Beyond one space-time continuum: logic and imagination

Beyond one space-time continuum: logic and imagination

by Jon Rappoport

July 16, 2015

Logic applies to the physical universe.

It applies to statements made about that universe. It applies to factual language.

Many wonderful things can be done with logic. Don’t leave home without it. Don’t analyze information without it. Don’t endure an education without it.

But art and imagination are of another universe(s). They can deploy logic, but they can also invent in any direction without limit, and they can embrace contradiction. They can build worlds in which space and time and energy are quite different.

Magic is nothing more and nothing less than imagination superseding this universe. Magic occurs when imagination takes this reality for a ride.

Which brings us to what I call the Is People. The Is People are dedicated with a fervor to insisting that this Continuum and this consensus reality are inviolable, are the end-all and be-all.

They strive to fit themselves into Is, and this eventually has some interesting negative consequences. They come to resemble solid matter. They take on the character of matter.

For them, imagination is at least a misdemeanor, if not a felony. It’s a blow to the Is of Is. They tend to view imagination as a form of mental disorder.

Technocrats like to gibber about imagination as if it’s nothing more than just another closed system that hasn’t been mapped yet. But they’re sure it will be, and when that happens, people will apparently give up creating and opt for living in a way that more closely resembles machines.

There are many people who secretly wish they were machines that functioned automatically and without flaws. It’s their wet dream.

Magic eventually comes to the conclusion that imagination creates reality. Any reality. And therefore, one universe, indivisible, is an illusion, a way of trapping Self.

What began as the physical universe, a brilliant work of art, ends up as a psychic straitjacket, a mental ward in which the inmates strive for normalcy. Those who fail at even this are labeled and shunted into a special section of the ward.

But the result of imagination, if pursued and deployed long enough and intensely enough, is:

Consensus reality begins to organize itself around you, rather than you organizing yourself around it.

There are various names and labels used to describe this state of affairs, but none of them catches the sensation of it.

Magic is one of those labels.

What I’m describing here isn’t some snap-of-the-fingers trick of manifestation; it’s a life lived.

The old alchemists were working in this area. They were striving for the transformation of consciousness. In true alchemy, one’s past, one’s experience, one’s conflicts all become fuel for the fire of creating new realities. Taken along certain lines, this is called art.

One universe, one logic, one Continuum, one role in that Continuum, one all-embracing commitment to that role, one avenue of perception, one Is…this is the delusion.

And eventually, the delusion gives birth to a dedication to what “everyone else” thinks and supposes and assumes and accepts. This is slavery.

Freeing one’s self, living through and by imagination, is not a mass movement. It’s a choice taken by one person. It’s a new and unique road for each person.

Societies and civilizations are organized around some concept of the common good. The concept always deteriorates, and this is because it is employed to lower the ceiling on individual power rather than raise it.

“Be less than you are, then we can all come together in a common cause.”

It’s essentially a doctrine of sacrifice—everyone sacrifices to everyone else, and the result is a coagulated mass of denial of Self.

It is a theme promoted under a number of guises by men who have one thing in mind: control.

It’s a dictatorship of the soul. It has always existed.

Breaking out of it involves reasserting the power of imagination to invent new and novel realities.

Under a variety of names, this is art.

Promoting the image of the artist as a suffering victim is simply one more way to impose the doctrine of sacrifice.

In 1961, when I began writing and painting in earnest, I had a conversation with the extraordinary healer, Richard Jenkins, whom I write about in my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies (included in Exit From The Matrix). This is my note from that time about what Richard told me:

“Paint what you want to, no matter what anyone else says. You may not always know what you want to create, but that’s good. Keep working, keep painting. You’ll find your way. You’ll invent something new, something unique, if you don’t give in. You’ll see everything in a new light. Reality is a bad joke. It’s nothing more than what everyone assents to, because they’re afraid. They’re afraid of what people will say. They’re afraid they have far more power than they want to discover. They’re afraid that power will lead them away from common and ordinary beliefs. They’re afraid they’ll become a target for the masses who have surrendered their own lives and don’t want to be reminded of it. They afraid they’ll find out something tremendous about themselves…”

Nothing I’ve experienced in the 50 years since then has diminished what Richard said to me.

These fears are all illusions that disintegrate when a person shoves in his chips on imagination and makes that bet and lives it.


Exit From the Matrix


Here are several notes from the years 1999-2010, while I was preparing my collection, The Matrix Revealed. They take up the subject of reality-construction, mind control, mind freedom, and creative power.

“You have to understand that there are dimensions. In the dimension we call the world, a person needs logic. He needs it badly. He needs to be able to analyze and take apart things and put them back together again. He needs to identify flaws in reasoning and discover deceptions. He needs to recognize formal arguments and trace them all the way through from assumptions to conclusions. But in the dimension where creative power operates, where things happen that most certainly impact this world, all bets are off. He needs to understand and experience and launch a kind of vast freedom for his own imagination that takes him entirely out of the realm of being a normal person, a provincial “realist,” a mechanically thinking human. He has to go light-years past that. He has to stop pretending he is some kind of scientist. In other words, he has to stop burying his own creative power. Two dimensions, two capabilities.”

“Mind control, brainwashing, programming, conditioning all refer to the imposition of systems on the human creative impulse. When you have a whole civilization that, more and more, consists of systems, you have an effort to replace the individual with the group, with the machine.”

“At the highest level, elites are in the business of inventing reality for everyone else. This is more than lying. It’s the wholesale invention of a continuum. Past, present, and future.”

“Imagination is the opposite of mind control. It is creating beyond the boundaries of accepted reality. It is more than perception. Imagination expands perception.”

“Elites are perverse artists who invent reality for everyone else. Part of the plan is convincing everyone else that they can’t invent their own far-reaching reality.”

“Most people define freedom as liberation from certain externally imposed restrictions. But freedom goes much farther than that. It goes beyond how individuals ordinarily define their own existence, their own concerns, their own habits. A person’s own definitions are self-imposed limits. These limits = everything a person does and thinks that excludes imagination.”


The Matrix Revealed


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 misapplied: society as function

Logic misapplied: society as function

by Jon Rappoport

July 10, 2015

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

“People often believe two similar things are the same. They equate them. They accept loose comparisons. If someone said, ‘A car is like a plane, so therefore it is a plane,’ he would be judged a fool. But make the comparison a little more subtle, and you can get a whole population to salute, sign up, and go along.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

The civilization we now inhabit is more and more a system of functions. Person A does B. Person C does E.

People learn to expect functionality. This is important, because if they didn’t the whole apparatus would collapse.

What I’m talking about here goes beyond any rebellions among the disenfranchised. Those rebellions, such as they are, are planned for, and they will be enveloped in the System.

I’m talking about a psychology of acceptance, through which the individual agrees that he is supposed to perform in a way that satisfies a higher overall pattern.

This psychology involves language as well, which more and more becomes utilitarian. Words themselves designate function and “what is supposed to happen.”

Look at the literature/fiction of our time. The protagonist faces a problem, a conflict. He strives to solve it. He eventually succeeds. He does what he is supposed to do. The reader is satisfied. The function has been acted out.

Society’s organizations are compartmentalized. In a large corporation, bringing a new product to market means the various sections will do their jobs: R&D, design, packaging, marketing, sales, and so on. What exists in each individual beyond his sub-function is of no concern.

A person looks at an object he hasn’t seen before. He asks, “What is it for? What do I do with it? Does it work well?” He might even ask those questions about a human relationship.

All right. Now here is the punch line. A society of function appears to have a basis in logic. That is how it seems. “Don’t you understand? All the parts are coordinated. They mesh. They support each other. They make sense in terms of the overall goal, whether it is the sale of a product or the prosecution of a criminal or the execution of a war…”

The parts are logical. The functions are logical. The people who perform their jobs are logical.

No. Logic is actually a set of rules and principles that apply to a line of reasoning. Logic has to do with the validity of a string of successive statements.

Logic is a kind of map.

Logic is not the territory of society’s functioning.

This confusion set in, philosophically speaking, with the rise of the school of Pragmatism in the early 20th century. One of the school’s primary strategies was defining words according to their function. So-called “operational definition.” For example: the word “radio” means “how a radio works and what it produces.” And nothing else.

From there it was a short skip and jump to viewing society as a system whose meaning was entirely wrapped up in “how society operates to achieve articulated goals.”

Pragmatism was a deep bow in the direction of, and a reflection of, technology. Every element of society would be judged in terms of what it was for. If it didn’t have an operational purpose, it was meaningless.

Again, this approach seems logical. It carries the gloss of logic. But it is misapplied.

It also leads to a form of full-bodied totalitarianism. The individual human is defined as “his instrumental function in the overall scheme and plan.” Beyond that, any conversation about him is irrelevant and meaningless.

The next step, naturally, would focus on enunciating and debating the individual’s preferred function. Should it be X or Y or Z?

As the old joke goes, “Now that we’ve established you’re a prostitute, we’re just arguing about your price.”

And yes, millions of millions of words have subsequently been written about “the role of the individual in society.” But the battle to reduce the individual was already won. The argument now was about his operational uses on behalf of higher goals.

The entire flood of labels for individuals—white, black, male, female, straight, gay, transgender, privileged, oppressed, and so on—is actually a reshuffling of deck chairs on the Titanic, because the individual is basically being viewed in terms of whether and how he/she is benefiting or harming “the future of society and its preferred pattern.”

Function.

Many, many years ago, when I studied formal logic, I spoke to my professor about a philosophy called Scientific Humanism. I mentioned that it seemed to be an extension of the principles of logic to society. He looked at me as if I were crazy.

“Scientific Humanism,” he said, “has nothing to do with logic. It has to do with pseudo-logic forced on the population and the extinction of the individual.”

These days, a remark like that could cause a professor problems, if he took it too far. In academia, the basic war is over. The individual has been kidnapped and folded into “the greater good.”

The Platonic ideal (The Good) has taken center stage. Plato wrote dialogues with Socrates as his protagonist, and Socrates appeared to be the champion of the independent and thoughtful individual. But Plato was always holding a hole card under his shirt. It was “the overall Ideal for Society.” When he finally played that card for all it was worth in The Republic, the reader could readily see that the individual was really a function in the scheme of things; and the scheme would be dictated from the top of the food chain.

Logic? Hardly. Only the appearance of logic, as a cover story to promote a totalitarian civilization.

We can see this deception in today’s technocratic movement and its transhumanist vision. At some point in the future, the individual will be hooked up to a super-computer (the embodiment of The Good) in a brain-to-brain connection. He will have extraordinary access to trillions of pieces of data. Thus, he will be freer than ever before.

No. He will be guided by data that have been shaped and sanitized to reflect an overall plan for society. He will therefore be viewing (without knowing it) his preferred function as a citizen in the New World.

This is the true meaning of political correctness.

In the years following the ratification of the US Constitution, the principle of severely limited central government was trampled on. Not only did government expand, but its new departments, laws, regulations, and enforcers were designed to be permanent functions—thereby cementing a viewpoint on how large organizations were supposed to be run.

This was an unstated philosophy of instrumentality: the definitions of jobs and persons embodied in their assigned functions—and nothing else.

This is not logic. This is reduction. They are not the same thing.

“Oh, I did study a course in logic. It’s about how things fit together to arrive at a result.”

Loosely speaking, yes. But on closer examination, no.

Individuals wonder where their freedom went when they accept their functions. They feel the loss. They build up resentment. They look for a way out. They vaguely sense greater potential within themselves. Whether they know it or not, they begin to oppose reason, logic, thinking, because it reminds them of their captive status. Therefore, they’re unequipped to explore what is happening to society. If they become rebels, they feel inadequate to the task, and so they look to groups who mouth appealing sentiments.

Society’s elite planners are adamant about a world of functions. This is their m.o. This is at the heart of their designs. Their psychological operations are aimed at inducing massive numbers of people to accept the all-inclusive notion of function.

This is the unseen war.


The Matrix Revealed


The individual needs to understand all this and offload it. He is himself. He is open-ended. He is far more than a system. He is not designed to perform in a specific way. He is not simply moving around within a territory marked off by fences.

He can use logic to his benefit, but he isn’t logic or some pseudo version of it.

He isn’t a pawn or a knight or rook or a bishop or a king or a queen on the chessboard. He isn’t the chessboard or the designer of the game. He is none of those things. He is far, far more; far, far different.

He can explore “more” and “different” to the hilt. He can find answers on his own, and he can express and live those answers.

And then everything changes.

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: the student’s edge, the investigator’s gold

Logic: the student’s edge, the investigator’s gold

by Jon Rappoport

July 10, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“The discovery of logic was enormous. It changed civilization. It also equipped professional deceivers with a new level of understanding about their own mind-bending work. Today, the investigator needs a knowledge of logic as never before. He also needs to engage in a process of analysis that incorporates more than the stark rules Aristotle once laid down. He needs to know logic’s first cousins…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

This article has two parts. To fully understand what I’m discussing, both parts are essential.

Part One:

Twenty-four-hundred years ago, in the ancient city of Athens, something unprecedented happened.

Three men changed the course of the world by introducing the discipline of logic: Socrates, Plato, and finally, Arisotle, who codified the principles of reasoning in The Organon.

Since then, all the way up the present day, mathematicians and philosophers have added to that store of knowledge, through intensive research.

In many countries, logic used to be an integral part of secondary education. It was often presented as a series of fallacies or errors one needed to avoid while thinking through a problem or assessing an argument.

Now, however, like the dinosaur, it has disappeared.

Why has it vanished from secondary-school curricula? Perhaps for the same reason fewer and fewer students study Latin or Greek. Logic is deemed irrelevant. It’s “old-fashioned.” It can be replaced by minor attempts to teach young people how to “think critically.”

That is simply not true.

We used to understand the formal meaning of the word “argument.” It was a presentation in which the speaker or writer aimed to move from a first set of ideas, along a specific, path, to a conclusion. In order to understand and evaluate an argument, one had to be able to spot departures from the rules of logic. More basically, one had to be able to follow the course of reasoning, like a stream, and not lose the way.

Today’s students are generally lacking in that tracking ability. They often don’t even realize an argument is being made. Rather, they read a chapter in a book and pick and choose what they feel are the most interesting bits of information. They drift; they founder.

They see themselves as consumers in a marketplace of ideas and words, and they buy the most attractive pieces.

This strategy breaks down the farther the student moves along the road of education.

As a former teacher, I have seen students who were, in fact, equipped with a background in logic. In every course they took, they possessed an edge that was enviable.

Logic underlies academic subjects. It is the rock on which those subjects are built. Physics, math, biology, history, languages are taught on the basis that a rational approach to the material is essential. And logic is the essence of rationality.

At best, students pick up logic piecemeal, haphazardly. The obvious step is to teach it as its own subject. If this is done, students suddenly are ahead of the game. They have an indispensable tool for thinking lucidly in any situation, in any classroom, using any text, taking any exam, writing any essay.

It is, so to speak, the difference between mapping a large area by laboriously walking the land, and filming it from the air with high-resolution cameras.

Academic achievement, as the degree of difficulty grows, is all about mastering larger and larger quantities of information. This is the primary challenge. Armed with logic, a student can win this challenge, because he sees and follows the underlying architecture around which all information is organized.

A youngster can take apart an old clock. He can examine the pieces and figure out what each piece does. But then, if he comprehends the structure, the logic of the clock, he can go further. He can understand, more deeply, how all the parts combine to produce the clock that tells time. At that point, his knowledge is unshakable.

This is what the study of logic accomplishes.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed — which includes Jon’s Logic And Analysis course, click here.)


The Matrix Revealed


Part Two:

With everything that the study of logic produces, there are limits.

We not only live in an age of information, we live in an age of disinformation.

When concealment and deception are official goals, an outside person who is examining facts, arguments, premises, and lines of reasoning needs to spot patterns of propaganda, cover stories, intentionally placed distractions, and purposeful omissions of vital data.

In other words, these days we are routinely dealing with spokespeople and experts who are deploying all manner of anti-logic methods, in order to persuade audiences.

This used to be called polemic. That term has dropped out of use.

We need to understand polemic as never before.

Never mind high schools; you can’t find a good course of study on propaganda and polemic at any college or university in the world. I make that statement, because colleges are compromised from the get-go. They receive monies for research involving, for example, vaccines, medical drugs, mind control, climate change, advanced weapons systems, human genetics, pesticides, GMO crops. Propaganda and polemic on these subjects are everywhere. A real course on propaganda would expose the very colleges that teach it.

A professor who went full-bore on propaganda would be cut off at the knees by his administration. He would be attacked, defamed, smeared, hounded, and exiled by his bosses and his own colleagues.

Therefore, the study of disinformation falls outside the academic spectrum.

In my third Matrix collection, Power Outside The Matrix, I include a long section called Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation. It is based on my experience as a reporter over the last 30 years.

I build it on the foundation of: fleshing out and examining, in great detail, the official scenario on any subject. This is an approach that pays handsome dividends.

When you can lay out, like a map or a blueprint, the complete official scenario, you can then take it apart. You can attack its parts, one by one.

I learned how to do just that, on the fly, six years into my career as a reporter, with my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century. I came to this approach as a matter of necessity, because I was inundated with a flood of information on all sides. As soon as people became aware I was writing the book, they gave me their “best opinions” on the subject.

Those opinions ranged all the way from “virus produced in a lab” to “cosmic debris landing on Earth”—and everything in between.

At the same time, I was assembling my own discoveries re the illogical arguments government and university researchers were presenting about “the AIDS virus.”

I was also detailing, in my notes, the biases of independent journalists, who were organizing data to fit their pet causes and agendas.

And beyond any of this, I was standing in the middle of a vast muddle, because I had not yet identified the most basic premises inherent in the official scenario about HIV and AIDS. That was the real kicker. That was keeping me up at nights. I didn’t know I was missing the most basic assumptions.

In other words, I was still unconsciously buying certain official ideas about HIV and AIDS. And given that, I couldn’t move beyond a certain point. I couldn’t take the thousands of pieces of data I had and see them from the correct viewpoint. I had part of the puzzle, but not enough.

Then one day, a man who was supporting my work introduced me at a small gathering where I was delivering a speech. He made an offhand remark. It set off a string of firecrackers in my head. One explosion led to the next—and then I realized what I’d been missing.

It became clear to me—why so many people had so many ideas about AIDS.

I realize that, for many readers, my next statement will fall on deaf ears, because they don’t have all the necessary background. Nevertheless…

I realized there was no such thing as AIDS.

The suffering, pain, and death that was being called AIDS was not one thing, not one syndrome, not one disease, not one condition.

That was the first and foremost error (piece of disinformation) in the official scenario.

Now I could finish the book, and quickly. I had the deception in my hands.

I learned my lesson, which has stood me in good stead ever since. Flesh out the complete official scenario. Find all its parts. Investigate each part. Go to the most basic of all the basic assumptions in the scenario.

There is much more to say about all this, but I wanted to give you at least the flavor of analyzing disinformation about a large, large issue and a large, large false reality.

Logic helps; it is essential; but in practice, it doesn’t carry all the freight. Pushing through multiple webs of lies and half-truths and false trails is a process, and you have to engage in it, up close and personal, in order to arrive at the true foundation of the covert op.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix — which includes Jon’s Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation audio lecture, click here.)


power outside the matrix


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.

Matrixology 101: debates that never happen

Matrixology 101: debates that never happen

by Jon Rappoport

May 5, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Expanding upon my previous article, in order to sustain gigantic false realities, there are honest debates that must never happen. They would reveal too much. They would shine a spotlight on vast contradictions. They would expose official storytellers to withering criticism.

And by debate, I mean extended formal conversations.

The easiest way to eliminate such debates is: never equip the young with the ability and the patience to comprehend them.

That’s working out quite well.

Let me give you an example of a debate that will never happen.

In 1987-88, while I was writing my first book, AIDS Inc., I discovered that the test most frequently used to diagnose HIV in a patient was the antibody test.

A positive test was taken to mean: the patient was carrying HIV; he was already sick or would become sick.

However, I queried an employee of the FDA. I asked: if an HIV vaccine is developed, it will produce antibodies to HIV, and then the patient will be called “immune,” correct?

In other words, if a routine blood test reveals antibodies to HIV, the patient will be told he either has AIDS or will get AIDS—but if those same antibodies are produced by a vaccine, the person will be said to be immune to HIV.

The anonymous FDA employee answered me by mail, on a piece of paper without the FDA letterhead. This is what he essentially said:

If an HIV vaccine is developed, people who take it will be given a letter they can carry around with them. If they are ever tested for HIV and the test comes up positive, they can show the letter to their doctor, to prove they are immune, rather than dangerously infected.

Otherwise, there would be no way to distinguish between “in danger of dying” and “immune.”

Extraordinary, to say the least.


This opened up a huge can of worms about several issues, one of which was the actual meaning of antibody tests.

Until 1985, positive antibody tests were generally taken to mean: the patient’s immune system is in good working order; his immune system contacted the virus in question and warded it off.

But after 1985 (and not just in the case of AIDS, but for any virus under the sun), the same antibody test was taken to mean: the patient is already ill or he will become ill.

Millions and millions of antibody tests have been given to people around the world. Just a few of the viruses tested for: SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, Ebola.

Think about the effects of a doctor saying: “You’re positive for a very dangerous virus.”

Think about the 180-degree turnaround in interpreting the meaning of a positive test.

It generally went from “You’re fine,” to “You’re infected.”

I can think of several independent scientists who could weigh in on a debate about these tests, against official scientists.

It would be revealing, to say the least.

But it would only be revealing for people who could follow the logic and the illogic of the participants.

Otherwise, it would be like listening to a tape played backwards.


The Matrix Revealed


The ultimate backup plan for stifling all important debates is: never equip people with the ability to follow and understand them.

These days, this plan is called education.

Long ago, I was a schoolteacher. I found that, if I taught students logic in a straightforward way, step by step, with many examples, they responded. They caught on. They liked catching on.

It made them smarter and thus happier. It made them feel more powerful, because they were.

Every student deserves to earn that experience. It’s a tragedy and crime that so few are given the opportunity.

The antibody test is just one of a number of enormous issues in modern medicine that, if opened to real debate, would cause a seismic shift in society…assuming there were enough listeners who could track the lines of reasoning.

A true home-schooling movement should take notice of all this.

Teaching logic is work. Good work. It pays off in brighter students. It opens doors that would otherwise remain closed. It adds real substance to the idea that home schooling stands for individual independence and power, rather than State control.

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.

Propaganda is the art of overwhelming logic

Propaganda is the art of overwhelming logic

by Jon Rappoport

May 5, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

One type of mind control involves defeating logic as a method of thinking.

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 concealed 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 not-A) in danger 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, when in fact 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 ignoring of the facts. The argument is: A is B. No it isn’t. A is A.


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.”

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.


The Matrix Revealed


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 (at a more sophisticated level): 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.: Scandal of the Century, 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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Do atoms understand language?

Do atoms understand language?

Are you your brain and nothing else?

If so, mind-control programming is quite reasonable

by Jon Rappoport

February 19, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“The idea that somewhere in all the stacked-up universes, there might be a little corner that isn’t made out of matter or energy, but is truly independent of, and different from, sub-atomic particles… this idea confounds people, as if it might mean the end of all existence. It might mean a return to the old myths and fairy tales of the horrific priest-classes. It might mean everything science knows will vanish in a puff of smoke. But what if it doesn’t mean any of these things? What if it means that brutal power and domination could die out? What if it means there is an adventure waiting for all of us, beyond any and all pictures of conventional reality?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Do atoms understand language?

Why ask such a question?

Because it goes to the heart of the slow-motion car crash that conventional physics has been experiencing for the past hundred years.

The question also puts philosophic materialism into a massive dither, from which it can’t hope to recover.

Conventional physics asserts that the universe is made entirely of particles. Atoms. Quarks, wavicles.

The universe includes the human brain.

Here is a sentence: “The Roman Empire collapsed, ushering in a Dark Age, a time of unprecedented chaos.”

Forget the truth or falsity of that sentence. It’s not at issue. What is at issue is the meaning of the sentence. You’re reading it now.

Do you understand it? Do you understand its meaning?

Of course you do. So do I.

But you see, your brain is made of particles that physicists would say have no comprehension of language. None. Zero.

These particles make up rocks, chairs, toothbrushes, asteroids, suns, brains. The same particles.

They have no understanding of sentences or paragraphs or books. No understanding of meaning, as expressed in language.

So?

Understanding of language must come from somewhere else. How can it come from the brain, if the brain is entirely composed of atoms?

“Hello, atom. It rained yesterday, but today it’s supposed to be sunny, and the temperature will reach 70. Do you understand what I’m saying?”

No answer.

“Hello, atom. I find the metaphysics of Kant impenetrable. How about you?”

No answer.

Of course, physicists will dodge and tap dance and offer diverting explanations: “We’re just beginning to understand the mysteries of the brain…we’re making enormous strides…” And this one, my favorite:

“Humans are conscious and understand meaning and language, we know that. And the only place this understanding could possibly come from is the brain. Therefore, the brain is conscious…”

That’s called circular reasoning, which means you assume what you’re claiming to prove. It’s one of the first fallacies a student learns about, when he’s studying logic (if anyone studies logic anymore).

Some “experts” will make this assertion: “There is no such thing as consciousness or understanding. They’re delusions. So it’s quite all right for the brain to be composed of non-conscious atoms…”

In other words, you and I, sharing the words and sentences of this article, are completely deluded into “thinking” that we understand them. We don’t. We’re just machines made of atoms.

If you buy that argument, I’m looking for investors in my new Thorazine-cookie company.

No, I’m afraid the conscious understanding of language is quite real; and that understanding, that knowing, right here and right now, isn’t emanating from the brain, couldn’t be emanating from the brain.

Where it does come from…well, all sorts of opinions can be offered. But one thing is clear. If the whole universe is composed of atoms, and if atoms have no conscious understanding, then consciousness and understanding come from someplace else. A non-atom place.

For example…

From you.

And by you, I mean a non-material being.

Unmeasurable. Unanalyzable.

No big deal. Just the difference between a squashed collapsed view of existence and an infinite view…

Here is a statement attributed to Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, 1937 Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine:

“In my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am now retracing my steps…”

How many other scientists would admit they, too, have come to the same crossroad? The deeper they probe, the farther they find themselves from what life is?


power outside the matrix


How many of them would say, “For the past fifty years, I’ve been quite sure everything is made out of something. Know what I mean? Everything is made out of atoms and electrons and quarks and so on. But those little particles don’t understand anything. They just move through space. Something non-material must possess the quality of being able to understand meaning. And that upsets all applecarts…”

How many scientists would say that?

Again…why does any of this matter? Well, here’s one reason. There is an enormous amount of mind-control brain research occurring all over the world. This research is based on the premise that, when it comes to humans, there is no one home. There is just the brain, and the functions of the brain can be manipulated and carved up and reduced, in order to make “the human machine function normally.”

No problem. No conscience. No guilt. It’s just tinkering with the apparatus.

Welcome to the century of the brain. Welcome to philosophic materialism taken to its obvious conclusion.

Welcome to official insanity.

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.

Education programming 101: destroy logic

Education programming 101: destroy logic

by Jon Rappoport

December 3, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Once upon a time, in medieval universities, new students enrolled in the Trivium. It was the foundation curriculum. It was required. Its parts were: grammar, logic, and rhetoric.

Grammar: the interior construction of language.

Logic: the valid and invalid connections in the course of a formal argument; the method of proper reasoning; the deductive links in a chain, at the end of which appears a conclusion.

Rhetoric: oral and written presentation; the use of language to make a case; the capacity to persuade, even in the face of counter-argument.

Today, the subject matter of the Trivium is not only downplayed. It has been shattered.

This article focuses on the death of logic in schools.

When the intensive handling of ideas is seen as a laughable goal for education, indoctrination is plugged in as the only alternative.

The mind of the student shifts from being an active force to being a container.

The destruction of logic perverts rational thought at its core and inserts ideology masked as insight.

The actual meaning of an idea is firmly placed on the back burner. Instead? Praise or attack the people who forward ideas.

This strategy has gained great prominence.

“The revered Founders of the Republic? Shysters, con men, slaveholders, monopolists who saw rebellion from England as the way to win greater power for themselves, at the expense of everyone else living on American soil.”

Therefore, the argument continues, and this is crucial, the Founders’ IDEAS, as expressed in the Declaration and the Constitution, were rotten to the core. The ideas can be dismissed out of hand as coming from “a bad source.”

Ideas no longer need to be judged on their sense, merit, and alignment with basic principles. Nor are they judged by their position in a well-formed argument. All that is out. Now, you only have to “look to the source” and make ALL your decisions based on “who these people really were who expressed the ideas.”

And since that’s the case, learning to think or reason is unnecessary.

In logic, this used to be called the fallacious ad hominem argument. Now it’s not called anything. It’s praised as the insightful way to do intellectual business.

One by one, core ideas fall to the ax, and finally they cease to exist at all.

(To argue that very bad people have taken over an idea, and therefore the idea itself was never good, is like arguing that, since hijackers took over a plane, the plane was a despicable object altogether and probably deserved to be stolen or blown up.)

You might be surprised by the number of people who believe that the value of an idea depends entirely on who expressed the idea. If the wrong person first expressed it, it was never worthy.

Students with a vast sense of self-entitlement and meaningless self-esteem love this strategy. It allows them to parade around and call the shots and decide which ideas are important and which aren’t, without reflection. They have a scorecard of good guys and bad guys and that’s all they need.

In our teaching institutions, you could look in vain to find courses on the individual, his freedom, his power. That’s gone. It’s no accident that serious training in logic is also gone. And by serious, I mean the application of logic to formal arguments on issues that determine our future.

In many cases, instead, education is about: what group do you belong to? What are the needs of that group? Who is oppressing your group? How can you get government to solve the problem?

If you can educate the young to make snap judgments about core ideas, you eliminate their capacity to reason. You own them.

From that point on, they hold a hostile attitude toward anyone who can discuss and analyze ideas. They look at such people as an entitled and privileged class who is speaking a foreign language.

In order to engage in meaningful debate, people have to be able to recognize a train of thought and follow it. If they can’t, because they were educated not to, where are we? We’re in the dark. We’re living by slogans.

Freedom? Liberty? Collective need? Responsibility? It doesn’t matter what ideas are on the table, because the overwhelming number of people don’t know what an idea is. They don’t know how to walk up to one and look at it from several sides. They don’t know how to trace its implications. They don’t know how to fit that idea alongside its cousins. They don’t see a Whole. They see the ceaseless spinning machinery of an alien process, from which they’ve been excluded.

Then, no matter what shape society takes, it’s a dumb-show, as far the majority of its citizens are concerned.


The Matrix Revealed


Who solves that?

The invasive State takes charge. It picks up the pieces of the wreckage it was a key actor in delivering.

The goal of educating citizens about what it means to take part in a Republic has been blunted. This was done, a step at a time, through education.

Dismantling the ability to reason, employ logic, and handle ideas was the prow of that destructive campaign.

Therefore, the people who still know what logic is need to teach it in any way they can.

The first steps are the hardest. But when a student suddenly sees that world open up to him, when the lights go on, when information that was formerly a blur and a blob snaps into place as a recognizably logical (or illogical) sequence, when the student’s aimless wandering mind suddenly focuses with power…when he knows that he knows…the rewards are self-evident.

A dullness becomes bright.

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.