Dissent on trial: the Grand Inquisitor

The silence of the lambs

Plato’s Republic

by Jon Rappoport

March 26, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Citizen Smith Jones stands before a judge in the US Federal Court for Crimes against the State.

Mr. Jones, are you aware that paranoia is a serious offense?

What? I’m not suffering from paranoia, sir.

You espouse wild theories that could only come from a disordered mind. A mind that believes others are out to get him.

I merely disagreed with the State, when I wrote that—

NO. DON’T mention what you wrote. That is no part of this proceeding.

Why not?

We are here for one purpose. To confirm you have criticized edicts of the government and the press.

But we need to examine what I claimed, to see whether it was factual.

We are NOT permitted to publicize the particulars of dissent in this court, because we would then be giving them EXPOSURE. We must be silent about the content of your posts and attempted tweets.


You admit you disagreed with the State?

Of course.

Then you stand guilty as charged.

Again, Your Honor, suppose what I wrote is true?

It can’t be true.

Why not?

Because all statements are normative.

I don’t know what that means. I’m reluctant to ask.

All statements imply an ethical position, which in turn suggests behavior. I sit here to decide whether that behavior would benefit or harm the State.

Are you a Sophist?

I taught medical ethics at Johns Hopkins for 25 years. Upon retirement, I was appointed to this position. I gauge whether defendants want to help or harm the State. Whether their motives are pure or tainted.

What about my motives?

You’re a reasonable paranoid. That combination is difficult to cure. You’re a traditionalist. You believe we should examine dissent for truth or falsity. That’s a very old idea. It’s already been tossed in the dustbin of history. You’re not aware of this.

Who owns the dustbin?

In this court, I do.

Again, Your Honor, suppose what I’ve written is true? And if it’s false, what about the First Amendment?

You’re fixated on this issue, Mr. Jones. Why should the State care about what is true or false? Our power comes from EDICT, which is law.

Why shouldn’t I be able to express dissent?

Obviously, because one drop of opposition becomes two, and then they multiply like germs. You should express your opinion through your vote.

But if the voting process itself is—

SILENCE. Don’t finish that sentence. The content of dissent is not permitted in this court.

Then I automatically have no defense.

Mr. Jones, my colleagues and I are trampling on the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored. We’re ending anger directed at the government and its media partners. Don’t you realize that? We’re trimming hedges of expression to achieve conformity and uniformity.

I stick out from the crowd so you’re chopping me down.

Let me give you an analogy. Let’s say you’re selling a substance you claim will heal disease. You’re brought into court. You tell the judge you want to present evidence that your product is effective and safe. The judge will simply determine whether the FDA has approved the product for sale. If not, you’re guilty. You won’t be given the chance to describe one iota of your evidence.

I could be healing the sick, but I’m guilty.

Exactly. We keep things simple. You want to publish thoughts which are departing from government edicts? You’ve committed a crime. It doesn’t matter what those thoughts are. Am I getting through to you, Mr. Jones?

You are.


You want the silence of the lambs.

That’s right.

You want to make it seem that non-silence is provocation of some kind. If I publish my thoughts, I’m—

Make it seem? There is no seem. There is only is.

Then it doesn’t matter whether my expression of thought is actually provocative or incendiary. It might be. It might not be. The expression is the crime.

In a nutshell, yes.

My clarity on this issue is improving. Have you considered an edict that would demand a pledge of silence?

We have. It would be voluntary. Those who sign the pledge would enjoy certain privileges. Think of how peaceful things would become if people kept their mouths closed.

Yes. Peaceful. Assuming the government is beneficent and fair.

Mr. Jones, it doesn’t matter what the government is, as long as it is the government.

Therefore, what I wrote about the government—which is why I’m here today—doesn’t matter. I was objecting, based on standards which don’t exist.


I see, Your Honor. You’re clearing up things for me. YOU want to make MY objections into outright rebellion and revolution against the government. I was expressing critical comments, but because you rule by edict alone, any criticism I make becomes insurrection.

Mr. Jones, you have the intelligence to work for us, but not the temperament. It’s a shame. We could use you.

Really? And what would I do?

Assist our philosopher kings and princes.

Excuse me?

Our best people are really making philosophic distinctions. They’re passing judgment on language, on ethics, on psychology, on WHERE IDEAS COME FROM.

Where do they come from?

Take, for example, Justice. Is that an ideal form which exists in a realm separate from humans? An ideal toward which we strive? Or is it a principle we humans construct? If we are constructing it, HOW do we build it? With what motives and goals? How do we describe those goals?

You’re referring to Plato and The Republic.

Of course. There are high-level discussions taking place within government of which you’re unaware. You see, these days, academia and the State are One. The wisdom of each pours into the other.

What about the dustbin of history you mentioned? Isn’t Plato in it?

My dear fellow, what is dead is revolution. Revolution is over. Finished. But history is very much alive. We are building Plato’s Republic. Our own version. The best minds rule.

And everyone else submits.

What else would you expect?

Squashing dissent is a policy of the best minds?

It has to be. In order to achieve stability. If we allowed all sorts of dissent, so we could “pick the best ideas” and institute them—what would result? Chaos.

I see. So it’s subdue, and then uplift.

You really should be working for us.

And these “philosophic discussions” you mention. Do they include debate and dissent?

Of course. But they are taking place INSIDE the wall of government. The participants understand they’re working toward a deeper understanding, which will become policy.

If I were let in, I could make my positions clear?

You could write and speak to colleagues with full knowledge that you are protected.

Even if I were highly critical, if I tried to represent the people outside the wall?

Once you’re in, Mr. Jones, you’d be free to operate in that space. You’d find we’re a collegial group of thinkers. We consider a very wide range of possibilities. Nothing is out of bounds. Imagine, for example, sitting in a room speaking with people very much like Hitler and Thomas Paine. BUT both of these men understand it is government that provides them the freedom to air their views within the undisturbed space, inside the walls.

I could argue for the destruction of the walls?

We have men and women who do just that every day. But they also know they must carry out their campaign within the context of government.

Apart from the people outside.


You must have an occasional defector, a leaker.

Leaking is a capital crime with special circumstances.

You’re trying to recruit me.

Mr. Jones, do you think I enjoy sitting here, day after day, handing out sentences to people who commit petty offenses? The whole reason the government wants me here is to discover good minds.

What about my paranoia?

It’s cured the moment you enter our world. Notice I didn’t call it a disorder or a disease. I said it was a serious offense. And it is, for a person who lives on the outside.

If I agreed to work with you, what would I do?

To start, you’d help prepare arguments to be presented at our formal symposia. Eventually, based on merit alone, you could rise to a position of greater strength. Your colleagues might consider you a formidable force of intellect. And of course, informal discussions and debates are occurring on a daily basis.

I assume I’d have to sign a contract of some kind.

We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. We also sign the following: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women of the government are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

You’re all seeking—

Knowledge. The highest knowledge possible. Among our ranks, we have Platonists, Aristotelians, Cartesians, formal logicians, and so on, and many hybrid thinkers of various persuasions. Most of our people fall into no particular categories. But yes, our pattern, so to speak, is Plato’s Republic. We’re trying to build the ideal State. We unashamedly profess that ambition.

I appreciate your offer, sir. My inclination is to stay outside the wall.

You say that, Mr. Jones, because you suspect our motives.

Yes. And because I believe the distinction between inside and outside, between government and the people, is wrong, to the highest degree.

You say that now, but having learned what we’re really engaged in, let your thoughts simmer. You’re free to go, with no penalties—this time. Mingle with your friends, with the “general population,” and register your own reactions to their opinions and abilities. See if you really believe that our creation of an elite is a serious mistake. Are we just grabbing power, or are we taking a rational course of action? Do we impose our will because we long for control, or are we facing up to the brutal fact that some people are more intelligent than others? Is it just and kind to allow a demonstrably imbalanced person to navigate a ship among rocks, in storms? There is no expiration date on my offer to you.

Understood, Your Honor.

Don’t you wish for a better forum, where your ideas are taken seriously?

Of course.

Don’t you want an audience of people who understand the distinctions you’re making? Don’t you wonder where such an audience is? Well, they’re in government. They’ve gravitated to us. Consider this, Mr. Jones: If you want discussion that MEANS something, that can impact POLICY, don’t you have an obligation to go to government?

Not if government is merely a cover for fascism.

My goodness, man, OF COURSE government is fascism. It has to be. It isn’t a free-for-all wrestling match. Forget about the elected officials and the appointees who give statements to the press. They’re inconsequential. I’m talking about the planners behind those persons. They’re the best and brightest. You should aspire to be among them…if you have the intelligence.

So, in essence, you’ve founded a Church.

If you want to call it that. Indeed, among our ranks, we have deeply religious people. But on the whole, no. We don’t want a Church.

Then let’s call it a cult.

When was the last time you found a cult in which the widest possible range of opinion and debate was encouraged? We ARE what you’re asking for. But we understand that freedom must have a secure home. A home where debate and dissent are understood for what they are, where they can be weighed and tested, where impulsive and outrageous bias are absent. YOU WANT TO BE TALKING TO US, AND WE ARE HERE.

You call yourselves philosophers.

Yes. We go to the roots of positions. We don’t stay on the surface. At the same time, because we institute policy, we have to enact pragmatic decisions.

Decisions based on how you can control the population.

Once inside our wall, you would be free to argue that the population shouldn’t be controlled.

But as soon as I come inside, I’ve accepted certain limitations.

You mean you agree that the State is necessary? No. You can define a position that claims the State should be dismantled. But you would need to defend that notion against excellent minds. Perhaps you’re not up to the challenge. Mr. Jones, in my opinion, when Plato finished his magisterial work, The Republic, he surely saw he had painted himself into a corner. His State was deeply repressive. But he let the work stand. Why? Because his whole effort was noble. He was trying to enthrone the wisest of men to lead the world. A worthy goal. By some estimates, an absolutely necessary goal. We deal with that paradox every day.

Well, Your Honor, in my estimate, there are people who are high-IQ idiots.

And you think I am one of them?

I don’t know.

As you leave here and go about your life, perhaps you’ll dream about me.

Sir, I have been dreaming about you for a long time. During many nights. You and I are facing each other in a crude pistol duel. You and your agents are pursuing me inside a great labyrinth. I’m destroying your outposts. You’re a Greek, bearing gifts. You’re a priest, trying to convince me to confess my sins. I’m a spy gathering information in your inner sanctum. You take over the land I own. I catch you in a net and throw you into the sea. You’re a prince, and I’m a member of your council plotting your overthrow. I live in a shack at the edge of a cliff, and you arrive with a retinue to rescue me with temptations. We’re passing each other in the street, and suddenly time stands still, and we’re paralyzed, staring at each other. You’re a Pope in a cathedral, intoning the mass. I stand up and proclaim you’re a traitor. You offer me your blessing. In the wind, I crouch at the edge of a river, on your back. I force you to carry me across. You and I are signing a peace treaty between nations. There is alarm and danger in the room. The minds behind you are tuned to perfection, which means their failures will be spectacular…

Those dreams are cautionary tales. I’m not offering you paradise. I’m giving you a foothold. You can climb out of the crowd and the mob and the darkness, into a cloister of unparalleled safety. If you have the skill, help us to be better than we are. Perhaps one day soon, you and I will walk together through the wall, and you’ll take up residence in the best place we have yet made…

Your role, Your Honor, is temptation.

I do what I can.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

35 comments on “Dissent on trial: the Grand Inquisitor

  1. Opie Poik says:

    Jon’s debate recalls this scene from the movie, “Network”:


    • Haniel Adhar says:

      Look at the first comment on that.

      “stone age” must mean “1988”. Hahaha some people are beyond stupid even though they pretend to be so super smart.

      I’d trade every aspect of human society right now for the 1980s in a heartbeat. That’s exactly where we would be if we “smashed the system”. Glam Rock, Rambo movies, You Can’t Do That on Television, and Flintstone vitamins, and the US was the “shining city on a hill” again.

      Sign me up. Smash the system now.

      • John Cottrell says:

        Four years later than George Orwell’s depicted year!, I thought stone age might be more like 1588 or earlier.

        Totally agree with stupid people pretending to be super smart – and trying to fool us that they are when we know they’re dumb as shit. Yep, smash the system, it’s fake.

  2. Haniel Adhar says:

    “Smith Jones”?

    Hahaha love it.

  3. Marlene says:

    Peter Nevaro – no schlepper in the category of well connected, no conspiracy theorist, smart and industrious person – obviously believes in germ theory, or at least in bio weaponry coming out of Wuhan now mutant variant strains, is quite alarmed.

    He is sounding alarm bells.

    His contention that the vaccine will not protect from variants, using the evidence that the rising cases in India & EU and now us is from Brazilian, UK. And Sourh Africa.

    If it is a bio weapon then it is not natural so what does that mean to we who are denying the virus’s existence?

    Does anyone have an answer?

    On the other hand Alex Berenson and perhaps all of us here wonder if the vaccinated are getting sick b/c of the so called vaccine as predicted by many outside the box thinkers.

    Disconnecting from germ theory for me feels like stepping out over the edge of a cliff. So as much as I think Jon has been right all along, I still worry when I hear Nevarro.

    I realize he was crucial in vaccine development so he believes himself.

    For those of us regular people who were not even aware of the discrepancies in beliefs regarding germ theory viruses and the immune system- a comment or the other day said there are some nasty bacteria that would kill you without antibiotics.

    In the meantime I am hedging with Ivermectin and other immune system helpers.

    • Haniel Adhar says:

      If you are not taking mammalian doses of vitamin C then you are hedging the wrong bet.

      The vaccine is causing aluminum poisoning, and all these symptoms and deaths as a result of the vaccines are from the aluminum. The stuff is so toxic that the mRNA part doesn’t even have a chance to do any damage, because the aluminum is killing people rapidly.

      • John Cottrell says:

        If we’re talking Covid vaccine I’m not having it, I’ve heard it mkes people sicker than the virus itself.

        Not caring about life since 2012 I’ve decided to put this scare to the test by not wearing a mask – ever – and living normally, going out whenever and wherever I please and if I caught the thing I’d suffer like mad (and possibly die) as I weigh 125kg and have medical issues since birth but I’ve been just fine for the last twelve months, the virus has ‘failed’!

  4. Paul says:


    This is gonna be good!

    Just got past the title.

  5. Sean says:

    I was up to 3am last night listening to The Coming Clean Update with Jon Rappoport and Catherine Austin Fitts on The Solari Report https://home.solari.com/ and I cant focus too good right now.

    But Im glad I dont qualify.

  6. Patricia says:

    Hi Jon, thank you again for your work. I read it everyday and it keeps me sane. It’s difficult that I am surrounded by conformists thrilling to the sound of getting-in-line, we’re in this together.

    Some of your creative pieces like this one, are magnificent. Existentialism is ruled out. It’s about control and omission. So, so accurate in so many ways.

    Maybe I’m not the only one, but growing up I was rebuked many times by my parents who coined the expression, “it’s just your imagination.” I departed that home when I was 18 in an attempt, simply put, to protect my imagination. Fortunately it still exists and I’ve always considered it a true blessing.

    Thank you again, Jon. You are one of the best writers I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading. I love the picture of perversity you paint of the elite edicts coming from on high under the cloak of pretend that might as well be heralding the destruction of humanity.

  7. Defcon 0 says:

    “Dissent on trial: the Grand Inquisitor” soon in Brussels.

    1. European Centre for Disease Creation and Control – https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en

    2. European Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) – https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12870-European-Health-Emergency-Preparedness-and-Response-Authority-HERA-

    I’m in these big fraud themes some time now, but since 2020 I’m permanently between Defcon 1 and 2. This is an all out war on humanity.

  8. Dang, Jon! That was poetic brilliance! Most won’t catch what you wrote as in the finer intuitive meanings.

    Those Cults you refer to are in my novel, gleamed from I’d say 40 hours+ of Michael Tsarion’s research (he endorsed the story world). I wrote the novel just like you wrote this article–to compel curiosity and interest via an entertaining yet realistic article.

    anybody curious in any of this should read my novel to get more info and have some fun.

  9. Griffin says:

    This story points out a few very distinct “makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up” scenarios. It is obvious the state wishes to control people they consider intelligent – which are any people that think on their own. Get those people to submit to the state is objective number one, place them in a prison (inside the walls) is number two, and thirdly the ideas from these walled-in people will give insight to the state on what actions need to be taken to quite dissent and prevent other people from thinking on their own. The state will not implement the good moral and good ethical ideas coming from these people because the state never has.

    The scariest point this story drives home is that the state cannot think for itself. History proves this to be true because they keep doing the same things over and over. The details might be different, but what they do is what they’ve already done. The state is mindless and without empathy, good morals, or good ethics. All those old ancient city-states where the cult known as the mysteries have long been destroyed. The state, which is obviously operating by the mysteries (from a hidden place), should consider that one, they are not so hidden, and two, those ancient ideas and beliefs come from a very bad place.

    • Gerardo García says:

      Sorry for my english.
      “It is obvious the state wishes to control people”
      I think: “Its obvious the organized people wishes control the state to control people

  10. Cam says:

    Are they idealists or followers of Satan….are they here to destroy? They seem to be like his followers…..the Father of Lies….he who told the first Great Whopper….eat this fruit you will not die.

  11. Jim S Smith says:

    Some more thinking from the “Brave New World”?

  12. Patrick Perry says:


    You always deliver but this one made me comment.

    This seems to me to be exactly what’s going on and those “bright guys” with sociopathic tendencies are all in.

  13. Paul says:

    Your Mind is crystalline, Jon.
    Highly faceted & shimmering.

    “You believe
    we should examine dissent
    for truth or falsity.

    That’s a very old idea.

    It’s already been tossed in
    the dustbin of history.”

    You’re not aware of this.

    [reply to assertion]:
    “Who owns the dustbin?”

    There are some who assert
    that this World
    is OWNED,
    & HAS BEEN owned,
    for a very long time.
    Stem to stern.

    I, for one, do most favor the reasonable paranoids & consider them my brethren.

    First, for their cool-azure-blue Reason. And second, for their Sense-of-Possibilities & Adventurous Spirit.

    I am unsure of accuracy below, nonetheless, it offers insight.

    I once heard this quote attributed to Henry Kissinger, speaking on all things DC…

    “If anyone concerns themselves with Washington, & aren’t just a little bit paranoid, they’re either a fool or nuts.”



    The little lambs, must learn to speak. And not “bah-bah.”

    It’s an interesting proportionality, the size of rudder to ship’s length.

    This small movable unit, can steer & “drive” an enormous vessel, where its Captain, wants it so.

    Similar to the tongue,
    in stirring elocution.
    ~ sayeth the Tall Poppy

    “Mr. Jones,
    you have the intelligence
    to work for us,

    but not the temperament.”

    Your Soul is intact.

    Dare I say: Your Tale, contains a thousand Truths. I’m exhausted after reading, but in a good good way.

    Stunning, Jon.
    Thank you.

    “Please allow me to introduce myself…”

  14. Opie Poik says:

    More dissent, putting inquisitors on (very public) trial:


    And calling out we, the collaborators, for our cowardice.

    The speaker is the proprietor of this restaurant


    in California

    This how it’s done.

  15. David Marino says:

    The short story, for those who fully understand it, demonstrates the power Jon has honed – the power to motivate with deep understanding of the psychotic (yet seemingly intelligent) nature of the weak people orchestrating the operation foist upon the world today. Motivate to do what? Resist with every fiber of your being.

  16. Larry C says:

    “Mr. Jones, are you aware that paranoia is a serious offense?”

    As if there wasn’t enough to be paranoid about, now this.

  17. Roundball Shaman says:

    “We are building Plato’s Republic. Our own version. The best minds rule. And everyone else submits.”

    They say they are building Plato’s Republic. In reality, it’s more like the place described in Dante’s Inferno. “Don’t pay any attention to that big raging fire and all those blood-curdling screams. You are now entering ‘Paradise’. You can trust Us on that! And who wouldn’t want to Submit to… ‘Paradise’!”

    Give Us your mind…your heart… your SOUL. We give you PARADISE. You’ll never get a better deal anywhere!

  18. Hyden says:

    No Democracy can last for very long, it will ultimately turn into tyranny. Plato

  19. Eluard says:

    Brilliant piece, as usual Jon, but I think it’s from a bygone era of totalitarian control. Oh there are still court philosophers and whatnot, the think tanks and academics on the payroll presenting papers and lectures. Are these people still actively pursued and subsumed into the system? Sure.

    But I think we’re quite a ways beyond this now. I think AI is playing much more of a “role” and the discussions of philosopher kings are not taken very seriously. The aims of total control — Great Reset — are wide out in the open. Someone like the perp in this piece…well, they’ll just turn off his ration app. Delete his website or videos. Perhaps, yes, purchase him. More likely, marginalize. Still, great writing.

    What really struck me is towards the end you posit a deeper connection between the judge and the accused. Meeting on the street, in dreams, etc. That is fascinating–what binds those of us who desire freedom to those who seek to curtail it, besides brute force? I think Kafka was very interested in this possible connection.

  20. Eluard says:

    Btw, here is a piece of Jon’s I was looking back on today, from 2/28/20. Rereading it gave me a double dose of the same astonishment I had the first time. It’s ALL in there. You needn’t argue with anyone about the reasons for creating a false pandemic. Merely ask them to read this piece and try to understand it.

    If they are still dubious about the last year — move on. Nothing to be done.


  21. Brad says:

    Ya mean like Dr. Scott Atlas….or perhaps the ‘outside’ needs a rep of building a better Technocracy.

  22. Vanea Mello Amaral says:

    Hi Jon !!

    I’m brazilian. I also read it every day. It is through your blog that I have kept my mind sane.

  23. Tim-2A says:

    “I’m talking about the planners…the best and brightest.”

    Is it any wonder that we’re in the trouble that we are? The “planners” are the ones that are UN-elected, UN-accountable, and (almost completely) UN-known to exist, to most of the people. It’s a serious issue, and one that voting, as a standalone remedy, CANNOT FIX.

    Educating the people (with the truth) is the key.

  24. Greg C. says:

    Isn’t the State merely the outward form of the ego? Aren’t we watching being played out the seeming struggle between conscious mind and unconscious? The legal mindset is an extension of the rational mindset. The political mindset is like the ego, believing the answer can be arrived at by a faux debate. The ego deceives in precisely the same way – we tell ourselves we are doing certain things for a good reason, when in fact we are merely justifying our actions which are motivated by unconscious impulses. The State does exactly the same thing. Like the ego, it is a greedy son-of-a-bitch that won’t let go. It thrives on struggle, on supreme effort of will, and proclaiming GOOD.

    The unconscious prefers a life without moral struggle, remaining anonymous, being busy activating the unidentified forces. Those who would live this way are ungovernable.

  25. L Garou says:

    I remember some years back a big lawyer publishing a book “Three Felonies a Day”
    about how the FEDs can lay felony charges on practically anyone, on a need or a whim.
    Knowing the Bureaucrat Plague (worst plague ever), by now it’s probably up to five felonies a day..

Leave a Reply

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