Category Archives: Logic Course

Creating ADHD is the goal of education

ADHD: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

by Jon Rappoport

June 23, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

There is a form of mind control that is really mind-chaos. It shatters the processes of thought into, at best, vaguely related fragments. There is no direction, no development, no progress along a line of reasoning. This is how you disable a person. You disrupt his ability to move from A to B to C. At that point, he becomes passive. He’s willing to be programmed, because it’s easier. He wants to be programmed.

“I learned twenty-four new things today at school,” the child said. “One right after the other. I felt so happy. My teacher told me I was learning accelerated. I wrote on my iPad. I saw pictures. I did group harmony. I added. I divided. I heard about architecture. The teacher said we were filled with wonder at the universe. We solved a problem. We’re all together. I ate cheese. A factory makes cheese.”

The new education is ADHD.

It’s a method of teaching that surrenders ground on each key concept, deserting it before it’s firmly fixed in the mind of the student.

It hops around from idea to idea, because parents, teachers, administrators, students, departments of education, and educational publishers have given up on the traditional practice of repetition.

Repetition was old-world. For decades, even centuries, the time-honored method of instruction was: introduce an idea or concept or method, and then provide numerous examples the student had to practice, solve, and demonstrate with proficiency.

There was no getting around it. If the student balked, he failed.

There were no excuses or fairy tales floated to explain away the inability of the student to carry out the work.

Now, these days, if you want to induce ADHD, teach a course in which each new concept is given short shrift. Then pass every student on to the next grade, because it’s “humane.”

Think of it this way. Suppose you want to climb the sheer face of a high rock. You know nothing about climbing. You engage an instructor. He teaches you a little bit about ropes and spikes and handholds. He briefly highlights each aspect and then skips to the next.

So later…while you’re falling five hundred feet to the ravine below, you can invent stories about why the experiment didn’t work out.

Since the advent of organized education on the planet, there has been one way of teaching young children…until recently. Explain a new idea, produce scores of examples of that idea, and get the students to work on those examples and come up with the right answers.

Subtraction, division, decimals, spelling—it all works the same basic way.

For the last hundred years or so, however, we’ve seen the gradual intrusion of Teacher ADHD.

School text ADHD.

Not enough examples. Not enough exercises.

Education has nothing to do with a full frontal attack to “improve the self-esteem” of the student. It has nothing to do with telling children they’re valuable. It certainly has nothing to do with trying to embed social values and team spirit in children.

And no matter how many fantasies educators spin, schools can’t replace parents.

If what I’m writing here seems cruel and uncaring…look at the other side of the picture. Look at what happens when a student emerges from school with a half-baked, dumbed-down education.

He can sort of read. He can sort of write. He sort of understands arithmetic. He tries to skate through the rest of his life. He fakes it. He tries to conceal the large territory of what he doesn’t know.

He certainly can’t think straight. Give him three ideas in succession and he’s lost. He goes on overload.

You say A and he goes to G right away. You go back to A and he responds with R. He’s up the creek without a paddle.

That’s what’s cruel.

Forty years ago, I was on the verge of landing a lucrative job with a remedial education company. The owner gave me a lesson plan and told me to write a sample program.

I did. He looked at it and said, “There are too many examples and exercises here. You have to move things along faster.”

I told him the students would never comprehend the program that way. They had to work on at least 20 exercises for each new concept.

He was shocked. “That’s not how it’s done now,” he said.

“Oh,” I said, “you mean now the student and teacher both fake it?”

And that was the end of that.

Several years ago, I explained much of what’s in this article to a sociologist at a US university. His response: “Children are different now. They don’t have patience. There are too many distractions. We have to operate from a new psychology.”

I asked him what that psychology was.

“Children are consumers. They pick and choose.”

While I was laughing at his assessment, he capped his display of wisdom with this: “There is no longer a clear division between opinion and fact. They overlap.”

Perfect.

I know all about how the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations torpedoed education in America. But their major effort was cutting off teachers and students from the history of the nation and the meaning of individual freedom.

What I’m talking about here is a different perversion. The unhinging of the young mind from any semblance of accomplishment and continuity. This goes far beyond the agenda of outfitting children to be worker-drones in a controlled society.

This is the induction of confusion and despair about what used to be called thinking. This is the imprinting of “gaps” that make it very hard for a person to operate, even as a drone.

In addition, if you seed children with all sorts of debilitating and violence-inducing psychiatric drugs, you have a profound and very dangerous mix.

People may wish it weren’t so, but that doesn’t change the facts of the matter.

The upside is, when you explain a concept to a child, and you then take him through a great many exercises designed to help him understand that concept, he’ll achieve a victory.

Then you’ll see the lights go on in his mind. You’ll see his confidence build.

Then he wants to learn.

(Episode 12 of Rappoport Podcasts — “Viruses That Don’t Exist” — is now posted on my substack. It’s a blockbuster. To listen, click here. To learn more about This Episode of Rappoport Podcasts, click here.)

The Matrix Revealed

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

To read Jon’s articles on Substack, 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.

More on the coronavirus that doesn’t exist; and the Pink Demon

by Jon Rappoport

May 21, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

(For Part-1, click here)

I still receive emails that announce: “So-and-so SAYS the virus has been isolated and does exist.”

On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 would indicate “so what?” and 10 would rate “well, that’s it, the virus is real,” someone SAYING the virus exists comes in at minus-12.

Then there is the ever-popular, “OF COURSE this virus exists,” which is meant to dispel all doubt.

Below, I’ll reprint my piece in which Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1] analyzed, step-by-step, a typical excerpt from a published study. The excerpt described how SARS-CoV-2 was isolated. Dr. Kaufman tore the description to pieces. [2]

Since I published that article, I haven’t received a single communication attempting to refute Dr. Kaufman’s analysis.

I have received one or two emails stating, “Dr. Kaufman made several mistakes.” No specifics were mentioned. In the world of traditional logical fallacies, that response comes under the heading of “Vague Generalization.” Ninth-grade students used to be able to recognize it.

I’ve seen many articles in which SARS-CoV-2 is claimed to exist and possess various properties—the articles rely on bald statements from doctors or other so-called medical experts. No proof is offered. That logical fallacy would be Appeal to Authority: Because an authority figure says something is true, it must be true.

On this basis, the network evening news tells you all you need to know about reality.

A third fallacy is worth mentioning. We have this implied statement: “Researchers at the Wuhan Institute were weaponizing the virus; therefore, it exists.” That fallacy is called Circular Reasoning: You assume what you’re trying to prove. Many people fall for it.

“NASA scientists are chaining people to Ford trucks, preparing to launch them at faster-than-light speed in outer space; therefore, faster-than-light speed exists.”

What researchers are claiming or trying to do in a lab is not proof that the “thing” they are working with exists. The researchers may BELIEVE it exists, but what they believe doesn’t matter.

You might believe a pink demon with gold teeth from Mars has spread a pandemic across Earth, but even if Fauci agrees with you and has shoveled three million dollars to your lab, you haven’t established the existence of the demon.

A variation on Appeal to Authority and Vague Generalization: For more than a century, researchers have been doing experiments with viruses; therefore, it’s ridiculous to say SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist.

Well, historically, religious groups have claimed their God is the only God. Therefore…nothing.

“Wait. All those virologists couldn’t be lying and collaborating in a vast conspiracy.”

But they could be true believers. They could be pushing distorted science without recognizing their own warped articles of faith.

And with that, here is my article featuring Dr. Kaufman’s analysis of virus-isolation:

Dr. Andrew Kaufman refutes “isolation” of SARS-Cov-2; he does step-by-step analysis of a typical claim of isolation; there is no proof that the virus exists.

by Jon Rappoport

April 21, 2021

The global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”

But what if the virus doesn’t exist?

People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.

“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. Therefore, it exists.”

I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1], and he provided his analysis in detail.

I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [3].

First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.

The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.

They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. THAT’S THEIR KEY “EVIDENCE.” This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.

There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.

Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus” they never isolated. “We didn’t find it, we don’t know anything about it, but we sequenced it.”

Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:

STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”

KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”

STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”

KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”

STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”

KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”

STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”

KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”

KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [4]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”

STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”

STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”

KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”

STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”

KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”

—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—

My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word, is not occurring.

Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.

And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists?

Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 300 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [5]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?

The answer is no.

SOURCES:

[1] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/04/21/isolation-of-sars-cov-2-refuted-in-step-by-step-analysis-of-claim/

[3] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

[4] https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home.html

[5] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/category/covid/

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.

The COVID Cancel Culture Quiz Show

by Jon Rappoport

April 2, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Hi, everybody. I’m Bob Torquemada, host of the new COVID Cancel Culture Quiz Show. And here’s our first contestant tonight, Mike, a gym owner from New Jersey. Are you ready to play our game, Mike?

I’m ready, Bob.

Good. I have to warn you, Mike. So far, no contestant has won a prize. Instead, they’ve had to endure penalties for losing. So let’s get started. I’m going to present you with four situations designed to limit your individual freedom. You have to explain why these situations aren’t legitimate. Ready?

Ready.

The first one is: You make a remark to a college student, and she says, “I’m triggered.” She’s trying to limit your freedom of speech. How do you respond?

Well, Bob, let’s say I’m a student, too, and I’m in the cafeteria standing in line to get my food. She’s working behind the counter. I say, “I’ll have the burger and fries.” She looks horrified and says, “I’m triggered. ‘BURGER AND FRIES’ makes me feel anxious.” But that’s ridiculous. It makes no sense. I’m free to order my food. There’s no rational cause and effect relationship between my request and her reaction.

Good enough, Mike. That’s acceptable. Here’s the second situation. You’re walking down the street and six people wearing masks come up to you and scream, “You’re white! Whiteness is racist! Get off the street!”

Bob, first of all, these people are trying to tell me I can’t walk on the street. That’s certainly limiting my freedom. And second, having white skin doesn’t make me racist. There’s no automatic cause and effect relationship between having white skin and being racist.

No major flaws in your position, Mike. You advance to the third round. A group in your town is claiming that owning a business and making a profit is evil. You own a store. How do you respond?

Bob, again, this would be an attempt to limit my freedom by telling me I have no right to own a business because it’s some sort of crime. While it’s true that some corporations are crooked, the basic fact of owning a business and having employees and paying their salaries is completely legitimate. Making a profit is legit, too. Otherwise, how am I going to pay those salaries? Ambition to make a profit, in and of itself, is entirely reasonable.

A passable answer, Mike. Now here’s the fourth situation. There is a declared pandemic. You’re told a virus is attacking the world. You have to wear a mask, keep your distance from other people, stay indoors, close your business, and wait for the governor of your state to lift the COVID restrictions. When the vaccine is available, you have to take it, in order to earn an immunity certificate, which lets you travel, enter certain venues, and mingle with others openly.

Okay, Bob. First of all, did researchers really prove this virus exists? They’re not providing evidence. They claim they’ve isolated the virus, but what they really mean is, they have the virus in a soup, in a dish in the lab, mixed together with all sorts of other material. There is no proof the virus is actually in the dish.

Sorry, Mike, that’s not going to fly. Many studies claim the virus has been isolated.

Yes, Bob, but those studies are twisting the meaning of “isolated.”

No. Your answer is unacceptable. Everybody knows you’re wrong. Anything else?

Absolutely, Bob. When researchers claim they’ve sequenced the genetic structure of the virus, they really mean they’re guessing what that sequence is, because they never had an actual isolated specimen of the virus to begin with.

Wrong again, Mike. Those researchers are experts.

Anyway, Bob, even assuming the virus is real, masks don’t work, and they have harmful effects.

Wrong, Mike. Dr. Fauci said masks are unnecessary and then he said they’re necessary, so masks are necessary.

The lockdowns, Bob, are actually house arrest. They’re unconstitutional, first of all, and even assuming the virus is real, lockdowns wouldn’t stop viral transmission. Destroying the economy and people’s lives with lockdowns is a major crime.

Sorry, wrong again, Mike. Lockdowns are absolutely necessary. You need to obey all the rules and keep your mouth shut. That’s part of what America means. Facebook and Twitter confirm that. So you lose this quiz, Mike.

What? I haven’t even talked about the worthless PCR test yet.

Bob, because you lose, there are penalties. You have to take the PCR test, cooperate with contact tracing, stay indoors alone for two weeks, close your business, and accept the vaccine. After vaccination, you have to keep wearing a mask, and you’ll have to get tested on a regular basis. Loss of freedom is the price loyal citizens must pay to keep us all safe. You see, Mike, there is a CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP THAT BINDS US ALL TOGETHER. IT STARTS WITH THE VIRUS. THE VIRUS MEANS WE’RE ALL AT RISK FROM EACH OTHER. WHAT YOU INDIVIDUALLY DO INEVITABLY AFFECTS EVERYONE ELSE. YOU CAN’T ESCAPE FROM THAT REALITY. SO YOUR FREEDOM HAS TO BE SQUELCHED.

I refuse, Bob. I won’t go along.

Then you’ll also pay a stiff fine, and possibly go to jail, Mike. Let’s move one level deeper, and maybe you’ll understand. Listen closely. Most people accept the existence of the virus. Therefore, for all practical purposes, it does exist. Everything else flows from that mass perception and acceptance. The masks, the distancing, the lockdowns, the vaccine—these are the necessary consequences. And on a metaphysical level, reality IS what people consent to. Now, how can the desires of one individual be allowed to countermand what most people consent to? The individual is AN EXTINCT NOTION. In his place, we have the State, and the Plan on how to organize the State. This is the natural evolution of government. Eventually, it all comes down to a definition of The Good. As Plato realized 2500 years ago, The Good is the highest idea humans can contemplate. And humans must embody that idea in their government and ENFORCE IT. So it’s inevitable that individual freedom will be curtailed and ultimately constricted. Freedom is, so to speak, conquered by The Good.

I disagree, Bob. That’s a slippery slimy argument. America was founded on a different ideal. Individual freedom. That’s what America is supposed to aspire to. That’s the struggle we’ve been in, since the beginning. Freedom is unlimited, but with the condition that you don’t infringe on another person’s liberty. American wasn’t founded on a definition of The Good or The Collective Good.

Okay, Mike, I’ve heard enough. I can give you six bonus points for trying to argue your way out of the penalties with fervor and passion. So let’s see. When I add up your answers to the first three challenges, and then your failure to handle the fourth situation…you’ll have to stay indoors alone for a week and get tested three times. Then we’ll reassess your situation. I can provide you with four rolls of toilet paper, a dozen cans of string beans, and three blocks of cheese from Government Storage, a subsidiary of the US Department of Justice. Thanks for being on the show, Mike.

Screw you, Bob.

I get that a lot. It’s part of my job on…THE COVID CANCEL CULTURE QUIZ SHOW, brought to you by Smartest Phone Services: keeping you under surveillance and in the loop and safe during hard times. Remember, folks, much of what you’re told about the need to cancel culture is debatable, but THE VIRUS ENDURES. It’s the bottom line on why this isn’t your grandfather’s freedom anymore. We’re in a NEW WORLD. And it must have ORDER. We’ll be back after the break with another contestant, a doctor who thinks the vaccine is dangerous and ineffective. Watch what we have in store for him…

COMMERCIAL ONE: Hello, I’m Dr. Frank Stein. These days, your one trusted source for accurate pandemic information is the Centers for Disease Control. While we have no comment on Bob Torquemada’s statements about social issues, his COVID science and virology are solid. Thanks, Bob, for your great and insightful work, and congrats on your Emmy nomination.

COMMERCIAL TWO: Embarrassing skin rashes? ExophilSmooth is a medicine given by injection. It clears up skin in 30 days, in some patients. Adverse effects may include headaches, nausea, limb paralysis, dark green knobby stains on fingers and toes and neck, hallucinations, unwanted male pregnancy, and the occasional migration of the cerebral cortex to the right buttock.

COMMERICAL THREE: I’m Anthony Fauci. My new book, 50 Vaccines on the Day after Birth, is an enchanting journey through the jungle of government and corporate funding of disease research. How can employees of a federal agency win financial security for life, royalties and patent bonuses? Pre-order the book on Amazon and enter a contest to win an all-expenses-paid vacation to a secret island where no one distances or wears a mask.

COMMERCIAL FOUR: Ask your doctor if losing your mind in exchange for curing depression is right for you. Here are testimonials from real people, not actors, who lost their minds.

COMMERCIAL FIVE: We paid $6.8 billion in fines for our drug, CardiacArrest. We and our families are broke. Visit our Funding Page and support us and our groundbreaking work. One failed drug is a mere blip on the radar. We have dozens of sizzling medicines in the pipeline. One of them could cure the gender-altering effects of our pesticide, CrunchTime.

COMMERCIAL SIX: Do you realize that all medical drugs and vaccines are good and nutrition is stupid? We should know. We, at the National Association of Pharma Info, place the TV ads that pay for the News. When you watch the News, you’re watching us.

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.

Dispatches from the War: vaccine, Gates, racism, liberals, logic

by Jon Rappoport

August 4, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

The night is long and the price is high. I imagine Trump stepping up to a microphone saying, “Yes, the GDP just dropped through the floor, and the economy is a wreck, but here’s the good news. Operation War Seed, I mean Warp Speed, is on track to spit out a genetic nano super duper bombshell cruise missile vaxx in record time. These guys in their labs are great. Great people. I hear they’re developing new masks—you can actually eat your meals through them…”

Since, as I’ve been demonstrating, researchers failed to prove the existence of a new coronavirus…

…In today’s logic class on the fly, we review a basically fallacy which I call The Effect Proves the Cause, an item Aristotle elucidated 2350 years ago.

The lockdowns, the distancing, the masks, the testing, the tracing are the effects. They are designed to prove there is a new and deadly virus, the cause.

The fallacy is: that’s backwards.

Of course, the lockdowns and the masks and distancing prove nothing. They’re on the level of: “The man is in jail, so he must have committed a crime.”

The fallacy is actually: The Effect Which Is Actually Not an Effect of a Claimed Cause.

And then think about this. If there were no containment measures, if people were allowed to come and go freely, they would soon lose a sense of urgency about vaccination. And businesses would be open; there would be no economic destruction. Now we’re getting down to the truth.

The containment measures aren’t the effect of anything.

They’re put there to achieve economic destruction, and to create the illusion of need for a vaccine.

Some variations on this theme:

“We are fighting a war against X; therefore, X must have threatened our security. Otherwise, why would we be fighting?” FALLACY.

“The jury brought in a verdict of not-guilty. Therefore, the defendant didn’t commit the crime.” FALLACY.

“The authorities stepped up surveillance on the suspects. Therefore, the suspects must be criminals.” FALLACY.

X might have threatened the nation’s security, and the defendant might have committed a crime, and the suspects might be criminals, but these require separate investigations. The “therefore” is the fallacy.

“People are dying, it must be the virus.” FALLACY.

Bill Gates and his Globalist colleagues want to shove a needle into the arms of 7.6 billion people. They want to create the illusion of need for that program. The containment measures, the lockdowns—“This must mean we have to have a vaccine.” WRONG.

Grinning smirking sociopathic Howdy Doody freakazoid Bill says the vaccine is essential. All these little programmed Leftists and BLM and ANTIFA running around trying to cancel this and cancel that, take power away from here and there…why don’t they ever mention the power of Bill Gates? It’s just a pure accident they omit him? After all, the man is very busy delivering toxic vaccines in Africa. For that matter, are no protests winding up at the New York headquarters of the United Nations? That organization seems to have some power. I’m not reading about protests in Langley, where the CIA is nestled. Or at the home of the NSA in Maryland. And what about the New York offices of the major news networks, Propaganda Central? These protestors and rioters have very specific blind spots?

Hmm. Let’s take a step back. Fauci and Gates and their ilk are wreaking economic havoc. The rioters are wreaking their own version of economic havoc. Could it be, in some way, some twisted way, they’re on the same side?

Speaking of twisted, follow along with this quick hitter on modern “epidemics”. You won’t find such coverage in the New York Times:

—Origin stories of viruses—what’s wrong with this picture—

Every organized religion has an origin story. The story explains where things started, and who made them.

Epidemics, as I’ve explained in many articles, resemble religions.

Epidemics, too, have origin stories.

Perhaps summarizing a few of the more popular legends will reveal a pattern. Here is a short list. Name of disease, where it began, and what it supposedly came from:

HIV/AIDS, Africa, monkeys. West Nile, Uganda, birds, mosquitos. Avian Influenza (H5N1), China, geese. SARS, China, animals, perhaps bats. Swine Flu (H1N1), Mexico, pigs. COVID-19, China, animals, perhaps bats.

The first story-line requirement is animal origin. “The virus jumped species to humans.”

Obviously, this kind of tale could be told using any country in the world as place of origin, because every country has animals. Every country hunts animals, domesticates them, sells them, eats them.

With me so far?

A question that immediately pops up: why haven’t we been treated to a global pandemic origin-story that names America, Canada, or Europe as the source?

Those places have plenty of animals, wild and domesticated. People eat them. The factory-farms are notoriously unclean.

“Today, CDC researchers named a North Carolina commercial pig farm as the starting point of the Raleigh Virus 1 Pandemic that is sweeping the world…”

Hasn’t been told, hasn’t been sold. Ever.

Why not?

Keep in mind we aren’t talking about science or truth—we’re talking about marketing.

So, who is the major audience (target) for these pandemic stories?

The West. People in Western countries.

What does that audience need to hear, in order to be suitably impressed, deceived, frightened?

THE VIRUS COMES FROM A FOREIGN LAND. Yes, and in that land, “strange and mysterious things happen. Unhealthy unclean things.” That’s the subliminal pitch.

Consider another tale of domestic Origin: “Experts are now centering their investigation on a market in Dayton, Ohio. They believe the virus might have jumped species from a cat, which bit a human near the meat counter…” No. No good.

How about this? “Ranchers in Wyoming apparently ate a wild bird…” Better. Why not? If a virus-story about bats in China can work, so can a story about a bird in the US. Except it doesn’t work. No “foreign flavor.”

That is called a clue.

When you put together the fraudulent science that begins with the announced discovery of a new virus—never isolated or purified or actually found—with a legend about the virus’ origin in a far-off land, you have a marketable product. PANDEMIC.

Contemplate this interesting twist. If someone tried to sell a new pandemic that originated in a sanctuary city in California, “liberals” would climb all over that story: IT’S RACIST. THEY’RE TRYING TO BLAME IMMIGRANTS.

But the same “liberals” will put on masks, stand six feet apart, work from home, stay indoors, cooperate with contact tracers, and line up for a vaccine, if you say the origin of the virus was China or Africa or Mexico, WHERE THE SKIN COLOR IS NOT WHITE.

Racial bias sells. Hugely. As long as no one mentions it.

Thus ends today’s lesson in logic, internal contradiction, and the highly technical variation called liberal bullshit.

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.

Three substitutes for logic

by Jon Rappoport

December 13, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Since logic is no longer taught as a required subject in schools, the door is open to all sorts of bizarre reactions to the presence of information.

Here are three favorites:

One: grab the headline or the title of an article, make up your mind about how you “feel,” and ignore everything else.

Two: Actually read the article until you find a piece of information that appeals to you for any reason; latch on to it, and run with it in any direction. In all cases, the direction will have nothing to do with the intent of the article.

Three: From the moment you begin to read the headline of the article, be in a state of “free association.” Take any word or sentence and connect it to an arbitrary thought or feeling, associate that thought with yet another arbitrary thought…and keep going until you become tired or bored.

You might be surprised at how many people use these three “methods of analysis.”

The very idea that the author of the article is making a central point doesn’t really register. And certainly, the notion that the author is providing evidence for the central point and reasoning his way from A to B to C is alien.

A college liberal education? These days it could be imparted in a matter of weeks, simply by hammering a small set of values into students’ skulls—along with requisite guilt and fear at the prospect of wandering off the reservation.

Logic as a subject is viewed with grave suspicion, as if it might involuntarily take a person down the wrong track and dump him in a politically incorrect ditch—a fate to be avoided at all costs.

Therefore, the practice of rational debate is on the way out. Too risky. Besides, the preferred method of dealing with opponents is screaming at them, shoving them off stage, and whining about “being triggered.”

If you think obtaining what’s called a liberal college education is vastly overrated (and absurdly expensive), you’re right. Learning logic, instead, would be a good start down a different road.

And an analysis of the principle of “greatest good for the greatest number” would be very, very useful—since it underpins so much of values-centered education these days.

What does greatest good mean, specifically? How would it be achieved? Who would implement it? How would the implementation affect individual freedom?

Wrestling with these questions would open up whole new territories of insight.

As I’ve mentioned in past articles, when I taught a few basics of logic to middle-school students, the clutter in their minds receded. They found the ability to follow a line of thought—for the first time, they recognized there was such a thing as a connected flow of reasoning from A to B to C to D. The lights went on.

The world may be sinking into deeper levels of know-nothing non-rationality, but that’s not a good excuse for trailing along down into the swamp. It should be a wake-up call to go the other way.

No matter what anyone says, it’s not a crime to be smarter than other people.

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.

Logic, imagination, and magic

by Jon Rappoport

October 3, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Logic applies to the physical universe.

It applies to statements made about that universe. It applies to factual language.

Many wonderful things can be done with logic. Don’t leave home without it. Don’t analyze information without it. Don’t endure an education without it.

But art and imagination are of another universe(s). They can deploy logic, but they can also invent in any direction without limit, and they can embrace contradiction. They can build worlds in which space and time and energy are quite different.

Magic is nothing more and nothing less than imagination superseding this universe. Magic occurs when imagination takes this reality for a ride.

Which brings us to what I call the Is People. The Is People are dedicated with a fervor to insisting that this Continuum and this consensus reality are inviolable, are the end-all and be-all.

They strive to fit themselves into Is, and this eventually has some interesting negative consequences. They come to resemble solid matter. They take on the character of matter.

For them, imagination is at least a misdemeanor, if not a felony. It’s a blow to the Is of Is. They tend to view imagination as a form of mental disorder.

Technocrats like to gibber about imagination as if it’s nothing more than just another closed system that hasn’t been mapped yet. But they’re sure it will be, and when that happens, people will apparently give up creating and opt for living in a way that more closely resembles machines.

There are many people who secretly wish they were machines that functioned automatically and without flaws. It’s their wet dream.

Magic eventually comes to the conclusion that imagination creates reality. Any reality. And therefore, one universe, indivisible, is an illusion, a way of trapping Self.

What began as the physical universe, a brilliant work of art, ends up as a psychic straitjacket, a mental ward in which the inmates strive for normalcy. Those who fail at even this are labeled and shunted into a special section of the ward.

But the result of imagination, if pursued and deployed long enough and intensely enough, is:

Consensus reality begins to organize itself around you, rather than you organizing yourself around it.

There are various names and labels used to describe this state of affairs, but none of them catches the sensation of it.

Magic is one of those labels.

What I’m describing here isn’t some snap-of-the-fingers trick of manifestation; it’s a life lived.

The old alchemists were working in this area. They were striving for the transformation of consciousness. In true alchemy, one’s past, one’s experience, one’s conflicts all become fuel for the fire of creating new realities. Taken along certain lines, this is called art.

One universe, one logic, one Continuum, one role in that Continuum, one all-embracing commitment to that role, one avenue of perception, one Is…this is the delusion.

And eventually, the delusion gives birth to a dedication to what “everyone else” thinks and supposes and assumes and accepts. This is slavery.

Freeing one’s self, living through and by imagination, is not a mass movement. It’s a choice taken by one person. It’s a new and unique road for each person.

Exit From the Matrix

Societies and civilizations are organized around some concept of the common good. The concept always deteriorates, and this is because it is employed to lower the ceiling on individual power rather than raise it.

“Be less than you are, then we can all come together in a common cause.”

It’s essentially a doctrine of sacrifice—everyone sacrifices to everyone else, and the result is a coagulated mass of denial of Self.

It is a theme promoted under a number of guises by men who have one thing in mind: control.

It’s a dictatorship of the soul. It has always existed.

Breaking out of it involves reasserting the power of imagination to invent new and novel realities.

Under a variety of names, this is art.

Promoting the image of the artist as a suffering victim is simply one more way to impose the doctrine of sacrifice.

In 1961, when I began writing and painting in earnest, I had a conversation with the extraordinary healer, Richard Jenkins, whom I write about in my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies (included in Exit From The Matrix). This is my note from that time about what Richard told me:

“Paint what you want to, no matter what anyone else says. You may not always know what you want to create, but that’s good. Keep working, keep painting. You’ll find your way. You’ll invent something new, something unique, if you don’t give in. You’ll see everything in a new light. Reality is a bad joke. It’s nothing more than what everyone assents to, because they’re afraid. They’re afraid of what people will say. They’re afraid they have far more power than they want to discover. They’re afraid that power will lead them away from common and ordinary beliefs. They’re afraid they’ll become a target for the masses who have surrendered their own lives and don’t want to be reminded of it. They afraid they’ll find out something tremendous about themselves…”

Nothing I’ve experienced in the 50 years since then has diminished what Richard said to me.

These fears are all illusions that disintegrate when a person shoves in his chips on imagination and makes that bet and lives it.

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.

When philosophy goes begging in society

by Jon Rappoport

April 18, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“So Jones, according to you, society should be all about Love. (laughter in the classroom) No, this is important. In fact, looking at some of your gruff mugs, my dear students, I’d say some of you could use a good dose of Love. All right, Jones, how is this spread of Love accomplished? In schools, you say? So what is taught in the classes? No, not generally taught. Spell it out. Your job is to figure out exactly how you teach Love. Since it’s the most important thing to you, you need to find out how you impart it. You can’t just say leave it to the experts. That would be like me saying what I want the most for the world is to turn into a Utopia, and we’ll do that through universal education centers, where people in charge who know how to accomplish this goal practice their skills. I do nothing. I just watch Utopia happen. —-No, you need to become a teacher of what you think is most important. What do you teach in order to impart Love? How do you do it? You program it into people? Is that what you’re advocating? What about the students who don’t want to be programmed? Is something wrong with them? Is freedom important?…Start talking, Jones, I’m listening…”

In 1960, I graduated from college with a BA in philosophy. One of the most glaring deficiencies was a lack of exploration of ethical values.

The famed dormitory “bull sessions” among students rarely, if ever, took place. In the classroom, there was never a wide-ranging discussion of students’ own values.

Creating a civilization in which ethics take center stage is, at best, a difficult proposition. If education doesn’t include a probing search for answers on this subject; if instead, it’s assumed that every person has his own relative point of view, then of course you end up with mobocracy and quite heavy propaganda. Ultimately, elites take charge of the propaganda.

A version of the Socratic Method should infiltrate college classrooms to the core. What are your most important beliefs? How would you implement these beliefs in society, if you could? What would that look like? What would be the implications of a society governed by your beliefs? Spell them out. What would constitute the unforeseen results? How would you deal with these results?

These and other questions draw out the students. They begin to reflect. They learn how to think about their own ethical values. They encounter other sets of values. They respond to these differing pictures of reality. They come up against the question of individual freedom and what it means in practice. They compare what they believe with other basic beliefs—for example, the American Constitution’s. Or Plato’s Republic. Or Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Or the student’s who sits two chairs away.

A real teacher knows how to initiate and preside over such discussions. These classes become interesting, exciting, vital, energizing.

In a modern “democracy,” where this sort of education never occurs at a deep level, propaganda eventually becomes all inclusive, and one side seeks to shut down the other—which is what we are seeing now.

The process of education itself is devalued because it isn’t impacting the student at his center. It’s superficial to the extreme, and it rarely brings about vital personal change. Instead, at best, the student is viewed as a robot who needs to ingest information. I’m not downplaying the role of information; I’m saying it needs to be supplemented by an ongoing process of reflection on, consideration of, and extensive dialogue about, personal values.

Schools that feature true values-education need to be created from scratch. Obviously, this is no easy job. It might be the hardest job in a society that has already sunk into half-light indifference on multiple fronts. However, I can tell you from experience that there are many families who want what I’m suggesting for their children; they just don’t know where to go. They don’t want their children to take on a set of values by belonging to some group who will, supposedly, protect them and give them legitimacy. They want their children to be able to stand on their own two legs and live according to their best ideas.

This is what a so-called “liberal education” is really all about.

“All right, Smith, you keep referring to Justice as a core value. You’ve read at least part of Plato’s Republic. You know he believed that Justice, as well as many other core concepts, already existed on a higher level of reality. What do you think of that? Give us 800 written words on the subject. I don’t want vague generalities. And give us your own experience. What is Justice to you? How did you decide what it is? Did you discover it? Did you invent it? Do we all need to have the same notion of Justice? If so, what would society then look like? How would it function? Who would run things? Would a few people be born with a higher understanding of Justice? We’ll have a full discussion of your ideas. But we need to know what those ideas are, specifically…Maybe it’s time to remind you that I want at least some of you, when you graduate, to go out into the world with the solid ambition of bringing your best values into wider existence, for real, in this thing called Life. We’re not only doing academics here. We’re doing preparation. I refuse to allow the preparation to be flimsy and separate from you. It has to reflect deep parts of you. You’re not going to forget what you did here the minute you walk out the classroom door for the last time…”

In society, there are those who consider ethics a sport, a game to be taken lightly. There are those who have no ethical values at all, beyond their personal ambitions. There are those who buy the values of their elders, without thought, and thereby close the book on the whole subject. Worst of all, there are individuals who have a massive commitment to impose their values on everyone else, but have never truly reflected on the negative implications of a civilization which accepts their version of life. They seek power, and they take it, no matter the consequences.

One of the great roles of education—and philosophy in particular—is to bring true personal engagement into the field of ethics. This would be accomplished despite widespread resistance and apathy, and despite a feeling that nothing can be changed.

Resistance is always present. It is no reason to abandon the work.

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.

Logic and non-logic in education

by Jon Rappoport

February 1, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

In two of my collections, The Matrix Revealed and Power Outside The Matrix, I include basic training in the art of logic and more advanced critical analysis.

The basic fact is: students in schools are rarely taught how to follow a line of reasoning from beginning to end. Nor do they practice analyzing half-formed, faulty arguments.

Who teaches young students, these days, how to distinguish between a polemic and a formal argument?

Teachers spend little or no time discussing hidden premises or assumptions, which color a subsequent argument.

Increasingly, people are “learning” from watching videos. Some videos are well done; many others intentionally omit vital data and make inferences based on “shocking images.”

A focused study of logic can illuminate a range of subjects and disciplines. It can suddenly bring perspective to fields of inquiry that were formerly mysterious and impenetrable.

Logic is the parent of knowledge. It contains the principles and methods common to all investigation.

Being able to spot and understand logical flaws and fallacies embedded in an article, essay, book immediately lifts the intelligence level.

Logic isn’t a prison; one isn’t forced to obey its rules. But the ability to deploy it, versus not understanding what it is, is like the difference between randomly hammering at a keyboard and typing coherent paragraphs. It’s the difference between, “I guess I agree with what he’s writing,” and “I know exactly how he’s making his argument.”

In the West, the tradition of logic was codified by Aristotle. Before him, Plato, in the Socratic Dialogues, employed it to confound Socrates’ opponents.

Reading the Dialogues today, one can see, transparently, where Plato’s Socrates made questionable assumptions, which he then successfully foisted on those opponents. It’s quite instructive to go back and chart Socrates’ clever steps. You see logic and illogic at work.

High schools today don’t teach logic for two reasons. The teachers don’t understand the subject, and logic as a separate discipline has been deleted because students, armed with it, would become authentically independent. The goal of education rejects independent minds, despite assurances to the contrary.

Logic and critical analysis should be taught in phases, with each phase encompassing more complex passages of text offered for scrutiny.

Eventually, students would delve into thorny circumstantial arguments, which make up a great deal of modern investigation and research, and which need to be assessed on the basis of degrees of probable validity and truth.

It’s like a climbing a mountain. The lower paths are relatively easy, if the map is clear. At higher elevation, more elements come into play, and a greater degree of skill and experience is required.

My college logic teacher introduced his subject to the class this way: Once you’ve finished this semester, you’ll know what you know, and you’ll know what you don’t know.

The second part of his statement has great value. It enables real research beyond egotistical concerns, beyond self-serving presumptions, beyond secretly assuming what you’re pretending to prove.

We certainly don’t live in an age of reason; far from it. Therefore—the greater need to learn logic. Among other benefits, it centers the thinking process.

In a landscape of controversy, babble, bluster, public relations, covert propaganda, and outright lying, one has a dependable compass.

For instance, understanding the scientific method (hypothesis-prediction-verification) would go a long way toward untangling some of the outrageous claims of science, and separating them from the political agendas they serve.

Beginning in ancient Greece, coming up through the Middle Ages, and into the 19th century, logic was one aspect of education called the Trivium (“the three”): in sequence, a student learned grammar, then logic, then rhetoric.

Except in scattered places, where people have consciously instituted a revival of the Trivium, that integrated method of teaching is gone now.

Instead, in primary and middle schools, we have superficial coasting through many academic subjects, minus the necessary exercises and drills to ensure that students grasp material. In other words, we have imposed ADHD.

Logic isn’t the end-all and be-all of life. It doesn’t define what life is. It’s a tool. You either have it or you don’t. You can use it or you can’t. When you can, you have more power, and whole new vistas, previously unseen, open up to you.

Logic is a tool in your box. When you need to go in and remove it and use it, is it dull or is it sharp?

Finally, studying logic gives a student an appreciation of consequences. For example, a politician announces a high-flying generalization, as a plank of his platform. Two things ought to follow. The student does his best to translate that generality into specific terms which actually mean something. Then he traces what would happen if the plank were, in fact, put into effect; what would the consequences specifically entail? There are always consequences—it’s just that most people never see them or think about them, because they haven’t the foggiest idea about how to flesh them out and map their implications.

Logic: one of the great contributions to civilization, left to die on the vine.

It needs to be resurrected, in full flower.

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.

Creating ADHD is the new education

That’s the goal

by Jon Rappoport

January 31, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“There is a form of mind control that is really mind-chaos. It shatters the processes of thought into, at best, vaguely related fragments. There is no direction, no development, no progress along a line of reasoning. This is how you disable a person. You disrupt his ability to move from A to B to C. At that point, he becomes passive. He’s willing to be programmed, because it’s easier. He wants to be programmed.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

“I learned twenty-four new things today at school,” the child said. “One right after the other. I felt so happy. My teacher told me I was learning accelerated. I wrote on my iPad. I saw pictures. I did group harmony. I added. I divided. I heard about architecture. The teacher said we were filled with wonder at the universe. We solved a problem. We’re all together. I ate cheese. A factory makes cheese.”

The new education is ADHD.

It’s a method of teaching that surrenders ground on each key concept, deserting it before it’s firmly fixed in the mind of the student.

It hops around from idea to idea, because parents, teachers, administrators, students, departments of education, and educational publishers have given up on the traditional practice of repetition.

Repetition was old-world. For decades, even centuries, the time-honored method of instruction was: introduce an idea or concept or method, and then provide numerous examples the student had to practice, solve, and demonstrate with proficiency.

There was no getting around it. If the student balked, he failed.

There were no excuses or fairy tales floated to explain away the inability of the student to carry out the work.

For those students who have the desire to be in a classroom to receive instruction, repetition works. It may lack glitz, but it works because the vast majority of people can’t learn to read, write, or do math any other way.

You can’t gloss over these subjects with a broad brush and a lot of personality or caring. It’s all about digging in the dirt, one scoop at a time.

Some people would call it robotic education. I don’t think it is. It’s just doing what’s necessary—unless reading, writing, and math are deemed unimportant.

Now, these days, if you want to induce ADHD, teach a course in which each new concept is given short shrift. Then pass every student on to the next grade, because it’s “humane.”

Think of it this way. Suppose you want to climb the sheer face of a high rock. You know nothing about climbing. You engage an instructor. He teaches you a little bit about ropes and spikes and handholds. He briefly highlights each aspect and then skips to the next.

So later…while you’re falling five hundred feet to the ravine below, you can invent stories about why the experiment didn’t work out.

Since the advent of organized education on the planet, there has been one way of teaching young children…until recently. Explain a new idea, produce scores of examples of that idea, and get the students to work on those examples and come up with the right answers.

Subtraction, division, decimals, spelling, reading—it all works the same basic way.

For the last hundred years or so, however, we’ve seen the gradual intrusion of Teacher ADHD.

School text ADHD.

Not enough examples. Not enough exercises.

Education has nothing to do with a full frontal attack to “improve the self-esteem” of the student. It has nothing to do with telling children they’re valuable. It certainly has nothing to do with trying to embed social values and team spirit in children.

And no matter how many fantasies educators spin, schools can’t replace parents.

If what I’m writing here seems cruel and uncaring…look at the other side of the picture. Look at what happens when a student emerges from school with a half-baked, “dumbed-down” education.

He can sort of read. He can sort of write. He sort of understands arithmetic. He tries to skate through the rest of his life. He fakes it. He adopts a front to conceal the large territory of what he doesn’t know.

He certainly can’t think straight. Give him three ideas in succession and he’s lost. He goes on overload.

He operates on association. You say A and he goes to G right away. You go back to A and he responds with R. He’s up the creek without a paddle.

That’s what’s cruel.

Forty years ago, I was on the verge of landing a lucrative job with a remedial education company. The owner gave me a lesson plan and told me to write a sample program.

I did. He looked at it and said, “There are too many examples and exercises here. You have to move things along faster.”

I told him the students would never comprehend the program that way. They had to work on at least 20 exercises for each new concept.

He was shocked. “That’s not how it’s done now,” he said.

“Oh,” I said, “you mean now the student and teacher both fake it?”

And that was the end of that.

Several years ago, I explained much of what’s in this article to a sociologist at a US university. His response: “Children are different now. They don’t have patience. There are too many distractions. We have to operate from a new psychology.”

I asked him what that psychology was.

“Children are consumers. They pick and choose.”

While I was laughing at his assessment, he capped his display of wisdom with this: “There is no longer such a clear division between opinion and fact. They overlap.”

Perfect.

I know all about how the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations torpedoed education in America in the 20th century. But their major effort then was cutting off teachers and students from the history of the nation and the meaning of individual freedom.

What I’m talking about here is a different perversion. The unhinging of the young mind from any semblance of accomplishment and continuity. This goes far beyond the agenda of outfitting children to be worker-drones in a controlled society.

This is the induction of confusion and despair about what used to be called thinking. This is the imprinting of “gaps” that make it very hard for a person to operate, even as a drone.

In addition, if you seed children with all sorts of debilitating psychiatric drugs, and you have a profound and dangerous mess that only dedicated parents can undo, one child at a time.

People may wish it weren’t so, but that doesn’t change the facts of the matter.

The upside is, when you explain a concept to a child, and you then take him through a great many exercises designed to help him understand that concept, he’ll achieve a victory.

Then you’ll see the lights go on in his mind.

(For the “Long Read” version of this article, click here.)

(My collection, The Matrix Revealed, has a Logic & Analysis course for High School students.)

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Education and the dismantling of the mind

When the solution is worse than the problem

by Jon Rappoport

January 28, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Are there any States in the Union that allow public schools to opt out of providing sex education to children?

Of course, a counter-argument would be made that, although there was once a time when our country abounded in responsible two-parent families, that’s not the case anymore. Therefore, education about sex is lacking. Therefore, schools have to step into the breach and supply what is missing.

Otherwise, children won’t know about STDs, pregnancy, contraception, etc.

Over the last 40 years or so, school systems, under the aegis of government, have expanded their role. Using “duty” as the prow, these institutions have generated enormous programs to teach children what to think about everything from aluminum cans to bestiality.

Because it’s “right” and “important” and there is a “duty.”

Translation: outside groups with agendas worm their way into schools.

If I were obsessed with four-legged critters on the moon, and I had enough money and political clout and media/think-tank/foundation support, I could introduce Lunar Critterology as a vital subject into every public school in America.

If I were Bill Gates, I could push the need for computers in schools, despite the fact there is no credible evidence that computers improve literacy.

I went to school in the 1940s and 50s. At that time, the focus was simple. You learned to read, to write, and to do math. The textbooks were often old and worn. There were no visual aids. The lesson plans in every class were step-by-step. Learn a new thing, drill it to death, take a little quiz, learn the next new item, drill it, take a quiz.

It worked. It may have lacked glitz, but it worked because the vast majority of people can’t learn to read, write, or do math any other way.

You can’t gloss over these subjects with a broad brush and a lot of personality or caring. It’s all about digging in the dirt, one scoop at a time.

Some people would call it robotic education. I don’t think it is. It’s just doing what’s necessary—unless reading, writing, and math are deemed unimportant. In which case, you have a whole new idea about what education is.

If you spend time in the classroom on enterprises that are supposed to save the world or revolutionize society or build tolerance or cater to kids who don’t want to learn, then you take away hours from the core idea and practice of what learning is.

When I went to school, there could have been a better curriculum for history and science, but all in all, the teachers did a good job.

Now, we’re in a different world.

It’s assumed that most children are operating at a deficit, and they need to be brought up to speed on morals, on compassion, on sex, on greenness, on hope, on race and religion, on global concerns. At age five, eight, 12, 14.

And a great deal of this “new education” is about cashing in, for book publishers, for educrats, for federal overseers, for busybodies of all stripes who belong to agenda-driven groups that want their say and their moment in the sun.

I say this is all hogwash, and I believe anyone who consults national test scores and current levels of literacy would be compelled to agree.

Education is on the way out.

A few astute writers assert that, perhaps 80 years ago, the whole thrust of early education in America was altered intentionally, to produce worker-ants for a highly controlled society of the future. With all due respect, I think it’s worse than that. Because now we’re turning out kids who are essentially confused, badly schooled, drifting on the wind, lost in a mind-territory of fantasized entitlement. They aren’t androids ready to work on some non-existent assembly line. They’re just lost. They’re riddled with self-esteem that doesn’t work. They’re consumers looking for magic credit so they can buy their way into happiness. They’re loaded with sugar and other chemicals that scramble their synapses. They’re not only unsympathetic toward work, they have no passion of their own.

Logic? Imagination? Never heard of it.

When I went to school, there was virtually no classroom disruption of any kind. And my schools were attended by an economic, social, racial, and religious cross-section of students. We weren’t striving for diversity. We had it. The relatively few kids who were out of control and resisted any kind of discipline were herded into classes together, and teachers dealt with them.

The public schools of today lack the courage to say, “Look, if you’re here to learn, we want you. Otherwise, you’re out. Goodbye.”

If you need metal detectors at the school entrances, you went over the edge a long time ago. No one deserves to be subjected to that kind of environment.

The bullying problem? It’s an industry now. People with degrees write papers and books about it, and task forces gear up to study it and make recommendations. It’s a structure of carbuncles on the body-politic of education.

Once upon a time, no bully was allowed to attend school. If he pressed his attitude and his actions, he was expelled. Period. It wasn’t a question of why he bullied. He was gone. Learning couldn’t take place as long as he was on the scene.

And “gangs in schools?” I’m sorry, but there are no gangs in schools. There are schools in gangs—that’s what you have when groups of kids with violent tendencies inhabit classrooms and corridors. If you can’t expel them en masse, give up. Shut down the place.

If you want to make schools into six-hour-a-day baby-sitting machines, call it that. Try to obtain public funding for it. Hire guards and nurses and cops to staff it. Put it behind barbed-wire fences and install those metal detectors.

Or if schools are really lunch cafeterias, run them that way. Free public lunches. Have kids show up at noon, eat, and leave.

If you think kids of various religions should be allowed to commandeer a room to hold prayer groups, call it Government-Funded God. Rent a hall somewhere and schedule everybody from Christians and Jews to Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and Zoroastrians.

“Well, we have these kids who are great football players, and they score very badly on all the tests, but we need them on the team.”

No you don’t. Start your own community team. Make up a name. Raise money for uniforms and coaches. Form a league. If these kids want to stay in school—which is a completely different matter—they’ll have to learn how to attain grades for real.

And this long-standing rule about passing kids on to the next grade, no matter how poorly they perform? Graduating them from high school even if they can’t read at fourth-grade level? Because they need to feel good about themselves? Because that’ll somehow help them wend their way through life later on?

Invent a new type of school for them and put it somewhere else. Bring in tutors. If that fails after an honest attempt, teach trades. Some of these kids will end up making more money in a trade than Harvard business-school grads.

All of the above, by the way, makes a good case for home schooling. Unless the parents themselves were shot out the top end of their schools, long ago, ill-prepared to handle reading, writing, and arithmetic.

No, the problem isn’t cookie-cutter education. It’s no education.

Now, of course, hovering over this revolution in education is the wider government becoming mommy and daddy to everyone. “Because they care.” Because they need to do this “caring” in order to obtain budget money for their departments. Because otherwise they would be useless.

And hovering over THAT is the program to convert everyone on the planet to a status much like an eternal patient with an eternal doctor.

This program is advancing based on the notion that “patient status” equals “more controllable.”

“Yes, we have to control you for your own good, because we care.”

No, they want control because they want control.

In my day, the subject that was conspicuously missing from the classroom was Logic. Once upon a time, it had been taught to children when their reading skills had progressed far enough. It was usually presented as a series of fallacies that infected the process of reasoning.

A few years ago, I decided to write a logic course to fill this gap. My strategy was to provide basic background lessons and then launch into a series of text passages seeded with fallacies and flaws. Students with the help of their teachers would find them and understand how they operated to derail lucid thinking.

I offered this 18-lesson course to home schoolers, and adults who wanted to use it for self-study.

Now it’s part of my new collection, The Matrix Revealed.

Twenty-four hundred years ago, in Athens, logic was, for the first time, explained in detail by Aristotle. It marked the beginning of a new era for humankind. Logic allowed a person to peruse a formal argument, differentiate between premises and deductions, and judge the validity of the reasoning process.

When students are taught this subject well, they turn into detectives. They realize that articles and books are more than mere lakes of information. They can trace the progress of a line of thought, and see that authors are offering evidence that leads to a conclusion.

It’s an awakening. I’ve seen it resolve what was foolishly diagnosed as ADHD. The student becomes grounded. He accrues real confidence. He can decide whether an argument is valid or invalid. He can spot flaws and describe them.

Armed with the tool of logic, he becomes independent.

This may explain why logic was dropped out of the secondary school curriculum.

God forbid the educational system should be turning out thousands of students who can really think for themselves, and think powerfully and consistently.

Note: I’m not covering the subject of college education in this piece, but I have an interesting anecdote for you. William E. Kennick taught philosophy at Amherst from 1956 to 1993. Amherst has consistently been rated as one of the top colleges in America. During his tenure, Kennick grew disturbed by the quality of papers his students were turning in. So he wrote and distributed a four-and-a-half page, single-spaced document titled, Some Rules for Writing Presentable English. The cream of the cream of American college students needed that on-the-fly tutorial to come up to basic speed. What other students at other colleges were/are producing in the way of written English is too horrible to contemplate.

So now we come to the central thesis. The modern vision of education, aside from the hard sciences, is all about unhinging or un-gluing the mind from its moorings, from its focus, from its ability to track complex thought.

Instead, we have education as: socialization; community; relativity.

This last factor is key. No particular piece of information is any more “valid” than any other piece, no more important, no more deserving of respect. Information is a soup into which one dips a spoon—coming up with whatever is there.

Over the range of society, you get young people wandering around with barely a clue. They’re dissatisfied, they’re upset, they’re resentful, they’re mystified, they’re rebellious.

To a degree, that describes every generation. But when the legs are missing, when the ability to concentrate and focus is absent, when the reasoning capacity is vastly underdeveloped, you get a stupendous crash.

It’s worse than cookie-cutter graduates heading for an assembly line. It’s the kind of trouble that spreads out in ripples, requiring assistance from the State. And that is the revelation.

That’s the society that’s being created.

For the elites who want to run things, globally, it’s not enough to gather up the most dependent people in a net and bring them over to the collectivist side with promises. No, what’s needed is a machine that PRODUCES huge numbers of newly minted dependents all the time.

Welcome to the educational wing of globalism.

Scour every textbook you can find at any level in the school system of your country. See if you can find the conjunction of the word “powerful” with the word “individual” where the implication isn’t pejorative. Where the thrust is positive. I know where my money is in that bet.

When political and economic collectivism is the goal of a society, certain things have to be done with the school system. Individualism has to be discouraged and sidelined. Status based on pure merit, achievement, and performance has to be minimized. And the core courses must lose their discipline.

Instead, group socialization, random expression of students’ opinions (based on nothing in particular), and bogus self-esteem must take center stage.

As a former teacher, I can tell you it’s rather easy to make this momentous shift. The starting point, from which the whole campaign unfolds, involves grouping together students in classes who are operating at significantly different levels of skill and ability.

For example, try teaching geometry to 20 kids who scored across a wide spectrum in their previous final exams in elementary algebra. Just try. Follow your day-to-day lesson plans and see what happens. It’s like crossing a bridge with drivers who never learned the difference between the brake and gas pedal. Chaos.

Jammed up in that baffling disorder, teachers will tend to gravitate to social concerns. They’ll encourage, wheedle, praise, empathize. They’ll try to draw out “the feelings” of students. What was once a very straightforward proposition will vaporize.

The pernicious effects of elementary-school teachers having failed to impart the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic will explode in a tsunami by the first year of high school.

And what happened in the first place, in grades 1-5? The model of repetition, in which each new concept in a subject is drilled over and over, and tested, before moving on to the next concept, was abandoned.

When I was a child, in the 1940s, the model of repetition was intact. It was brick and mortar.

But somewhere along the line, the “person-centered psychology” of education was invented. Every child automatically became “special.” On the surface, this sounded good. It sounded like enlightenment.

But it was really a piece of psy-war. It glossed over the fact that, if each child is innately special, he/she doesn’t have to be informed of it over and over. He only has to be taught well and learn well. More than enough encouragement begins to confuse a child and make him impatient. He wants to get on with things. He wants to prove he can excel. He wants new knowledge.

The history of mainstream psychology can be boiled down to two movements. First, there were the experiments of Pavlov. Conditioned reflex. The human as machine. Then there was the therapeutic age. Endless muddled rumination on problems and difficulties, and the need for “re-enforcement.” Everyone is special. The child as beloved pet.

The arc went from robot to dependent. They were both gross failures.

When pet/dependent became the order of the day, psychiatrists proliferated their invention of mental disorders. ADD. ADHD. Oppositional Defiance Disorder. Clinical depression. Bipolar. And powerful toxic drugs came down the line, to scramble brains.

This is the real war on drugs, except the war is being fought against children by “mental-health professionals.”

Suddenly, childhood diseases which had been accepted for generations, which came and went and gave children stronger immune systems in the process, were claimed to be a horrific threat, and 20 or 30 vaccines had to be taken to prevent these illnesses.

Thus the shaping of a new and false and debilitating image of the child torpedoed children and their education.

Creating The Disabled is the cornerstone of Collectivism.

I need you. You need me. Everybody needs everybody. Whatever germs of truth lie in this ideal are crushed, because the “need” formula is artificially built. It’s a piece of debased architecture, whose real purpose is the inculcation of a reason to abandon self and individual power.

Once, the Carnegie and Rockefeller line of force viewed education as the assembly line for turning out objects that would produce other objects in mindless fashion. But that has changed. Now schools are built to become need-factories, breeding surreal socialized graduates who contemplate how political power has wronged them.

The new sign of intelligence is this: how many ways can you imagine you’ve been cheated?

And here is the kicker. Surprisingly little of this contemplation reveals the actual methods of manipulation.

But then, why would it? If children are engineered long enough, they’ll look everywhere for answers except at their hidden masters, the ones whose objective was to make them into children forever.

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.