The suppression of ideas and the closing out of debate

The suppression of ideas and the closing out of debate

by Jon Rappoport

April 18, 2017

Let’s start with an extreme case. A case that has been roiled in emotion for decades. A case that triggers people into making all sorts of comments.

At quora.com, there is an interesting Q and A. The subject is the Nazi holocaust.

The question is: Why is holocaust denial a crime in some countries?

One answer is offered by Olaf Simons, who states he is an “historian at the Gotha Research Centre.” Here is an excerpt:

“Anyone who tells you it [the holocaust] is ‘not real’ (because he has found something to support his doubt) is manipulating you with a political agenda.”

That’s quite a far-reaching assertion. It’s obvious that a) someone might come to the conclusion that the holocaust didn’t happen and b) he has no political agenda. Whether that person’s conclusion about the holocaust is true or false is beside the point. And even if that person did have a political agenda, why should his comments about the holocaust be suppressed?

Olaf Simons takes his argument further: “Holocaust denial is different. It is telling you that all the historical victims are actually cheating the public. It denies families the right to mourn the loss of grandmothers and grandfathers, mothers and fathers, friends and loved ones. It is an attempt to deny Jews the right to remember their collective history – and usually the right to have a Jewish state as a consequence of this, their history. All the Holocaust denier has to do is claim his right of free speech and tell the Jew, who has lost his family, that he is simply a liar. That is the point where we as societies must intervene…”

Doubting or denying the holocaust “denies families the right to mourn” their loss. I’m talking about a person who claims the holocaust didn’t exist. A person who would make an argument against the holocaust by presenting what he believes is evidence. This approach is against the law in Germany and other countries. I fail to see how such an argument denies victims the right to mourn.

Because you believe you are a victim, because you know you are a victim (use any formulation you want to), someone else who claims you’re not a victim actually prevents you from mourning your loss?

I think we can look at groups all over the world, down the long trail of history, who have been persecuted, and we’ll see that no one prevented them from mourning, even in the most dire of circumstances.

In fact, there were occasions where someone denying the persecution ever happened would have been the least of the victims’ worries—because the violence against them was continuing for decades. And still they mourned.

There is, of course, another reason given for banning holocaust deniers. Their speech, even if not intended to provoke, could incite others to commit crimes against the victims.

This is the “one thing leads to another” argument. On that basis, countries and organizations could ban all sorts of language. The slippery slope has no limit.

And on a lesser note, if, for example, I started a site based on the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, and that site became popular enough, a social media giant might ban me or lower my exposure, because I was spreading malicious gossip against the US government, and by implication, giving succor to terrorists. Or I was denying the families of people killed on 9/11 the right to mourn—the right to “mourn properly.”

There are all sorts of reasons for denying the right to free speech.

And there are all sorts of reasons for closing out reasonable debate.

Look at what has been happening on American college campuses. A group wants to bring in a controversial speaker, so students (and paid agitators) riot. College is supposed to be the place where all sides of an issue can be aired and analyzed. Instead, we get violence. What are these college students learning? What are they not learning?

They’re not learning the power of their own minds. If they were, why would they be angry? Why would they be afraid to listen to a person with whom they profoundly disagree?

If someone wants to stand at a podium in a college hall and say Donald Trump is the greatest president in the history of the United States, so what? If someone wants to say Hillary Clinton is a genius and Bernie Sanders is a fool, so what? If someone wants to say college students should stage a revolution by refusing to pay off their loans, so what? If someone wants to say all college freshmen should study Karl Marx and only Karl Marx, so what? Is the sky going to fall?

Suppose a professor tells his students, “You’re all assigned to go to the talk tonight and listen to a speaker who is going to argue that Donald Trump is exactly what American needs now. Take notes. Come to class tomorrow prepared to argue rationally, for or against. And I don’t want you spouting generalities. I want specifics. I want thought.”

Suddenly, many students are going to realize they can’t argue rationally. They don’t have the tools. And that makes them nervous. They move into the role of agitators, because they’ve got nothing else. Suddenly, they’re against free speech.

Instead of making people smarter and sharper, instead of bullet-proofing them against propaganda and anti-logic, instead of educating them so they’re immune to slogans and obvious fallacies, instead of educating them to live in a society where free speech is elevated beyond shouting matches, we are seeing myriad excuses for disallowing free speech.

There is no limit to the excuses. Tomorrow, someone is going to dream up a new one.

Numerous players these days are saying political content on the Internet has to be monitored. They have their covert agendas. But beyond that, there is no reason to monitor political speech. If people can’t deal with competing politics, they need to fortify their IQ. They need to become smarter. That’s the answer.

If we live in a sewer of propaganda, we need to climb out of the sewer.

I could go on with the topic of free speech for another 10,000 words, but I’ll end off, for the moment, with this. Look for the “special case” argument. The strategy: a group has been oppressed, and they deserve compensation and justice, AND part of justice is ensuring that language is never used to criticize the group, because they are special, owing to the amount of persecution that has been visited on them. This particular group is different. They must be served. They must never be discussed in terms that, even vaguely, could be construed as negative.

No free speech in that case.

But wait. There is another group, and it, too, is special.

And another group.

And pretty soon, free speech is walking around with canes and crutches and sitting in wheelchairs and tubes are hooked up to it.

Even worse, people are focused on the issue of free speech as if it consists of nothing more than nasty remarks; and the burning question is, who has a right to be nasty, and in what situations, and for what reasons?

Whereas, the intent and hope for free speech was that it would rise higher and elevate into conversation that actually sought the truth, and examined basic principles on which that truth would stand.

In a free society.

Where fear of an idea didn’t exist.


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.

Selling a culture of ignorance to the young

Selling a culture of ignorance to the young: key moments

Sam Cooke: Don’t know much about anything, what a wonderful world

by Jon Rappoport

April 3, 2017

As my readers know, I’ve been documenting the downfall of education in America for a long time. My basic logic course, contained in my collection, The Matrix Revealed, is one antidote.

Aside from what happens and what doesn’t happen in the classroom, the promotion of a popular culture devoted to glorifying ignorance certainly erodes children’s ambition to learn.

Let’s return to a “more innocent time” to pick up a clue, and a turning point.

Wonderful World, composed by Sam Cooke, Herb Alpert, and Lou Adler, broke on to the scene in 1960. It had legs. Later covers of the tune climbed the charts in 1965 and 1978, and then Cooke’s original performance was resurrected as a hit in 1985 and 1986:

Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book,
Don’t know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be

Just another sentimental popular tune; who cares? No one; except the lyric awoke a vast underlying YES in many hearts.

I don’t know nothin’, but love will carry the day, and the world will be wonderful then.

The obvious message: there is a shortcut to happiness. Learning is beside the point. It’s irrelevant. Just listen, the singer has found the key. He’s basically ignorant, but it doesn’t matter. If he can convince Her to love him, he has the answer the world has been waiting for.

He’s the hero. He’s the example.

Knowledge is just a con. It gets in the way. It creates adults. That’s a horrible fate. Remaining a child wins the prize. Children don’t have to worry. All they need is love. Let’s somehow reduce EVERYTHING to THAT.

As for Sam Cooke himself, well, he began singing with a group when he was six, he later composed a number of hit tunes, he launched his own record label (SAR), he put together his own music publishing company and a talent-management outfit. I don’t know what he knew and didn’t know, but he knew something. He worked tirelessly for years. (At the age of 33, in 1964, he was shot and killed in a Los Angeles motel. The circumstances surrounding his death are in dispute.) Point is, the Cooke who was singing about being ignorant was far from ignorant—as is the case with many performers who convincingly launch childlike sentiments to audiences for mass consumption. But these audiences, enveloped in the “feelings,” rarely bother to consider the source and the intelligence of the source.

Popular culture is a back-and-forth affair. The artist relays a quick dream, and the public buys it, because the dream arouses some latent idea that proposes a shortcut to happiness. An out.

The artist and his handlers are always looking for the fabled hook; the phrase that will pull in the crowd and galvanize their reaction.

Eventually, after years of swimming in pop culture, the tuned-up audience is conditioned to the notion that life’s secret has to be one hook or another. Little else is important.

Certainly, work is not important. Striving is not important. Ambition is not important. One’s own creative impulse is not important. Learning is not important. Those are all dead ends. Instead, something much simpler and easier (and vaguer) has to be the key.

In the realm of politics, there is a carryover. The answer in that arena would be simple, too. Greatest good. Love everybody right now. Kinder, gentler. I feel your pain. It takes a village. No child left behind. Hope and change. Yes we can.

Don’t know much about a science book,
Don’t know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be

If you just took the last three lines of that lyric and eliminated the rest, you’d have…nothing. No hook, no impact. But add the “don’t know” piece, and you’re striking gold. Because the audience of mostly young people wants the “don’t know.” That’s what they’re looking for. A boil-down into the effortless item that allows them to win what they yearn for, by pleading ignorance. Perfect.

Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book,
Don’t know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be
Don’t know much about geography,
Don’t know much trigonometry
Don’t know much about algebra,
Don’t know what a slide rule is for
But I do know that one and one is two,
And if this one could be with you,
What a wonderful world this would be
Now, I don’t claim to be an “A” student,
But I’m tryin’ to be
For maybe by being an “A” student, baby,
I can win your love for me
Don’t know much about history,
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book,
Don’t know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be
History
Biology
Science book
French I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be

I can’t resist tossing off a salute to the Beatles, because if you think Sam Cooke was scraping the bottom of the barrel, his lyric was Shakespearean laid alongside the 1963 Lennon/McCartney offering, I Want to Hold Your Hand. This was not the Beatles of Eleanor Rigby or even Hello, Goodbye. It was the early rocket that set off the first US explosion of Beatlemania.

Get a load of this lyric:

Oh yeah I tell you somethin’
I think you’ll understand
When I say that somethin’
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
Oh please say to me
You’ll let me be your man
And please say to me
You’ll let me hold your hand
Now, let me hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
And when I touch you
I feel happy inside
It’s such a feelin’ that my love
I can’t hide
I can’t hide
I can’t hide
Yeah, you got that somethin’
I think you’ll understand
When I say that somethin’
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
And when I touch you
I feel happy inside
It’s such a feelin’ that my love
I can’t hide
I can’t hide
I can’t hide
Yeah, you got that somethin’
I think you’ll understand
When I feel that somethin’
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand

The single of the song sold five million copies in the US. It was folded into an album, Meet the Beatles!, which soon piled on another 3.5 million sales. The 1960s were off and running.

Nothing would ever be the same.

I’m told the real hook in I Want to Hold Your Hand is the opening phrase: “Oh yeah.” The kids loved it right away.

And if you want culture, you’ve got to go to the kids. They know what’s happening. They’re on the cutting edge…

Of the cliff.

It quickly became apparent to ad agencies, and corporations, and politicians, and media barons, and even the medical cartel, that targeting children was the new Thing. Don’t raise them. No. Bring the adults down to the child’s level.

That was the breakthrough.

The kiddies want what they want when they want it.

Convert society into a diaper-dream.

Hawk that dream from Norway to the southern tip of Argentina.

Buttress it with psychological clap-trap.

Call it, I don’t know, something like…

Utopia.

Yes, that’ll work.

As long as no one THINKS.

Oh yeah.

If you reduce the English language to the level of the two songs I’ve presented here, why would children in school want anything more?

They already believe they know the secret of life.

And if the “secret” doesn’t deliver the goods, it’s an easy step for the children to then consider themselves victims.

After that, the trip downhill happens quickly.


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.

Home-School Solution for Education

Home-School Solution for Education

Logic & Analysis in Western Culture

by Jon Rappoport

April 2, 2017

Over the last 40 years, the assault on Western culture and civilization has taken people so far away from lucid thinking and logic, they don’t even know this discipline exists at all.

What has replaced it is entertainment.

It seems that hundreds of gimmicks and machines are now necessary, in order to keep the attention of children in school. There is a fear that without these “up-to-date” items, the kids will drop into a coma or walk out of the classroom.

Well, entertainment has an interesting side effect. It enables humans to jump quickly from one moment to another, leaving the last moment in the dust, forgotten. In other words, all-pervasive entertainment contributes mightily to short attention spans.

I’ve encountered this phenomenon as a lecturer. Standing at the podium, I’ve seen light bulbs of discovery go off above people’s heads as I explain the specifics of medical fraud.

And then, an hour later, standing in the lobby, surrounded by audience members, I’ve heard these same newly enlightened people ask questions that reveal they’d heard nothing of what I’d just said inside the hall.

Ah, but they had heard it. It was illuminating, to be sure, but it was also entertainment—as far as they were concerned. Therefore, they could shrug it off and kick it to the floor under their chairs and forget it.

Why do people opt for entertainment rather than education?

Because they have no mental foundation to which they can attach new learning. It isn’t there.

Yes, learning to read and write and do math are basics—but there is another basic that has been expunged from our curriculum: logic. Most people in America don’t even recognize logic is a body of knowledge in the same way that biology, geology, physics, and chemistry are.

Astonishing, when you realize that learning has to be hooked to the star of logic, so it can flourish.

When Plato began writing his Dialogues 2400 years ago, he was bringing to light, for the first time in recorded history, a version of logic. He apparently learned about these matters from his teacher, Socrates, and he passed the knowledge on to his pupil, Aristotle—who, in turn, created a foundation for what we now know as science.

One can trace the development (and repression) of logic all the way up through Western thought, to the present—where, in high schools, it arouses almost zero interest.

It’s now fashionable to discard logic, just as it is fashionable to grant universal “equality” to all opinions, no matter how ridiculous and unintelligible they are.

When the foundation is gone, the house collapses.

So I am about re-building the foundation and the house.

Some of you have asked me for a syllabus of my Logic and Analysis course. Here it is.

* The course is taught in 18 class sessions.

* The first two sessions are filled with short examples of logical fallacies.

* The third and fourth sessions examine slightly longer passages of text that contain multiple logical errors.

* Sessions five through 16 take up, in great depth, long passages that read like newspaper articles, political statements, PR, and internet journalism. Students learn how to identify and explain, in specific terms, the logical flaws these passages contain.

* Sessions 17 and 18 are the final exam and the teacher’s dissection of the exam.

* The teacher’s manual and an accompanying audios lay out each session’s lesson plan. The lesson plans include my explanations of the passages and the errors they illustrate.

Logic and Analysis is designed to give students something they’ll never forget, something they’ll use for the rest of their lives.

It represents a step in the process of restoring the kind of education that once existed and disappeared many generations ago.

I was previously selling the Logic and Analysis course separately. It is now being sold as a module within my Matrix Revealed collection, and, as a result, at a discount.


the matrix revealed


Here are the contents of The Matrix Revealed:

* 250 megabytes of information.

* Over 1100 pages of text.

* Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

* My complete 18-lesson course, Logic and Analysis, which includes the teacher’s manual and audio to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

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

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

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

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

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

Also included:

* Several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix. 53 pages.

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

(All the material is digital. Upon ordering it, you’ll receive an email with a link to it.)

Understanding Matrix is also understanding your capacity and power, and that is the way to approach this subject. Because liberation is the goal. And liberation has no limit.

I invite you to a new exploration and a great adventure.

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 NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The three branches of logic

The three branches of logic

by Jon Rappoport

March 29, 2017

In my collections, The Matrix Revealed, and Power Outside The Matrix, I offer a basic course in logic, and a more advanced audio presentation on analyzing disinformation.

After working for 30 years as a reporter, I recognized I was using “three branches” of logic. Each one helps. Each one contributes to investigations. Each one enables a person to spot flaws.

Branch one: this is called formal logic, or the logic of implication, or symbolic logic. It began with Aristotle. It offers rules for determining what is valid and what is invalid. In the simplest terms, for example: “If it snows, there are clouds; there are no clouds; therefore, it isn’t snowing.”

Branch two: the logical fallacies. There are many lists. Some fallacies overlap with others. Example: If I want to defend the existence of manmade global warming, I attack the PERSON who argues that warming is pseudoscience— and I ignore the CONTENT OF HIS ARGUMENT. This fallacy is called ad hominem; “toward the man.” Or I find a person making an extreme and ridiculous argument against global warming: “The sun actually exudes very little heat, so warming is impossible.” I use that person as my Straw Man. I imply he represents ALL people arguing against global warming, and I knock him down. The Straw Man fallacy. It is extremely helpful to study these fallacies and become able to spot them.

Branch three: You ask, “What point is an author trying to make? What is he arguing for? What is his conclusion?” Finding that, what evidence does he offer for his conclusion? Does the evidence justify the conclusion? Many arguments these days are circumstantial. They involve degrees of probability. They need to be approached on a case-by-case basis.

I’ve described the “three branches” in bare-bones terms. There is much more to learn about each one.

If schools taught these three aspects to students, if teachers gave students increasingly complex arguments to analyze, a whole new generation of thinkers would arise. Education would be revolutionized.

Since most schools don’t do that job, the task often falls to home schoolers.

For a teacher, there’s nothing quite like seeing the lights go on in a student’s mind. The student suddenly understands what using logic means. He can deploy it to take apart information. He no longer wanders from one bit of information to another, selecting what he already agrees with or what strikes his fancy of the moment. He has staying power. He can work on his own. He can find fallacies and explain them. He can assess degrees of probability.

He’s launched.

This is independence. This is power.

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.

Logic and non-logic in education

Logic and non-logic in education

by Jon Rappoport

March 28, 2017

In two of my collections, The Matrix Revealed and Power Outside The Matrix, I include basic training in the art of logic and more advanced critical analysis.

The basic fact is: students in schools are rarely taught how to follow a line of reasoning from beginning to end. Nor do they practice analyzing half-formed, faulty arguments.

Who teaches young students, these days, how to distinguish between a polemic and a formal argument?

Teachers spend little or no time discussing hidden premises or assumptions, which color a subsequent argument.

Increasingly, people are “learning” from watching videos. Some videos are well done; many others intentionally omit vital data and make inferences based on “shocking images.”

A focused study of logic can illuminate a range of subjects and disciplines. It can suddenly bring perspective to fields of inquiry that were formerly mysterious and impenetrable.

Logic is the parent of knowledge. It contains the principles and methods common to all investigation.

Being able to spot and understand logical flaws and fallacies embedded in an article, essay, book immediately lifts the intelligence level.

Logic isn’t a prison; one isn’t forced to obey its rules. But the ability to deploy it, versus not understanding what it is, is like the difference between randomly hammering at a keyboard and typing coherent paragraphs. It’s the difference between, “I guess I agree with what he’s writing,” and “I know exactly how he’s making his argument.”

In the West, the tradition of logic was codified by Aristotle. Before him, Plato, in the Socratic Dialogues, employed it to confound Socrates’ opponents.

Reading the Dialogues today, one can see, transparently, where Plato’s Socrates made questionable assumptions, which he then successfully foisted on those opponents. It’s quite instructive to go back and chart Socrates’ clever steps. You see logic and illogic at work.

High schools today don’t teach logic for two reasons. The teachers don’t understand the subject, and logic as a separate discipline has been deleted because students, armed with it, would become authentically independent. The goal of education rejects independent minds, despite assurances to the contrary.

Logic and critical analysis should be taught in phases, with each phase encompassing more complex passages of text offered for scrutiny.

Eventually, students would delve into thorny circumstantial arguments, which make up a great deal of modern investigation and research, and which need to be assessed on the basis of degrees of probable validity and truth.

It’s like a climbing a mountain. The lower paths are relatively easy, if the map is clear. At higher elevation, more elements come into play, and a greater degree of skill and experience is required.

My college logic teacher introduced his subject to the class this way: Once you’ve finished this semester, you’ll know what you know, and you’ll know what you don’t know.

The second part of his statement has great value. It enables real research beyond egotistical concerns, beyond self-serving presumptions, beyond secretly assuming what you’re pretending to prove.

We certainly don’t live in an age of reason; far from it. Therefore—the greater need to learn logic. Among other benefits, it centers the thinking process.

In a landscape of controversy, babble, bluster, public relations, covert propaganda, and outright lying, one has a dependable compass.

For instance, understanding the scientific method (hypothesis-prediction-verification) would go a long way toward untangling some of the outrageous claims of science, and separating them from the political agendas they serve.

Beginning in ancient Greece, coming up through the Middle Ages, and into the 19th century, logic was one aspect of education called the Trivium (“the three”): in sequence, a student learned grammar, then logic, then rhetoric.

Except in scattered places, where people have consciously instituted a revival of the Trivium, that integrated method of teaching is gone now.

Instead, in primary and middle schools, we have superficial coasting through many academic subjects, minus the necessary exercises and drills to ensure that students grasp material. In other words, we have imposed ADHD.

Logic isn’t the end-all and be-all of life. It doesn’t define what life is. It’s a tool. You either have it or you don’t. You can use it or you can’t. When you can, you have more power, and whole new vistas, previously unseen, open up to you.

Logic is a tool in your box. When you need to go in and remove it and use it, is it dull or is it sharp?

Finally, studying logic gives a student an appreciation of consequences. For example, a politician announces a high-flying generalization, as a plank of his platform. Two things ought to follow. The student does his best to translate that generality into specific terms which actually mean something. Then he traces what would happen if the plank were, in fact, put into effect; what would the consequences specifically entail? There are always consequences—it’s just that most people never see them or think about them, because they haven’t the foggiest idea about how to flesh them out and map their implications.

Logic: one of the great contributions to civilization, left to die on the vine.

It needs to be resurrected, in full flower.

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.

You’re censored because “someone might get the wrong idea”

You’re censored because “someone might get the wrong idea”

by Jon Rappoport

March 27, 2017

Recently, I was a guest on a radio show. At one point, I cited a mainstream journal review I have mentioned many times—the famous 2000 Journal of the American Medical Association revelation by Dr. Barbara Starfield, which concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 people a year in the US.

The interviewer asked whether mentioning this could dangerously convince people not to go to a doctor, when they should see a doctor.

I hadn’t heard that gem in a long time.

Maybe you shouldn’t talk about this, because it could give people the wrong idea

I said people could get the wrong idea from many statements.

Getting the wrong idea is a chronic condition. It pops up all the time.

If you refrained from saying something because people might get the wrong idea, you could decide to say nothing. Ever.

There is no limit to what you could say that someone might interpret in his own peculiar way.

Further, what happened to the idea that you should speak the truth?

I guess that’s out. Too dangerous.

Of course, in my radio interview, the host was just playing the devil’s advocate. He was presenting “the other side.” For “balance.” He knew what he was doing. Actually, I’m glad he made his point. It gave me a chance to talk about people “getting the wrong idea.”

These days, there is a wider problem. We didn’t get to it on the radio show. People complain that something you say triggers them. Boom. Their problem becomes your problem.

You uttered the word “girl.” And that initiated their cascade of reaction. Therefore, you committed a sin.

It’s a form of psychological warfare. You shouldn’t say X because X might trigger somebody. Welcome to the victim culture. Idiot’s delight.

Here’s another angle. Since the education system doesn’t teach anyone how to think logically, you shouldn’t speak or write logically. If you did, you would be confusing and/or offending untold numbers of people. You must cater to them. If you use logic, you’re an elitist.

And how about this? ELIMINATE TEACHING GRAMMAR BECAUSE GRAMMAR IS RACIST. That’s right.

Daily Caller (2/20/17): “An ‘antiracist’ poster in a college writing center insists American grammar is ‘racist’ and an ‘unjust language structure,’ [and the writing center is] promising to prioritize rhetoric over ‘grammatical correctness’.”

“The poster, written by the director, staff, and tutors of the University of Washington, Tacoma’s Writing Center, states ‘racism is the normal condition of things,’ declaring that it permeates rules, systems, expectations, in courses, school and society.”

“’We promise to emphasize the importance of rhetorical situations [?!] over grammatical “correctness” in the production of texts,’ announces the poster. ‘We promise to challenge conventional word choices and writing explanations’.”

Maybe someone can explain why the author of that college proclamation used English grammar to defame English grammar.

Why didn’t the author write, “Use grammar bad because why tradition and nobody should.” Much better.

Stop all grammar. It could give people the wrong idea. It could make them think their own ignorance of the subject reveals “a lack of education.” They could fall into a funk and think something is wrong with them. They could be triggered.

Here’s a proposal for a university study: seek out and find the one person on the planet who has the very lowest understanding of logic and grammar, who can’t read a word, who is triggered by the greatest number of utterances. Find that person, and then recommend everyone on the planet adjust their utterances to please that one person…

So that person won’t get the wrong idea.

Then society will improve.

Then we will reach new heights of share and care.

Then we will be humane.

Then we will bow down to that one person.

She/he will become the standard.

She/he will lead us.

She/he will teach us all, in the fullness of time.

Amen.

When that person dies, we can preserve his/her brain and keep it ticking, as a reference for future generations:

Utter nothing that might give that brain the wrong idea.

Utter nothing that might make that brain think it is inferior or lacking in any way.

Rather, encourage that brain. Pump it full of messages that confirm its god-like status. Award it trophies. Feed it photos and video showing sprawling centers built in its name.

Then we can feel secure. Then we can feel safe.

No one will get the wrong idea.


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.

Logic in the Matrix: the Declaration of Independence

Logic in the Matrix: the Declaration of Independence

by Jon Rappoport

February 27, 2017

Logic, these days, has been replaced in schools with a mind-control apparatus that involves the following:

EVERY POINT OF VIEW IS EQUAL.

EVERYBODY HAS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE WHOLE.

TRUE CRITICAL THINKING, WHICH IS THE EXCLUSIVE TERRITORY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, LEAVES PEOPLE OUT OF THE GROUP AND IS THEREFORE PREJUDICIAL.

If you favor this new formulation and think it’s useful, I have condos on Jupiter for sale.

The point of modern education, more and more, is the GROUP.

“Good people belong to the group.”

“The Group is everything.”

“If you don’t belong to the Group, you have a mental disorder.”

Why is all this emphasis put on the Group?

The answer to that question also gives you the reason logic isn’t taught in schools anymore:

The independent self-sufficient individual is being phased out.

The independent individual who knows how to think and make lucid judgments on his own is a threat to the EMERGING RELIGION OF GLOBALISM.

The emerging religion of Globalism is a fuzzy image of THE GROUP.

The hive.

The colony.

The nest.

The planet.

Some people think education has been hijacked for the purpose of training children to become robotic workers for the State. That’s partly true, but education is also the proving ground for the religion of the Group.

This religion doesn’t need or want logic. Logic would be disruptive. It would differentiate one student from another. It would reveal there are ways to analyze information that actually come to valid conclusions. Logic isn’t fuzzy. It doesn’t promote the all-inclusive hive.

A year ago, I spoke to a teacher who was introducing his class to logic. He told me, “These are very bright kids. They’re all going to college. They said they couldn’t learn logic. They couldn’t do it. They had some kind of mental block.”

As we talked further, it became obvious that the mental block was an idea of THE GROUP. These kids had already been indoctrinated into “cooperative thought.” They instinctively realized that, if they studied logic, the Group would break apart. Each student would have to stand on his own, and that prospect was frightening.

In the religion of the Group, one of the key concepts is “the sustainability of the planet,” a catchphrase which is the leading edge of a vast movement to decide how the individual, as a UNIT, an energy-consuming UNIT, will be regulated in the overall scheme of things.

The individual’s life will be ruled by decisions of the “wise ones,” who understand how to distribute all the available resources of the planet.

I’ve actually had students tell me, in their fumbling way, that they have an obligation to think like everyone else. Or if they’re rebels, they have a duty to rebel like other rebels.

Logic is a sword that cuts through all that. It wakes up the sleeping mind. It doesn’t paint vague pictures. It has nothing to do with what the Group thinks or has been taught to think.

Logic isn’t a cooperative enterprise. That’s why it was exiled from school systems a long time ago.

I’ve talked to many teachers (I used to teach school) who tell me they lead their students on this basis: “we’re all in this together.”

It sounds nice, but it has nothing to do with education. It’s a con. It’s a way of avoiding teaching. Once a teacher walks down that road, he’s finished. He’s regressing back to being a child. He’s forfeiting his position. He’s involved in socializing. It can work for a picnic but not for school.

The cooperative spirit in the classroom is the prelude to the religion of the Group. “We’re all in this together” is the initial sales pitch.

I remember, 40 years ago, I had an argument with a teacher who was very annoyed that I was attacking the “spirit of the group” concept. He was absolutely convinced that the atmosphere he promoted in his classroom was instrumental in making education work. He was deeply offended that I was questioning it. For him, it was inconceivable that I couldn’t see the value of “sharing and caring” in the classroom. Hadn’t I ever played sports? Didn’t I know what a team was? Hadn’t I ever experienced the joy of friendship in a group?

I told him many of his kids were scoring quite badly in exams.

Apparently, this was beside the point. He was heroic, he was a good guy, he was a cheerleader for friendship and tolerance, he was concerned about feelings and self-esteem, he was doing his best to make good human beings out of his kids.

I knew all his moves. I had seen them before.

They didn’t make a dent, because in my college days the most compassionate professor I’d had taught me logic. He was also the most exacting professor. He put his students through the mill, and it was exciting. And when, years later, I started working as a reporter, I was already ahead of the game.

A person either wants to think for himself—and knows how to—or he prefers the hazy hive-like existence of belonging to something that is less than he is.

It’s that simple.

Logic gives you the option of making the first choice and avoiding the second.

I finished my formal education just before the really big group-wave hit. The educrats and the elite planners were putting the finishing touches on their blueprint for “participatory education.”

Under that system, the students would be encouraged to believe their random ideas and feelings were just as important as their teachers’. By extension, the students were really in class to make their feelings known and help lead the way to a more just world.

Learning would be done through osmosis, the result of the students and teachers rubbing off on each other. “It’s a process.”

Slice that baloney any way you want to, it’s still baloney. And when the meal is over, the students have no knowledge of logic, which is the foundation for rational thought. They’re cut loose on a river with no paddle. They have an inflated sense of self-worth, and no understanding to back it up.

Out in the world, after school is behind them, what do you think these graduates are going to be attracted to? Anything and anyone who sounds like he’s talking about the GROUP, who praises and elevates the GROUP, who promotes the Collective, who emphasizes how we’re all in this together for a better world.

Only it isn’t a better world. It isn’t, because these half-educated young adults never became truly independent individuals. And because “better world” is the flag behind which sits the actual scenario: self-appointed elite priests directing the distribution of all resources from Central Planning.

Eventually, these ex-students complain, “We didn’t think we were signing up for this!”

Small correction: you didn’t really think at all, because you never learned how.

Since logic is no longer taught as a required subject in schools, the door is open to all sorts of bizarre reactions to the presence of information.

Here are three favorites:

One: grab the title of an article, make up your mind about how you “feel,” and ignore everything else.

Two: Actually read the article until you find a piece of information that appeals to you for any reason; latch on to it, and run with it in any direction. In all cases, the direction will have nothing to do with the intent of the article.

Three: From the moment you begin to read the headline of the article, be in a state of “free association.” Take any word or sentence and connect it to an arbitrary thought or feeling, associate that thought with yet another arbitrary thought…and keep going until you become tired or bored.

You might be surprised at how many people use these three “methods of analysis.”

The very idea that the author of the article is making a central point doesn’t register. And certainly, the notion that the author is providing evidence for the central point is alien.

A college liberal education? These days it could be imparted in a matter of weeks, simply by hammering a small set of values into students’ skulls—along with requisite guilt and fear at the prospect of wandering off the reservation.

Logic as a subject is viewed with grave suspicion, as if it might involuntarily take a person down the wrong track and dump him in a politically incorrect ditch—a fate to be avoided at all costs.

Therefore, the practice of rational debate is out. Too risky. Besides, the preferred method of dealing with opponents is screaming at them, shoving them off stage, and whining about “being triggered.”

If you think obtaining what’s called a liberal college education is vastly overrated (and absurdly expensive), you’re right. Learning logic, instead, would be a good start down a different road.

And an analysis of the principle of “greatest good for the greatest number” would be very, very useful—since it underpins so much of values-centered education these days.

What does greatest good mean, specifically? How would it be achieved? Who would implement it? How would the implementation affect individual freedom?

Wrestling with these questions would open up whole new territories of insight.

As I’ve mentioned in past articles, when I taught a few basics of logic to middle-school students, the clutter in their minds receded. They found the ability to follow a line of thought. For the first time, they recognized there was such a thing as a connected flow of reasoning from A to B to C to D. The lights went on.

The world may be sinking into deeper levels of know-nothing non-rationality, but that’s not a good excuse for trailing along down into the swamp. It should be a wake-up call to go the other way.

No matter what anyone says, it’s not a crime to be smarter than other people.

Logic is a set of tools. The more a student uses and sharpens them, the more alert, acute, and independent he becomes. The less he relies on any group.

And eventually he doesn’t mind not relying on the group. He enjoys his independence.

He feels comfortable and confident in it.

As he should.


Several years ago, I came across a letter to the editor of Commentary Magazine, from its January 1979 issue. The author was a Jefferson scholar, Wilbur Samuel Howell.

Howell made several key points. As a college student, Jefferson studied philosophy and logic under Professor William Small, at William and Mary. Small had come to the college from Aberdeen, Scotland, where he had studied under William Duncan, a renowned logician and author of Elements of Logick. Indeed, Jefferson later remarked that Professor Small gone a long a long way toward shaping his life.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that the Declaration of Independence would adhere to a logical structure. Indeed, the Declaration is a kind of argument from first premises, through to a conclusion.

I went back and read the Declaration, and I’ll open up its logical structure.

It begins with this:

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Jefferson, in this prologue, indicates that the people should state their reasons for separating from a ruling power. Before he goes on to do that, he enunciates his first premises.

All men have rights, and to secure them, they create governments.

Second, the people have the authority to abolish any ruler that tries to destroy those rights, and, in its place, the people should institute a new government.

Third, when a long history of tyrannical abuse proves that the old government cannot be corrected, the people have a duty to overthrow it.

Here is the text:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.”

What remains is for Jefferson to list the abuses of the British Crown; to prove, in other words, that the King has, in fact, brought on such a stream of tyrannical actions.

Well, here are the abuses:

“He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

“He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

“He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

“He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

“He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

“He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

“He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

“He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

“He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

“He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

“He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

“For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

“For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

“For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

“For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

“For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

“For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

“For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

“For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

“He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

“He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

“He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

At this point, Jefferson makes it clear that the colonists have tried, without success, to correct these tyrannical abuses through peaceful means. They are not acting in haste:

“In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

“Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.”

Jefferson then announces his conclusion, based on the prologue, the original premises of his argument, and the examples he has cited to confirm that the heart of these premises is true:

“We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

—Fire, passion, even poetry, held within the flow of a logical progression.

Jefferson was not only a devoted student of logic, he wanted to make the great case for freedom and independence by using its power.

In his mind, freedom and logic were connected.

If in our schools, in 2017, logic as a distinct subject has been reduced to paltry terms, how are students able to grasp the majestic nature of freedom, as expressed in the Declaration? How are they able to understand that living in freedom is more than vaguely drifting from one slogan to another, one addled piece of political rhetoric to another?

Note: James Madison, thought of by many as the father of the Constitution, studied logic intensely at the College of New Jersey. In fact, there are 122 pages of Madison’s own handwritten notes from the course. The course followed the pattern laid down in a famous 17th-century book, Logic or the Art of Thinking.

Note: My collection, The Matrix Revealed, contains a basic-starter logic course for inquiring minds. And my collection, Power Outside The Matrix, contains an extensive 11-hour audio presentation, Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation.

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.