What you’ll never read about virus-research fraud

What you’ll never read about virus-research fraud

The rabbit hole

by Jon Rappoport

August 8, 2016

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

There are very few investigators on the planet who are interested in this subject. I am one of them. There is a reason why.

In many articles, I’ve written about the shocking lack of logic in the curriculum of advanced centers of learning. When I attended college, I was fortunate to have a professor who taught logic, and taught it in a way that appealed to the minds of his students. In other words, for those of us who cared, we could not only absorb the subject matter, we could think with it; for example, we could approach an area of knowledge and track it back to its most basic premises. And then we could check those premises and see whether they were true and correct. If they were incorrect, we could then challenge many accepted notions that followed from those basic untruths.

That is one of the payoffs of being able to deploy logic.

With this introduction, let me bring up the issue of disease-causation. How do researchers decide that a given virus causes a given condition?

There are many twists and turns involved in answering the question, but before being able to engage in such a discussion, a more basic factor has to be considered:

Has the virus in question ever been isolated and identified? More simply, has it ever been found?

Obviously, in order to eventually say virus A causes condition B, you have to know you’ve found, discovered, isolated virus A from some tissue sample removed from a human being.

I’m not talking about tests run on people in 2016, to decide whether they have virus A. I’m talking about the first time, the first time ever a researcher said, “I’ve found a virus we’ve never seen before. I’m calling it virus A.”

So, for example, with all the chatter about people with Ebola in recent years, the question would be: when was the first time a researcher said, “We’ve verified the existence of a virus we’ve never seen before, and we’re calling it Ebola.”

When was that, and by what procedure was this discovery made?

For many people, it’s unthinkable that scientists would say a given virus is causing many people to fall ill—and yet that virus had never really been isolated and identified—but who knows what you find out when you go down the rabbit hole?

Let’s consider HIV, the purported cause of AIDS. Independent reporter Christine Johnson conducted a magnificent and shocking rabbit-hole interview with Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…” The interview was titled: Does HIV Exist?

I’ll highlight part of the exchange, because it’s so telling and instructive. Keep in mind that what Eleni Papadopulos is saying about HIV could apply to any virus — including zika.

The interview takes up a few complex procedures, but if you read through it several times, you should be able to sort out the key points:

Christine Johnson (CJ): Does HIV cause AIDS?

Eleni Papadopulos (EP): There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.

CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?

EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.

EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.

The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.

That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.

CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?

EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.

CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?

EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [electron microscope photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.

CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.

EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.

CJ: And what was that method?

EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.

CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?

EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.

CJ: But what about their pictures?

EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…”

—end of interview excerpt—


power outside the matrix


This is shocking, to say the least.

How can researchers or doctors say that HIV is causing AIDS, when the correct procedures for finding HIV and identifying it were never followed in the first place?

“HIV causes AIDS. Of course it does. But, oops, we never proved the virus exists.”

“Of course it exists. It has to.”

“Yes. Right. But we never isolated it. We never demonstrated that it exists.”

“This conversation is counter-productive. Let’s move on.”

“Yes, we must move on. We never spoke of this.”

There is no rabbit hole. Of course not.

That gaping entrance with the tunnel that goes down and down and down? Must have been some construction project that was abandoned. Or it’s just an illusion. We need corrective lenses.

Sure, and if enough people keep saying this, they’ll all forget the logic that keeps staring them in the face.

Almost two years ago, I sent the CDC a FOIA request: provide me with evidence the Ebola virus has ever been isolated from a human being and identified. I’ve never heard back.

I’ll close with another example: SARS. In 2003, this “dreaded epidemic” swept across the world. Quickly, it became apparent it was a dud. In Canada, a microbiologist, Frank Plummer, who was working for the World Health Organization (WHO), wandered off the reservation and told reporters he was puzzled by what he was seeing. Fewer and fewer people diagnosed with SARS showed any trace of the coronavirus, which WHO claimed was the cause of SARS. Plummer was essentially saying people with SARS didn’t have SARS. That was a major scandal, but the press wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.

It raised an even more basic question. Had WHO researchers ever actually found this coronavirus in the first place, or had they asserted its existence based on scanty (or no) evidence?

No one in major media asked or cared. They went along with the “epidemic” story, and when it died, they moved on to other matters.

That strategy is what passes for logic esteemed fourth estate.

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.

Three substitutes for logic

Three substitutes for logic

by Jon Rappoport

June 28, 2016

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

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 headline or 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 really register. And certainly, the notion that the author is providing evidence for the central point and reasoning his way from A to B to C 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 on the way 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.


The Matrix Revealed


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.

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 illogic in education

Logic and illogic in education

by Jon Rappoport

June 6, 2016

In two of my collections, The Matrix Revealed and Power Outside The Matrix, I include training in the art of logic and 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, specious reasoning.

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 subsequent arguments.

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 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 when you know, and you’ll know when 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.

Do memes exist? Or are they fictions?

Do memes exist? Or are they fictions?

by Jon Rappoport

April 6, 2016

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

There was a time when words like “slogan” and “motto” were used frequently. They were good solid terms. But then something happened.

The new, dreamy, utopian, educated, tech class wanted a mystical item for their new “information culture.”

So meme came along in 1976. Thank you, Richard Dawkins.

“Slogan” comes from the early 16th century Scottish Gaelic: sluagh (army) and gairm (shout). An army shout. A battle cry. No mistaking it. Bang.

“Motto” is just as good. The Latin gives us muttum (a mutter, a grunt).

But now, from the Online Etymology Dictionary:

Meme: “1976, introduced by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in ‘The Selfish Gene,’ coined by him from Greek sources, such as mimeisthai “to imitate”…and intended to echo gene.”

Dawkins writes: “We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. ‘Mimeme’ comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like ‘gene’.”

A unit of cultural transmission. Sounds a bit like ‘gene.’ A replicator. Heavy pseudo-tech overtones.

With “meme,” we’re into different territory. We’re encouraged to believe (and even celebrate) that key words and phrases and images “automatically” transfer from person to person—a cultural phenomenon. As if there is a contagion factor beyond anyone’s control. As if genes are being passed along. Or viruses. No one is really responsible. It just happens.

This absurd notion is, of course, entirely in line with collectivism —“the things we’re all thinking at once.”

We’re supposed to believe that ideas “happen” in the group, the mass, the Glob. They just show up.

They especially happen on the Web, where these “memes” of the collective (all hail!) sweep through the brains of millions of people like a dust storm—because that’s how reality should work in the Great New Epoch.

The individual is nothing more than a link in a chain. Electrical impulses pass along the chain. Or genes do. Or viruses.

No choice is involved. It’s a wonderful cheese-melt infection and contagion. The group knows. The group twitches this way and then that way. This is the heraldic future. Sizzle, twitch, sizzle, twitch.

Independent individual consciousness? Choice? Never heard of it.

But let me quote the well-known British psychologist, Susan Blackmore, because she lays out the “meme-philosophy” in an unmistakable way:

“Consciousness is an illusion constructed by the memes.”

Boom. There is no such thing as consciousness. It’s just a grab-bag of contagious memes. And if this isn’t enough, here is her foundation:

“Memetics appears to have a lot of implications that we humans are machines, which people have never liked. Of course we’re machines, we’re biological machines. But people don’t like that. Free will and consciousness is an illusion, and the self is a complex of memes. People don’t like that. My view is that if these things are true it doesn’t matter if we like them or not.”

I see. We’re machines. There is no freedom. In fact, there is no self. So Blackmore, I presume, is just another collection of memes talking to other collections of memes—and she’s not choosing to do so, because choice doesn’t exist. There is no “she.” There is no you. There is no me.

Perfect.

Transhumanists must love her. They push the narrative that humans are merely biological machines, too. Therefore, since “no one is really there,” any changes to the machines are acceptable, especially if introduced from above, in order to create a far better future. Naturally, these transhumanists define what that future should be. They decide how to re-program all the billions of defective biological machines on Earth to fit their vision.

Plant countless numbers of memes; modify genetics; beam electromagnetics into skulls; rearrange hormones; insert images directly into the visual cortex bypassing the usual mode of perception; prescribe drugs that radically alter brain chemistry; replace body parts; hook brains to computers that supply answers to all questions and problems; create human clones; establish hatcheries for synthetic births.

You know, that sort of thing.

Rewire all the sizzles and twitches of the universal collective.

In Brave New World, Huxley was presenting a future in which humans would opt for the pleasures of sensation and belonging, and in return they would sacrifice whatever they might dimly remember of a different kind of life.

All the suffering of the past would be the rationalization for making this new world, where suffering would be absent.

The memes that refer to this trade-off are still in the infancy stage, but you can bet they will proliferate. And they will not spontaneously arise. They’ll be inserted, as part of the ongoing psychological operation to carry us forward into a shadowless society of happy bio-machines.

A few memes that have come and gone and resurfaced—the meanings change as well: “Spaceship Earth, biosphere, infosphere, going viral.” Depending on the usage, you can see, creeping in at the edges, the Collective We, as if the “I” is simply a remnant of a bygone era of monsters…but now, thank goodness, the human race is being re-educated to the correct frequency.

Meme-metaphysics emphasizes what the Internet supposedly proves: all is information. Life is information. Flesh, blood, desire, passion, high ideals, achievement—these and other “older” terms are now inappropriate and meaningless, because we know that organisms, including humans, are actually only houses for information-flow and transfer.

This essentially soulless view coordinates well with transhumanists, who would say of their projects to reshape all humans, “Well, we’re just directing information in new ways. No harm in that.”

No harm, if you want to let loose soulless surgeons to drain the life-force from everyone they can, because underneath it all, they have no life left of their own.

No harm at all.

You’re a machine. I’m a machine.

You sitting there, reading these words, understanding them, knowing that you understand them at this very moment—that’s all some kind of synaptic boondoggle. You’re not conscious of this moment. How could you be? You’re just information.

You’re composed of 5000 memes. I’m composed of 5000 memes. We’re memeing. That’s all.

This is being sold to (and by) the educated class step by step.

It was once called philosophic materialism, before that term was deemed clunky and aged, before it was dropped like a hot potato—because it characterized too well and too purely the titanic campaign to erase the individual and his unique consciousness.

Replacing the unique and irreducible individual, we have the notion of a “soft infection” of memes. They are now the particles of existence. They spread endlessly. That’s the new philosophy.

It’s utter nonsense, of course.

It’s an op.

It’s designed to take language, and therefore thought, out of the hands of the individual.


Exit From the Matrix


The designers are betting you won’t notice, that you’ll waft with the tide of the elite info-nauts and eventually wind up in their placid beds of the Brave New World, sizzling and twitching with minor pleasures, bereft of what you once were.

Their culture is a rank fraud.

And cultures only exist when people decide to enlist in them. They don’t happen by uncontrollable contagion. If you buy the contagion myth, you buy a fluffy puffy fairy tale that, sooner or later, leads you into a dark wet dead-end alley.

They’re essentially claiming they can reprogram you to believe the alley is a bed of delights and never notice the broken bricks and the decay and the debris.

You have the power to reason and analyze and imagine and create and invent futures and realities of your own choosing, out of your most profound desires.

There never was and never will be a meme for that.

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: how to introduce it and improve mush-minds

Logic: how to introduce it and improve mush-minds

by Jon Rappoport

February 25, 2016

“One of the most successful forms of mind control is inducing confusion. In education, this means avoiding details and substituting generalities. It means never teaching logic.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Note: I include a very simple and basic logic-course starter in my collection, The Matrix Revealed. I present a long audio section, “Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation,” in my collection, Power Outside The Matrix.

Modern propaganda, PR, and advertising use non-logic to sell their ideas and products. They rely on nudging people into making associations between images and ideas and feelings. X=Y. A summer afternoon in a pasture equals a pill for arthritis. Three men in suits shaking hands in a boardroom equals making money in the stock market, if you use broker A. Citizen safety equals men-in-black policemen driving Pentagon armored vehicles down a city street. A brand of SUV packed with giggling kids equals a happy warm family forever.

Associations, equivalences. Join two ideas together that don’t belong together.

Non-logic. Anti-logic.

This gives rise to the notion: “Information is merely an opportunity to make any associations I want to. There’s no reason to analyze information.”

Read an entire article? Absurd. Much easier to look at the headline and play an aimless riff on it. Stimulate the flow of adrenaline. React. Feel better. Feel deprived. Feel entitled. Whatever floats your boat.

IQ plummets? Who cares?

Who would want to teach logic to students? What a waste of time. The purpose of education these days is injecting values and slogans and attitudes; associating those values with attractive images. For that, you don’t need a mind. You only need mush that can be shaped.

And after what passes for a high school education, the mush is there. It has no clues about processes of thought.

Nevertheless, just suppose a teacher wanted to go where no one has gone for a hundred years or so. How would he start? Where would he start?

At the bottom.

Take a newspaper article about politics. Have the students read it. Then ask them: what does the first paragraph state? What is it saying?

You may be surprised at the variety of opinion.

“It says Martians will be here soon.”

“It says President Obama was born in Hawaii.”

“It says cooking rice is easy.”

“It says I’m triggered and vulnerable.”

Carry on a discussion for as long as it takes, until most of the students know what the first paragraph actually states. This may be a half-hour, a week, a month. Who knows?

Repeat the process with each paragraph of the article. If that takes a year, so be it, because you can’t move further until students understand the text. I know that is a mystical and esoteric notion, but accept it on an experimental basis.

Next step: ask the students whether the author of the article is trying to make an overall point. Ask them what that point is.

“His point is he doesn’t like working-class people.”

“He loves cats.”

“He wants everybody to move to Mars.”

“He’s political.”

“He’s asking us to give money to Marco Rubio.”

Your work is cut out for you. Keep going until the fog clears. Have the students read the article over and over until most of them see the actual point the author is trying to make.

Then—how did the author try to convince you his point was correct?

Then—did you see a hole in his attempt to convince you? A gap? A wrong move?

This is the general sequence of steps. Basically, you’re sticking the students’ noses in the text. Again and again. You’re focusing them on specifics. You’re showing them the difference between their own opinions and random associations and what the author is saying.

You’re doing the one thing they’ve avoided doing. You’re standing in for every incompetent teacher they’ve ever had. You’re reversing years of desultory derangement in classrooms.

You’re making students more intelligent. That’s a very tall order. It takes commitment. If you don’t have it, get out of the business.


the matrix revealed


Consider a subject I’ve been writing about lately: the Zika virus.

Here is a progression which, if followed, leads you to interesting places:

Researchers are saying: “the Zika virus causes a birth defect.” What does that statement mean?

How must causation be established? What are the rules?

Have the rules been followed?

That simple group of questions takes you to the conclusion that there is no evidence for Zika as the cause of the birth defect—if you proceed in a straight line, allowing no distractions, such as pronouncements from public-health agencies and governments.

I could teach a four-year logic course using Zika.

During that time, I would introduce a few dozen false and vague generalities, opinions, and diversions that have been deployed to keep people from walking that straight line. These logical flaws are often utilized in arguments, in order to cook the books.

Mainstream news is a wonderful source for non-logic.

And it also leads you to propaganda, when you realize that all nonsense can’t be an accident.

It also leads you to a course on journalism: how it’s usually done; how it can be done. Investigative reporting is an opportunity to be relentless. Following down a major story to its roots is an illuminating experience. You end up building an alternative structure that parallels and supersedes the official structure. Your archeological mission unearths a city that no one knew was there.

In order to accomplish this, you have to be willing to deal with details, one by one. Examine them, see where they came from, determine whether they’re relevant, whether they’re obfuscating the main event, whether they’re false, whether they were placed there to lead you away from the truth.

Logic is one system you can count on. It helps you tell the difference between what you know and what you don’t know.

Logic topples authority when authority is wrong.

It mitigates aimless and random personal attacks and accusations. It offers a perspective through which dubious sources of information can be viewed.

Logic isn’t the ultimate ground of existence. It’s a tool that can be used to assess the validity and probability of a formal argument.

It isn’t an answer. It’s a way of arriving at answer.

It shows you the difference between an assumption based on belief and a purported fact, which is either true or false.

Logic allows you to move inside an overly complex argument that has been promoted to hide the truth. Once inside, you can give the argument a haircut and see its essence.


power outside the matrix


In a world flooded with information and disinformation, logic isn’t the be-all and end-all. But without it, you’re floundering in the ocean. You’re swimming inside holes and gaps, instead of being able to see the holes and gaps.

The interesting thing is: once people actually know what an author is saying; once they know what conclusion he’s reaching; once they know how he’s getting there; they can see the flaws and the omissions and the insupportable inferences.

They can see the line of reasoning, from beginning to end.

The lights go on.

A heretofore mysterious territory comes into focus.

The differences between fact, lie, assumption, argument, polemic, and propaganda emerge and the mind begins to breathe.

Perhaps for the first time.

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.

Mind control and logic

Mind control and logic

by Jon Rappoport

February 11, 2016

Note: In my collection, Power Outside The Matrix, I include a long audio section, “Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation.”

One type of mind control involves defeating logic.

Modern formulations of basic logic begin with the statement: You can’t have A and not-A. Which is a way of saying contradictions are unacceptable.

So it’s no surprise that mind control attempts to introduce contradictions into rational processes.

You see this in propaganda.

For example: People who are vaccinated are in danger from those who are unvaccinated. (“Keep your unvaccinated child away from my vaccinated child.”)

There is a contradiction here. You can see it by merely defining (according to conventional terms) the meaning of “vaccinated.”

It means “immune,” “protected from contracting the disease targeted by the vaccine.”

But if the vaccinated person is protected and immune, then coming into contact with an unvaccinated person will bring no danger.

Therefore, the notion that vaccinated people are A) protected but B) not protected, is absurd, a contradiction.

The easiest way to defeat logic is through deficient education. Never teach logic. Ignore it. Instead, teach specific values. Teach anything except logic. Don’t teach children how to spot contradictions.

A deficient education plus tons of ceaseless propaganda=mind control.

Logic is a significant problem for people who want a closed and unfree society. Teaching logic tends to produce sharp and independent minds.

Logic produces personal power.

Here is another example of non-logic: “The ballot initiative passed last November by the voters of Maui County is illegal, because it set up a new law regarding commercial agriculture. Commercial agriculture is regulated by state and federal laws, which trump county laws.”

There are several ways of attacking this proposition, but the most basic way is:

The ballot initiative was not aimed at commercial agriculture. It called for a moratorium on all Monsanto/Dow experiments using non-commercial GMOs.

In what has become a federal court case, the judge and the lawyers for Dow/Monsanto are proceeding from a false basic premise.

Of course, the failure in this case is a willful assertion of the false premise.

There are a number of arguments afloat these days which proceed this way:

“The science concerning ABC is settled.”

“’Settled’ means ‘true.’”

“Therefore the science concerning ABC is true.”

However, on closer inspection, “settled” means “there is a consensus among officially favored scientists.”

Actual science doesn’t operate according to what officially favored scientists claim. It doesn’t operate according to consensus at all. It operates according to what is true and valid—and the best way to ascertain that is through the broadest possible analysis accomplished by a wide variety of independent researchers, who attempt to replicate prior experimental results.

Even then, there is always room for reasoned dissent.


power outside the matrix


There is much, much more I could write about logic. The issues I raise in this article are basic and should be addressed in every high school, in great detail, with many illustrations.

For instance: what are the full tacit implications of the statement found at the end of every television drug ad—“ask your doctor if X is right for you.”

For instance, when the press reports a new outbreak of disease, claiming it is caused by a particular virus…how was that assertion determined? On what grounds do scientists say they have found the virus that causes the disease?

I ran headlong into that one while writing my first book, AIDS INC., and the further I investigated HIV as “the cause of AIDS,” the more I was stunned by the lack of logic present in the argument.

Logic is a sword.

Learning its many uses, while still young, creates formidable students and citizens.

Propaganda is the art of overwhelming logic.

It works, when the mind is unprepared.

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.

The loud world of ad hominem attacks

The loud world of ad hominem attacks

The content of an argument vs. the person making the argument

by Jon Rappoport

December 8, 2015

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

“One of the main purposes of propaganda is making people feel stupid. How do you do that? Send them obvious lies and contradictions from cathedrals of power. Watch them shake their heads and retreat into their shells. The battle is over.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

During my 30 years as a reporter on scientific issues, my most serious journalistic work has focused on large subjects that need to be explored down to their core. A few examples: Does HIV cause AIDS? Are vaccines safe and effective? Is psychiatry a true science? What are the negative effects of pharmaceutical drugs?

I’ve carried out this work independently, and the validity of my investigations hasn’t hinged on the character or personality of the people who oppose my positions.

Yes, I’ve enjoyed parodying and satirizing those people, but not as a substitute for analysis.

These days, we see the escalation of the ad hominem argument: “Oh, he’s just saying that because he’s a Democrat (Republican).” “He’s just saying that because the oil companies are paying him off.” “He’s defending that position because he’s a racist.” “If he doesn’t agree with me, he must be a CIA agent.” “He’s a nut. He’s been discredited.”

Ad hominem=“toward/against the man,” rather than “against the argument the man is making.”

Understand this: In many cases, it is instructive to know why a person is making an argument. It’s instructive to know whether he is part of a group that has a particular political agenda. It’s instructive to know whether he is concealing his true reasons for making an argument. It’s instructive to know whether he is a propagandist.

But none of these factors is a substitute for investigating the substance of the argument itself, as well as the overall subject to which the argument is referring. If you don’t do that work, all the ad hominem attacks in the world won’t help you. You can go after this person and that person…but the truth remains unknown.

Unfortunately, the media landscape and the educational system being what they are now, most people aren’t equipped to analyze a major subject and separate truth from fiction. All they can do is accuse their opponents of base and ulterior motives. That’s the only card they can play. They latch on to Subject X, they favor Position A, and from that moment on anyone who favors Position B is a liar, a charlatan, a hired hand of Evil Forces. That’s the beginning and the end of their “investigation.”

The notion of ad hominem was understood at least as far back as ancient Rome. The Latin phrase, argumentum ad hominem (argument toward the man), indicated a flaw in reasoning, a piece of misdirection, a distraction from a thorough analysis of the argument itself.

But how can modern students really grasp the full impact of ad hominem, unless they carry out logical research of their own, and contrast that experience with simply making flip accusations against people they don’t agree with.

In an atmosphere where ad hominem prevails, things don’t improve. They get worse. Eventually, the dominant groups adopt a few stock attacks against everyone who doesn’t adore them. Rolled out with enough volume and ferocity, they can prevent a person with a different point of view from being heard at all in their controlled “safe space.”

So in support of “universal caring and the redress of injustice,” such dominant groups become totalitarian commissars.

Ad hominem is often deployed with another logical fallacy, the vague generality. In a political debate, for example, you’ll hear something like this: “So-and-so is campaigning on the basis of exclusion. He says he wants to lift up Americans, but he represents corporate interests.” Within that remark, “exclusion” and “corporate interests” are vague generalities. These ad hominem accusations are rarely spelled out and specified.

Many people, to one degree or another, engage in polemic and ad hominem. But when it comes to vital issues, the acid test is, do they also analyze the subject at hand and discover the truth, falsity, validity, and invalidity embedded in it? Can they separate the wheat from the chaff?

Just because other people can’t do it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to—unless the condition of your mind is a matter of indifference to you.

I’m talking about self-sufficiency of intellect here. Obviously, no one is going to able to dive down into every major issue of the day and discover what sits at the bottom of it. But if you can achieve this form of logical depth with several such issues, you know you can do it. And that confidence builds character and courage.

Some years ago I made notes for a piece called, If Socrates Could Speak Now. Here is a quote:

“Friends, in the marketplace, you find a shorthand give and take. Rough and tumble. Half-ideas are thrown back and forth. Opinions are cheaply bought and sold. Accusations are hurled. It would be a sign of poor character not to be able to withstand such chaos. And why not possess the ability to gossip with the best of them? But at the same time, you must know how to take apart the strands of conversation and see them in an impartial light. You must be able to follow a line of reasoning from first ideas to conclusions and identify where the logic breaks down and withers. These are the capabilities of the thoughtful human. You may despair at what goes on in the marketplace, but you must not give in to it. Simply because you do not know when and where reason will triumph, or how, it would be foolish of you to employ this doubt as an excuse to surrender and abdicate your own throne-of-mind. It would amount to creating a wound in yourself…”

Of course, one can take logic too far. What to do when key facts are omitted or buried, names of persons are obscured, men stay behind the curtain and control events through layers of manipulation? In some situations, demanding absolute logic before making any argument at all leaves you out in the cold. At those times, you need to know how to assemble a circumstantial case, and you need to know how to assess probabilities. These subtleties need to be deployed.

Part of “circumstantial/probability” intelligence derives from common-sense judgments. For instance, years ago, when I was wrapping up an investigation into the overall damage medical drugs were causing in the US population, and I had settled on rather conservative estimates (100,000 deaths per year, a million deaths per decade), it occurred to me that if I could discover these numbers, so would the FDA. The FDA is the sole American agency tasked with certifying the drugs as safe and effective before releasing them for public use. And if the FDA knew those numbers and was doing nothing about them, the FDA was complicit in the deaths.

This is common sense. It is also a piece of logical inference. So when I wrote articles from that point on, I included a direct accusation against the FDA. I fully believed it was justified. Then, lo and behold, one day, someone sent me a link to an FDA web page. On the page was an FDA admission that medical drugs were creating 100,000 deaths in the US every year. And, for the capper, the FDA was taking zero responsibility.

When trying to assign culpability and guilt, assemble relevant facts and ask, “What would a reasonable person who is a leader do about these facts? What action would he take? Did he take that action?” In my previous article about an approach to gun violence, I did exactly that. If gangs across America are an important and chronic contributor to gun violence, what would a reasonable President do about it? Would he pay attention? Would he ignore gangs? Would he highlight, in his speeches, the problem of gangs? Would he make them a priority?

And then: what has the President actually done about gangs?


power outside the matrix


In many ways, the present civilization is at a crossroad. The disappearance of rationality is not a small problem. It gives birth to multiple consequences, all of which are deeply corrosive.

Our so-called leaders are aware that many people still expect them to possess the quality of logical thought. That’s why these leaders, in their speeches and comments, try to present a credible imitation of that quality. For them, it’s a show. For us, it’s more than that. Pointing out the difference between a knock-off and the real thing is necessary. Those of us who can perform that work should do it.

My old logic professor used to say, “Know what you don’t know. Then find answers in that area of mystery.”

Frequently, the mystery is “guarded” by assertions which make no sense or are contradictory. Instead of deciding the assertions must be true and you’re the one who can’t understand them, try the opposite approach. Analyze the statements, show how they make no sense, show how they contradict each other. Take the bull by the horns. Wrestle it to the ground. Confirm your own intelligence. Become confident in it.

Don’t lose your intellect because others are losing theirs.

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.