The operation called “manufactured consensus”
by Jon Rappoport
April 28, 2015
This operation has various stages. It can be applied to issues like vaccination, GMO food, climate change, fake epidemics, elections, war—and it can be applied widely across the general subject of reality itself.
It begins with some “authoritative” voice proclaiming an idea is a fact. Well, someone has to start the ball rolling.
Very quickly, according to plan, others pick up the ball and echo the original idea. This includes both “respected” individuals and groups. Media join in.
What follows is a scramble to gain public acceptance. All sorts of approaches are used in this stage of the process:
the claim that a consensus has already been reached (which is a lie);
attacks on dissidents and critics;
warnings that refusal to accept the central idea will have dire consequences “for all of us”;
cooked and slanted scientific studies;
general reminders that the idea being promoted represents the greatest good for the greatest number;
expressions of shock that there are “still people who refuse to accept the obvious”;
new laws and regulations hammered into existence;
subsequent legalized coercion;
arguments so illogical and bizarre that people accept them, thinking they themselves must be missing the point;
relegation of dissent to the margins of “wild conspiracy theory”;
the conjoining of dissent with negative images and feelings;
the marginalizing of dissent into legal cases that wind through seemingly endless corridors of a maze;
and, of course, endless repetition of the original idea.
After a suitable period has passed, most people can’t even recall a time when the original idea was seriously disputed.
And yet…none of these strategies would succeed, unless people felt a strong need for a centralized authority that defines reality.
To put it another way, people have a quite minimal tolerance for chaos, in which there are many conflicting views on a subject of key importance.
Years ago, I did interesting experiments with small groups re chaos.
In one part of the experiment, I had the people in the group spontaneously sing a note, all at once, any note. Ten people, ten different notes would emerge.
“Chaos.” Dissonance.
I asked them to listen to the overall musical effect and then voice a note they believed would add greater dissonance to the group sound.
Most of the time, if I let this go on long enough, the group would tend to retreat back into “harmony,” and end up all singing the same note.
It didn’t matter which note. Everyone wound up voicing the same pitch.
This was comfortable. This was acceptable. This was “unity.”
So it is with ideas. Most people prefer that “harmony and unity.” They seek it.
Somewhere in their minds, there is a learned program that asks for consensus, a program that prefers consent to difference.
Dissonance (disagreement) registers as a negative reality.
When I had done these group experiments on and off for a few years, I began my research on what came to be the collections, “The Matrix Revealed” and “Exit From The Matrix.”
I stressed the power of individual unfettered imagination, and offered many exercises to expand the scope and range of imagination.
The program in favor of uniform consent fades and disintegrates in the face of imagination.
What we call reality is a hodge-podge of engineered acceptance.
The basic kernel of reality is the programmed desire for unity, which is nothing like the kind of unity that can occur when individuals who live through and by imagination concur and cooperate.
An individual living a life through and by imagination invents new and unprecedented Reality.
Engineered consensus withers.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
Hot damn, Jon!
Once again, ya hit it out of the ball-park!
I want to see these articles as recommended reading. This also makes a good companion article to one of the latest Lew Rockwell articles on vaccines and their pushers. (“First, They Came for the Anti-Vaxxers”)
Please,
Don’t stop now. We NEED all the brutal truth that can be mustered up in short notice. “They” are getting desperate and losing control.
Another great article Jon, did you ever notice that the scripted media all agree on every issue all of the time. That in its self would lead one to believe they are blowing smoke out their ass.
One perfect example of same, the “theory” of evolution suddenly becoming “fact”. Another, the “genius” Einstein who in reality was a class three patent clerk who plagiarized his work. Because he was politically connected he was shoved down a dupable public’s throat until the consensus was his “genius”. Global Warming….. Terrorism….Vaccinations…. It’s a sewer of arrogance/ignorance. A toilet in desperate need of being flushed before they completely ruin our earth.
Great bullet-points for future use.
Thank you.
” I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton
Excellent article Jon. Thanks.
The Asch Conformity Experiments in the 1950s demonstrated how people are influenced by the majority in a group. People often conform to the group, even when they know all the others are wrong. The guy in this short video does exactly what Jon says: “He prefers consent to difference”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA-gbpt7Ts8
Excellent analysis Jon, I think this especially applies to the vaccine issue. You see a lot of this “engineered consensus” on the ever so popular “scienceblogs,” involving the heated vaccine debate.
But these are powerful forums/groups that seem to have an answer for every rebuttal of the pro-vaccine safety/effectiveness issue. Who are these regulars? Pharma reps? Unemployed pharma researchers? Wannabe scientists? Besides appearing everyday, 24-7, they all seem to read from a script (are they even real people or a computer program?).
They repeat the same old nauseating mantra of “vaccines work and are far safe safer than the diseases they prevent” and “the dose is the poison” and so on. If you state that the CDC is supported by big pharma and that CDC vaccine safely studies are, therefore, bias, they respond that many safety studies are done by the National Institute of Health, which they state has no ties to the CDC (does anyone know if this is true or not?).
And even if someone has posted that they love/embrace/cherish vaccines but support pro-choice for others, the typical response is: “with freedoms comes responsibilities.” They’re even character assassinating RFK, Jr (trace amounts) for going on the Bill Maher show and stating that he’s pro-vaxx but also supporting choice for others.
I’ve never seen a more ruthless, inconsiderate, demeaning, fear-mongering, antagonistic, condescending, repugnant, imperious (did I leave anything out?) group of jerks in my life!
CDC and NIH are two divisions of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Both agencies have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industries for sure. There is a massive revolving door between these government agencies and Big Pharma.
Julie Gerberding, former director of the CDC became the president of Merck’s vaccine unit, Elias Zerhouni, former director of the NIH became the president of Sanofi-Aventis’ research labs, etc.
This article states that In 2003, the NIH with Zerhouni at its head faced grave accusations when it came to light that hundreds of its scientists had to the medical and pharmaceutical industries”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/11/27/nabel-trades-dream-job.aspx
just to add re: Julie Gerberding,…
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/cdc-whistleblower-this-is-the-real-smoking-gun/
Thanks Sherlock for the info, I didn’t know much about the NIH. And the fact that they have financial ties to the pharma industry doesn’t surprise me.
Brilliant piece. I especially liked this line: “arguments so illogical and bizarre that people accept them, thinking they themselves must be missing the point;”
Sadly, that type of (lack of) thinking spreads like a virus into every level of society, right down to relations with friends and family.
The pseudo science used today can also be called “consensus science”.
This is how false ideas such as “Man made global warming”
“Wall street’s carbon trading game is needed & will save the planet” are spread throughout the population. Yet there is no such thing as man made global warming and a carbon tax would lead to starvation and more poverty as it would increase food costs for the global monopolies that now control food (and want control over all water).
Reblogged this on A Musing Phrontistery and commented:
This is how the 1% changes us. Great read.
“Assertion is bondage. To question and deny is necessary. It is the essence of revolt and without a revolt there can be no freedom.” S.N.M
From childhood the mind of a human being is conditioned to not revolt.
This unquestioning obedience is relied on as it makes a prison. Revolt against “culture” as it is naught but a collection of bars.
Engineered consensus playing out in Greece, but may go wrong there, where TV viewing figures are the lowest in Europe and there is a tradition of distrust in anything official, because they know that the politicians rip them off. Will it be different this time? Analysis at http://olivefarmercrete.blogspot.gr/