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.

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

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

by Jon Rappoport

November 25, 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.


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.

Consciousness versus computers

Consciousness versus computers

by Jon Rappoport

August 5, 2015

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

“Technocrats believe all brains can be directly hooked up to a super-computer. They’re looking at humans beings through the wrong end of the telescope. Everything they see about humans is reduced, shrunken, and ‘automatic’. Technocrats are trained to miss the big picture, even though they incessantly talk about it. They’re visionaries who are blind. Thus, they’re in the grand tradition of religious fanatics.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

If you take away a person’s ability to employ logic, and if you also take away his imagination, and thus his capacity to extrapolate and predict what is coming, what you are left with is: eyeballs.

Eyeball perception of what is happening now. And even then, eyeballs are seeing immediate reality through unconscious filters.

The ability to apply reason and to predict are vital components of perception. They are voluntary components. They don’t sweep in like a wave and take over. They are born out of freedom and choice.

So…what is the difference between you moving around on the Internet, reading and researching; versus you with your brain directly connected to some grand computer stacked with trillions of pieces of data?

In the former case, you have freedom. In the latter case, it all happens automatically. You get “the best possible data on any given subject.”

Of course, “best possible” is not your decision or conclusion. It’s someone else’s. Worse, the data are instantly downloaded into your brain (whatever that actually means).

How this deterministic system amounts to a glorious breakthrough of enormous spiritual significance, triggering revelations, is beyond mysterious. In fact, the whole conception is absurd.

If you were a robot operating on an assembly line, and your task could be automatically modulated and adjusted, depending on changing circumstances, then yes, that would be a nice innovation.

But you aren’t a robot. You’re conscious. You have choice. Freedom. You can apply logic. You can conceive of futures, based on your present knowledge.

Contrary to technocratic catechism, computers aren’t conscious. They don’t have freedom. They can be programmed to select conclusions relative to specified objectives and goals, but even then their methods of selection are part of their programming. They don’t suddenly wake up and become alive.

Technocrats tend to believe computers, when developed to a sufficient level of complexity that mirrors what the human brain does, DO come alive.

They believe that information-processing alone is a sign of life. But that’s a self-serving fantasy.

Information-processing is one effect of being alive and conscious. The technocrats have it backwards.

Unfortunately for them and their religion, consciousness isn’t measurable. And that’s a bone stuck in their throat.

Therefore, they need to reduce and reduce the concept of consciousness. So they claim it’s in the brain, and then they say the brain works automatically—and therefore consciousness is simply an aspect of pre-determined function. Consciousness is just a delusion brought on, like an illness, by chemicals and electrical impulses inside the skull.

They say whatever they have to, in order to minimize, degrade, and destroy the idea of consciousness.

To the degree that technocrats are gaining control of society and its future, the human population is at considerable risk. Because these secular-religious fanatics are sniffing and building their way toward a “best possible apparatus.”

And wherever they spot freedom, they try to wipe it out, and then they say it never existed.

Consciousness is not function. Nor is it derived from function.

The foot soldiers of technocracy spend every working day with systems. They become entrained: they see life as systems. Therefore, they presume that awareness must be some sort of structure yet to be mapped out.

This is false. A person can be conscious of a system, but that has nothing to do with what consciousness is.

These distinctions, among the technocratic class, have been lost.

Along similar lines, technocrats believe that a closed and tightly planned society is “scientific” and therefore “advanced.” This is another blunder. You can put a hundred people inside a large cage and regulate their movements. That’s a plan. That’s precise. But it has nothing to do with science.

Technocrats are juggling all sorts of metaphors and comparisons and coming up with wrong answers like clockwork.

On a much higher level, their bosses and leaders are manipulating these notions as a smokescreen, to hide their naked ambition: overt control and dominance of the population.

Regardless of what groups may be able to accomplish to head off the technocratic takeover, there is no victory if the individual doesn’t grasp his own inherent consciousness, which is vastly dynamic, energetic, and creative.


exit from the matrix


Imagination and the creative force are the prow of the present as it becomes the future.

The individual isn’t constrained to act merely from past tradition and experience.

The individual is under no obligation to wait for “everyone else” to wake up.

Consensus reality is: waiting in a defunct railroad station for something to happen. It never does.

As time passes, we are going to see more and more bizarre twists on technocracy; more pseudoscientific pronouncements; more messianic assurances.

It is up to the individual to reject the glare of this Wondrous Collective Tomorrow, and instead, invent his own.

To that, a person might reply, “But all around me, I see people who can’t consciously invent their own future. They’re mired in all sorts of problems.”

Whether these “other people” can or can’t is a subject for a different discussion. They aren’t the measure or the standard. Assessing one’s own ability by referring to others is just a convenient distraction.

In fact, the collective “we” and “everyone” is the target of technocrats, who envision mass solutions to civilization’s problems, through a super-computer’s definitive answers framed as “best available data.”

If this sounds like a con and an approach to humans as if they were non-creative machines, it is. It’s exactly that. Previous efforts at mind control pale by comparison. Technocracy is the wholesale Pavlovian insertion of stimuli, transmitted involuntarily to achieve uniform responses all the way across the board.

Madness? Insanity? Absurdity? Since when has that ever stopped manipulators bent on expanding their power and control? Repeated often enough by the right people, huge lies are always easier to sell than small ones.

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.

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.