Category Archives: Americanism

Live in the collective and forget who you are

by Jon Rappoport

December 2, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

We are now told it’s selfish and greedy to promote freedom for the individual. It’s old-fashioned. It’s passe. It’s dangerous. It’s nothing more than a ruse floated by the rich to hold down the poor.

Forget about the fact that the next Einstein or Tesla, growing up in what has become a collectivist society, could be slammed with Ritalin, Prozac, and even heavier drugs—because they’re “abnormal.”

Some day, when America has been forgotten, an anthropologist will write a celebrated history of this country, and it’ll be all about cultural trends and group customs, and no one will even remember there was such an idea as The Individual.

By that time, the population of what was once the United States will live in a theocracy dedicated to Mother Earth, and every day for half an hour, the people will kneel and pray, together, from coast to coast, for mercy from this Mother.

And the people will be happy doing it—such as they understand happiness. They will glorify The Group. They will live under the great dome of the Flying Drones and they will rejoice in their solidarity.

They will willingly submit to all forms of surveillance, because it is in the interest of the Whole, the collective, the mass. After all, who would depart from the rules and sentiments of The Group? Only the outcasts. Only those bitter clingers who still believe they are unique individuals and have desires and power. Who needs them? Who wants them? They’re primitive throwbacks. They’re sick and they need treatment.

Be grateful you’re living in the time of the great transition. If you look, you can see the changes taking place right in front of your own eyes. You can see The Individual fading out as a concept. You can see its replacement—the group and its needs—coming on strong. You can know where we’re heading.

One day, you’ll be able to tell your grandchildren there was once a time when there was a completely different conception of existence, and you’ll be able to regale them with stories of the impossible. Stories of individuals.

Of course, they won’t believe you. They won’t be able to fathom what in the world you’re talking about. But that doesn’t matter. They’ll listen in rapt wonder, just as we now admiringly contemplate tales of strange creatures and mountain gods of the ancient Greeks.

It’ll be fun to look back on our time.

Don’t worry. It doesn’t matter. History is merely an anthropological catalog of trends, a series of customs. We pass from one epoch to another. What was true and important in one time becomes meaningless later.

Just “come together for the great healing.” That’s all you need to think about now. It’ll all work out. And if it doesn’t, you won’t remember the failure anyway.

Coda: What’s that? I can’t hear you. Speak a little louder. Oh…I see. You’re saying we the people are getting ripped off by our leaders and their secret controllers. Yes. Well, sure, that’s true.

And yes…if we all came together perhaps we could throw off these controllers and assert our independence once again. Yes.

But then I ask you this:

After we’ve won the great battle, what do we do next? Do we parade around, from town to town, from city to city, a hundred million of us, a great caravan, extolling our group victory? Is that what we do for the rest of eternity?

Or did we fight and win the great battle for another reason?

Did we perhaps fight and win so we could reestablish the individual as the basis and the object of freedom?

Wasn’t that really the reason we were in this fight?

Or are you already too humble and progressive and submissive and enlightened to think so?

If you’re going to fight and fight to win, it helps to know why you’re in the battle, why you’re really in it.

Exit From the Matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Secret Societies Revisited

by Jon Rappoport

November 29, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

As many of my readers know, I wrote a book called The Secret Behind Secret Societies (included as a bonus in Exit From The Matrix and Power Outside The Matrix). This article adds a few pieces to the puzzle.

Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission—I called these and other such groups Architects of Reality. Among their actions, they try to build our perception of the world.

What is that perception? It’s an endless string of crises and half-hearted resolutions—that’s how we’re supposed to see things. We’re not supposed to see what actually works about the world.

Because what works is freedom and everything that flows from that.

In other words, secret societies are trying to bury the idea of freedom under an ongoing process of manufacturing desperate situations that can only be dealt with by large organizations—governments and so-called public interest groups.

“THE GROUP WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING.”

“THE INDIVIDUAL IS TOO WEAK.”

“FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL IS PASSE, BECAUSE ONLY LARGE GROUPS CAN INFLUENCE THE COURSE OF EVENTS.”

With an estimated 40-60 million people in the US taking tranquilizers every year, it appears this program is working. One chronic user frankly told me, “I can’t deal with reality anymore. Unless it’s a chemical reality.”

Over the years, I’ve spoken with a number of teachers in the US. They tell me the areas variously known as Civics, Social Studies, and Government no longer place emphasis on the individual or individual freedom. Instead, it’s all about “group rights” and “victims.”

So again, the agenda of burying freedom is working.

In 1776, the Illuminati was announced as an operating society in Europe. The most important political tenet of this group was the abolition of private property—and that principle can be historically traced all the way down to the formation of the USSR. And beyond. These days, private property is under attack, albeit in a “softer” manner. It, too, is a concept no longer given emphasis in our schools—and when you de-link private property from the individual, you are attacking a significant aspect of what freedom translates into, in everyday life.

An American Studies professor at a prominent Northeastern university told me, off the record, because he was afraid he might lose his job if he went public, “Political and economic crises are being manufactured all the time. It’s basically psychological warfare, because one feels these endless crises can’t be solved. People just give up. And when they do, who do they turn to? Government. Government will handle things. That’s a sign that freedom is no longer a priority. It’s going into the dustbin of history.”

He was suggesting that, in wider and wider circles, freedom is no longer considered a solution to any serious problem. And since we seem to be awash in a sea of problems, freedom goes on the shelf.

As I’ve been writing for years, creative power of the individual is the prow of the ship of our society. Great innovators are the people who keep us moving into the future. Well, if the legs are being cut out from under freedom, we will be seeing fewer and fewer of these innovators. As has been pointed out, we will be “naturally selecting” away from those people and toward groups.

This is no accident. This is an agenda. To say the loss of freedom is simply a trend overlooks the keynote of coming global government and management—it is groups, not individuals, who have access to larger and larger structures that run our affairs.

One small example: 90 years ago, the rise of labor unions was achieved through legislation passed by the federal government. In other words, government would protect the right of employees to organize and bargain with management. But now we have public unions—government employees who bargain with “themselves.” It’s an absurdity. The real purpose is to expand the size of government by making its jobs more attractive and intractable.

In our schools, children are being taught to think of themselves in terms of a group identity. To what group do you belong? What are the problems of your group? What are your group’s grievances? How is your group being mistreated? What does your group need?

Is this development an accident? Did it happen by chance?

It’s on the agenda of legislated equality, which replaces the idea of equal opportunity to succeed. Legislated equality supposes that, instead of freedom, we will have group rights and group privileges.

This leads to the development of “positioning”—a hierarchy of groups who have assigned degrees of power—in hopes that the notion of the individual will disappear. The individual will be placed in a context, will be given what he “deserves,” will occupy a place in life that is suitable for the benefit of overall society.

Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, stated: “It was the full conviction of this, and what could be done, if every man were placed in the office for which he was fitted by nature and a proper education, which first suggested to me the plan of Illumination.”

Earlier, in 1755, a Frenchman known only as Morelly (possibly a pseudonym), wrote a treatise called Code of Nature. In it, he spells out what “fitting into society” means for those who oppose individual freedom:

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.

Today, we are moving in this direction. A pseudo “share-and-care” philosophy, that claims to be the ultimate in humane concern, wants to “distribute” individuals within the fabric of society, in order to achieve “a better world for all.”

These days, instead of brusquely elevating society beyond the scope of the individual, the agenda works by tapping into empathic and sympathetic emotions—using others’ suffering as the tool by which people can be turned to “help everyone.” But what slips under the radar of this program is the institutionalizing of aid out along broad political and economic platforms that change the nature of society in its official functions.

Society, in other words, in the person (or non-person) of government, takes in order to give. Takes more to give more. A great leveling, which in essence ranks the free individual at the bottom of the ladder.

Nothing appears to be lost in this effort, if people have already forgotten what the free individual means and is.

Exit From the Matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The revolution of the individual

How long does this revolution last? Think about a nice round figure: the NEXT 10,000 years.

by Jon Rappoport

September 4, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

The revolution of the individual progresses from PROMOTER OF REALITY to CREATOR OF REALITY.

Through vast propaganda and “education” campaigns, the individual is urged and trained to favor and promote particular organizations and structures in society. But outside of this venue, there are individuals who are waking up to the fact that their real job and desire is creating new unprecedented realities.

Historically, this latter outlier trend is not the sole result of some external force; rather, it mainly comes from the individual exploring his own internal capability and power. The accompanying history consists of the formation and founding of nations based on some partial version of individual freedom—even though those liberating mandates have been suppressed and squashed in many ways.

Western philosophy reached a crossroad late in the 19th century: the focus shifted from attempts to describe and impose ultimate reality to attempts to understand how the individual perceives and gains basic knowledge—and this latter inquiry quite naturally evolved into: THE INDIVIDUAL INVENTS REALITIES.

That being the case, why should the individual accept the realities he has already been subconsciously shaping, when instead, he can create new preferable realities.

THAT is the “underground revolution” which has been underway for more than 100 years. It is far from smooth. The revolution experiences many stops and starts, many abandonments, many renewals. No one said it would be easy. It is not a collective group effort. How could it be? It takes place in the private reflections and decisions of individuals.

A formidable barrier to the revolution: societies are based on popular acceptance of what the individual does. Or popular rejection. The individual tends to believe he must create something that will gain group favor. Therefore, he scales down his own imagination and opts for “safe ideas” and safe inventions. He pretends he has less power than he actually has.

He subconsciously returns to the shaping of limited realities. In fact, he carves out metaphysical positions that justify and rationalize his “limited power.” This is called “maturity.”

What inner resources does the individual consult and sift through, in order to shift from passivity to active creation? In a nutshell, the answer is: all his experience, his values, and whatever imagination he can bring to the table. There is no set method or pattern. That is the key. He finds paths, and he follows them. He invents new paths, and he probes their outer reaches and implications. The longer he works, the more imagination comes to the foreground.

It seems that humankind has been committed to trying every conceivable unworkable solution possible. In the fullness of time, every individual will give up the ghost and embark on a new search—based on his answer to the question:

WHAT DO I WANT TO CREATE?

Then a new day dawns.

Exit From the Matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Using “alternate realities” as a form of analysis

by Jon Rappoport

June 25, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

When I finished putting together my collection, The Matrix Revealed, I wrote several prefaces to it. Here is one:

—Start here: if things weren’t the way they are, if they were quite different in specific ways…

What implications would follow?

This can be a very instructive question.

Most people automatically reject alternate realities on the basis of: “Well, they don’t exist, they’re fantasies, so who cares?”

That reaction speaks to a paucity of imagination and little else. It’s a profoundly low-IQ response.

I’ll flesh out an example of an alternate reality and trace the implications. You’ll see it illuminates “things as they are” in an interesting way. This example is based on my experience writing, reading, and watching news for over 30 years. It’s also based on numerous off-the-record conversations I’ve had with mainstream reporters.

Suppose the NY Times, which is drowning in red ink, which re-finances its debt to stay afloat, which is losing its reputation as the paper of record faster than a rowboat full of holes sinks in a lake, changed its whole method of finding and presenting news.

Suppose the Times latched on to major scandals beyond its corporate mandate with the extreme ferocity of an attack dog. Suppose, for instance, it went after the deadly impact of medical drugs on the population. Suppose it began with the July 26, 2000, review, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” (see also here), authored by Dr. Barbara Starfield, of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, in which Starfield concludes that, every year, FDA-approved medicines — correctly prescribed — kill 106,000 Americans?

Extrapolating that number out to a decade, the death toll comes to over a million. A million Americans killed every decade by medical drugs.

Suppose the Times made this its number-one story, not just for a day, but for a year or more? It lets the hounds loose on the FDA, who approves the drugs as safe, it sends the hounds to the offices of medical journals, which routinely publish fraudulent studies praising the drugs that kill people. So far we’re talking about nothing less than RICO felonies—continuing organized-criminal acts. Suppose the Times’ hounds probe medical schools, where students are taught to believe in the killer drugs, where Pharma money funds the teaching programs.

There are so many nooks and crannies where Times reporters can extract confessions from medical players: “I knew about the horrific death toll years ago, but my superiors ordered me to shut up.”

“Which superior was that? You may as well tell me. I’m going to find out anyway…”

The Times reporters move in on the Dept. of Justice, which has never lifted a finger to prosecute these ongoing crimes, despite knowing exactly what’s been going on.

Day after day, as new confessions and facts emerge, the Times puts its searing stories on page one of the paper.

The size of the headlines increases.

The public is wakened. The public, as it turns out, is unable to turn away.

The Times puts out two print editions a day and the papers fly off the newsstands.

Under intense pressure, Congressional hearings are laid on. New liars come to the fore, and under oath some of them crack and reveal how medical murder has survived in the shadows all these years. It’s a grisly tale.

The Times’ profits soar. The public is on fire.

And then, just when the whole story seems to have lost a bit of its force, new revelations explode. Major medical reporters for many press outlets—including the Times—have been sitting on this story for more than a decade. They’re instrumental in the cover-up. Mass firings occur.

At the same time, it becomes apparent that several blockbuster global trade deals have been engineered, behind the scenes, to further engorge Pharma profits. Those deals go down the drain and are canceled.

I could go on. This story would have more legs than a phalanx of centipedes.

But of course, neither the Times nor any other major press outlet would ever pick up or cover this story. These media operations are locked in partnership with Pharma. They’re on the same side.

Yet, understanding how the story could play and evolve and explode in an “alternate universe” gives you clues. For example, the public is asleep because the news keeps it asleep.

The public could wake up.

And if it did, there would be hell to pay.

In a universe of true news, the entire society would be different because the people would be different. They wouldn’t be acting as if they’re brain-damaged. They wouldn’t be acting as if they’re goggled-eyed glazed-over New Agers. They wouldn’t be afraid to speak out and speak up. They would be alert and active and forceful. A great deal of delusional scum would be scraped off the top of consciousness. Vague generalities would no longer suffice. Empty words would no longer suffice. Business as usual would no longer suffice.

In this highly instructive “alternate universe” metaphor, the public would learn that nothing is too big to fail—a valuable lesson. Big Pharma, exposed to its roots as a crime mob, toppled from all its pillars of trust, would not, by its fate, doom society. Far from it. Society would be cleansed.

People would look around and wonder how they had slept for so long. The purveyors of fake news, with their touted experts, would experience a level of (justifiable) paranoia they’d never imagined. Not just in their coverage of the medical arena, but in every sphere where lying and cover-up and diversion have been the order of the day.

The overarching position of “Elite News Anchor” would drown in its own corrupt juices. The networks would scramble like rats to survive a ratings crash beyond their wildest nightmares.

And yet, again, society would not be doomed.

Many, many, many more individuals would wake up.

Information, the neutral god of the technocratic secular church, would suddenly be colored with purpose. It would reveal. It would expose. It would take on muscle. It would range along dynamic lines of force and unseat criminals in the highest of places, with no restraint.

The population would develop a new appetite. Instead of alpha-wave hypnotic trance, people would insist on the demise of false idols. And lawful application of justice would finally mean something.

All this…this is what the mainstream news could deliver. In an alternate universe.

In the “real” universe where we live, the task falls to independent investigators. But the aim is the same: rousing the people from their slumber.

When you can envision the implications of a preferable “other-universe,” all the way across the board, you can understand what your work is here and now.

You can summon the energy to go all-out. You can throw off insubstantial roles. You can create your own engine, shove it into gear, and move up to high velocity.

The imagining of alternate universes creates energy.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The stone cold conservative socialist

by Jon Rappoport

May 9, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Is he a meth goony bird? He seems to be flopping around the stage like a creature who’s lost his wings. He’s talking about VALUES, but it’s clear he’s lost those, too. Something happened to his brain somewhere along the line. Something bad. Maybe it all came from too much preaching. Talking super-simple to simpletons could cause contraction and shrinkage in both lobes. He’s running for the US senate…He’s a chunk of cardboard standing on the shoulders of cardboard, going back centuries.” (fragment from “New Conservatives and Old Conservatives,” by Jon Rappoport)

In this piece, I’m not writing about what the conservative position should be; I’m writing about what it is most of the time. And when it comes to Welfare, the attitude is: pay the individual less, the family less, and the corporation more. Find every possible way to chisel money out of the government on behalf of corporations. And don’t worry—you’ll find many allies in elected government positions. They’re basically there to please and assist the “conservative.” Insurance companies, oil companies, construction companies, biotech, drug companies, defense contractors—they’re the real constituency. They always need more money. They always need government help. They always need Welfare to keep going. They talk about freedom and strength, but what makes them super-strong is government tax money and invented money. Whoever came up with the term “corporate welfare” wasn’t kidding around. Scratch a conservative candidate for Congress and this is what you usually find below the surface: a Welfarist. Try to find justification for corporate welfare in the Constitution. Good luck. A typical conservative may shower praise on the Constitution and the original intent of the Founders, but he somehow misses the point when it comes to shoveling huge amounts of government budget money on to corporate tables. To put it another way, he wants to be known as a pure priest of Original Intent, but he’s actually a whore. And, to put a cherry on the cake, all his life he’s assumed bullshit is the only reliable product in the marketplace. Maybe that’s why he wears such a big grin in public. Maybe that’s why his clothes and his hair and his tone of voice keep screaming FAKE.

A long time ago, I interviewed a “conservative politician” off the record. When the subject turned to re-election, he said, “Of course I know who the major companies are in my district. You can’t get elected unless you’re on their side. They want government money for new pet projects. They expect you to get it for them. Actually, this creates jobs. I’m a bleeding heart for companies and their workers. I want to get them more money, no matter what tricks I have to pull off…”

Imagine, I don’t know, 20 thousand politicians, at various levels of government, operating in this way across the whole country. Do you think this comes pretty close to government owning the means of production—in other words, socialism?

“Hi, I’m a stone cold conservative socialist. Let me explain. I think you’ll be on my side when you understand the realities of the situation…”

What I’m describing in this article is a major reason big government is such a convoluted mess. It’s a Rube Goldberg machine, contradicting itself and turning forward and backwards at the same time. Almost all elected officials are socialists of one brand or another, no matter what they profess. Speaking of messes, many people remember Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld’s famous statement about the “unaccounted for” trillions of dollars in Pentagon bookkeeping accounts. Without going into the deeper darker implications of that remark, it illustrates an (intentionally) hopeless tangle of hundreds of separate accounting government money records. This is what you’d expect from a behemoth dedicated to unconstitutional spending from one end of the sky to the other…

What about governments’ contracts with biotech giants like Monsanto/Bayer? How much government money has flowed into the coffers of those toxic outfits? That’s tax money plus money invented out of thin air. You might think a conservative politician would staunchly oppose this practice, but in most cases you would be wrong. No, gigantic government $$ landing in corporations’ laps is characterized as being “in line with the basic principles of Constitutional government.” After all, “the business of America is business.”

One of the central tenets of conservatism is preservation of property rights. How does EXPANDING THE PROPERTY of major corporations, through filling their coffers with government money and more money, have anything to do with property rights? How is the right to Pork a conservative notion, in any traditional sense?

When a so-called conservative pol gets up on his hand legs and speaks in favor of one of the Globalist trade treaties, like GATT or NAFTA, he is essentially handing major corporations billions of dollars in tariffs THAT DON’T HAVE TO BE PAID. What article or amendment of the Constitution is that in line with? Granted, the whole subject of international trade is complex and fraught with interventionist tactics from the get-go—but tariffs on imported goods go a long way toward protecting free and open competition among domestic companies. Globalism picks and chooses favored corporations, to the gross detriment of smaller businesses.

In case some readers think this article isn’t delving deeply enough into conspiracies (in that case, see my articles on Antony Sutton and Gary Allen), consider the vast culture that has been created around fake conservatives, who rake in votes through appearing to be “traditionalists.” Accepting the honesty of such politicians, with all their phony tells, is on the level of believing in a Sunday TV preacher who is spouting clichés at six mile a minute, while “raising cash for God.” How is a nation being engineered to include millions of these believers? What chemicals, education system, “family values” are being launched at their minds, on a continuing basis? Why aren’t “conservative” pols laughed out of court? (Of course, the political Left is no better; I consider it worse, and I’ve written many words on the subject.) For every monumental con game to succeed, you need true believers; and the growth and nurturing of such suckers in turn requires a culture of programming that can successfully reduce all issues to super-literal and super-simple thoughts.

Now that’s a covert op worthy of the name.

Addendum: An example of who and what I’m talking about, on the Left, would be Joe Biden. Earlier in his political career, as a US senator, he was an extremely sharp talker on matters of foreign policy. Perhaps because of a life-threatening brain aneurysm, and two surgeries, he changed. By the time he became vice-president under Obama, the press considered him a kind of loose-talking clown, a joke. He seemed “off.” But then, the media reshaped him as a “competent politician.” The creepy-Joe scandal aside, Biden has actually turned into a cliché machine. Who can believe that what’s coming out of his mouth should be taken seriously? Apparently, many brainwashed people…

Exit From the Matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

If hidden technology were exposed for all to see

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Note: I have couched this piece in FICTION, which is a convenient way to pinpoint hidden trends…

While the cathedral of Notre Dame burned and grabbed headlines all over the world, a little noticed development took place along the Texas-Mexico border in a town called Twin. A reporter for the Twin Clarion wrote the following:

“In a heavily guarded Twin facility belonging to Two Border Oil, Inc., a massive leak of information occurred. Letters, emails, memos, and studies made their way ‘out the door’. These documents, taken together, spell out an unmistakable series of developments in the energy sector: new cutting edge forms of energy have been successfully tested and confirmed. A Border Oil executive (name blacked out) stated, in a memo to his seniors: ‘It now appears certain that the age of energy decentralization is upon us. Within the next several years, we will be able to produce small highly efficient “energy packs” at shockingly low prices. These packs will enable any person anywhere on the planet to power personal devices, without the use of oil. Obviously, we must do everything possible to prevent this revolution. The technological breakthrough would necessitate the reorganization of society along lines of extreme decentralization. The population of the planet is not prepared. Traditional political and economic structures would collapse. We would see the emergence of a new type of system—not capitalistic as we know it, and not socialistic. The individual would be empowered at a level never before seen. The collective energy grid would be superseded and made obsolete within a decade. The mechanics (physics) of this breakthrough are not totally understood—but it is clear that the tests of the technology are overwhelmingly positive and repeatable. At one point it was thought that a community of companies could control all the relevant patents, but this promise has faded. The engineering for the “new energy” is rather simple. Its method would quickly sweep across the planet and be absorbed. Our only alternative is to continue to keep the whole development secret. I enclose expert testimonies and test results for your inspection, so you can confirm what I and others already know. Our research has brought us across a bridge into a future we cannot control, predict, or fully fathom…’”

The Twin reporter continued: “A high-ranking scientist who works at a European energy company replied: ‘I’m quite sure I understand the breakthrough you’re referring to, and I can say that this is not the only one of great magnitude in the energy field. There are several others—each one different, and each one offering the same promise: the availability of small and cheap energy devices that would make The Individual self-sufficient. We are at a highly dangerous crossroad…’”

The Twin reporter: “A quite different memo has surfaced…this one appears to have been written by a senior public relations executive for a company located in England—‘Our efforts to squelch knowledge of several key energy breakthroughs have foundered on the rocks. We have somehow been outflanked. We set up a number of false fronts, inventors of technology who were actually on our payroll, who were destined to fail, who were intentional fakers. We thought that, in this way, we could discredit the whole alternative energy movement, but this has not been the case. Instead, interest in new forms of energy has increased. There is now a popular sentiment in favor of true decentralized energy platforms. We are retrenching our position. It’s possible we can predict new energy breakthroughs, but couch these estimates in terms of huge production costs, thereby making it seem that actual practical usage is decades away. We have analysts and reporters primed in this direction, should we choose it as our next step…”

A professor at Harvard offers his analysis in the leaked documents: “Self-sufficient energy usage (SSEU) will take focus away from national governments. Imagine these governments flailing at each other in their usual manner, but in the absence of interest and concern on the part of the citizenry. Politicians would look like sheer buffoons. It would be on the order of doctors insisting on expensive and quite risky surgery, when ingesting a small harmless food pill would cure the condition and thus make the surgery appear to be an absolutely insane solution for a problem that no longer exists…”

An opinion is put forward by a leader in the American Socialist Party: “Even if these estimates of SSEU are correct, the consequences would contradict and destroy every principle we have attempted to ingrain in the population. Untold numbers of individuals who can own and regulate their own energy will obviate the need for collective answers and programs…Even though SSEU will improve the condition of the environment, the very notion of individuals in charge of their own separate destinies will wreak psychological havoc in ways we as yet barely understand. We must stand for The Group, no matter what lurks over the horizon…”

All in all, the titanic leaks coming out of Big Oil sketch a campaign that is desperately trying to turn back the clock, framing civilization’s problems as they may have existed 50 years ago, thus requiring old centralized and authoritarian responses that no longer apply. It’s really a form of time travel—an attempt to force everyone to move backwards and be what they once were, not what they are now, or could be tomorrow…

The Twin reporter concludes: “I have in my possession a memo written by a research physicist at a Midwestern US oil company. It suggests the most radical position of all in this deeply shocking situation. The physicist states: ‘It appears that a variety of approaches produce technologies that run cars, buses, trains, planes, localized electrical grids, and home energy devices—for pennies. In other words, a great deal depends on the mindset of the isolated lone inventor. He can, as it were, come up with a description of a tiny particle no one has ever heard of, develop mathematics that describes its motion and other characteristics, and eventually discover (or invent) energy technology that actually works in a revolutionary manner. All these different scientific approaches seem to contradict each other, but clearly they don’t. In some way, they are complementary. How is this possible? We need to rethink our fundamentals about consciousness itself…’”

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

When philosophy goes begging in society

by Jon Rappoport

April 18, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“So Jones, according to you, society should be all about Love. (laughter in the classroom) No, this is important. In fact, looking at some of your gruff mugs, my dear students, I’d say some of you could use a good dose of Love. All right, Jones, how is this spread of Love accomplished? In schools, you say? So what is taught in the classes? No, not generally taught. Spell it out. Your job is to figure out exactly how you teach Love. Since it’s the most important thing to you, you need to find out how you impart it. You can’t just say leave it to the experts. That would be like me saying what I want the most for the world is to turn into a Utopia, and we’ll do that through universal education centers, where people in charge who know how to accomplish this goal practice their skills. I do nothing. I just watch Utopia happen. —-No, you need to become a teacher of what you think is most important. What do you teach in order to impart Love? How do you do it? You program it into people? Is that what you’re advocating? What about the students who don’t want to be programmed? Is something wrong with them? Is freedom important?…Start talking, Jones, I’m listening…”

In 1960, I graduated from college with a BA in philosophy. One of the most glaring deficiencies was a lack of exploration of ethical values.

The famed dormitory “bull sessions” among students rarely, if ever, took place. In the classroom, there was never a wide-ranging discussion of students’ own values.

Creating a civilization in which ethics take center stage is, at best, a difficult proposition. If education doesn’t include a probing search for answers on this subject; if instead, it’s assumed that every person has his own relative point of view, then of course you end up with mobocracy and quite heavy propaganda. Ultimately, elites take charge of the propaganda.

A version of the Socratic Method should infiltrate college classrooms to the core. What are your most important beliefs? How would you implement these beliefs in society, if you could? What would that look like? What would be the implications of a society governed by your beliefs? Spell them out. What would constitute the unforeseen results? How would you deal with these results?

These and other questions draw out the students. They begin to reflect. They learn how to think about their own ethical values. They encounter other sets of values. They respond to these differing pictures of reality. They come up against the question of individual freedom and what it means in practice. They compare what they believe with other basic beliefs—for example, the American Constitution’s. Or Plato’s Republic. Or Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Or the student’s who sits two chairs away.

A real teacher knows how to initiate and preside over such discussions. These classes become interesting, exciting, vital, energizing.

In a modern “democracy,” where this sort of education never occurs at a deep level, propaganda eventually becomes all inclusive, and one side seeks to shut down the other—which is what we are seeing now.

The process of education itself is devalued because it isn’t impacting the student at his center. It’s superficial to the extreme, and it rarely brings about vital personal change. Instead, at best, the student is viewed as a robot who needs to ingest information. I’m not downplaying the role of information; I’m saying it needs to be supplemented by an ongoing process of reflection on, consideration of, and extensive dialogue about, personal values.

Schools that feature true values-education need to be created from scratch. Obviously, this is no easy job. It might be the hardest job in a society that has already sunk into half-light indifference on multiple fronts. However, I can tell you from experience that there are many families who want what I’m suggesting for their children; they just don’t know where to go. They don’t want their children to take on a set of values by belonging to some group who will, supposedly, protect them and give them legitimacy. They want their children to be able to stand on their own two legs and live according to their best ideas.

This is what a so-called “liberal education” is really all about.

“All right, Smith, you keep referring to Justice as a core value. You’ve read at least part of Plato’s Republic. You know he believed that Justice, as well as many other core concepts, already existed on a higher level of reality. What do you think of that? Give us 800 written words on the subject. I don’t want vague generalities. And give us your own experience. What is Justice to you? How did you decide what it is? Did you discover it? Did you invent it? Do we all need to have the same notion of Justice? If so, what would society then look like? How would it function? Who would run things? Would a few people be born with a higher understanding of Justice? We’ll have a full discussion of your ideas. But we need to know what those ideas are, specifically…Maybe it’s time to remind you that I want at least some of you, when you graduate, to go out into the world with the solid ambition of bringing your best values into wider existence, for real, in this thing called Life. We’re not only doing academics here. We’re doing preparation. I refuse to allow the preparation to be flimsy and separate from you. It has to reflect deep parts of you. You’re not going to forget what you did here the minute you walk out the classroom door for the last time…”

In society, there are those who consider ethics a sport, a game to be taken lightly. There are those who have no ethical values at all, beyond their personal ambitions. There are those who buy the values of their elders, without thought, and thereby close the book on the whole subject. Worst of all, there are individuals who have a massive commitment to impose their values on everyone else, but have never truly reflected on the negative implications of a civilization which accepts their version of life. They seek power, and they take it, no matter the consequences.

One of the great roles of education—and philosophy in particular—is to bring true personal engagement into the field of ethics. This would be accomplished despite widespread resistance and apathy, and despite a feeling that nothing can be changed.

Resistance is always present. It is no reason to abandon the work.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Would the government let Jesus cure cancer?

by Jon Rappoport

February 12, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This would be particularly so if he were curing cancer.

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

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

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

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

The judge agrees. The verdict is issued. Guilty.

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

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

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

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

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

What would be the alternative to licenses?

Contracts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he would be convicted and sentenced.

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

Exit From the Matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Education and the dismantling of the mind

When the solution is worse than the problem

by Jon Rappoport

January 28, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Are there any States in the Union that allow public schools to opt out of providing sex education to children?

Of course, a counter-argument would be made that, although there was once a time when our country abounded in responsible two-parent families, that’s not the case anymore. Therefore, education about sex is lacking. Therefore, schools have to step into the breach and supply what is missing.

Otherwise, children won’t know about STDs, pregnancy, contraception, etc.

Over the last 40 years or so, school systems, under the aegis of government, have expanded their role. Using “duty” as the prow, these institutions have generated enormous programs to teach children what to think about everything from aluminum cans to bestiality.

Because it’s “right” and “important” and there is a “duty.”

Translation: outside groups with agendas worm their way into schools.

If I were obsessed with four-legged critters on the moon, and I had enough money and political clout and media/think-tank/foundation support, I could introduce Lunar Critterology as a vital subject into every public school in America.

If I were Bill Gates, I could push the need for computers in schools, despite the fact there is no credible evidence that computers improve literacy.

I went to school in the 1940s and 50s. At that time, the focus was simple. You learned to read, to write, and to do math. The textbooks were often old and worn. There were no visual aids. The lesson plans in every class were step-by-step. Learn a new thing, drill it to death, take a little quiz, learn the next new item, drill it, take a quiz.

It worked. It may have lacked glitz, but it worked because the vast majority of people can’t learn to read, write, or do math any other way.

You can’t gloss over these subjects with a broad brush and a lot of personality or caring. It’s all about digging in the dirt, one scoop at a time.

Some people would call it robotic education. I don’t think it is. It’s just doing what’s necessary—unless reading, writing, and math are deemed unimportant. In which case, you have a whole new idea about what education is.

If you spend time in the classroom on enterprises that are supposed to save the world or revolutionize society or build tolerance or cater to kids who don’t want to learn, then you take away hours from the core idea and practice of what learning is.

When I went to school, there could have been a better curriculum for history and science, but all in all, the teachers did a good job.

Now, we’re in a different world.

It’s assumed that most children are operating at a deficit, and they need to be brought up to speed on morals, on compassion, on sex, on greenness, on hope, on race and religion, on global concerns. At age five, eight, 12, 14.

And a great deal of this “new education” is about cashing in, for book publishers, for educrats, for federal overseers, for busybodies of all stripes who belong to agenda-driven groups that want their say and their moment in the sun.

I say this is all hogwash, and I believe anyone who consults national test scores and current levels of literacy would be compelled to agree.

Education is on the way out.

A few astute writers assert that, perhaps 80 years ago, the whole thrust of early education in America was altered intentionally, to produce worker-ants for a highly controlled society of the future. With all due respect, I think it’s worse than that. Because now we’re turning out kids who are essentially confused, badly schooled, drifting on the wind, lost in a mind-territory of fantasized entitlement. They aren’t androids ready to work on some non-existent assembly line. They’re just lost. They’re riddled with self-esteem that doesn’t work. They’re consumers looking for magic credit so they can buy their way into happiness. They’re loaded with sugar and other chemicals that scramble their synapses. They’re not only unsympathetic toward work, they have no passion of their own.

Logic? Imagination? Never heard of it.

When I went to school, there was virtually no classroom disruption of any kind. And my schools were attended by an economic, social, racial, and religious cross-section of students. We weren’t striving for diversity. We had it. The relatively few kids who were out of control and resisted any kind of discipline were herded into classes together, and teachers dealt with them.

The public schools of today lack the courage to say, “Look, if you’re here to learn, we want you. Otherwise, you’re out. Goodbye.”

If you need metal detectors at the school entrances, you went over the edge a long time ago. No one deserves to be subjected to that kind of environment.

The bullying problem? It’s an industry now. People with degrees write papers and books about it, and task forces gear up to study it and make recommendations. It’s a structure of carbuncles on the body-politic of education.

Once upon a time, no bully was allowed to attend school. If he pressed his attitude and his actions, he was expelled. Period. It wasn’t a question of why he bullied. He was gone. Learning couldn’t take place as long as he was on the scene.

And “gangs in schools?” I’m sorry, but there are no gangs in schools. There are schools in gangs—that’s what you have when groups of kids with violent tendencies inhabit classrooms and corridors. If you can’t expel them en masse, give up. Shut down the place.

If you want to make schools into six-hour-a-day baby-sitting machines, call it that. Try to obtain public funding for it. Hire guards and nurses and cops to staff it. Put it behind barbed-wire fences and install those metal detectors.

Or if schools are really lunch cafeterias, run them that way. Free public lunches. Have kids show up at noon, eat, and leave.

If you think kids of various religions should be allowed to commandeer a room to hold prayer groups, call it Government-Funded God. Rent a hall somewhere and schedule everybody from Christians and Jews to Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and Zoroastrians.

“Well, we have these kids who are great football players, and they score very badly on all the tests, but we need them on the team.”

No you don’t. Start your own community team. Make up a name. Raise money for uniforms and coaches. Form a league. If these kids want to stay in school—which is a completely different matter—they’ll have to learn how to attain grades for real.

And this long-standing rule about passing kids on to the next grade, no matter how poorly they perform? Graduating them from high school even if they can’t read at fourth-grade level? Because they need to feel good about themselves? Because that’ll somehow help them wend their way through life later on?

Invent a new type of school for them and put it somewhere else. Bring in tutors. If that fails after an honest attempt, teach trades. Some of these kids will end up making more money in a trade than Harvard business-school grads.

All of the above, by the way, makes a good case for home schooling. Unless the parents themselves were shot out the top end of their schools, long ago, ill-prepared to handle reading, writing, and arithmetic.

No, the problem isn’t cookie-cutter education. It’s no education.

Now, of course, hovering over this revolution in education is the wider government becoming mommy and daddy to everyone. “Because they care.” Because they need to do this “caring” in order to obtain budget money for their departments. Because otherwise they would be useless.

And hovering over THAT is the program to convert everyone on the planet to a status much like an eternal patient with an eternal doctor.

This program is advancing based on the notion that “patient status” equals “more controllable.”

“Yes, we have to control you for your own good, because we care.”

No, they want control because they want control.

In my day, the subject that was conspicuously missing from the classroom was Logic. Once upon a time, it had been taught to children when their reading skills had progressed far enough. It was usually presented as a series of fallacies that infected the process of reasoning.

A few years ago, I decided to write a logic course to fill this gap. My strategy was to provide basic background lessons and then launch into a series of text passages seeded with fallacies and flaws. Students with the help of their teachers would find them and understand how they operated to derail lucid thinking.

I offered this 18-lesson course to home schoolers, and adults who wanted to use it for self-study.

Now it’s part of my new collection, The Matrix Revealed.

Twenty-four hundred years ago, in Athens, logic was, for the first time, explained in detail by Aristotle. It marked the beginning of a new era for humankind. Logic allowed a person to peruse a formal argument, differentiate between premises and deductions, and judge the validity of the reasoning process.

When students are taught this subject well, they turn into detectives. They realize that articles and books are more than mere lakes of information. They can trace the progress of a line of thought, and see that authors are offering evidence that leads to a conclusion.

It’s an awakening. I’ve seen it resolve what was foolishly diagnosed as ADHD. The student becomes grounded. He accrues real confidence. He can decide whether an argument is valid or invalid. He can spot flaws and describe them.

Armed with the tool of logic, he becomes independent.

This may explain why logic was dropped out of the secondary school curriculum.

God forbid the educational system should be turning out thousands of students who can really think for themselves, and think powerfully and consistently.

Note: I’m not covering the subject of college education in this piece, but I have an interesting anecdote for you. William E. Kennick taught philosophy at Amherst from 1956 to 1993. Amherst has consistently been rated as one of the top colleges in America. During his tenure, Kennick grew disturbed by the quality of papers his students were turning in. So he wrote and distributed a four-and-a-half page, single-spaced document titled, Some Rules for Writing Presentable English. The cream of the cream of American college students needed that on-the-fly tutorial to come up to basic speed. What other students at other colleges were/are producing in the way of written English is too horrible to contemplate.

So now we come to the central thesis. The modern vision of education, aside from the hard sciences, is all about unhinging or un-gluing the mind from its moorings, from its focus, from its ability to track complex thought.

Instead, we have education as: socialization; community; relativity.

This last factor is key. No particular piece of information is any more “valid” than any other piece, no more important, no more deserving of respect. Information is a soup into which one dips a spoon—coming up with whatever is there.

Over the range of society, you get young people wandering around with barely a clue. They’re dissatisfied, they’re upset, they’re resentful, they’re mystified, they’re rebellious.

To a degree, that describes every generation. But when the legs are missing, when the ability to concentrate and focus is absent, when the reasoning capacity is vastly underdeveloped, you get a stupendous crash.

It’s worse than cookie-cutter graduates heading for an assembly line. It’s the kind of trouble that spreads out in ripples, requiring assistance from the State. And that is the revelation.

That’s the society that’s being created.

For the elites who want to run things, globally, it’s not enough to gather up the most dependent people in a net and bring them over to the collectivist side with promises. No, what’s needed is a machine that PRODUCES huge numbers of newly minted dependents all the time.

Welcome to the educational wing of globalism.

Scour every textbook you can find at any level in the school system of your country. See if you can find the conjunction of the word “powerful” with the word “individual” where the implication isn’t pejorative. Where the thrust is positive. I know where my money is in that bet.

When political and economic collectivism is the goal of a society, certain things have to be done with the school system. Individualism has to be discouraged and sidelined. Status based on pure merit, achievement, and performance has to be minimized. And the core courses must lose their discipline.

Instead, group socialization, random expression of students’ opinions (based on nothing in particular), and bogus self-esteem must take center stage.

As a former teacher, I can tell you it’s rather easy to make this momentous shift. The starting point, from which the whole campaign unfolds, involves grouping together students in classes who are operating at significantly different levels of skill and ability.

For example, try teaching geometry to 20 kids who scored across a wide spectrum in their previous final exams in elementary algebra. Just try. Follow your day-to-day lesson plans and see what happens. It’s like crossing a bridge with drivers who never learned the difference between the brake and gas pedal. Chaos.

Jammed up in that baffling disorder, teachers will tend to gravitate to social concerns. They’ll encourage, wheedle, praise, empathize. They’ll try to draw out “the feelings” of students. What was once a very straightforward proposition will vaporize.

The pernicious effects of elementary-school teachers having failed to impart the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic will explode in a tsunami by the first year of high school.

And what happened in the first place, in grades 1-5? The model of repetition, in which each new concept in a subject is drilled over and over, and tested, before moving on to the next concept, was abandoned.

When I was a child, in the 1940s, the model of repetition was intact. It was brick and mortar.

But somewhere along the line, the “person-centered psychology” of education was invented. Every child automatically became “special.” On the surface, this sounded good. It sounded like enlightenment.

But it was really a piece of psy-war. It glossed over the fact that, if each child is innately special, he/she doesn’t have to be informed of it over and over. He only has to be taught well and learn well. More than enough encouragement begins to confuse a child and make him impatient. He wants to get on with things. He wants to prove he can excel. He wants new knowledge.

The history of mainstream psychology can be boiled down to two movements. First, there were the experiments of Pavlov. Conditioned reflex. The human as machine. Then there was the therapeutic age. Endless muddled rumination on problems and difficulties, and the need for “re-enforcement.” Everyone is special. The child as beloved pet.

The arc went from robot to dependent. They were both gross failures.

When pet/dependent became the order of the day, psychiatrists proliferated their invention of mental disorders. ADD. ADHD. Oppositional Defiance Disorder. Clinical depression. Bipolar. And powerful toxic drugs came down the line, to scramble brains.

This is the real war on drugs, except the war is being fought against children by “mental-health professionals.”

Suddenly, childhood diseases which had been accepted for generations, which came and went and gave children stronger immune systems in the process, were claimed to be a horrific threat, and 20 or 30 vaccines had to be taken to prevent these illnesses.

Thus the shaping of a new and false and debilitating image of the child torpedoed children and their education.

Creating The Disabled is the cornerstone of Collectivism.

I need you. You need me. Everybody needs everybody. Whatever germs of truth lie in this ideal are crushed, because the “need” formula is artificially built. It’s a piece of debased architecture, whose real purpose is the inculcation of a reason to abandon self and individual power.

Once, the Carnegie and Rockefeller line of force viewed education as the assembly line for turning out objects that would produce other objects in mindless fashion. But that has changed. Now schools are built to become need-factories, breeding surreal socialized graduates who contemplate how political power has wronged them.

The new sign of intelligence is this: how many ways can you imagine you’ve been cheated?

And here is the kicker. Surprisingly little of this contemplation reveals the actual methods of manipulation.

But then, why would it? If children are engineered long enough, they’ll look everywhere for answers except at their hidden masters, the ones whose objective was to make them into children forever.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Mayor of New York is Karl Marxing again

by Jon Rappoport

January 16, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Tangential note: Prior to 2019, the Democratic [Socialist] Party of New York State “just” controlled one of the two chambers in the Legislature (the House), and the Governorship, and the Courts. Now, in 2019, on top of that, they also control the other chamber in the Legislature (the Senate). Now, day-by-day, in just the past few weeks, New York State has been moving even more aggressively, putting more laws in place to further implement their socialist, “Californication” utopia agenda. Go to Empire Report New York for the fast-moving, daily coverage.

On to New York City. We have this from ZeroHedge (1/12/2019): “New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio took to the stage on Thursday to deliver his State of the City address – the sixth such one he has delivered since being in office. The theme was clear: money in the city is in the wrong hands and needs to be redistributed to others.”

On that note, let’s take a little trip down memory lane, taking a look again at De Blasio’s rhetoric and how socialism leaves the creative individual producers (the people) in the lurch…

The mayor of New York embraces Karl Marx

September 2017

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” (Karl Marx, 1875)

At infowars.com, Kelen McBreen has unearthed a stunning statement NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio made to New York Magazine:

De Blasio: “What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development… Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality.”

Boom.

The elimination of private property rights is one of the primary tenets of extreme socialism/Communism.

And of course, the disposition of private property—the takeover—would be achieved by government.

So for those people who think the rising tide of socialism is just a myth, you now have the mayor of the world’s most powerful city advocating it publicly and openly.

And the response of the mainstream press? A yawn, and silence.

Or to put it another way, bland acceptance.

Private property was one of the basic issues Ayn Rand, the most reviled and adored novelist of the 20th century, explored in depth. Here are several statements she uncompromisingly offered:

“Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

“The doctrine that ‘human rights’ are superior to ‘property rights’ simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of ‘human’.”

“You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of men toward man’s property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers.”

In a half-sane society, private property rights would be debated in depth at every college, without interference. But that is no longer possible, owing to censorship of speech.

Beyond this restriction, students aren’t equipped with tools of analysis to approach the subject. Instead, they’re indoctrinated with vapid generalities.

As I’ve detailed in several recent articles (see tag:socialism here), the rank promotion of socialism has nothing to do with “power to the people.” Socialism is an elite strategy, boosted by Globalists as a way of gaining control of governments and populations.

Their pretense of “share and care” is a mask behind which they are instituting a worldwide management system. They, not the people, will own the means of production, and they will determine the distribution of goods and services.

Instead of solving the problem of predatory mega-corporations, “socialism” will elevate those corporations to even greater heights of power.

As just one example—what president of the US stood for, and promoted, the greatest degree of socialism? That would be Franklin Roosevelt, who presided over the New Deal and World War 2. How did he rein in corporations and prosecute their crimes? Are you kidding?

Consider Charles Higham’s classic, Trading with the Enemy:

“What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey [part of the Rockefeller empire] managers shipped the enemy’s [Germany’s] fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars’ worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan [the Rockefeller family among others?] Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help improve Hitler’s communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the FockeWulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial ball bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Goering’s cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?”

If you want a modern example of “socialism” at work, consider another soft promoter of this philosophy, President Barack Obama, and his response to one of the most predatory of corporations, Monsanto, and other food giants.

From Scott Creighton, “Obama Pitches India Model of GM Genocide to Africa”:

“At the G8 Summit held two weeks ago at Camp David, President Obama met with private industry and African heads of state to launch the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, a euphemism for monocultured, genetically modified crops and toxic agrochemicals aimed at making poor farmers debt slaves to corporations, while destroying the ecosphere for profit.”

“But African civil society wants no part of this latest Monsanto aligned ‘public private partnership.’ Whatever will the progressives do now that their flawless hero has teamed up with their most hated nemesis [Monsanto] to exploit an entire continent like they did to India not that long ago?…”

“With a commitment of $3 billion, Obama plans to ‘partner up’ with mega-multinationals like Monsanto, Diageo, Dupont, Cargill, Vodafone, Walmart, Pepsico, Prudential, Syngenta International, and Swiss Re because, as one USAID representative says ‘There are things that only companies can do, like building silos for storage and developing seeds and fertilizers.’

“Of course, that’s an outrageous lie. Private citizens have been building their own silos for centuries. But it’s true that only the biowreck engineers will foist patented seeds and toxic chemicals on Africa.”

Obama? A socialist warrior against corporations on behalf of the people? It’s long past the time for ripping that false mask away.

Socialism? Power to the people? Share and care? Special concern for the downtrodden?

Socialism is a means for government to gain ironclad control of the means of production by colluding with mega-corporations.

That collusion, that tight partnership has been called fascism. And that’s what socialism turns out to be.

To the degree that governments are socialist, in England, the US, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, China, Canada, Australia and other countries, that’s the pattern.

It would evolve into the same pattern in New York, where Mayor Bill De Blasio is blowing smoke up everybody’s backside, with his remarks about people-power and strong government taking over private property.

If the mayor wants to prove otherwise, let’s see him go after the most mighty anti-people corporation in his city: Goldman Sachs. Let’s see him lead a no-holds-barred prosecution of that outfit’s crimes.

Let’s see him attack the company that is running a significant chunk of Donald Trump’s presidency.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.