Matrix programming 101: destroy logic

Matrix programming 101: destroy logic

By Jon Rappoport

January 10, 2013

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

Grammar: the interior construction of language; the parts of speech; the proper agreement of parts of speech.

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

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

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

This article focuses on the death of logic.

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

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

The destruction of logic is a conscious strategy, a game plan. Its goal is to pervert rational thought at its core and insert ideology masked as insight.

The game plan was cooked up a long time ago at the Carnegie Foundation, where the undermining of American history was the number-one pastime.

Instead of merely erasing knowledge of American history, it was decided that the basic way ideas are studied should be torpedoed.

The actual meaning of an idea was firmly placed on the back burner. Front and center would be: relentlessly assess and attack the people who forwarded those ideas.

And sure enough, this strategy has gained great prominence.

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

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

If you want to see that sleight-of-hand trick in action, just visit a few American studies classes in universities and catch the wave.

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

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

New education, then, once you strip away the old essentials, is really nothing more than learning who the bad guys were and the good guys were. This can be taught by ideologically motivated professors in a few hours.

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

In the case of the Founders’ ideas, we have, among others: the free market; individual freedom; private property; severely limited central government.

No need to examine these concepts. No need to assess, for instance the success of the free market, despite its corruption by criminals and monopolists, in providing a better standard of living for millions of people. Forget it. All you have to know is that the free market was proposed by phony American aristocrats who wanted more power for themselves. On that basis alone, you can reject the free market.

How about private property? Same thing. The same phony Founders put that idea forward; therefore, it must be wrong.

Thomas Jefferson? He owned slaves. Therefore, as the night follows day, everything he said or thought or did was wrong.

See how easy education has become?

Individual freedom? Another absurdity proposed by the crooked Founders. Reject it. Don’t bother thinking about what that freedom has allowed you to express. Who cares?

So, one by one, these core ideas fall to the ax, and criticizing America becomes destroying America.

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

Once the core ideas and ideals of the American Republic are destroyed, new ideas inevitably take their place. The possibilities are endless. But here is, in fact, what has happened:

Instead of the sanctity of private property and right of its owner to protect it, we now have, coming into vogue, “assigned use.” This means someone somewhere, at the top of the food chain, will decide how property should be deployed, for the greatest good of the greatest number.

He determines the definition of greatest good.

Instead of individual freedom, we have the collective need. Behavior should be adapted to the group. How this is defined falls to our leaders.

The free market becomes central planning and distribution of goods and services.

It can be quite interesting to discuss these matters with people who have been educated “in the new way.”

On the issue of the free market, I had a PhD candidate tell me this: The idea of the free market was a smokescreen. It was proposed as a way for the very rich to dominate commerce. The “free market” was a non-concept. It never existed. It was an illusion, like people sprouting wings and flying.

You might be surprised by the number of people who believe this. They are essentially saying that the very EXISTENCE of an idea depends on WHO expressed the idea. If the wrong person first expressed it, it was never real.

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

In the world of social engineering, here is the larger program:

first make every idea dependent for its value on who proposed it;

attack the men who created the Constitution and thereby trash all the founding ideas of the Republic;

instead, substitute the notion of oppressors and the oppressed—all the bad people who founded the Republic were the oppressors;

cultivate, encourage, and create many groups within society as “the oppressed”;

come in behind that with big government as the answer to the problems of the oppressed;

ratchet up dependence and government control to new heights.

Of course, big government, under its humanitarian banners, is a dictator. To maintain the illusion that it is not, there must be new oppressed people, new victims, new helpless people coming out of the woodwork all the time whom the government can help.

From this angle, it doesn’t matter whether the ever-growing dependent population is genuine or not. Sorting out the real from the imaginary obviously isn’t part of the program. Nor does it matter how government is disenfranchising people to make them into victims.

Some people see labeling themselves victims as a winning strategy for their lives. Others actually are getting their noses shoved down into the mud.

In our teaching institutions, you could look in vain to find courses on the individual, his freedom, his power. That’s gone.

It’s all about: what group do you belong to? What are the needs of that group? Who is oppressing your group? How can you get government to solve the problem?

Once the oppressor-oppression model is set in stone, everything that follows is a disaster.

Oppressor-oppression equals victim-rescuer. The rescuer turns out to be a tyrant. He gives and he takes. He makes the rules. He builds his power.

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

You turn them out as programmed androids. They follow your game plan.

From that point on, they hold a hostile attitude toward anyone who can discuss and analyze ideas. They look at such people as an entitled and privileged class who is speaking a foreign language. If overnight, you discovered that the most elevated members of society were all speaking Hungarian and nothing else, do you think you could maintain a friendly attitude toward them?

Here is another tool of the new education. Blur over the distinction between a widespread condition and a universal defining condition. For example, yes, there are oppressors and there are people they are oppressing. True. But to move from that and say the very ideas at the core of society were designed, everywhere and at all times, to create only oppressors and the oppressed…that’s a vast generality which leads to all-inclusive programmatic general solutions.

And those solutions, voila, turn out to be the means of making slaves.

Criticizing America is productive only when it has a reference point for comparison. A rational discussion to establish the reference point is essential. Are we going to hold up a mirror to the founding ideas of the Republic, or are we going to say, for example, that the true and proper purpose of government should be to alleviate suffering? And if the latter, what exactly does that alleviation entail? How far does it go? Who does it punish in the process?

This isn’t a brush-off conversation. In order to participate in it, people have to be able to follow a train of thought. If they can’t, because they were educated not to, where are we? We’re in the dark. We’re living by slogans.

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

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

Who solves that?

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

Ever since the ratification of the Constitution, the actions of the federal government have confirmed the need for the limitations written into that document. New needs and crises have “demanded” illegitimate expansion of federal power.

In order to convince the people that this expansion was, at every turn, vital, the goal of educating citizens about what it means to take part in a Republic had to be blunted. This was done, a step at a time, through education.

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

And yet…logic isn’t only a subject that’s taught to students whose minds are a blank slate. There is an inherent tendency toward rational thought that persists, despite programming to the contrary.

For example, if a television station or web site offered a prolonged debate between two intelligent people on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment—a real debate, not just a brush-off—many viewers would be intensely interested.

I’m talking about an old-style debate, one that lasted at least several hours, with each proponent allowed sufficient time to make his case fully. No name calling or shouting of slogans. No interruptions from either side. No stupid moderators.

This traditional long-form format would serve to wake people up to the fact they have minds, they can think, they can spot contradictions and non-sequiturs.

Or, as I’ve suggested before, why not a Debate Channel, devoted exclusively to key issues of our time, taken up in the long-form?

True, many viewers would tune out. But others would feel a jolt of inspiration. A sense of deja vu. “I’ve been here before. I can’t remember when.”

Yes, they’ve been here before, when they could think and reason, before the curtain was lowered.

Actual reasoned debate could become a growing trend. And by contrast, the insane nonsense that presently passes for argument on television would be highlighted as a counterfeit substitute, a fool’s errand.

You can make your own list of vital issues you’d like to see debated, in the long-form, by people who know their material (not merely the usual dome heads and pundits). I have my list.

It’s never too late to wake up. It really isn’t.

For instance, suppose we had a ten-hour reasoned debate, over the course of two days, on television, or on the Web, on this simple question:

What really happened at Sandy Hook?

Do you think that might draw a few viewers?

Are you kidding?

It would outrank many major network programs. It would put the networks’ coverage to shame.

Never a bad thing.

The Matrix Revealed

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

Coda: Here is an illustration of no-logic in action:

It occurs in a recent article in the Washington Post, “Uncle of young Newtown shooting victim turning tragedy into action.”

From the headline alone, we pick up the slant of the article. It’s going to praise the uncle for being able to turn grief into action.

The uncle is attorney Alexis Haller. His nephew, Noah Pozner, was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting.

The Post article tells us that Haller has worked as a lawyer for the Vatican. We don’t learn exactly what he did for the Vatican, but it’s more or less suggested that, because Haller has a keen interest in “reporting requirements,” where child abuse is occurring, he may have had something to do with the Vatican now “expecting” (requiring?) bishops to report pedophile priests to law-enforcement authorities.

This is quite fuzzy. The Post doesn’t clarify what role, if any, Haller played in the new Vatican expectations/requirements.

Nevertheless, the article presses on to indicate that Haller saw a way to codify reporting requirements in situations of imminent violence, like Sandy Hook. In fact, Haller has written (or made notes on?) a bill:

When a person “has knowledge of a grave or imminent threat of serious harm or death made by someone with access to a gun,” that person must notify the police within 24 hours.

Haller has met with Joe Biden’s committee and discussed his proposal.

The article doesn’t bother to take up how this bill, if made into law, would be enforced, or what implications might flow from it—such as the birthing of an expanded snitch mentality; and excessive, wrong-headed, or even malicious reporting in cases where the threat of imminent violence wasn’t real.

No, this article, we learn, is more a human interest story about Alexis Haller and what’s he’s motivated to do in the wake of the death of his nephew.

The Post article doesn’t bother to cover Haller’s actual history as a defense lawyer for the Vatican. For example, in a case involving the sexual abuse of a Portland, Oregon, boy, in the 1960s, where a 2011 suit was filed against the Holy See, Haller was defending the Vatican, claiming that the pedophile priest, Andrew Ronan, was committing crimes against children without the knowledge of the Holy See, and was not an employee of the Vatican.

Why is this significant? Because the Post article states: “Haller had crafted and forwarded several proposals to prevent future gun violence that were shaped by his experience as a lawyer for the Holy See.”

Which part of that experience? Ahem, cough-cough.

By the end of the article, we know nothing about the precise wording of Haller’s new bill to limit gun violence.

We do know that he was tragically connected to the Sandy Hook shootings. We know his initial efforts to have input in new gun legislation were ignored. We know he overcame that problem. We see his posed picture above the article, in which he’s walking in the rain under an umbrella.

We understand the Post is “on his side.”

This is the old Ad Hominem argument, in which the person forwarding an idea is more important than the actual content of the idea…except in this case, the person isn’t being attacked, he’s being praised.

As if that gives more credibility to his idea, the precise legal content of which we don’t know.


Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at

33 comments on “Matrix programming 101: destroy logic

  1. John Smartt says:

    both parts of the history you mentioned are important. free market of today has no relation to the free market of adam smith. his free market had to have controls or unfree portions to make it work. finance and concentration of capital had to be monitored and regulated. the term free market has been used for years to get rid of restraints on capital and finance plus reduction of taxes for the wealthy. politicians and their pals in industry and finance talk no government but mean no restrictions on their ability to monopolize the market.

  2. genomega1 says:

    Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
    Matrix programming 101: destroy logic

  3. robert temple, PT says:

    I have made the same observation and come to similar conclusions. As a former student of public education, it was necessary to develop knowledge and skills, which should have been core to my learning, by training myself according to interests and demands of life. I did not recognize until fatherhood how vacuous textbooks have become – even at the level of Nursing Science and Mental Illness for clinical practice. No evidence given to support some assertions; almost every example of mental illness cured in every chapter.
    The essential point is clear and cogent: the seed for growing ‘true believers’ exists to drown precision and concision in thought, honesty and integrity in action. I see the result in the medical profession today.
    “Be careful of Joe, he reports patient abuse”, “If you document exactly what happened, you will lose your job”, “It is only seclusion if you lock the door; if you merely(repeatedly) redirect him, then it is not seclusion…I do not want to write a report on this”, “He fell and hit the back of his head, but he looks okay…no need to write it up”, “I did not see you do that”…inter alia. I found that aggressive behavior is more likely if a staff member does not take time to listen, question, offer help, or prevent harm. But some people, and I know this has been a perennial issue, make no time for much else than their paycheck.
    The generations under me seem to have little concern for developing a sense of skill and knowledge, planning and strategy. A few profess that there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. I disagree, and wonder how they make assessments. Two most interesting professionals I have been honored to work beside, however, were East Indian and Israeli. Both of them were a pleasure to listen to when discussing patient behavior, medication effectiveness(or not), and administrative implications extending from new directives related to care, safety, and consistency.
    Note that these two men were not natural born to U.S. nor were they younger than I.
    Overall, I am glad to find your site and look forward to further writings on such interesting, and relevant, topics.


  4. matrix_reboot says:

    So when is No More Fake News hosting the debates ?

    I nominate Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi to defend the Sandy Hook official story.

    Sign me up !!!!!

  5. Sean says:

    Formal training in logic might familiarize one with the terms, but it is not necessary to call a spade a spade. Humans have an innate ability to either understand or ignore the truth. It is a far easier life if you ignore it and stick with the herd. Even if the herd eventually goes over the cliff, at least they were safe until the last moments.

  6. amicusbriefs says:

    The foundations, think tanks and institutes — all sourced to the same bad seed, provide for the ultimate ad hominem. Looking past (or through) them at their circular technique reveals the dark agenda behind the generational rotation of despicable personalities. In their case it is per excrementum ad astra. Yet the effulgent celestials desire not their association, and they are again forced out of every country they’ve been granted residence.

  7. Kim says:

    Thank-you…just in time for my blog…
    Antiphospholipid and Pesticide effects…
    Wrote a long little blurb, but made me cry because all this is really sad to see. Just know I appreciate you work Jon. This is the second time this week you were put on my blog. TY

  8. Freddie says:

    The methodology outlined here goes a long way to explain how the ANC in South Africa continues to entrench it’s power. Of course it’s much easier to achieve this in Africa: There’s no need for “dumming-down” since an educated majority capable of critical thinking hasn’t ever existed!

  9. bob klinck says:

    The capacity for logical thinking is being sytematically subverted by the cognitive dissonance incorporated in practically all information produced for public consumption.

  10. MachtNichts says:

    Does logic trump intuition? If you want to insist on logic you’re still caught up in the matrix trying to make sense of external input. There is no doubt most of the current and prevailing ideas have been planted by the bad seeds with their undue influence over the media and by lying about history. And I fervently wish amicusbriefs is right that the effulgent celestials desire not their association. ab, loved it!| Silvia



  11. waldbaer says:

    You could do those debates yourself:
    All you need is a headset and a webcam. And, of course, the right people to do the debating.
    I would watch it, even it would be ten hours.
    You do not need a TV station to do that. Just use the internet 😉
    IMHO the Constitution of the United States of America is one of the best ideas mankind ever brew up.
    Please hold up on this.

    Greetings from germany,

  12. morris kaplan says:

    dear john and friends,
    view the hierarchy with ‘they live’ sunglasses! when individuals carry titles of nobility like esquire(attorneys) reverend, doctor, professor, sheriff or judge, they are part of it! the sos! freedom of religion as long as it is the one world satan worshipping one. the vatican is occupied masonic/hebrew territory where every blasphemy is applauded and any criticism of the world order is squashed. where the stations of the cross are all part of the happy story that ended with the glory of the catholic church which is paraded around the world for all the abused and murdered to witness. the scarlet robes of the purevil bishops, cardinals and popes, protected by the black robes of the money/slave equity, non common law system lackeys and their jack booted thugs are waiting to receive us in their inquisitions. there never was a debate! only hate! exclusion! vilification and vampirism of other beings! what then…
    view all phenomenal existence like a shadow, bubbles or a lightening flash(that higgs bosom they are looking for!). game over soon sign is flashing and the lights on the scoreboard have burnt out! who you gonna call?

  13. Robert Burt says:

    All you have to do to overturn their ideology is to remind them that a good idea can come from anywhere. Even Marxists can have a good idea. But no philosophy is complete, and no philosophy is without error. Some are less complete than others, and some contain more error than others. All humans have similarities, and all humans have differences. No one is entirely evil, and no one is entirely good. ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ are inadequate concepts. Supermen are not above good and evil. It is just that, ultimately, good and evil are subject to individual perceptions. When men join together to agree on good and evil, all invariably give up some aspect or degree of their individuality in order to adopt the view of the most dominate individual. This is true among men. Among women it tends to be different.

    Another way to overcome persons who employ non-logic-based dogma is by working to get them to recognize that their real motive is to carry out certain actions, and then to show them ways in which the outcomes of such actions would not be desirable to them, and to give examples of how their ideas have consistently produced outcomes different from those which were expected or claimed. Most of all, we need to accept the fact that talking will not accomplish the outcomes we desire, that effective action is necessary.

  14. Axiom says:

    just serf farm management practices

  15. PJ London says:

    Thank you Jon, you are treading in the footsteps of giants.

    “Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.” ~~ Thomas Jefferson

    “Thus did a handful of rapacious citizens come to control all that was worth controlling in America. Thus was the savage and stupid and entirely inappropriate and unnecessary and humorless American class system created. Honest, industrious, peaceful citizens were classed as bloodsuckers, if they asked to be paid a living wage. And they saw that praise was reserved henceforth for those who devised means of getting paid enormously for committing crimes against which no laws had been passed. Thus the American dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went bang in the noonday sun.”
    ~~ Kurt Vonnegut, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater

    Jack London describes the perception of “the great mass of the people [who] still persisted in the belief that they ruled the country by virtue of their ballots,” when “[i]n reality, the country was ruled by what were called political machines. At first the machine bosses charged the master capitalists extortionate tolls for legislation; but in a short time the master capitalists found it cheaper to own the political machines themselves and to hire the machine bosses.”

    “We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” ~~ Abraham Lincoln

    “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful, murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” ~~ George Orwell 

    “Given to exaggeration in its feelings, a crowd is only impressed by excessive sentiments. An orator wishing to move a crowd must make an abusive use of violent affirmations. To exaggerate, to affirm, to resort to repetitions, and never to attempt to prove anything by reasoning are methods of argument well known to speakers at public meetings.”

    “Whatever be the ideas suggested to crowds they can only exercise effective influence on condition that they assume a very absolute, uncompromising and simple shape. They present themselves then in the guise of images, and are only accessible to the masses under this form.” ~~ (I do not have a source, I think it was Goering)

    “Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.” ~~ Albert Einstein

    And Finally…

    “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is apt to spread discontent among those who are.” ~ H.L. Mencken

  16. Stacey Ray says:

    Those of us who were cheated out of an education in Critical Thinking can check out Jan Irvin’s Gnostic media com.

    “How to think” = Trivium and Quadrivium (Logic Based)
    “What to think” = Performance based public education (Skinner Based)

  17. A really fine piece, full of insight!

    There will be a link hither on my page. Some passages at least shall be translated, to get my German readers going. If given permission, I shall consider to not only cite amply but present an adequate whole translation of this article. Much of my thoughts and teachings over the years is here, concisely put. To behold these things in an American context over here will be a boon. We have the selfsame process at work. Your description of the systematic corruption, if not erosion, of logic in education and society goes straight to the core of things. Thank You!



    Magnus, thank you so much for you kind words and the energy you bring. Excited to hear that you intend to do a full translation of the article into the German language.

  18. Dear Jon,

    thank You for Your kind answer.

    I take this as a permission to publish a full German translation on my website ONLY. (Rights are rights.)

    It may take a few days, as I’m very busy. If You deem anything wrong or not quite to the point (certainly You or some friend can check on that) please let me know to correct it duly.

    Yes. Excellent. Permission granted — with link back to the original article.

  19. Perry says:

    Splendid article! A few things I would like to point out about labeling something as an “ad hominem” argument: when the focus of the comments are directed towards the alleged failings or deficiencies of a person, that is an “ad hominem” argument. It is, in other words, a tactic in which the persons character is substituted in place of a genuine argument.

    What you have mentioned is actually called “poisoning the wells”: like the “ad hominem” fallacy, it focusses on the alleged character deficiencies of the belief holder; unlike ad hominem”, however, it goes one step further and makes the additionall claim that since the belief holder is flawed, therefore so must the “character” of the belief itself.

    Hence the phrase itself: “poisoning the well” implies that since the water is poisoned, it is useless as a source of good water and is to be avoided.

  20. Jim says:

    What free market? Worthless paper backed by nothing is not money.
    What financial system are you referring to? A complete fiction imposed upon us by murderers and charlatans? Why do you keep repeating their lies?
    Markets are created by government authority.
    The ruins of public markets provided by municipal authority may be viewed in Rome and Athens. Markets are not free. Wild animals are free. Freedom is a condition lacking governance.
    The United States treasury has been replaced by a private bank.
    United states courts have been replace by private courts.
    Public arraignment and public indictment in criminal cases has been abolished in the United States. This is the distruction of Common law by the abolition of public authority.
    The cattle and sheep are on their knees praying to Jesus Christ.
    They pledge allegiance to the Christian flag and wait to live in heaven.
    They have no use for citizenship or morality or a Nation.
    They believe faith is something they feel for their imaginary friend living up in the sky. They think real devotion to real people is the same experience and pretend devotion to pretend people.

  21. vicfedorov says:

    Case in point, the reasons for things, and recourse to change things, non existent. No one knows the reason for the federal government was to keep the states from warring each other and protect from europe and indian. No one knows the alternative was a loose knit confederacy. People accept one constitution for all time, no future generation has significant say, the standards of three quarters of the states and senators to change the constitution is outlandish. Yet these outlandish illogical abscences and ill structures, of laws replacing daily community circles, completely accepted, both absurd and totalitarian.

  22. […] englischsprachigen Original finden sie hier. (“Matrix programming 101: destroy […]

  23. Hi Jon,

    I’ve just published my German version of Your splendid article on my site:



    (If anything is not the way You like it, please give me a call. My number is in the “Impressum” at the bottom of the site.)


    Hi Magnus!

    Excellent! It looks good!


  24. Dear Jon,

    inspired by Your piece, I have just published “Falsch ist richtig. Und richtig ist böse.” (False is right. And right is bad.) on my site.

    I think it is not only an extension of what You say, or merely a comment thereupon. Of course, I included a link to Your article.



  25. […] Ich habe mir nochmal Gedanken über die von Jon Rappoport dargelegte (deutsche Übersetzung von mir) Zerstörung der Logik gemacht. (Zu Jons englischsprachigem Originalartikel direkt hier.) […]

  26. […] command of Logic can help you navigate your convictions more clearly, see this free article — “Matrix programming 101: destroy logic” — that I recently […]

  27. […] The second bonus is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades. For more information on how increasing your command of Logic can help you navigate your convictions more clearly, see the FREE article I wrote entitled “Matrix programming 101: destroy logic”. […]

  28. Robert says:

    Our world is run by ” Off Earth Forces ” who thrive on our fear, wars, starvation, addiction etc. It to them is like a drug that is euphoric.
    Logic is not in the picture… We are kept at bay by the Matrix confused, separated, angry, fearing, etc. The Logical thinking mind is not allowed in society… It brings a higher level man one of love, compassion, caring, free will, etc. The Matrix defuses this keeping us at the 7.6 hertz life beat that we should have evolved from ages ago.
    The ” Off Earth Forces ” Chose the perfect hiding spot to run there best technology many Moons ago… This must end now if we care about the future, allowed to evolve on our own without being held back from what we are entitled to… This is what they fear.

  29. cALVIN d. aLLEN says:

    Excellent! My major in college was public speaking. I was on debate team through High school and college My career path was Broadcasting and shifted to the Ministry. In both of these professions I was very much aware of the lack of sound thinking. For at least 8 years I have offered my services, free of charge, to sponsor a debate and or logic class at the local high school and to this day have I have had no response. The above article is the best explanation of the lack of interest as well as Charlotte Iserbyt’s book, THE DELIBEREAT DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *