that they are losing to upstarts, that their flimsy ideas are being supplanted by much stronger ideas from these newcomers (who are actually traditionalists), the shocked controllers turn to the more direct strategy of censorship.

In terms of substance, and even popularity, the ministers of truth are losing; so they abandon reasoned discourse altogether. They desert this fertile, competitive, and NECESSARY territory. They no longer debate. They ban.

Among their supporters are crowds of illiterates.

There are many people who, because their education was a vaporous thing, have no interest in the written or spoken word.

The reason is obvious: they can’t read.

Their natural impulse is to make excuses. “Who needs books?” “People who write books are showing their privilege.”

For these excuse-makers, book burning would mean NOTHING. All that matters is: what slogans should I shout?

For the illiterate, a book is a mystery. How could anyone put all the words together and write one? Somehow, the author must have a secret method of downloading the book from an elite source, a cloud, a machine, a trick in their DNA.

A book, a report, an article, a study, an essay—millions of people in “advanced societies” don’t have a clue. When censorship tightens, who cares? It’s just words.

IT’S JUST WORDS.

Long ago, when I taught school, I had an experience I wish many people could share. Twenty children in a 10th-grade classroom. No student was reading up to that grade level. Each student was reading at a DIFFERENT (sub-standard) level. Time to teach reading. How could it be done? It couldn’t.

Elite societal players welcome illiteracy. They love it. It’s one of their cherished goals. Ignorance is good. More than that, illiterate people are easy to convince that repressive censorship isn’t a problem. It’s just something that “happens.”

If you don’t have “the right ideas,” you should be censored.

IT’S JUST WORDS.

Words are useless “things” like tacks and marbles and crayons and paper clips. Who cares?

“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.” (George Orwell, “1984”)

At its root, illiteracy becomes a form of reductionism. What can be comprehended, discussed, debated, or reasoned shrinks.

IT’S JUST WORDS.

Illiteracy is more effective than political correctness. Untold numbers of people can’t understand the sentences that are floating and flying by them every day. They register this by building up anger. Unfocused anger. They are perfect fodder for know-nothing social and political movements that requite violence and repression. After all, they were repressed, weren’t they? Weren’t they left hanging out in the wind by their education, their schooling? Now is the time for revenge.

Along the way, censorship becomes a very good thing. They were limited in what they learned; therefore, limit everyone else. Why not?

IT’S JUST WORDS.

There is a sub-text percolating in many, many schools: “All right, you students, this is your education. We’re going to keep you from learning the language. We’re going to hold it back from you. At the same time, we’re going to praise you and push you ahead from grade to grade. You’ll know something is wrong. But you’ll accept what we do to you. It’s easier. You’ll take a ride through school, and then we’ll dump you out into the world. We’re making rebels wholesale. Ignorant rebels. Rebels without the tools for THINKING. You’ll have to find a place where thinking isn’t important. Good luck. Here’s a suggestion. Find a group where all you have to do is yell and throw rocks. Learn what to yell. Demand your right to get EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING. That is all.”


Do you want a piece of interesting news? I can offer it, based on my experience of the past 17 years writing online. The declining system of education creates a vacuum. And into that vacuum, writers who do value language step forward, and they do present actual ideas. This is a large vacuum, so it can accommodate many writers.

They are creating new realities.

And readers show up.

Miracle of miracles.

These writers and readers are the “replacement team.” They are standing in for the colleges and universities and the sloganeers.

They are not censoring themselves or anyone else.

They are proliferating language, not reducing it.

Here is the secret: the history of humans reveals that language does, in fact, expand. It doesn’t lie down and die. It doesn’t wait for know-nothings to catch up. It doesn’t wait for anyone. Poets and novelists and playwrights and essayists find and invent new branches of word and thought.

Their present is the future. They are making the future every day.

And as far as pure ideas go, no matter how hard some people have tried, Jefferson and Madison and Tom Paine and John Adams are not dead yet. Their shaped principles embedded in sentences live on.

If at some point, the entire population of the planet were illiterate, except for four writers, those four would invent a new ocean that can’t be contained—and somehow, readers would show up.

Perhaps you think I’m describing a kind of magic, and maybe I am, but I’m also giving you ironclad fact. It has always been so.

The Internet may have been invented with machine language, but the writers who have appeared on it are multiplying their own language.

They are outdistancing the machine.

They always will.


Exit From the Matrix

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


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.

Bill Gates vs. freedom

Bill Gates vs. freedom

by Jon Rappoport

March 6, 2018

“Under the surface of this global civilization, a great and secret war is taking place. The two opponents hold different conceptions of Reality. On one side, those who claim that humans operate purely on the basis of stimulus-response, like machines; on the other side, those who believe there is a gigantic thing called freedom. Phase One of the war is already over. The stimulus-response people have won. In Phase Two, people are waking up to the far-reaching and devastating consequences of the Pavlovian program.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

“From the moment the first leader of the first clan in human history took charge, he busied himself with this question: ‘What can I say and do that will make my people react the way I want them to.’ He was the first Pavlov. He was the first psychologist, the first propagandist, the first mind-control boss. His was the first little empire. Since then, only the means and methods have changed.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

A thought-form is a picture-plus concept in the mind that tends to guide behavior.

A dominant thought-form in Earth civilization today is: universal rule through gigantic, highly organized structures; e.g., mega-corporations that owe no allegiance to any nation.

Imagine a few thousand such corporations with interlocking boards and directorates; colluding with super-regional governments and their honeycombed bureaucracies; combined with regional armies, intelligence agencies and technological elites; hooked to a global surveillance operation; in control of media; cooperating with the largest organized religions on Earth.

Imagine all this as essentially one organization—and you see the thought-form in its wide-screen version.

Top-down as top-down has never been before.

Functions and compartments defined and specialized at every level, and coordinated in order to carry out policy decisions.

As to why such a thought-form should come to dominate human affairs, the simplest explanation is: because it works.

But beneath that answer, for those who can see, there is much, much more.

Individuals come to think that “effective” and “instrumental” and “efficient” are more important than any other issues.

Keep building, keep expanding, keep consolidating gains—and above all else, keep organizing.

Such notions and thought-forms replace life itself.

The Machine has come to the fore. All questions are now about how the individual sees himself fitting into the structure and function of The Machine.

Are human beings becoming social constructs?

Populations are undergoing a quiet revolution. We can cite some of the reasons: television; education; job training and employment requirements; the Surveillance State; government organizations who follow a “zero tolerance” policy; inundation with advertising.

Yes, it’s all geared to produce people who are artificial constructs.

And this is just the beginning. There are a number of companies (see, for example, affectiva.com) who are dedicated to measuring “audience response” to ads and other public messages. I’m talking about electronic measuring. The use of bracelets, for instance, that record students’ emotional responses to teachers in classrooms, in real time. (Bill Gates shoveled grant money into several of these studies.)

Then there is facial recognition geared to the task of revealing how people are reacting when they sit at their computers.

Push-pull, ring the bell, watch the dog drool for his food. Stimulus-response.

It’s not much of a stretch to envision, up the road a few years, whole populations more than willing to volunteer for this kind of mass experimentation. But further than that, we could see society itself embrace, culturally, the ongoing measurement of stimuli and responses.

“Yes, I want to live like this. I want to be inside the system. I want to be analyzed. I want to be evaluated. I want to accept the results. I want to be part of the new culture. Put bracelets on me. Measure my eye movements, my throat twitches that indicate what I’m thinking, and my brain waves. Going to a movie should include the experience of wearing electrodes that record my second-to-second reactions to what’s happening on the screen. I like that. I look forward to it…”

In such a culture, “Surveillance State” would take on a whole new dimension.

“Sir, I want to report a malfunction in my television set. I notice the monitoring equipment that tracks my responses to programs has gone on the blink. I want it reattached as soon as possible. Can you fix it remotely, or do you need to send a repair person out to the house? I’ll be here all day…”

People will take pride in their ongoing role as social constructs, just as they now take pride in owning a quality brand of car.

The thought process behind this, in so far as any thought at all takes place, goes something like: “If I’m really a bundle of responses to stimuli and nothing more, then I want to be inside a system that champions that fact and records it…I don’t want to be left out in the cold.”

Here is a sample school situation of the near future: for six months, Mr. Jones, the teacher, has been videotaped, moment by moment, as he instructs his class in English. All the students have been wearing electronic bracelets, and their real time emotional responses (interest, boredom, aversion) have also been recorded. A team of specialists has analyzed the six months of video, matching it up, second by second, to the students’ responses. The teacher is called in for a conference.

“Mr. Jones, we now know what you’re doing that works and what you’re doing that doesn’t work. We know exactly what students are positively reacting to, and what bores them. Therefore, we’re going to put you into a re-ed seminar, where you’ll learn precisely how to teach your classes from now on, to maximize your effectiveness. We’ll show you how to move your hands, what tone of voice to use, how to stand, when to make eye contact, and so on…”

Mr. Jones is now a quacking duck. He will be trained how to quack “for the greater good.” He is now a machine toy. Whatever is left of his passion, his intelligence, his free will, his spontaneous insights, his drive to make students actually understand what they’re learning…all subordinated for the sake of supposed efficiency.

Think this is an extreme fantasy? See the Chicago Tribune, June 12, 2012, “Biosensors to monitor students’ attentiveness”:

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has poured more than $4 billion into efforts to transform public education in the U.S., is pushing to develop an ‘engagement pedometer.’ Biometric devices wrapped around the wrists of students would identify which classroom moments excite and interest them — and which fall flat.”

“The foundation has given $1.4 million in grants to several university researchers to begin testing the devices in middle-school classrooms this fall [2012].”

“The biometric bracelets, produced by a Massachusetts startup company, Affectiva Inc, send a small current across the skin and then measure subtle changes in electrical charges as the sympathetic nervous system responds to stimuli. The wireless devices have been used in pilot tests to gauge consumers’ emotional response to advertising.”

“Gates officials hope the devices, known as Q Sensors, can become a common classroom tool, enabling teachers to see, in real time, which kids are tuned in and which are zoned out.”

“Existing measures of student engagement, such as videotaping classes for expert review or simply asking kids what they liked in a lesson, ‘only get us so far,’ said Debbie Robinson, a spokeswoman for the Gates Foundation. To truly improve teaching and learning, she said, ‘we need universal, valid, reliable and practical instruments’ such as the biosensors.”

“The Gates Foundation has spent two years videotaping 20,000 classroom lessons and breaking them down, minute by minute, to analyze how each teacher presents material and how those techniques affect student test scores.”

“Clemson received about $500,000 in Gates funding. Another $620,000 will support an MIT scientist, John Gabrieli, who aims to develop a scale to measure degrees of student engagement by comparing biosensor data to functional MRI brain scans [!] (using college students as subjects).”

When you boil it down, the world-view represented here has nothing to do with “caring about students.” It has everything to do with the Pavlovian view of humans as biological machines.

What input yields what response? How can people be shaped into predictable constructs?

As far as Gates is concerned, the underlying theme, as always, is: control.

In this new world, the process of thinking and comparing and independently judging, and the freedom to make individual choices…well, for whatever that was worth, we can’t encourage it for a whole society. It’s too unpredictable. We don’t have time for that sort of thing. No, we have to achieve reduction. We have to seek out lowest common denominators.

This is what universal surveillance is all about; the observation of those denominators and the variances from them—the outlying and therefore dangerous departures from the norm.

“Well, we’ve tracked Mr. Jones’ classroom for a year now, and we’ve collated all the measurements of reactions from the students. It was a wonderful study. But we did notice one thing. All the students showed similar patterns of reactions over time…except two students. We couldn’t fit them into the algorithms. They seemed to be responding oppositely. It was almost as if they were intentionally defecting from the group. This signals some kind of disorder. We need a name for it. Is it Oppositional Defiance Disorder, or is it new? We recommend attaching electrodes to those two students’ skulls, so we can get a better readout of their brain activity in real time.”

You see, everything must be analyzed on the basis of stimulus response. Those two students are suffering from a brain problem. They must be. Because if they aren’t, if they have the ability to choose and decide how to respond, then they have free will, and that can’t be measured. Much deeper, that also suggests an X-factor in humans, wherein the flow of chemicals and atoms and quarks and mesons and photons don’t tell the whole story. The rest of the story would imply the existence of something that is…non-material…above and beyond push-pull cause and effect.

The gatekeepers of this world are obsessed with ruling that out. They guard Reality itself, which is to say, their conception of Reality. They are willing to spend untold amounts of money to make that Pavlovian conception universally accepted and universally loved.

Because they own that conception. They are the self-appointed title holders. They are the kings of that domain.

I feel obligated to inform them that their domain is much, much smaller than they think it is. And in the fullness of time, which is very long, the domain is going to fall and crack and collapse and disintegrate. And all their horses and all their men won’t be able to put it back together.

Eventually, a man like Bill Gates will be forgotten. He’ll be a small footnote on a dusty page in a crumbling book in a dark room on a remote island.

A morbid venal fool who chased, for a brief moment, fool’s gold.

There is an irreducible thing. It’s called freedom. It is native to every individual.

Sometimes it rears its head in the middle of the night, and the dreamer awakes.

And he asks himself: what is my freedom for?

And then he begins a voyage that no device can record, measure, or analyze.

If he pursues it long enough, it takes him out of the labyrinth.

Pavlov wrote: “Mankind will possess incalculable advantages and extraordinary control over human behavior when the scientific investigator will be able to subject his fellow men to the same external analysis he would employ for any natural object…”

Basically, Pavlov was promoting the idea that whatever an individual perceives and feels about his own experience is a confused mess and an obstruction.

Rather, the individual should ignore all that tripe, and instead, allow himself to be a “natural object,” see himself as a clean and simple response mechanism, as planned inputs cause him to behave in various ways.

In other words, then he will have no life.

Bill Gates and other elite planners are working toward this end.

When Ray Kurzweil talks about hooking brains up to super-computers, he is envisioning a process of downloading that goes beyond choice. Somehow, automatically, the brain and the individual (he apparently believes they are the same thing) will receive inputs that translate into knowledge and even talent. This is another fatuous version of Pavlov.

In Brave New World, Huxley wrote: “Hot tunnels alternated with cool tunnels. Coolness was wedded to discomfort in the form of hard X-rays. By the time they were decanted the embryos had a horror of cold. They were predestined to emigrate to the tropics, to be miner[s] and acetate silk spinners and steel workers. Later on their minds would be made to endorse the judgment of their bodies. ‘We condition them to thrive on heat’, concluded Mr. Foster. ‘Our colleagues upstairs will teach them to love it’.”

Stimulus-response.

If researchers developed this technology, who could doubt that elite planners would push it forward? It would be the culmination of their dream.

The freedom of the individual, his innate capacity to make wide-ranging choices, is the monkey wrench in the program. It is anti-stimulus-response.

This is why you would have to search far and wide to find, in one school, anywhere, on any level, a course that examines and promotes individual freedom.

It is anathema to the plan.

It is the silver bullet for the vampire.

Freedom comes from Within the individual, not from Without.

On the level of political control, freedom emerged and broke through during centuries of struggle.

Now, and in the future, every individual carries that torch.

So it is incumbent on the individual to understand the scope and meaning and power of his own freedom, and to decide for himself what his freedom is FOR.

What will he choose to launch from that great space?


Exit From the Matrix

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


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.