Guns, schools, mind control, revolution
by Jon Rappoport
March 4, 2014
“Padre, these are subtleties. We’re not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime–and. . .with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He will be your true Christian: ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the very heart at the thought even of killing a fly! Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it works.” — A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Burgess, 1962.
Fingers pointed like a gun. A pop tart chewed into the shape of a gun. A toy gun.
All over America, schools are exercising what they call zero tolerance policy to suspend young children packing “suggestions of guns.”
Behind this practice is the idea that populations can be conditioned against owning real guns. Start early, indoctrinate the kids, and society will change.
In turn, such thinking rests on the premise that human beings are Pavlovian dogs. Programmed biological machines. If the program currently running is faulty, and fails to obey the mandate of “greatest good for the greatest number,” change the program.
If the brain reveals a chemical imbalance (although no research has even established a baseline for normal balance), insert psychiatric drugs and correct the problem.
Maintain surveillance on the entire population, thus convincing millions they may be potential law-breakers…and they will modify their behavior, they will toe the line, they will march straight ahead and keep their mouths shut.
As this sort of flawed reasoning expands and spreads, people begin to believe that a model of radical reconstruction is viable and good.
For instance, how many people would now respond favorably to the idea that “everyone can be programmed to forget guns even exist”?
How many people would agree to a program that “guaranteed” racial prejudice would be wiped from human memory?
How many people would happily respond to the notion that environmental destruction, as an impulse, could be removed from the brain?
How many of these people would even notice that such programs were eliminating freedom? And if they did notice, how many would care?
Operant conditioning and mind control could have side effects? What does that mean, if freedom was never real in the first place?
A recent opinion piece in the Harvard Crimson, by student Sandra YL Korn, was subtitled: “Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice.” Korn asserted that academic research promoting “oppression” should be stopped. Perhaps you can imagine what a university council, convened to define and rule on “justice,” would look and sound like.
(Question for consideration by the Committee: should University funds for African-American left-handed lesbians supersede monies devoted to correcting unequal treatment of differently-abled wheelchair-bound Hispanic immigrants whose parents descend from bloodlines of Spanish conquistadors in the New World?)
The idea that you can obliterate “bad parts” of the brain and preserve the good parts is now embedded in standard science. It is childish, absurd, and dangerous to the extreme.
Brain researchers are, on the whole, disinterested in the law. They aim to create a new species for whom no laws will be needed. People will do the right thing, because their upgraded brains tell them to.
If these researchers and their allies succeed, what we are now calling revolutions will be as pop tarts are to ICBMs. We’ll have mass uprisings that will shake the Earth.
Because when freedom is slipping away, is actually being drained away, and when people know it, in their bones, when they can no longer deny it or sleep through it, they will show exactly how important they think it is.
They will no longer believe that all this programming and brain research are aimed at curing illness. They will understand the madness being visited on them.
Jon Rappoport
The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
See Scott Noble’s film Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century (posted at YouTube).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rnJEdDNDsI
[…] Guns, schools, mind control, revolution […]
I think that Mr. Rappaport is close, but that the matter is far worse than he has yet noticed.
“In turn, such thinking rests on the premise that human beings are Pavlovian dogs. Programmed biological machines. If the program currently fails to obey the mandate of ‘greatest dood for the greatest number’, change the program.”
The mechanistic view of the universe takes on faith the belief that the Big Bang occurred, creating the universe ex nihilo, and also that evolution started immediately in the presumably inanimate matter so created. The current result, based on Darwinian survival alone, is the appearance, and the appearance only, of human sentience.
For survival purposes alone, a group of like minded humans is actively practicing evolution, according to their arbitrarily defined and not too clear purposes. These pruposes are probably along the lines of controlling large swaths of the Earth’s population. Pavlovian control of children, along with drugged control of adults, are the key techniques being used to control people, and thus the progress of evolution.
Freedom was real in the first place. It is deliberately being made less real today.
I watched some of that very interesting video:
52:48
Alfie Kohn:
“What are we trying to do? If our goal is to help kids become critical thinkers, lifelong learners who really enjoy thinking and reading and playing with numbers and ideas; if we want to help them become good learners and good people who can create and sustain a functioning democracy, then education would look very different from the way it looks right now, at least in our culture. We would have to question the use of grades.”
(This does not follow. True, we would have to question the unquestioning use of grades as if they were the only metric used to measure a child’s educational progress. But if we are to teach, then there must be a methodology to detect and confirm the child’s learning. When I was coming up through the public education system, I could see that grades were a way to test one’s knowledge. Sure, I wanted good grades, but I wanted was the learning too. It is inconceivable that I was the only child who felt this way about learning.
Grades, in and of themselves, are simply not the problem.)
“What research finds, is that when kids are trying to get good grades in school, three things tend to happen: They begin to lose interest in the learning itself. Now the purpose is to just get a good grade, rather than to engage with the question or problem at hand.”
(My anecdotal observations agree with this idea. But our schools reflect culture, and it is not the schools which have created our culture.
Mr. Kohn has yet to observe that the school system and its practices fall within the greater context of American culture today. It is this culture, assiduously nurtured by corporate insiders and meddling social engineers, which has resulted in today’s largely amoral, mechanistic culture.)
“Second, they tend to think less deeply and retain knowledge for a shorter period of time, compared to kids who don’t have any grades.”
(This is simply not true in its absolute sense. I cannot have been the only child of the late fifties and sixties who went through the standarized tests of the time, and came out of the process loving learning.
Mr. Kohn is deliberately posing the quiet axiom that schools, in and of themselves, could teach as he would propose, resulting in “good people who can create and sustain a functioning democracy”. He does not mention family at all. This is where he begins propagandizing.)
“And third, they tend to pick the easiest possible tasks. That’s not because they are lazy, it’s because they are being rational. We tell kids we want to see a better report card, we want to see higher grades, naturally they’ll pick the shortest book or the easiest project, because that maximizes the chance of achieving that goal.”
(Suddenly, Mr. Kohn adds choice to the standardized curricula. This skews all of his subsequent observations. If the kids are required to read Shakespeare’s ‘Sonnet 55’ as a standard, they will not have the choice to read Nash’s ‘The Termite’. It is a principle of standardized teaching to minimize subject choice, not maximize it.)
So, regardless of what your goal is, if you’re interested in assessing kids, and teachers, and schools, to see ‘are we doing a good job here’, you would never need tests in order to see where kids are learning and where they need help; and you would never need grades to report the results of the evaluation place on those assessments.
We would certainly do away with standardized testing, the kind of testing used in particular states or provinces where everyone takes the same test and you compare everyone’s scores. These tests tend to measure what matters least. It tends to be a good marker for family income, because what standardized testing mostly measures is the size of the housing near the school.”
(Here, Mr. Kohn begins blatantly lying. He has deliberately overlooked the role of family in both determining income and whether or not the child is supported in learning at home.
There’s no question that deep thinking is only mildly related to standardized test scoring. Again, when I was growing up, essay tests typically counted more than multiple choice tests, and open book tests were typically harder than multiple choice tests, and also counted for more.
Those essays were handwritten, usually in cursive writing, and required the teacher to think about the writing too. The discipline of neat penmanship, the discipline of composition, the discipline of deep knowledge, all came into play.
Mr. Kohn will not discuss penmanship, since that topic is no longer seen as germane to the discipline of education. It would be disingenuous to argue that penmanship alone forms the basis of my argument, when I have already invoked a stable family and the ensuing sufficiency of income, along with the morality of the culture, as a part of my argument.)
55:30
Some of his subsequent comments are pretty good, but look at the time, and look at what compensation I’ll be getting for thinking and writing about ideas.
[…] Gun, schools, mind control, revolution […]
[…] Guns, schools, mind control, revolution. […]