ANOTHER OPEN LETTER TO HOME SCHOOLERS

By Jon Rappoport

Author of the LOGIC AND ANALYSIS COURSE

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

JUNE 7, 2010.  Home-schooling parents do what they do for different reasons.  For some, the main thrust is getting their kids out of public schools.  Others want to give their children specific religious education.  In some cases, what actually happens in the home-school classroom is secondary.

I’m interested in the fact that home-schooling parents can give their kids a far better education on their own.  It’s possible.  It’s happening all over the world every day.  The standards of some home schools are extraordinary.  In those cases, the parents have a passion about knowledge and achievement, and the children do, too.

If you are one of those parents, for whom what happens in your classroom is of paramount importance, I’m talking to you.  I’m also talking to parents who want to strive to make their classrooms reach new levels of accomplishment.

I wish to point out that the subject and discipline called logic is a foundation stone of a superior education.  It can’t be ignored.

Unfortunately, it has been ignored.  Why?  Because logic as a distinct pursuit has become invisible in almost every culture.  It has been forgotten to the point where most people don’t even know it exists.  So how could they remedy the problem?

Most children who learn something about logic find it peripherally through other subjects, like mathematics and chemistry.  They sense its presence lurking in the background.

However, a true and specific study of logic is much more powerful than what can be surmised through related subjects.

Logic is its own territory with its own knowledge.  That became true for the first time in history, 2400 years ago, in ancient Greece, when Aristotle wrote about it.

In those sections of his massive work where Aristotle took up logic, he wasn’t writing about science or mathematics or history or literature.  He was carving out a singular path.

There was a more recent time, a hundred years ago, when logic still had some life left in it, in public schools.  Young students were taught the so-called logical fallacies.  These fallacies were errors that could occur in any presentation on any subject, in any debate or argument.

The understanding of logical fallacies was a durable tool one could use for his whole life.

It still is.

However, to make the tool work, we need to present young students with realistic passages of text, the sort of material they encounter in real life, not just in some abstract little fantasy world.

Students need to chew on these passages and learn how to find the logical fallacies contained in them.  This is called work.  It isn’t meant to be a walk in the park.  This isn’t about winning gold stars for “being you.”  It isn’t about pouring endless “positive messages” into children’s heads with the hope that you can force them to have “self-esteem.”

When kids learn logic and learn how to use it well against real articles and press releases and political-speak and subtle sales pitches, they gain a tremendous confidence that is a true version of self-esteem.  They become strong and very, very smart.

When I designed my course, after 25 years of experience as a journalist, I wrote passages that resemble very closely what you read in newspapers, magazines, books, and on the Net.  I embedded logical fallacies in these pieces, so students could root them out and examine them and realize what was going on.

We live in an age of propaganda.  Smearing one’s opponent, using innuendo, making statements solely calculated to bring out emotional responses in the audience, building vague circumstantial arguments, repeating the same half-truths over and over, distorting history—these tactics are just the beginning of what often passes for truth in our time.

Students (and adults) need to be able to see through such nonsense, and they need to have the ability to take it apart piece by piece, like a clock that runs on the wrong time.

Students need to have the power to see what basic principles a person is arguing from—to see through the obscuring haze of emotional appeal to the heart of the matter.

Students need to be able to differentiate between good evidence and flimsy evidence, when they are considering an argument that is trying to win their support.

These are not small matters. 

For example, many years ago, I interviewed a rather popular politician in depth.  I asked him a number of questions, aimed at trying to find out what his basic principles of government consisted of.  It was like pulling teeth, but I finally got through the operation and discovered…nothing.  He was a rank opportunist, and the slogans he floated were no more than attempts to maintain support from his constituents, so he could stay in office. 

When I pointed this out to him, he smiled.  He said, in an unguarded moment, “What do you think politics is about?”

This was early in my career as a reporter, and I thought to myself, “I’m on the right track.”

I had spent several years, as a student, studying logic, and without it, I never would have been able to dissect this hoaxster and penetrate his defenses. 

Somewhere along the line, we need to make a stand.  We need to deal with information and people, when it’s important, by using real logic in real situations.  There is a great deal at stake.

Young people can learn logic with tremendous enthusiasm.  They can discover an essential tool for approaching information in all forms.

A home school with logic as part of its curriculum can become a powerhouse. 

I fully realize that parents need to learn logic first, before they teach it.  They need to study the course themselves and master it.  So I’m available, during this process, to answer any and all questions that arise.

Logic is a great adventure.  A person can embark on the adventure at any time, by deciding to.

Jon Rappoport has been working as an investigative reporter for 25 years.  Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize early in his career, he has published articles in LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.  He has taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles, and has tutored extensively in remedial English at Santa Monica College.  At Amherst College, where he graduated with a BA in philosophy, he studied formal logic under Joseph Epstein, a revered professor of philosophy.  Jon can be reached at qjrconsulting@gmail.com     

OPEN LETTER TO HOME SCHOOLERS

By Jon Rappoport

Author of the LOGIC AND ANALYSIS COURSE

qjrpress@gmail.com

JUNE 3, 2010.  When logic is taught at all, it is usually handled in an abstract fashion.  Students examine very simple patterns of reasoning and learn which patterns are correct and which are incorrect.

When analysis of realistic text is taught at all, it usually involves dissecting literature to find out what the author is “really trying to say.”

I wasn’t satisfied with either approach.  So when I created my course, I changed the priorities.  Students do learn something about abstract thinking—but they are also taught how the most important and destructive fallacies seep into news reports, PR releases, scientific journalism, internet editorials, and political arguments.

The core of the course consists of text passages that resemble the kind of information people encounter every day.  These passages contain multiple logical errors, and with the help of the teacher, students root out the errors and, in the process, become much smarter, much sharper, less easily fooled.

The Founders of this country wrote a 1^st Amendment to the Constitution that enshrined free speech as an essential element in the new Republic.  They clearly understood that, for this to work, citizens needed to be able to analyze information and make independent choices in every area of life.

Or to put it another way, if citizens were unable to handle free speech (uncontrolled information), the whole Republic would sink into a swamp.  Deception and confusion would reign, and the basic principles of the Great American Experiment would drown in a sea of forgetfulness. 

Look around you.  Look at the size and power of central government.  Compare this situation to the content of the Constitution and its forthright description of limited government.

What happened? 

Well, one of the chief things that happened was the gradual diminishing of the Citizen Mind. 

In particular, citizens lost the ability to analyze and see through the ongoing political debate about the future course of the Republic. 

Logic, which was first revealed to the world in the cradle of Western civilization, Athens, 2400 years ago, has faded from the education curriculum and sunk below the waves. 

I created my course as a step toward restoring the genuine power of the individual.  After all, at the heart of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is the determination to form a society in which the individual is primary.  If that is lost, we have lost everything.

I believe home schooling is our last and best opportunity to elevate the individual to his/her rightful place.

I understand that parents have many reasons for wanting to home school.  Among these reasons is the desire to avoid the social engineering that has been injected into the public educational system.  However, clinging to the conventional curriculum in the classroom, even if that classroom is the living room or the kitchen or the patio, is not going to remedy all the problems of public schooling.

The great missing factor in public schools is logic, as it was once taught.  Information without true logic is like government without a Constitution.  The result is a spreading fungus.

Feel free to contact me with inquiries.  I’m happy to send you an outline of the 18-lesson LOGIC AND ANALYSIS course.

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Jon Rappoport is the author of LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, a course for high school students and adults.  He has been working as an investigative reporter for 25 years.  Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize early in his career, he has published articles in LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.  He has taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles.  At Amherst College, where he graduated with a BA in philosophy, he studied formal logic under Joseph Epstein, a revered professor of philosophy.  Mr. Rappoport can be reached at qjrconsulting@gmail.com  His work can be found at www.nomorefakenews.com and www.insolutions.info      

RAPPOPORT INTERVEWS JONATHAN EMORD

MAY 31, 2010.  This Wednesday, on my radio show, I’ll be doing an important interview with attorney Jonathan Emord, who has just won an important case on behalf of health freedom. 

The case involves health claims about selenium, and despite the efforts of the federal government to limit free speech, Emord’s clients came out on top.

You can listen live at 4PM, Pacific Time, on Wednesday.  www.ProgressiveRadioNetwork.Com

Click on the “listen live” botton.

To pick up the show later in the archive:

http://garynull.squarespace.com/the-jon-rappoport-show/

For many years, Mr. Emord has worked at the forefront of health and freedom issues.  His skill and persistence are bright beacons in the battles against the encroaching power of big government.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

THE PATRONS OF IMAGINATION

By Jon Rappoport

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

MAY 27, 2010.  Yesterday, on my radio show, I interviewed Catherine Austin Fitts.  She had some very profound, original, and forceful things to say about the current economic crisis and its wider implications.

I highly recommend listening to the show in the archive.  You can pick it up in the next day or two at http://garynull.squarespace.com/the-jon-rappoport-show/

As a result of the interview, I’m writing this article.     

Every significant breakthrough in human history has been enabled through imagination.  It’s the leap.  It’s the vision unfettered by imposed restrictions.

It’s the future as yet unrealized, glimpsed in the mind.

Given that this is the case, one wonders why financial patronage isn’t poured like a Niagara into imagination, to support it, extend it.

The answer is simple.  Those who have the vast resources to do it can’t see past what I called Set One.

Set One is the collection of their own perceived problems.  For many, these are personal problems; for others, who look at wider vistas, these are also problems of humanity and civilization.

In either case, Set One circumscribes the individual. It binds consciousness so the individual can’t see anything else.

The individual absolutely can’t see what might happen to revolutionize consciousness itself.  That’s the last possibility he will entertain.

Imagination revolutionizes consciousness down to its core.  It shakes up What Is and replaces it with unfolding Possibility.  And having made that change, the individual gazes at reality with new eyes.  All codes and symbol structures disintegrate.  From there on out, it is pure creation.

The men of this world who control money and everything it means are fabulously wealthy prisoners of Set One.  They view their own amassed fortunes as rivers that flow directly into the arenas of problems—in order to solve those problems.

That road has a dead end.  For example, the current financial crisis the planet is facing is the smash-up that occurs BECAUSE money has been used to solve money over and over—until the whole idea of money becomes ridiculous.  Until money is pure fabrication of numbers stuffed into a yawning abyss that can never be filled.

Money as the problem and money as the solution to that problem are the final act in the play of Set One.

However, money launched to support imagination finally makes money make sense.

Because ultimately money is a symbol that REFERS TO IMAGINATION.

The hidden history of civilization is a history of FORGETTING WHAT MONEY REFERS TO.  In that sense, the grinding effects of civilization on the individual, in the long run, are the catalogue of illustrations that reveal what happens when we all forget that money is a symbol that marries imagination in action.

Patronage of imagination is remembering.  It is an act of remembering the psyche and spirit of the free individual who creates.

The extraordinarily wealthy come to view reality as TOYS.  Pieces on a game board.  They rearrange the pieces.  They position their toys.  They discard old toys and buy new toys.  They collect toys.  They label them.  They arrange people as if they were toys.  This is the game they play.  They can only see the game.  Imagination is not a game.  It is pure creation.  There are no boundaries.  There are no mandatory pieces or toys.

Some will undoubtedly take this article as a criticism of the free market.  It’s not.  The free market is fine.  This article is about what the future could be—not as some final shape or destiny, but as an exploding epoch of unshackled imagination in action, along every avenue of human endeavor.

The highest achievement of the free market is money fueling great imagination, and the great money men of this world had better realize it.  Their preoccupation is leading them into substituting synthetic endless money for CREATION.  Along that channel, they will only see their own wretched reflection in a shattered mirror.

There is a kind of equation here.  THE OBSESSION TO CONTROL=FAILURE OF IMAGINATION.

When the elites view the planet as a game board, they naturally slip into the only kind of solution they can entertain: control the game.

This can go so far as depopulation and gross restriction of freedom.  And it works, as far as these power players are concerned, because they are viewing with a profound detachment.

They are detached from people, and also from their own imaginations.

Imagination seeks and generates possibilities that have never existed before.  Many so-called scientists are fond of saying imagination is nothing more than the reshuffling of old ideas in the brain.  They say this for one reason and one reason only.  They are philosophic materialists.  They believe that all causation is merely a long chain of events in which each “billiard ball” strikes another billiard ball.  They do not believe in freedom.  They would never consider that something can come from nothing.

But that is exactly what happens in imagination, which is not a material thing or process.  Imagination invents.

Materialists who become desperate enough will manipulate people, in order to make them into destructive agents.  Then, the materialists will look at these manipulated people and say, “Do you see?  You can’t trust these mobs.  You have to control them to within an inch of their lives.  You have to plan out their societies for them.”

This is the morality of materialists at the end of their tether.

At the same time, a relatively free country like America has been disintegrating into spectatorship for a long time.  In this process The People surrender their own imaginations to entertainment.  Bread and circuses.  The real revolution would be a revolution of imagination, in which people at large immersed themselves in creating, inventing, on a new open level.

Then the chains of master and slave would be snapped.  Then and only then.

To opt for THIS, to become a patron of THIS would signal a new epoch for the human race.        

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

LOGICAL FALLACY

By Jon Rappoport,

Author of the LOGIC AND ANALYSIS COURSE

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

MAY 23, 2010.  Since I sent out the outline for my logic course, I’ve received numerous inquiries about this 18-lesson program. 

Today, I want to focus on one of many logical fallacies.  I want to show you how understanding it can make a great difference in grasping the guts of public discourse.      

In logic, there is an error called AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT.

Here’s a little background.  Take this statement: IF IT SNOWS, THEN THERE ARE CLOUDS.

The first part of the statement, the “if” part, is called the antecedent.  The second part, the “then” part, is called the consequent.

Affirming the consequent goes this way:  IF IT SNOWS, THEN THERE ARE CLOUDS.  THERE ARE CLOUDS.  THEREFORE, THERE IS SNOW.

This is an error in logic.  Why?  Because, to put it simply, you can have cloudy days without any snow at all.

Here it is again:

IF IT SNOWS, THERE ARE CLOUDS.

THERE ARE CLOUDS.

THEREFORE, THERE IS SNOW.

WRONG.

There might or might not be snow.  We don’t know. 

Now, let’s take a real-life example of this situation.  Let’s dress it up and confuse it.

“Scientists who support the notion of manmade global warming are vigorous in their defense of the theory.  They are willing to take their battle into the hall of government, because they view the planetary climate changes as ominous for all of us.  These researchers are passionate in their recommendations that laws must be passed—laws which will cap carbon emissions all over the world before it’s too late for the human species. 

“Despite criticism from opponents who say scientists should remain in their labs and refrain from overt politicking, these researchers are forging ahead.  You have to ask yourself why.  Once all the debris of partisan bickering is swept out of the way, what’s left is the obvious truth: these scientists have worked the numbers and they have seen the disastrous crunch toward which we are rapidly heading.  They are doing what they must to avoid a grim outcome for an industrialized world.”

Now, when we boil down that argument, what we get is something like this:   

If global-warming scientists have found that man has, in fact, pushed himself to the brink of destruction, then these scientists will make a strong push to cap carbon emissions all over the planet. 

These scientists ARE pushing hard to cap carbon emissions.

Therefore, these scientists have discovered the truth: man HAS caused the planet to warm up to a very dangerous level.

WRONG.

This argument is affirming the consequent.

See that.

See that the pattern is the same as in the simple example of the snow and the clouds.  Or in this pattern:

IF A CAR HAS A GOOD ENGINE, IT WILL GET YOU FROM HOME TO THE SUPERMARKET.

THE CAR DOES GET YOU TO THE SUPERMARKET.

THEREFORE, IT HAS A GOOD ENGINE.

WRONG.

The car might or might not have a good engine.  We don’t know whether it does based purely on the fact that it can get you to the supermarket.

IF A SCIENTIST KNOWS THE TRUTH, HE’LL PUSH FOR ITS PRACTICAL APPLICATION.

HE IS PUSHING FOR ITS PRACTICAL APPLICATION.

THEREFORE, HE MUST KNOW THE TRUTH.

WRONG.

He might or might not know the truth.  Pushing for its application is no guarantee he knows the truth. 

It’s often the unstated but implied reasoning that is used to make an argument.  When you see the implied reasoning and lay it out, you can see the error.

But it gets a lot worse than this.  A lot worse.

I recently found an article that made a complex argument about bio-warfare research.  When I boiled it down, I was left with this:

Laboratory X did research on bio-war germs in the 1960s.

Dr. Y worked at Lab X in the 1960s.

Dr. Y was an associate of Mr. Z, a former CIA agent.

Therefore, Lab X synthetically made the Swine Flu virus.

WHAT?

When you tear the fat away from the argument and see the bones, you realize how absurd the argument really is.

Of course, there are some people who are disposed to believe it anyway.  They want to believe it.  They will take any tidbit and use it to bolster what they already believe. 

And when you point out how foolish the above argument is, they’ll say, “You mean you don’t believe these labs make viruses?”

Excuse me, but that’s not what THIS PARTICULAR argument stated.  Get your head on straight. 

A disciplined study of logic is vital for sane public discourse.

Jon Rappoport is the author of LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, a course for high school students and adults.  He has been working as an investigative reporter for 25 years.  Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize early in his career, he has published articles in LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.  He has taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles.  At Amherst College, where he graduated with a BA in philosophy, he studied formal logic under Joseph Epstein, a revered professor of philosophy.  Mr. Rappoport can be reached at qjrconsulting@gmail.com  His work can be found at www.nomorefakenews.com and www.insolutions.info      

RAPPOPORT INTERVIEWS FITTS

MAY 24, 2010.  This week, I’ll be interviewing economic insider and guru, Catherine Austin Fitts, on the financial meltdown.

Former Wall Street and federal executive, Catherine brings a unique perspective to the whole economic scene.  She left the Inside when she became troubled by her findings on what makes the economy really tick. 

My radio show airs every week at 4PM Pacific Time.  To listen live, go to www.ProgressiveRadioNetwork.com

To pick up shows from the archive:

http://garynull.squarespace.com/the-jon-rappoport-show/

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

LOGIC AND DECEPTIVE WORDS

By Jon Rappoport,

Author of the LOGIC AND ANALYSIS COURSE

MAY 21, 2010.  When a report is issued that contains vague words, it turns out to be a mess.  However, much of the time, people don’t ask for clarification of these terms.  They allow words and phrases to float by like wispy clouds.

Even bigger trouble ensues when words seem to be straightforward but really aren’t.

As a medical reporter, I spent years rooting out such deceptive terms.

A few examples:

“Hundreds of people have TESTED POSITIVE for the disease.”

“Healthy people should avoid INFECTED patients if possible.”

“The patient who died was PREVIOUSLY HEALTHY, underlining the virulence of the virus in his body.”

On the surface, these words seem clear.  But they usually aren’t. 

What test was being used, after which hundreds of people were said to be positive for a disease?  Was the test useful?  Was it relevant?

I frequently discovered the test measured a certain response of the immune system—and this positive response traditionally meant the patient was healthy.  But all of a sudden, the core meaning of the test had been turned on its head.  It was now taken to mean the patient was ill, or would soon become ill.

It was such a boggling reversal I had trouble believing my eyes.  And yet, there it was.  It was as if medical researchers were saying, with no reasonable justification, “Healthy equals sick.”

Many people assume the word “infected” means sick.  However, it often means “tested positive”—and then when “tested positive” was tracked down, it fell into the same bizarre trap I just described.

In a number of cases, where patients were reported to have died from a fast-acting viral infection, and were said to have been “previously healthy,” this turned out to be a complete fiction.  The patients had long medical records listing other diseases, and the drugs that had been used to treat those diseases were demonstrably toxic and injurious.  On top of that, some of the patients had a considerable street-drug history.  Therefore, the notion that they were just fine until the marauder virus attacked them was totally false.  Their immune systems, in fact, had been hanging on the ropes for a long time.

The deception in the terms “tested positive for the disease,” “infected,” and “previously healthy” required some investigation before they could be rightly understood.

I’ve seen many journalists who, when a “new epidemic” is announced, buy right into the official statistics on “infected” and “positive” people—without ever questioning what those terms actually mean to the medical bureaucrats who throw them around.

This is really a matter of logic, because deceptive terms torpedo the reasoning process.  It’s like driving with faulty brakes and a hole in the gas tank.  At some point, bad things are going to happen.

Many people can spot obviously vague words—but words that seem specific and official often escape notice.  It takes work to dig below the surface and discover the words are being used deceptively.

Needless to say, schoolchildren aren’t shown these things.  And most adults don’t learn about them, either. 

I’d take this a step further.  Very large numbers of people don’t even realize there is a reasoning process taking place.  They don’t see that some press reports, for example, are trying to use information to come to a logical conclusion.  Therefore, the whole question of whether certain key terms are being used in a deceptive fashion doesn’t concern them. 

I call this ignorance “apple-pie state of mind.”  You know, people say you can use apples unfit for eating and still make a good pie.  Well, maybe.  But in the realm of rational reasoning, if you have bad apples, you’re going to come to a bizarre and misleading conclusion.

This is one reason I created the LOGIC AND ANALYSIS course.  I had to start somewhere.  Education is the right place.  Minds need to be sharpened.  People need to understand what the reasoning process is all about, and how it can go right and how it can go wrong.

There are many ways it can go wrong.  For both schoolchildren and adults, discovering these factors comes as a revelation.  The clouds part and the sun illuminates the landscape, at last. 

Just as many lawyers—who are taught a little logic—use their skills to argue any side in any case without a shred a conscience, many journalists use whatever reasoning skills they have to tell a good story, regardless of the truth.  Governments and corporations sell their cases to the people, while obscuring the illogic of their presentations.  We’re inundated with twisted logic, and it should be a central part of educational system to reveal this and root it out—with great specificity.

Recently, a Supreme Court decision was handed down concerning the extent to which children could be punished for very violent crimes.  In its declaration, the Court majority opinion cited “international standards” on what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.  This seemingly obvious phrase has broad appeal to people who want to “harmonize” the laws of nations.  But it was a bizarre moment, to say the least.  On what basis could the US Court refer to the laws and customs of other countries in deciding an American case?

Where is the detailed justification for such a move?  Where is the detailed judicial debate that unearths and examines the acceptable method for making Supreme Court decisions?  In other words, where is the logical argument that would lay out how the Court is supposed to deliberate and not supposed to deliberate? 

The press covered the case in its usual fashion—these experts say this, and those experts say that.  End of story.  Move on.

It’s precisely this attitude that undermines a society. 

Creating a demand for explicit and complete logic has to start in rooms of education.

Jon Rappoport is the author of LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, a course for high school students and adults.  He has been working as an investigative reporter for 25 years.  Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize early in his career, he has published articles in LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.  He has taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles.  At Amherst College, where he graduated with a BA in philosophy, he studied formal logic under Joseph Epstein, a revered professor of philosophy.  Mr. Rappoport can be reached at qjrconsulting@gmail.com  His work can be found at www.nomorefakenews.com and www.insolutions.info      

By Jon Rappoport,

Author of the LOGIC AND ANALYSIS COURSE

MAY 19, 2010.  In this piece, I’d like to focus on one factor.  When governments spend more than they have, they become debt-based governments. 

This is like saying, if the river rises over its banks there will be a flood.  It’s so obvious, why bother to mention it all? 

Well, because many people don’t really understand what debt means.  It means, among other things, that you can’t keep borrowing indefinitely to pay off what you owe. 

In other words, at some point, the lenders are going to dry up.  They’re going to run screaming into the night and they won’t leave a forwarding address for you.  You owe too much.  They don’t want to have anything to do with you.  If they were bookies, you would have already had your knees cracked with a baseball bat.

Governments, however, have some kind of misplaced faith that, if they keep funding programs “the people want,” the day of reckoning will never come.  They can allot money for this and that and this and that, and because this and that are deemed to be worthwhile, it doesn’t matter.

If you try to figure out where this attitude came from, you won’t find it in the Constitution.  You’ll find clues in the notion that politicians get elected by promising goodies, though. 

A close analysis indicates that “freedom,” which is delineated in the Constitution, is not the same as “free stuff.”

We now see that governments all over the world are realizing they can’t live forever as debt-based entities. 

So what’s next? 

I believe we will observe a growing Voice that asks for a global currency.  One currency for all nations.  This is no revelation.  It’s been coming for a long time.  However, it helps to have a debt crisis that seems to require the one-currency-fits-all answer. 

And in the process of shifting to a single planetary currency, there will be “debt eradication.”  This will be folded into the plan—because somehow the insupportable financial obligations of governments have to be dealt with. 

Such a plan will have to involve corporations.  Why?  Because companies like Goldman Sachs presently underwrite government debt.  Meaning?  These companies guarantee that the bonds which governments float, in order to keep borrowing, are, well, OK.  The bonds are “good.”  The bonds are safe.  The bonds can be bought without an unacceptable risk.

And what on earth gives Goldman Sachs the idea that such bonds deserve to be guaranteed?  I asked several “experts” that very question.  The answer I got was this: Governments tax the people; the taxes keep rolling in; governments have a reliable income stream.

That’s it?  That’s the answer?  It didn’t add up to me, because, despite raking in money by taxing citizens, governments are spending far more than they should.  In fact, that’s why they have to keep issuing those bonds. 

It seems to me this is yet another one of those crazy schemes, like selling mortgage-backed derivatives, that lasts as long as people don’t ask too many questions.  It’s a rain-soaked cliff waiting to collapse, and people are still spreading out blankets and having picnics on the cliff, and developers are building condos and roads there.

The shift to a single world currency would be a complex affair, and banks, investment houses, national treasuries, governments, and tons of lawyers would have to work it all out.

Something would have to be done to accommodate the global currency-trading markets, too, where presently gargantuan sums are flowing every day, as gamblers speculate on the value of the dollar versus the pound, the yen versus the dollar, and so on.  That whole market would be destroyed if these national currencies disappeared. 

No doubt the one-global-currency scheme has been on the drawing board for some time. Major players have been working on how it would be accomplished, and who would get what payoffs.

Insupportable government debt and the inability to provide the panoply of government services would be one reason given for The Great Money Revolution.

It’s a little like this.  You’re out on a field where you play baseball on a regular basis.  Your team is losing every game, on and on.  So one day, in the fifth inning of a game, you take your bat and your ball, and you say, “This is a bad thing.  Baseball is bad.  We have to make a change.  We’re not going to keep score the same way anymore.  We’re going to have a new game…”

A few people call you a bad loser.  And you say, “You’re wrong.  I just want to make things more fair, more equal.” 

We already have a model for debt eradication.  The IMF, the International Monetary Fund.  It tends to go into Third World countries and relieve a bit of pressure on their monstrous government debts—with  conditions attached.  These governments will basically have to sell off many of their functions, like water and electric utilities, to outside corporate interests.  Privatization.  In the process, rates are hiked.  Government budgets are downsized.

It’s possible that a new world currency would entail some of the same “austerity measures,” from Nome to Tierra del Fuego.  A general lowering of the standard of living.  An ever-widening gulf between the rich and the poor.

And of course, with the institution of one global currency, money would become much easier to track and tax.  Money would become much more “public.”  Or to put it another way, only favored individuals and groups would be able to fly under the radar and transfer and launder billions and trillions. 

I make all these points to illustrate how far such a plan would bring us from the notion of Constitutional government laid out at the beginning of the American Republic. 

That long road has been paved and constructed with debt.  Debt becomes the reason why the road to a Brave New World has to end up with an overall global management system that is both economic and political.

Therefore, as many have pointed out, those men who long for exactly such a global management system would conclude: Any strategy to pile insupportable debt on governments is a good strategy. 

Under the rubric of “more free services for more people,” debt is easy to create.  Along with war, it’s a slam dunk.

You may have noticed that, in America, more and more people are talking about limited government these days.  People are realizing that the Framers of the Constitution weren’t just whistling in the dark. 

The people who are now defending limited government are, in fact, willing to discuss these First Principles.  But the other side is doing everything it can to avoid that discussion.

Why?  Because a fundamental debate would open up the, yes, underlying philosophy by which these Big Government advocates operate.  The debate would expose the various levels of transference—in which freedom becomes free stuff.  And free stuff becomes un-payable debt.  And un-payable debt becomes the familiar face of friendly fascism.

Finally, it’s always a good idea to audit governments, to actually see the books, all the books, so you can find out their true financial status.  I mention this because governments invest money they drag in from taxing the citizenry.  Through pension funds, for example, they are major investors in the stock market.  Do we know how well such investments have been performing?  Is it possible that some state governments are swimming in cash and are falsely crying poor?  If that turned out to be the case, then the notion of “insupportable government debt” becoming the lever for a new currency would take on additional meaning.  It’s an issue that shouldn’t be ignored, and I don’t see governments releasing comprehensive financial reports that any citizen can read and understand.       

Jon Rappoport is the author of LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, a course for high school students and adults.  He has been working as an investigative reporter for 25 years.  Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize early in his career, he has published articles in LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.  At Amherst College, where he graduated with a BA in philosophy, he studied formal logic under Joseph Epstein, a revered professor of philosophy.  Mr. Rappoport can be reached at qjrconsulting@gmail.com  His websites are www.nomorefakenews.com and www.insolutions.info       

MAY 18, 2010.  Over the years, I’ve written several articles about my consulting practice.  I’m now in a position to make clearer distinctions about this work.

In telephone sessions (usually once a week), I consult clients in four basic categories:

business;

discovering buried goals/desires;

imagination and creative action;

energy for greater health and power.

Before embarking on a series of consultations with a client, we determine which one (or more) of these paths we are going to take.

BUSINESS

The whole effort here is to construct a roadmap that takes the client from where he is to where he wants to go.  Normally, this process is done with entrepreneurs, but I’ve had a number of clients who were working for other people and wanted to advance their careers.

I have accumulated a whole series of check-points and questions that will make the designing of the map complete.     

The roadmap is as specific as possible.  Once it’s built, I help ensure the client executes all the indicated steps (actions) along the map.  So this isn’t just a theoretical exercise.

Real-world success is the objective—and traveling the full distance, as indicated in the road map, is the way to get there.  In sports, this is called executing the game plan.  The plan needs to be a series of specific steps, and the person has to take those steps.  And of course, the game plan has to be correct—following it has to bring the person to the success he’s seeking.      

DISCOVERING BURIED GOALS/DESIRES

Some clients are confused about what they truly want in life.  Therefore, we focus on that area.  Through dialogue and key exercises I’ve developed during many years of experience, the client comes to discover the “buried treasure.”

This in itself is a major accomplishment.  At that point, the client can choose to continue working with me to build a road map that will enable him to achieve his goal/desire in the real world.

IMAGINATION AND CREATIVE ACTION

For those people who feel a pull toward “new frontiers and undiscovered territory,” who believe they truly want to live a creative life, I focus on helping them gain greater and greater access to their own imagination.

This is very challenging and rewarding work.  It involves philosophy, education, and techniques by which clients come to use their innate capacity to invent, innovate, improvise, and build their dreams into reality, as fact, in the world. 

ENERGY FOR GREATER HEALTH AND POWER

Behind many breakthroughs in alternative health research sits the single factor of energy.  With enough available live energy, a person will find his health naturally improves and expands. 

There is no ceiling on the amount of energy a person can produce and access.  The objective in this area of consulting is…more.  More energy.

To accomplish this, I employ a variety of techniques, some of which I’ve adapted from Tibetan practices that go back more than a thousand years.  When indicated, I also utilize what I call guided-imagery excursions, to reduce stress.  Stress tends to put a damper on energy; it blocks energy.

ABOUT TECHNIQUES AND EXERCISES           

Some of the techniques I employ in my consulting work are done with the client during our sessions.  All the techniques can be done by the clients between sessions, and after our consulting work is done.

These techniques are always tailored to the specific needs of the client. 

I’ve been teaching and practicing these exercises myself for at least 15 years—in some cases, longer.

HEALING AND BEYOND

In working with clients, I’ve noticed that achieving success in any of the four areas I focus on brings about a kind of healing—by that I mean a sense of wholeness and confidence.  However, this is just a prelude to something greater: wider-ranging action that breaks new ground in life and literally invents the present and the future.  The person truly goes where he has not gone before.  The excitement and adventure that ensue can’t be overstated.

I welcome inquiries.

JON RAPPOPORT

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

www.nomorefakenews.com          

By Jon Rappoport

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Jon Rappoport is the author of the innovative 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS

MAY 17, 2010.  What we call science has always had a pragmatic approach to reality.  Science wants to translate, sooner or later, into results.

However, logic pressed science into a framework that clarified it and squeezed out less useful findings.

Here is how.

Let’s take a very simple formulation.  A) If it snows, there are clouds.  B) There are clouds.  C) Therefore, it is snowing?  No.  Therefore, nothing. 

Explanation: Although every time it snows there are clouds, the presence of clouds doesn’t guarantee there is snow.  You can have cloudy days without snow.

Using that simple logical format, we can present a pattern for scientific hypotheses. 

For example: If matter and anti-matter collide, there will be a huge explosion.  Let’s start with that.

The first part of the statement assumes there is such a thing as anti-matter.  It also assumes anti-matter has certain properties.  That’s quite a mouthful.  That’s saying a lot. 

And then we go on: When anti-matter particles encounter particles of matter, an explosion occurs.

So suppose we now say: In such and such place, at such and such time, there is an explosion.  Therefore, anti-matter and matter must have collided.  Is that valid reasoning?

Of course not.

Explosions can occur for many reasons that have nothing to do with the supposed collision of matter and anti-matter.

Just as with the snow and the clouds, the reasoning is invalid.

Okay, let’s try to get a little more specific.  For example: We believe that in Galaxy ABC, four million years ago, anti-matter and matter collided in the vicinity of a black hole.  We believe there was anti-matter in that location, because of factors Q, R, and S.  We of course know there was matter in the vicinity of that black hole.  So it’s quite possible that four million years ago, some particles of matter and anti-matter ran into each other there.  If they had, what would have happened?  An explosion.  Was there, in fact, an explosion there four million years ago?  Yes.  We know there was.  We know it because we can see the evidence through telescopes, which show us what was happening at distant times in the past.  It’s in the past, because the light from faraway places takes a long time to arrive here and register on these telescopes.  Therefore, four million years ago, in that location near the black hole, matter and anti-matter collided. 

Now, that seems somewhat convincing, doesn’t it?

But it isn’t.  It’s the same invalid and illogical pattern of reasoning.  The explosion near the black hole four million years ago could have been caused by other factors.  Igniting gases, for example.  Factors that had nothing to do with the collision of matter and anti-matter.

Now here is the really interesting thing.  ALL OF SCIENCE IS BASED ON THE SAME ILLOGICAL FRAMEWORK.

That’s right.

And here is that general framework: If hypothesis X is true, result Y would follow.  We do have Y.  Therefore, hypothesis X is true.

WRONG.

When logic made this point, scientists (those who understood logic) had to go back to the drawing board.  They had to refine their understanding of science.  And they did.

Here is what they came up with.  The framework of the scientific method really has to do with usefulness, not logic, and to make science useful, it has to PREDICT THE FUTURE.  That’s what we want out of science.

We want experiments based on hypotheses, and we want to be able to predict the outcomes of those experiments correctly before they happen.  We want technology based on hypotheses, and we want that technology to work exactly as we think it will, every time.

So then we have to ask: Will a given hypothesis allow us to predict something useful and important before it happens?  If so, it’s science.  If not, it’s not.

We can refine this even further.  Will your hypothesis allow us to predict something useful and important PRECISELY?

Okay. 

Maybe it seems like I’m splitting hairs and engaging in empty semantics here, so to prove I’m not, let’s take a real-world example.

If the hypothesis about manmade global warming is true, we should be able to make precise predictions about global temperatures on Earth a year up the line, five years up the line, ten years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years.

You see?  Science is about useful and precise predictions.  It’s not about explaining the past.

So let’s apply the test.  So far, has the hypothesis about manmade global warming yielded accurate climate predictions?  The hypothesis has been around for at least, what, 15 years?  During that time, have scientists been able to make precise predictions about Earth’s climate changes? 

I’m not even going to answer that question.  I’m going to let you answer it.  And with your answer, you’ll be able to see whether the manmade warming hypothesis ranks, so far, as science.  Is it science, or is it possible-maybe-could-be science? 

You’ll be able to see the answer clearly, because once upon a time logic forced science to define itself and its core and its objectives more specifically.

And that’s a good thing.

Jon Rappoport is the author of LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, a course for high school students and adults.  He has been working as an investigative reporter for 25 years.  Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize early in his career, he has published articles in LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.  He has taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles, and has tutored extensively in remedial English at Santa Monica College.  At Amherst College, where he graduated with a BA in philosophy, he studied formal logic under Joseph Epstein, a revered professor of philosophy.  Mr. Rappoport can be reached at qjrconsulting@gmail.com  His work can be found at www.nomorefakenews.com and www.insolutions.info